US North Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Fishery MSC Fishery Reassessment

Home , Pacific halibut, Sablefish

US North Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Fishery (previously assessed separately as the US North Pacific halibut fishery and the US North Pacific sablefish fishery) MSC Fishery reassessment Announcement Comment Draft Report

Client Contact: Eat on the Wild Side Authors: Name: Robert Alverson Andy Bystrom, Lead and Principles 2 & 3 Address: 4005 20th Ave, Seattle, WA 98199 Dr. Jesus Jurado Molina, Principle 1 Email/Phone:

[email protected]

August 11, 2020

0 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

1 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

1 Table of Contents

1 Table of Contents 2

Table of Figures 4

2 Glossary 6

3 Executive Summary 7

4 Report Details 10 4.1 Authorship and peer review details 10 3.2 Version details 12

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview 13 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification 13 5.2 Assessment results overview 18

6. Traceability and eligibility 19 6.1 Eligibility date 19 6.2 Traceability within the fishery 19 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody 25

7 Scoring 27 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores 27 7.2 Principle 1 29 7.3 Principle 2 103 7.4 Principle 3 218

8 Appendices 264 8.1 Assessment information 264 8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 266 8.3 Peer Review reports 270 8.4 Stakeholder input 271 8.5 Conditions 273 8.6 Client Action Plan 275 8.7 Surveillance 275 8.8 Harmonised fishery assessments 277

2 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

8.9 Objection Procedure 279 8.10 Complete catch tables for the UoA 280

9 References 288

10 Template information and copyright 295

3 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table of Figures Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s) ...... 7 Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions ...... 12 Table 3. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) ...... 15 Table 7. Summary of traceability factors within the halibut fishery: ...... 21 Table 8. Traceability Factors within the Sablefish federal fishery ...... 23 Table 9. Summary of performance indicator scores and associated weights used to calculate principle scores...... 27 Table 10. Final Principle Scores ...... 28 Table 11. Data used for the 2019 Sable fish stock assessment; years in bold are data new to this assessment, taken form Hanselman et al. (2019)...... 46 Table 12 List of indicators estimated during the 2020 stock assessment for the NSEI Sablefish...... 51 Table 13. TAC and catch data for Pacific Halibut ...... 60 Table 14. TAC and catch data for Sablefish in Alaska ...... 60 Table 15. TAC and catch data for NSEI Sablefish...... 60 Table 16. 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set longline hook and line fishery (NOAA, 2020)...... 108 Table 17. 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set pot fishery (NOAA, 2020) . 109 Table 18. 2015-2019 bait use from the US North Pacific bottom-set hook and line fishery (NOAA, 2020) ...... 110 Table 19. 2015-2019 bait use from the US North Pacific bottom-set pot fishery (FVOA, 2020) ...... 110 Table 20. Estimated annual average seabird bycatch (individuals) in the BSAI and GOA from the US North Pacific halibut and sablefish bottom-set hook and line and sablefish pot fishery (Krieger et al. 2019) .. 111 Table 21. Summary of Non-target Species as categorized for evaluation. ETP status may be NL (recognised in National Legislation), IA (listed in a binding International Agreement ...... 112 Table 22. Life history characteristics of skate species commonly caught in the BSAI and GOA HAL fishery (Ormseth 2014)...... 119 Table 23. Tier 5 computations for giant grenadier OFL and ABC are summarized as follows (AI = Aleutian Islands, EBS = Eastern Bering Sea, GOA = Gulf of Alaska; biomass, OFL, and ABC are in mt) for 2015 (Rodgveller and Hulson 2014) ...... 132 Table 24. Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) descriptions and regulations Source: NMFS 2015. Available at: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/hapc_ak.pdf ...... 151 Table 25: Minor species caught with hook and line and pot gear ...... 161 Table 27. Summary of previous halibut assessment conditions ...... 264 Table 27: Summary of previous sablefish assessment conditions ...... 265 Table 29. 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 FCPV2.1 Table 4) ...... 268 Table 36. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization for Principle 1...... 277 Table 37. Scoring differences across Canada Pacific Halibut fishery ...... 277 Table 38. Rationale for scoring differences ...... 277 Table 39. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization for Principle 3...... 278 Table 40. Scoring differences ...... 278 Table 41. Rationale for scoring differences ...... 278 Table 42: Full list of organisms that interact with the HAL fishery from 2015-2019 as reported by observers (NOAA, 2020)...... 280 Table 43: Full list of organisms that interact with the pot fishery ...... 282

4 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 44: 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set longline hook and line fishery presented by year (NOAA, 2020) ...... 284 Table 45: 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set pot fishery by year (NOAA, 2020) ...... 286

5 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

2 Glossary ABC Acceptable Biological Catch ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center BS Bering Sea BSAI Bering Sea Aleutian Islands CIE Center for Independent Experts CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species F Fishing mortality FABC Fishing mortality for the Acceptable Biological Catch FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology FISS Fishery-independent setline survey GOA Gulf of Alaska IFQ Individual Fishing Quota IHPC International Halibut Pacific Commission ITQ Individual Transferable Quota Kg Kilogram Lb. Pound, equivalent to roughly 2.2 kg LOA Length Over-All M Million (lbs.) MSFCMA The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSY Maximum sustainable yield MSST Minimum stock size threshold NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPFMC North Pacific Fisheries Management Council nm nautical mile OFL Over-Fishing Level PI Performance Indicator SCS SCS Global Services SI Scoring Issue SPR Spawning potential ratio SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t and mt metric ton TAC Total Allowable Catch WPUE Weigth-per-unit-effort WWF World Wildlife Fund

6 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

3 Executive Summary

This report presents the results of a Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) full assessment of the US North Pacific halibut and sablefish fishery. This assessment covers the 3rd re-assessment of the US North Pacific halibut fishery and the US North Pacific sablefish fishery previously assessed separately. It also includes a scope expansion for the Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict sablefish fishery in Chatham Strait, Alaska. The Units of Assessment (UoAs) include: US North Pacific halibut (Hippoglosus stenlolepis) harvested with bottom-set longline (hook and line) gear permitted under the federally managed IFQ program in the US Alaskan EEZ or permitted under the IPHC Area 2a in Washington EEZ waters; US North Pacific sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) harvested with bottom-set longline 1) hook and line and 2) pot gear permitted under the federally managed IFQ program in the US Alaskan EEZ; Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict sablefish harvested with bottom-set longline (hook and line) gear harvested by limited entry Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission longline (C61A) permit holders in Chatham Strait, Alaska. Within the report, the Unit of Assessment is referred to as the halibut, sablefish, and Chatham Strait sablefish fisheries. The assessment was conducted for the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association, a trade association formed in 1914 to represent the needs of halibut boat owners involved in longline fishing in the North Pacific. Today, the Association's members are longline and pot fishermen who harvest halibut, sablefish, pacific cod, rockfish and turbot. The assessment’s findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC-accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body, in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment complies with the MSC Certification Requirements Version 2.01, 31 August 2018 and the guidance to the Certification Requirements Version 2.1, 31 August 2018.

For Principal 1 the federally managed sablefish and halibut stocks scored exceptionally high with an average of 99.2 across all performance indicators. The Alaska state managed Northern Southeast Inside sablefish stock scored an average of 83.3 across all performance indicators and was under a score of 80 for one indicator (2.2.3 Information/Monitoring: score 75).

For Principal 2 pot gear scored an average of 89.3 across all indicators and hook and line (HAL) gear scored an 86.0. HAL gear scored below 80 for two indicators (2.1.3 Primary Species Information/Monitoring: score 75; 2.2.3 Secondary Species Information/Monitoring: score 75).

For Principal 3 the federal fishery’s average score across all indicators was 95.6, and the and the state fishery’s average score was 86.0. The state managed fishery scored below 80 for two indicators (3.2.3 Compliance and Enforcement: score 70; 3.2.4 Monitoring and Management Performance Evaluation: score 70).

The audit team recommends all of the assessed fisheries for certification.

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

Stock/Species Method of Fishing fleet (FCP V2.1 7.5.2.a) Capture (FCP V2.1 7.5.2.c) (FCP V2.1 7.5.2.b)

7 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

US North Pacific halibut Bottom-set IFQ permitted quota holding vessels fishing in the US North (Hippoglosus stenlolepis) longline hook Pacific: Bering Sea & Aleutian Islands (BSAI), Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and line in the Alaskan EEZ & permitted fishers in waters found in IPHC Halibut area 2A, Washington state waters only. US North Pacific sablefish Bottom-set Federal IFQ (& CDQ) quota-holding vessels, fishing in US North (Anoplopoma fimbria) longline hook Pacific: Alaska EEZ waters including: Bering Sea and Aleutian and line Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA)

US North Pacific sablefish Bottom-set Federal IFQ (& CDQ) quota-holding vessels, fishing in US North (Anoplopoma fimbria) longline pots Pacific: Alaska EEZ waters including: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA)

Northern Southeast Inside Bottom-set Limited entry Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission longline Subdistrict sablefish longline hook (C61A) permit holders (Anoplopoma fimbria) and line

Assessment Overview

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

Andy Bystrom, Lead, Principle 2 and 3 Expert

Dr. Jesus Jurado Molina, Principle 1 Expert

Summary of Findings

In this report, we provide detailed rationales for scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. No PIs failed to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the three Principles remained above SG80).

In Principle 1, all PIs scored above SG80. The federal sablefish and halibut fishery has been certified for many years and the stocks are in a good state with strong management measures in place to control exploitation of the fishery. This is the first time the Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict (NSEI) sablefish fishery in Chatham Strait has been assessed against the MSC standard. All scoring issues are over SG80 in the ACDR stage. However, for Chatham Strait, PI 1.2.2 received scores under SG80, because the stock assessment does not clearly state the actions that would be taken in case the current biomass falls below the NS50%.

All conditions in Principle 2 are expected to close by the fourth surveillance audit. All Principle 2 scores are above SG80 for the federal sablefish and halibut fishery. Currently, there is only qualitative

8 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report information available for bait information for Chatham Strait, so 2.1.3 and 2.1.3 have been scored below SG80.

In Principle 3, all PIs from the federal fishery achieved scores of at least SG80, but two of the PIs (3.2.3 and 3.2.4) for the state management system received scores under SG80.

9 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

4 Report Details

4.1 Authorship and peer review details

Audit Team

Andy Bystrom – SCS Global Services – Lead and Principle 2 & 3 Expert Mr. Bystrom has 12 years of industrial and small-scale fisheries management and sustainable development experience in the Americas and the Caribbean. He has consulted for diverse fishery stakeholder groups including the North Carolina dusky smooth hound fishery relating to the Shark Conservation Act S. 850, the High Seas Alliance and its work to develop a new UNCLOS implementing agreement in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, the Costa Rican and Ecuadorian governments, the University of Costa Rica, and the UNDP. Prior to joining SCS Global Services in 2020, he managed a portfolio of fisheries and blue economy projects for Eastern Research Group, Inc. in North America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean.

Mr. Bystrom’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Leader as described in PC2 (FCP v2.1):  Completed training meeting requirements in Table 1 of GCRV2.4, as evidenced by the certificate of passing auditor training for the ISO course 19011  Holds a Masters in natural resource management) and has over 10 years of experience in the fisheries sector related to research, development, and stakeholder management and facilitation  Completed the latest MSC training modules applicable to this assessment within the past five years (V2.1 Team Leader MSC modules in February 2020)  Has undertaken several MSC fishery assessment and surveillance site visits as a team member including: Surveillance for the southern Gulf of California Thread Herring Fishery in Sinaloa & Nayarit Mexico, the Small Pelagics fishery in Sonora, Gulf of California, the Baja Mexico Red Rock Lobster fishery, and the Mexican Pacific coast Industrial Shrimp fishery  Has demonstrated experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques, as verified by SCS audit witness records and previous audit reports  Is competent in the MSC Standard and current Certification Requirements, auditing techniques, and communication and stakeholder facilitation techniques, as verified by the completion of ISO 19011 auditor training.  Has affirmed he has no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment

10 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Dr. Jesus Jurado-Molina – Principle 1 Expert Dr. Jurado Molina graduated from the University of Washington where he got his PhD (Fisheries). His work has been focused on fisheries, fisheries management, and ecosystem based fisheries management. He is author of sixteen papers, two books and several technical reports. His international experience produced publications on fisheries from the eastern Bering Sea to the South Pacific Ocean on topics ranging from small-scale fisheries to the World’s largest tuna fishery. Currently he is member of the Mexican Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) and works at the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana as full time professor and does private consulting. Throughout his career, Dr. Jurado- Molina has published a number of scientific journals and symposium proceedings on the management and evaluation of Mexican fisheries.

Dr. Jurado-Molina’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.1):  With relevant degree (Ph.D. in Fisheries) and over 5 years of research experience in management or research experience in a marine conservation biology, fisheries, natural resources or environmental management position  Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members within the last 5 years (May 28, 2019).  Affirms he has no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment.

Click here to enter text.

11 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

1.2 Version details Table 2 presents the versions of the fisheries program documents used by the audit team for this assessment.

Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.3

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.1

12 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview

5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification

Unit(s) of Assessment Halibut The Unit of Assessment (UoA) include the US North Pacific halibut (Hippoglosus stenlolepis) caught by the IFQ permit holders in Alaskan EEZ waters and IPHC Area 2a permit holders in Washington State EEZ using bottom-set longline hook and line gear.

This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCP v2.1 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it

. Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, 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 does not engage in shark finning, 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 or IPI fishery, is not based on an introduced species (FCR 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 7.4.13- 15) . And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.1.4) . The units of assessment, certification, and eligible fishers have been defined, traceability risks characterized, and certificate sharing mechanisms decided (7.4.6-7.4.12) The unit does partially overlap with the scope of several currently certified fisheries (7.4.16) including: Canada Pacific halibut and North Pacific Sablefish. All units relevant to harmonization considerations are given in Section 3.1, as Units of Assessment that share P1 species or P3 management via the IPHC or NPFMC.

The halibut fishery is entering its third re-assessment with no outstanding conditions.

Sablefish The UoAs include the US North Pacific sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) caught by the IFQ permit holders in Alaskan EEZ waters in Bering Sea Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska using bottom-set longline (hook and line) and pot gear. There are 2 UoAs (one for longline hook and line gear and one for longline pot gear).

This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCP v2.1 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it

13 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

. Does not overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery on the same stock. The Canadian British Columbia sablefish fishery, which is part of the same biological population as the AK sablefish stock, exited MSC assessment in 2013) (7.4.16), . And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.1.4) . The units of assessment, certification, and eligible fishers have been defined, traceability risks characterized, and certificate sharing mechanisms decided (7.4.6-7.4.12)

The UoAs partially overlap with the scope of several currently certified fisheries (7.4.16). All units relevant to harmonization considerations are given in Section 3.1, as Units of Assessment that P3 management via the NPFMC.

The sablefish fishery is entering its third re-assessment with no outstanding conditions.

Chatham Strait sablefish The UoA is the Northern Southeast Inside (NSEI) Subdistrict sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) 78 limited entry Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission longline (C61A) permit holders through an equal quota share (EQS) system, using bottom-set longline (hook and line) within Chatham Strait.

This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCP v2.1 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it

. Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by the dispute. (FCP 7.4.2.1, 7.4.2.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.5) . The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCP 7.4.5.1), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn. . Is not an enhanced fishery, is not based on an introduced species and does not represent an inseparable or practically inseparable species (FCP 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.8-13) . Does not overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery (7.5.14), . And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.4) . The UoA, the Unit of Certification (UoC), and eligible fishers have been clearly defined, traceability risks characterized, and the client has provided a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (7.5.1-7.7.7).

This assessment includes four UoAs (Table 3): UoA 2 and UoA 3 share the same fleet, Principal 1 target stock, and management system, and only differ in regards to the gear type/operations. For this reason both Principle 2 is scored jointly for the two UoA, and P1 species of UoA1 and UoA2 are not scored a second time as primary species. A target species that is certified under Principle 1 and has obtained an overall score >80 for P1, will have already been assessed under a higher standard of performance than those for main retained/primary under Principle 2, thus it is expected to obtain a score >80 for the relevant Principal Indicators under P2. If in a subsequent assessment one of the target P1 target species fails and is no longer considered as certified, it will then be scored under Principle 2.

14 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 3. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

UoA 1 Description

Species Halibut (Hippoglosus stenlolepis)

Stock US North Pacific halibut

Geographical area Alaska, Washington

Harvest method / Bottom-set longline hook and line gear IFQ* permitted quota holding vessels fishing in the US North Pacific: Bering Sea Fleets or groups of & Aleutian Islands (BSAI), Gulf of Alaska (GOA) in the Alaskan EEZ & permitted vessels fishers in waters found in IPHC Halibut area 2A, Washington state waters only. Fishing Vessel Owner’s Association and Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union of the Client group Pacific: for MSC purposes, Eat on the Wild Side Eligible (UoA) product landed at processors not currently included in certificate Other eligible fishers addendum.

UoA 2 Description

Species North Pacific Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria)

Stock US North Pacific sablefish

Geographical area Alaska

Harvest method / gear Bottom-set longline hook and line

Federal IFQ (& CDQ) quota-holding vessels, fishing in US North Pacific: Alaska Fleets or groups of EEZ waters including: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska vessels (GOA) Fishing Vessel Owner’s Association and Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union of the Client group Pacific: for MSC purposes, Eat on the Wild Side Eligible (UoA) product landed at processors not currently included in certificate Other eligible fishers addendum.

UoA 3 Description

Species North Pacific Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria)

Stock US North Pacific sablefish

15 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Geographical area Alaska

Harvest method / gear Bottom-set longline pots

UoA 4 Description

Species North Pacific Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria)

Stock Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict sablefish

Geographical area Chatham Strait, Alaska

Harvest method / gear Bottom-set longline hook and line

Fleets or groups of Limited entry Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission longline (C61A) permit vessels holders in Chatham Strait Fishing Vessel Owner’s Association and Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union of the Client group Pacific: for MSC purposes, Eat on the Wild Side Eligible (UoA) product landed at processors not currently included in certificate Other eligible fishers addendum. *IFQ program includes the CDQ allocation portion, thus product landed under a CDQ permit is also considered eligible for the eco-label. For more information on the CDQ permit portion of the fishery, see Principle 3 background.

16 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

17 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

5.2 Assessment results overview

18 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

6. Traceability and eligibility

6.1 Eligibility date The target eligibility date for UoA 1-3 is set to be equivalent to the date of publishing the Public Certification Report, as permitted under MSC FCRV2.1 7.8. The target eligibility date for UoA 4 is set to be equivalent to the date of publishing the Public Comment Draft Report, as permitted under MSC FCRV2.1 7.8. The traceability and segregation systems that are required to ensure the separation of any certified product from non-certified product are believed to already be in place for the client fleet, as traceability systems are consistent with those in place through the last certificate cycle.

6.2 Traceability within the fishery Traceability in the unit of assessment is strong and there is limited risk of mixing. This is primarily because the majority of product in the scope of the UoA is encompassed in the IFQ permitted fishery; the catch accounting system is able to associate each landing with a permit that identifies the trip ID, quota holder, vessel category, and location of fishing; and compliance is considered high.

Based on the traceability systems in place and risks described below, the assessment team has determined that the scope of the certificate will extend to the point of landing, at which point eligible product may enter the chain of custody.

Traceability Risks and Systems in Place

Halibut In Alaska, vessels must give notice before leaving for a trip and before landing at a registered landing site. Pacific halibut from the UoA/UoC are readily segregated from non-UoA/UoC fish, because an IFQ/CDQ permit number is required to be associated with every delivery, and only IFQ/CDQ permit holders are allowed to make commercial landings. At landing, mixing is controlled in the following three main ways:

1. Fish Tickets: All ports where halibut are landed are required to have a registered code and scale to weigh the catch. This information is recorded on the landing slip which is required to be filled out by a registered weigh-master or registered dockside staff safeguarding against inaccurate or miss-reporting. 2. Catch Accounting: Quota shareholders are issued Landing Cards by NMFS-RAM, which must be presented at registered “transaction” locations when catch is off-loaded. The catch weight is then electronically debited from the holder’s quota for that year. All landing card data is transmitted directly to NMFS-RAM databases. AK Fishermen must also alert the “transaction” station before leaving for a trip and notify OLE three hours prior to arrival at a registered landing site. Depending on whether a majority of halibut or sablefish is landed on a given trip, the total catch, including

19 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

non-target species, are coded as “from a halibut trip” or “from a sablefish trip”, depending on whether halibut or sablefish constituted >50% of the targeted catch. Therefore, at the point of landing product is traceable to a specific trip and IFQ permit (which also specifies vessel category and location of fishing). 3. Observers & Logbooks: All groundfish vessels have observer coverage and vessel captains complete voluntary and required logbooks. This data feeds into the catch accounting system described in the Sources of Information section of this report. There is no likelihood of mixing on the water and a very low likelihood of mixing at the point of landing because of the three systems outlined above that ensure that landings are traceable back to a specific trip and permit (which also specifies vessel category and location of fishing). All landings are recorded and deducted from the quota holder’s share.

Although the majority of the product from the UoA is caught in the IFQ fishery in Alaska waters, the unit of assessment also includes product caught in Washington waters in area 2a under the relevant IPHC license. IPHC Area 2a also includes Oregon and California state waters, and therefore there is theoretically an area where there could be increased risk of mixing of UoA and non-UoA product under the same license. This could occur if a boat fished in both non UoA and UoA (WA State) waters on a single trip. This risk was discussed during the 2015 on-site audit with the client group and agency representatives and was discussed again with the client during the 2020 assessment. It was determined that landings of this type are negligible due to the following factors: a) the species distribution with the highest volume of fish and therefore harvest come from Washington state waters; b) the location of the primary ports in each state and short duration of the fishing season make it unlikely for Washington state fishers to venture into Oregon waters during a fishing trip; and c) in accordance with point b, the bulk of landings taken south of the Columbia River are landed outside of Washington, in the ports of Newport and Astoria, Oregon (Bob Alverson, FVOA, pers comm).

Further, were the above to occur, it would be captured at landing via reporting areas used in fish tickets. In Washington, all fish brought into port are weighed and recorded on landing slips which record the vessel number, total catch weight, and location where caught for catch reporting areas used in fish tickets. Dockside monitoring and enforcement ensure that all laws and regulations are adhered to.

There is no transshipment in the IFQ and IPHC Area 2a fishery, and tenders are not used (Bob Alverson, FVOA, pers comm).

20 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 7. Summary of traceability factors within the halibut fishery:

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used Observer coverage helps to assure that only declared gear is within the fishery used, and the risk is low that an IFQ permitted vessel would employ a non-pot or longline gear type. Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish The UoA* encompasses the entire IFQ permitted area in the outside the UoC or in different geographical state waters of Alaska, and permit zoning is marked on fish areas (on the same trips or different trips) tickets and can be verified with logbook entries. If vessels tried to fish outside of AK on the stock, they would be fishing illegally in Canadian waters and subject to legal prosecution. There is no evidence that this behavior occurs. There is a conceivable risk of fishing outside of the UoA for IPHC Area 2a permitted vessels fishing out of Washington. *UoC product is determined based on landing (whether the processor is included in the certificate), so UoC considerations not applicable at sea. Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or There is other fishing on the North Pacific halibut stock (e.g. client group fishing the same stock recreational, Canada, Oregon & California IPHC Area 2a), but the IPHC management considers these removals, and inclusion in the UoA* can be verified via permit/fish ticket (which will identify fishers as IFQ permitted). *UoC product is determined based on landing (whether the processor is included in the certificate), so UoC considerations not applicable at sea. Risks of mixing between certified and non- Chain of custody has been determined to begin at the point of certified catch during storage, transport, or landing. The assessment team has not evaluated risks beyond handling activities (including transport at sea the point of landing, as traceability systems beyond the point and on land, points of landing, and sales at of landing shall be audited by Chain of Custody auditors. auction)

Risks of mixing between certified and non- The only risk of mixing of certified and non-certified catch certified catch during processing activities (at- pertains to Washington State IPHC Area 2a permitted fishers sea and/or before subsequent Chain of harvesting in Oregon State waters. This risk is considered Custody) minimal and could be verified against fish tickets provided to the first receiver. Risks of mixing between certified and non- There is no transshipment in this fishery. certified catch during transhipment

Any other risks of substitution between fish NA from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

Sablefish Traceability in the unit of assessment is strong with low risk (Table 8). This is primarily because the scope of the UoA encompasses the entire IFQ permitted fishery; the catch accounting system is able to associate each landing with a permit that identifies the trip ID, quota holder, vessel category, and location of fishing; and compliance is considered high.

21 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Traceability at sea There is no transshipment or at sea-processing of sablefish in the IFQ fishery. Because the unit of assessment in the state of Alaska includes the entire IFQ and the CDQ allocation of the fishery, there is little risk of mixing with non UoA product at sea

Traceability at landing

There is low risk of mixing at offloading. Sablefish are landed on IFQ/CDQ permits that allow quota holders to harvest their annual allocation at any time during the eight plus-month IFQ halibut and sablefish seasons.

Mixing is controlled in three main ways:

1. Fish Tickets: All ports where sablefish are landed are required to have a registered code and scale to weigh the catch. This information is recorded on the landing slip which is required to be filled out by a registered weigh-master or registered dockside staff safeguarding against inaccurate or miss-reporting.

2. Catch Accounting: Quota shareholders are issued Landing Cards by NMFS-RAM, which must be presented at registered “transaction” locations when catch is off-loaded. The catch weight is then electronically debited from the holder’s quota for that year. All landing card data is transmitted directly to NMFS-RAM databases. AK Fishermen must also alert the “transaction” station before leaving for a trip and notify OLE three hours prior to arrival at a registered landing site. Depending on whether a majority of halibut or sablefish is landed on a given trip, the total catch, including non-target species, are coded as “from a halibut trip” or “from a sablefish trip”, depending on whether halibut or sablefish constituted >50% of the targeted catch. Therefore, at the point of landing product is traceable to a specific trip and IFQ permit (which also specifies vessel category and location of fishing).

3. Observers & Logbooks: All groundfish vessels have observer coverage and vessel captains complete voluntary and required logbooks.

Sablefish are landed by trawl fisheries that catch sablefish as retained bycatch, and target species such as rockfish and sole. There is no likelihood of mixing on the water and a very low likelihood of mixing at the point of landing because of the three systems outlined above that ensure that landings are traceable back to a specific trip and permit (which also specifies vessel category and location of fishing). This data feeds into the catch accounting system which can differentiate between sablefish landed under each fishery permit type (trawl, IFQ, CDQ).

22 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Tenders are not used in the IFQ fishery for sablefish.

Table 8. Traceability Factors within the Sablefish federal fishery

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Potential for non-certified gear/s to be IFQ/CDQ sablefish can be caught with pots or demersal longline, both used within the fishery of which are included in the UoA. Sablefish are also caught as bycatch in the trawl fishery, but there are robust traceability systems at landing to differentiate between gear types. Observer coverage also helps to assure that only declared gear is used, but this is very low practical risk that an IFQ permitted vessel would employ a non-pot or longline gear type. Potential for vessels from the UoC to The UoA* encompasses the entire federally permitted area in the US fish outside the UoC or in different EEZ off of Alaska, and permit zoning is marked on fish tickets and can geographical areas (on the same trips be verified with logbook entries. VMS is also required on all vessels or different trips) fishing for sablefish in the Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands IFQ program. If vessels tried to fish outside of AK on the stock, they would be fishing illegally in Canadian waters and subject to legal prosecution. There is not evidence that this behavior occurs. *UoC product is determined based on landing (whether the processor is included in the certificate), so UoC considerations not applicable at sea. Potential for vessels outside of the There is other fishing on the sablefish stock (e.g. trawl fleet, Canada), UoC or client group fishing the same and NMFS management considers these removals. Inclusion in the stock UoA* can be verified via permit/fish ticket, which will identify fishers as IFQ/CDQ permitted, and inclusion in the UoC can be verified via the certificate addendum. *UoC product is determined based on landing (whether the processor is included in the certificate), so UoC considerations not applicable at sea. Risks of mixing between certified and Chain of custody has been determined to begin at the point of non-certified catch during storage, landing. The assessment team has not evaluated risks beyond the transport, or handling activities point of landing, as traceability systems beyond the point of landing (including transport at sea and on shall be audited by Chain of Custody auditors. land, points of landing, and sales at auction)

Risks of mixing between certified and Given permit restrictions prohibiting mixed trips between the non-certified catch during processing state/federal fishery targeting sablefish, there is deemed to be very activities (at-sea and/or before minimal risk of mixing between certified and non-certified catch. subsequent Chain of Custody)

Risks of mixing between certified and There is no transshipment in this fishery. non-certified catch during transhipment

Any other risks of substitution NA between fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before

23 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

subsequent Chain of Custody is required

Chatham Strait sablefish The fishery’s 78 limited entry Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission longline (C61A) permit holders may not retain inside water sablefish (state fish) and outside water sablefish (federal) on the same trip. Permits holders need to offload their state or federal sablefish catch first before pursuing the other sablefish fishery. Furthermore, vessels are required to land all sablefish caught in a Subdistrict and submit a completed fish ticket to ADFG prior to taking the species in another Subdistrict. CFEC permit holders are required by ADFG to maintain an accurate logbook of all HAL fishing sets that includes information on the date, the specific location of harvest by latitude and longitude, in degrees and decimal minutes, for start and ending positions, hook spacing, the amount of gear (number of hooks) used, the depth of each set, the estimated weight of all target species taken, an estimated weight of the bycatch retained or discarded at sea, and the tag number of any tagged fish landed (ADFG, 2018).

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Certification (UoC)? Vessels are licensed for specific gear types, and

license conditions state that C61A permit holders If Yes, please describe: can only use bottom set hook and line to target - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same sablefish in NSEI. This is not deemed to be a risk. vessels, or during the same season; - How any risks are mitigated. It is possible that fishermen may fish in the NSEI and then in Federal waters in Alaska if they hold both permits, however, this would not occur on the same trip. Permit holders need to offload their Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic state or federal sablefish catch first before area? pursuing in the other sablefish fishery. Furthermore, vessels are required to land all If Yes, please describe: sablefish caught in a Subdistrict and submit a - If this may occur on the same trip; completed fish ticket to ADFG prior to taking the - How any risks are mitigated. species in another Subdistrict. All this information can be verified on fish tickets submitted upon landing that identify where the sablefish were captured. These factors are sufficient to mitigate this risk. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and non- certified products during any of the activities covered by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at-sea activities and Clients do not handle certified and non-certified on-land activities. products during activities listed. Sablefish are easy

to identify/distinguish from other species - Transport captured, and therefore, there is no risk of mixing. - Storage - Processing - Landing

24 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

- Auction

If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. Does transshipment occur within the fishery?

If Yes, please describe: - If transshipment takes place at-sea, in port, or both; No transshipment occurs in this fishery. - If the transshipment vessel may handle product from outside the UoC; - How any risks are mitigated. Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? None identified.

If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody Halibut and Sablefish The assessment team has determined that for UoCs 1-3 sufficient traceability systems are in place to determine product from the unit of assessment to be eligible to enter further chains of custody at the point of landing as product eligible to be sold as MSC certified and/or carry the MSC ecolabel.

As in the 2016 2nd re-assessment, this report does not cover processing beyond the point of landing. This report acknowledges that sufficient monitoring takes place to identify the fishery of origin for all landed fish via landing slips where the amount of catch and the fishing area are recorded for each line set during the fishing trip. This is sufficient to allow a chain-of-custody to be established from the point of landing forward for all products derived from the fishery. MSC chain-of-custody certifications were not undertaken in this project, and therefore, are undertaken on a separate and individual basis for those entities that may wish to identify and/or label products derived from the fishery. Only those fishers that belong to the certificate are eligible to enter the chain-of-custody where the products can then carry the blue MSC eco-label. Other eligible fishers may join the certificate at the discretion of the certificate holder.

Chain of custody auditors should use fish tickets to verify that fish came from certified gear and regions when auditing first receivers.

A complete list of all current US North Pacific halibut certificate members may be found in the current fishery certificate, available for download from the MSC website: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-north-pacific-halibut/@@certificates

A complete list of all current US North Pacific sablefish certificate members may be found in the current fishery certificate, available for download from the MSC website: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-north-pacific-sablefish/@@certificates

25 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Chatham Strait sablefish The team has concluded and determined that the product originating from UoC 4 will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. The fishery certificate covers the fish up to the point of landing. The team has determined that the point of first sale is also the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody is required. Chain of custody auditors should use landing slips to verify that fish came from certified gear and regions when auditing first receivers.

26 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7 Scoring

7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

Table 9. Summary of performance indicator scores and associated weights used to calculate principle scores.

Chatham Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Halibut Sablefish Strait sablefish 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 NA NA NA 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 Harvest control rules & 1.2.2 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 60-79 One tools Management 0.667 Information & 1.2.3 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 monitoring Assessment of stock 1.2.4 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 status Hook and Pots Line 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 Primary 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 0.2 species Chatham 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 ≥80 bait: 60-79 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 Secondary 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 0.2 species Chatham 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 ≥80 bait: 60-79 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 2.4.3 Information 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 2.5.3 Information 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 Federal State Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 framework Governance Three 0.5 Consultation, roles & and policy 3.1.2 0.333 ≥80 ≥80 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 ≥80 ≥80

27 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Fishery specific 3.2.1 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 objectives Decision making Fishery 3.2.2 0.25 ≥80 ≥80 processes specific 0.5 Compliance & management 3.2.3 0.25 ≥80 60-79 enforcement system Monitoring & 3.2.4 management 0.25 ≥80 60-79 performance evaluation

Table 10. Final Principle Scores

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Scores Scores Scores Chatham Principle 1 - Target species Halibut Sablefish Strait sablefish 99.2 99.2 83.3

Principle 2 - Ecosystem HAL Pots

89.3 86.0

Principle 3 - Management Federal State

95.6 86.0

28 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.2 Principle 1

Principle 1 background

Halibut The scope of this report includes US EEZ waters off the coast of Alaska including the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and the Aleutian Islands as well as the water off the coast of Washington state. The fishery targets Pacific halibut, (Hippoglossus stenolepis), a flatfish which inhabits the continental shelf of the United States and Canada, ranging from California to the Bering Sea, and extends into Russia and Japan. The fishing fleet deploys bottom set longline hook and line. The main non-target species include Pacific cod as a main discard species, and skates, grenadiers, sharks, and albatross' as main discarded vulnerable species groups.

The North Pacific Halibut Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), in combination with other laws, currently form the legal framework governing management of the Pacific halibut fishery in the US. The North Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 implements the Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea between Canada and the US. The Convention established the International Fisheries Commission, now known as the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). The Halibut Act provides for the appointment of US Commissioners to the IPHC, specifies the responsibilities of that the US Secretary of Commerce has for carrying out the treaty, and provides for the regulation of the US portion of fishery by the North Pacific and Pacific Fishery Management Councils.

There are 4 vessel classes reported by the IPHC: Unknown, <40ft, 40-55ft, and >55ft. In the 2014 US Pacific halibut fishery, vessels <40ft made up 37% of the commercial fleet by number and accounted for 19% of the commercial catch. Vessels in the <40 ft size class are not presently covered by on-board fishery observers (NMFS 2014). More information on fleet composition and observer coverage can be found in Principle 3.

Description of gear Longline gear in Alaska is fished on-bottom. Longline gear features hooks on short leaders, or gangions, usually set at intervals of 3-25 feet. Lines may have 50-200 hooks each. (Clark 2005) The gear is baited by hand or by machine, with smaller boats generally baiting by hand and larger boats generally baiting by machine. Circle hooks are usually used, except for modified J-hooks on some boats with machine baiters. The gear usually is deployed from the vessel stern with the vessel traveling at 5-7 knots. Some vessels attach weights to the longline, especially on rough or steep bottom, so that the longline stays in place on bottom (Hanselman et al. 2014).

29 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 1. Typical demersal long-line gear set-up http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/gear/bottomlongline.htm

Two regional councils, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), play an active role in the management of Pacific halibut. The Halibut Act allows the two Fishery Management Councils to develop regulations, including limited access regulations, that do not conflict with the regulations adopted by the Commission (16 U.S.C. §§ 773c, (c)). Although neither Council has developed a Pacific halibut fishery management plan, each Council has approved provisions that supplement IPHC regulations. Their principal actions to date have centered on allocating the IPHC’s area-based catch limits to commercial, sport, tribal, and community user groups. The NPFMC developed and approved an individual fishing quota program – implemented in 1995 – for the commercial Pacific halibut fishery, to allocate portions of the IPHC’s catch limits in the regulatory areas off Alaska.

Commercial fisheries in Area 2A (WA-OR-CA) include 1) tribal commercial, 2) non-tribal directed commercial, 3) incidental non-tribal commercial (sablefish and salmon), and 4) tribal ceremonial and subsistence. In addition to the various commercial fisheries, guided and non-guided recreational fisheries operate coastwide. The fishery certificate is restricted to halibut harvested in Washington state waters of Area 2A.

Sablefish The scope of this report includes federal waters off the coast of Alaska including the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, the Aleutian Islands, and Chatham Strait. Fisheries for sablefish in Alaska are both federally and state managed. Federal management applies to sablefish within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends from 3 to 200 miles from shore. Sablefish in the federal zone are managed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) in their Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Groundfish Fishery Management Plans. The Northern Southeast Inside (NSEI) Sablefish that includes Chatham Strait as well as fishery activity within three miles of shore, are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG).The UoA includes bottom set hook and line as well as pot gear for the federal fishery in BSAI and GOA. According to the 2015 SAFE report, pot gear (where permitted in BSAI) has increased in use relative to hook and line gear over the last 15 years. Whereas in 2000 it

30 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

accounted for less than 10% of the total fixed gear catch; since 2004 it has accounted for 50% of the BS and 34% of the AI fixed gear IFQ catch. An increase in depredation of longline sablefish by sperm whales and orcas has resulted in increased interest in incorporating pots as a permitted gear type in the IFQ fishery in GOA. On April 12, 2015 the NPFMC passed a motion permitting use of longline pots in GOA and pot fishing began in 2017 in GOA. Landings from pot gear has grown substantially and represents 25% of landings. An overview of the management history of these fisheries is given in Principle 3.

Description of gear Sablefish fishery gear consists of on-bottom longlines (previously described above) and pots. Pots are usually steel framed cages covered in net mesh. As in bottom-set longline, they are baited. Fish enter through a tunnel and are sorted upon retrieval of the traps. Several pots are set along a line, with a float line and buoy stick attached. The April 2015 motion to permit pot gear in the GOA requires “both ends of the sablefish pot longline set to be marked with a 4-bouy cluster including a hard ball with “PL” (pot longline) marking on one buoy, flagpoles, and radar reflectors, including ADFG number or federal fisheries permit number on buoys.” Additionally, there are limits on the number of pots allowed per vessel and soaking time permitted. Pot use by fishers is not permitted in the Chatham Strait fishery.

Figure 2. Photo of pot gear in Alaska. http://www.kcaw.org/2015/02/27/at-board-of-fish-a-preview-of-pot-vs- longline-conflict/

Commercial fishers are federally licensed via IFQ to target sablefish or to catch it as a non-target species via fishing rights granted on licenses/quota for non-sablefish species. Sablefish is often caught in the longline halibut fishery, and is also caught as bycatch in the trawl fishery. NMFS allocates a portion of the annual TAC to the trawl fishery as bycatch, and once this TAC is reached requires that sablefish caught incidentally in the trawl fishery be discarded. (e.g. https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/node/30753.) In addition to the federal fishery, there are state-managed fisheries for sablefish. For more information regarding the different access rights to the sablefish resources, see Principle 3. The NESI annual harvest objective (that includes Chatham Strait) is allocated to 78 limited entry Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission longline (C61A) permits through an equal quota share (EQS) system.

31 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.2.1.1 Life History Information Halibut Taxonomic classification Class: Actinopterigii Order: Pleuronectiformes Family: Pleuronectidae Genus: Hippoglossus Species: stenolepis

Biology and life history Pacific halibut, (Hippoglossus stenolepis) is a flatfish which inhabits the continental shelf of the United States and Canada and ranges from California to the Bering Sea, extending into Russia and Japan. They are among the largest teleost fishes in the world, and have been documented to reach 500 pounds and up to eight feet in length. Pacific halibut is not a low trophic level (LTL) species, and therefore MSC LTL fishery considerations are not addressed in this report. Information on the general biology, development, behavior, and ecology of Pacific halibut may be found on the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) website (http://www.iphc.int/research/biology.html). Much of the information below was obtained from this source, unless otherwise noted.

Mature halibut concentrate annually, from November to March, on spawning grounds along the edge of the continental shelf at depths from 183 to 457 m (600 to 1,499 ft). A 50 pound female will spawn close to a half a million eggs while a female over 200 pounds will spawn several million eggs. The eggs and larvae are heavier than the surface seawater and drift passively in deep ocean currents. The larva grow and transform into adult form at about 6 months, at which time they settle to the bottom and join the community of demersal fin fish.

Halibut are migratory and move in a predominantly clockwise pattern from settlement areas in the western part of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea towards more southeastern waters (Figure 3). Individuals also make regular seasonal migrations from more shallow feeding grounds in summer to deeper spawning grounds in winter. Halibut are demersal, living on or near the bottom. Halibut are most often caught between 90 and 900 feet (27 and 274 meters), but have been caught as deep as 1,800 feet. One and two- year old Pacific halibut are commonly found in inshore areas, whereas 2 or 3-year olds tend to move further offshore. Pacific halibut enter the commercial fishery at about 8 years old, after most of the extensive counter-migration to balance egg and larval drift has apparently taken place. Adult halibut continue to migrate annually, moving to deeper waters on the edge of the continental shelf during the winter for spawning, and into shallow coastal waters in the summer months for feeding.

32 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Genetic studies in the past using protein electrophoresis have shown differences between halibut stocks on the eastern and western sides of the North Pacific, and also between Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) and Pacific halibut, but no differences within the northeast Pacific (Grant et al. 1984). Further research on this question is being conducted with modern methods (Hauser et al. 2006). At present, halibut in the northeast Pacific is considered to be a single spawning stock (Clark and Hare 2006).

Halibut are a carnivorous, top order predator (Livingston et al. 1999). Larval halibut feed on plankton, while halibut from 1 to 3 years old feed on small shrimp-like organisms and small fish. Larger halibut feed on fish, with the percent of the diet occupied by fish increasing with size and age. Species found in the diet of halibut include cod, sablefish, pollock, rockfish, sculpins, turbot, flatfish, and a variety of crustaceans.

Pacific halibut have undergone marked changes in growth over the 20th century. The most recent trend has been a substantial and continuing decline in growth since the 1980s that has continued through at least 2011 (Hare 2012). Hare and Clark (2009) put the recent declines in historical perspective, noting: “Mean size at age for older fish is lower than at any point since size data has been collected. For example, a 20 year old female halibut from the Kodiak Island area weighs, on average, about 32 pounds. Ten years ago, a 20 year old female from the same area averaged about 60 pounds; 20 years ago the average was over 150 pounds. Compared to 20 years ago, mean size at age has decreased at least 50% for all ages over 10. The decline has occurred in all areas though it is greatest for Area 3A”.

Sexual dimorphism is clearly evident in the life histories of male and female Pacific halibut. On average, females: 1) grow faster, 2) become substantially larger, 2) mature later, and 3) live longer than males. Biological samples collected from surveys and the commercial fishery show that female halibut grow faster and reach larger sizes compared to males; weight at age 30 ranged from 75.0-124.0 lbs for females and 29.9-57.5 lbs for males (Hare and Clark 2005). Bell and St. Pierre (1970) reported that the average age of first maturity was 12 for females, whereas it was 7 to 8 for males. Clark and Hare (2006) reported that the average age at maturity of females did not change substantially from that value despite large changes in size at age since the 1980s; however, maturity at length shifted to smaller sizes with the observed changes in growth. Bell and St. Pierre (1970) reported that the maximum age observed was 42 years for females, compared to 27 years for males. Clark and Hare (2006) reported that halibut of both sexes were substantially smaller than halibut of the same sex and age 30 years prior; showing the relationship between males and females remained essentially the same following the overall decline in growth rates.

Despite its influence in estimating abundance and yield, natural mortality has been difficult to quantify for even the best studied species, including Pacific halibut (Brodziak et al. 2011, Clark et al. 2004). For many years, the value of natural mortality for female halibut was fixed at M=0.15 in stock assessments (Clark and Hare 2006). In recent years, the sensitivity of model results to natural mortality has been included as an important source of uncertainty in the stock assessment. For example, in the model ensemble for 2014, both fixed and estimated values of natural mortality were explored (Stewart 2015). Depending on the particular model structure, the values estimated for female natural mortality ranged from M=0.14 to M=0.21, and this wide range contributed greatly to differences in the scale and

33 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

productivity of the models in the ensemble. Stewart (2015) noted that although this uncertainty is directly incorporated into the ensemble results, it is not easily explained at present, and thus remains an avenue for future investigation.

Figure 3. IPHC managed areas. All areas are considered in the unit of certification except area 2B (Canada), which is covered under a separate certificate. (Source IPHC)

History of Fishing and Management The Pacific halibut fishery has been closely managed for nearly 100 years, and much is known about the history of fishery removals, population trends, and biological characteristics. A brief history of early management was recounted by Leaman (2007). Resource declines in the early 1900’s led US and Canadian harvesters to petition their respective governments, and the International Fisheries Commission ((IFC) later re-named the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)) was created in 1923. Early management acted primarily through season restrictions. Pacific halibut conventions followed in 1930, 1937, and in 1953, when stock management goals (i.e. MSY management) were introduced. The 1979 protocol to the Convention of 1953 defined national areas of participation, and revised the stock management goal to Optimum Yield (OY). The North Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 was the enabling U.S. legislation for the 1979 protocol. The major features of Pacific halibut management have historically included: 1) accommodation of the underlying biology of the fish, 2) accounting for all removals, 3) implementation of evolving assessment methodologies, 4) development and evaluation of harvest policy, and 5) the fostering of a consultative management process (Leaman 2007). Minimum size limits were originally introduced in 1940, and have been continually in place in varying form to the present. Commercial vessel-based (IVQ) management has operated in Canada since 1991, and individual-based (IFQ) management in Alaska has been in place since 1995. Management of Pacific halibut in the

34 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Washington State portion of the UoA (Area 2A) operates through a limited access licensing system, and a Pacific halibut catch sharing plan.

Current Management Practice The IPHC conducts an annual coast wide stock assessment of Pacific halibut and sets the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for all Pacific halibut fisheries in US and Canadian waters. Coast wide exploitable biomass is first determined for the entire stock, and is then apportioned to 10 IPHC management areas (Figure 3).

The IPHC uses a Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY) harvest policy; a procedure that applies a fixed harvest rate to the estimate of exploitable biomass to determine the TAC. Stewart (2016) reported how this harvest policy is implemented by the IPHC. First, a coastwide estimate of exploitable biomass from the stock assessment is apportioned to the individual management areas. Information to make this apportionment is obtained from an annual setline survey conducted by the IPHC. Area-specific target harvest rates are then used to determine the area-specific catch limits. For example, in the 2016, the target harvest rates were 21.5% in Areas 2A, 2B, 2C and 3A, and 16.125% in Areas 3B, 4A, 4B, and 4CDE. Finally, the area-specific catch limits are aggregated back to the coastwide level to establish the TAC for the entire stock (Stewart 2016).

The harvest policy described above is implemented with a Harvest Control Rule (HCR), using target and limit spawning biomass reference points. The HCR does not change the distribution of harvest among regulatory areas, but reduces the target harvest rates (for all areas) at low stock sizes (Stewart 2016). Specifically, if the coastwide stock is estimated to have fallen below 30% of the equilibrium stock size in

the absence of fishing (B30%) the target harvest rates are decreased linearly such that there would be no

fishing mortality below 20% relative spawning biomass (B20%). This policy was designed to provide a

constant harvest rate that would avoid decreasing the stock below B30% with a relatively high frequency, and still provide a large fraction of the maximum sustainable yield available (Stewart 2016). As calculated

by the IPHC, the value of B30% is intended to be precautionary; this is because it is defined relative to historically good size-at-age and recruitment in a relatively unproductive environmental regime (Clark and Hare 2006).

Sablefish Taxonomic classification Class: Actinopterigii Order: Scorpaeniformes Family: Anoplopomatidae Genus: Anoplopoma Species: fimbria

Biology and Life History

35 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) is a bathydemersal cod-like fish. Other common names include black cod, butterfish, and coalfish. Sablefish inhabit the northeastern Pacific Ocean from northern Mexico to the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), westward to the Aleutian Islands (AI), and into the Bering Sea (BS). Adult sablefish occur along the continental slope, shelf gullies, and in deep fjords, generally in soft bottom muddy habitat at depths greater than 200 m. In Alaska, juvenile sablefish spend their first two to three years on the continental shelf of the GOA, and occasionally on the shelf of the southeast BS. The BS shelf is utilized significantly in some years and seldom used during other years (Hanselman et al 2015). Information on the general biology, development, behavior, and ecology of sablefish may be found on the AFSC website (http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/abl/MESA/mesa_sa_sable.php), and in the stock assessment prepared by Hanselman et al (2015). Much of the information on sablefish biology provided below was obtained from these two sources, unless otherwise noted.

Sablefish spawn in the water column at depths of 300 to 500 m near the edges of the continental slope. Eggs develop at depth off-shore, but larvae migrate to the surface. In Alaska, spawning is in late March. The length at which 50% of the female fish are mature is 65 cm (age 6) while 50 percent of males are mature at 57 cm (age 5). Young of the year (YOY) sablefish in Alaska occur in the central and eastern Gulf of Alaska. Pelagic juveniles (<20 cm) drift inshore during their first summer. By the second summer they are 30 to 40 cm, thereafter migrating to deeper water and reach adult habitat at 4 to 5 years.

In the Eastern Pacific, A two-population stock structure is supported based on differences in growth rate, size at maturity, and tagging data. The northern population inhabits Alaska and northern British Columbia waters while the southern population inhabits southern British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California waters. Mixing of the two populations occurs off southwest Vancouver Island and northwest Washington. Sablefish are assessed as a single population in federal waters off Alaska because northern sablefish are highly migratory for at least part of their life. Because juveniles appear to migrate throughout Alaskan waters (Figure 3), little fine-scale genetic structure is expected. However, some genetic work is currently underway to test this hypothesis. This assessment includes only the northern population/stock.

Adult sablefish are opportunistic and prey on fish and invertebrates including pollock, eulachon, capelin, herring, sandlance, Pacific cod, squid, euphausiids, and jellyfish. Yearling sablefish primarily feed on euphausiids. Juvenile sablefish are eaten by adult coho and chinook salmon.

Sablefish are long-lived; ages over 40 years are regularly recorded with maximum life spans up to 94 years. A natural mortality rate of M=0.10 has been assumed for a number of sablefish assessments, including the most recent one (Hanselman et al 2015). Sablefish grow rapidly in early life, and reach average maximum lengths and weights of 68 cm and 3.2 kg for males and 80 cm and 5.5 kg for females. Sablefish have been documented to reach a maximum length of 120 cm.

History of Fishing and Management At the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, sablefish were utilized primarily by US and Canadian fishermen from California to Alaska. Catches were relatively small and averaged less than 2,000 t from 1930 to 1957. Thereafter, Japanese and Russian longliners began to fish the eastern

36 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Bering Sea and expanded the fishery. In 1962, catches peaked at 25,989 t. In the 1960s Japanese trawl fleets moved in and the longline fishery moved to the Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska. In 1972, another peak in catch was reached at 36,776 t. Populations declined and in the 1970s regulations were adopted in order to reduce the total catch; ultimately to about one fifth of the 1972 peak. The sablefish season was gradually reduced, so much so, that in some years the season was open only for a few days resulting in “derby” style fishing through the mid-1990s. The IFQ program was adopted in 1995 and the season length increased to 8 months/year. The fishery is now 8.5 months from March to November and corresponds with the timing of the Pacific halibut fishery.

Current Management Practice Sablefish in Alaska are managed by discrete regions to distribute exploitation throughout their wide geographical range. There are four management areas in the Gulf of Alaska: Western, Central, West Yakutat, and East Yakutat/Southeast Outside (SEO) and two management areas in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI): the eastern Bering Sea (EBS) and the Aleutian Islands (AI) region (Figure 3).

The sablefish harvest policy is derived from the NPFMC Tier System for groundfish stocks (DiCosimo et al 2010). The tier system assigns TACs based on the availability of various types of information. Sablefish currently falls under Tier 3 of the system because: 1) the data are sufficient to apply age-structured

modelling, 2) an estimate of Bmsy is not available, and 3) an estimate of B40% is available.

For Tier 3 stocks, annual catch limits are based on a fixed fraction of the vulnerable stock, based on an

F40% strategy, with target and limit reference points. Under this policy, there is: 1) a “BMSY-proxy” target reference point (TRP) (B35%), 2) a precautionary target reference point (B40%), and 3) a limit reference point

(LRP), set at 1/2 of the B35% TRP (B17.5%).

The harvest control rule is structured to reduce fishing mortality when the stock falls below B40%.

Specifically, when spawning stock biomass is greater than B40%, F40% is the upper limit on target fishing mortality, and F35% is the overfishing level (OFL). When estimates of spawning stock biomass fall below

B40% (the precautionary TRP), the harvest rate is linearly adjusted downwards to zero at 17.5% of the unfished biomass (the MSST). Thus, the HCR is precautionary, because a reduction in target fishing mortality is applied before the stock declines to the B35% TRP level.

The intent of this precautionary HCR is to accelerate the rate of rebuilding should a stock fall to a low level of abundance. At present, the target harvest rate for sablefish is set below the F40% level, because the stock status is below B40% (this is discussed further, under “Status of Stocks”, below).

Current Management Practice (Chatham Strait) Chatham Strait sablefish in the Alaska state managed NSEI fishery are managed via a stock assessment that estimates female spawning biomass at the SB50% and SB100% levels (Sullivan et al., 2019b). These estimates are used to establish the Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) for the fishing season which cannot exceed more than 15% of the ABC from the previous year. Spawning biomass at SB50% for the Chatham Strait sablefish fishery is a target reference point through which its adherence promotes fishery stability

37 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

and predictability between years while accounting for biological uncertainty and conservation concerns (Sullivan et al., 2019b). These HCRs are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached.

7.2.1.2 Status of stocks

Halibut

IHPC scientists continue to implement the Halibut stock assessment using the generalized software stock synthesis. According to Stewart and Hicks (2020), the stock assessment methodology includes an ensemble of four equally weighted models: two long time-series models, reconstructing historical dynamics back to the beginning of the modern fishery, and two short time-series models incorporating data only from 1992 to the present, a period where all estimates of all mortality sources mortality and survey indices are available for all regions. The assessment includes estimates of coastwide mortality, fishery dependent and fishery independent data, and auxiliary biological information. Pacific halibut mortality (Figure 4) includes target commercial fishery landings and discard mortality (including research), recreational fisheries, subsistence, and discard mortality in fisheries targeting other species (‘non-directed’ fisheries where Pacific halibut retention is prohibited). Fishery independent data includes the 2019 modelled Fishery-Independent Setline Survey (FISS), The modelled survey Weight-Per-Unit-Effort (WPUE). Fishery dependent data included the Commercial fishery WPUE. The assessment also included biological data (age and length) from the commercial fishery and FISS and sex-ratio data from the commercial fishery landings (Stewart and Hicks, 2020).

In 2019, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) carried out the Pacific halibut annual coastwide stock assessment, which included a full re-evaluation of all data sources and models used in the assessment. The assessment was carried out in two phases. The first phase included a preliminary assessment with an external independent peer review (Stokes, 2019), and a review by the IPHC’s Scientific Review Board (IHPC, 2019; IHPC, 2020). During the second phase the preliminary assessment was updated to incorporate all data through 2019. This re-evaluation process included five steps to update from the 2018 stock assessment to the preliminary results for 2019 (Stewart and Hicks 2019) and the final estimates reported in the Summary of the data, stock assessment, and harvest decision table for Pacific halibut at the end of 2019:

1. The addition of the newly available sex-ratio data from the 2017 commercial fishery landings and estimate male selectivity scale parameters. 2. Extending the time series (for the two short models) from 1996 to 1992 and add a stock- recruitment function to these models. 3. Replace of the modeled FISS time-series with the series corrected for whale predation. 4. Regularize and tune each model to be reliable and internally consistent, given all the changes made.

38 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

5. Add the 2018 sex-ratio data, estimates of 2019 mortality and extend all data sources through 2019 for the final assessment.

According to Stewart et al. (2020), the inclusion of the 2017 sex-ratio data caused higher spawning biomass estimates in all models, and the updated whale depredation data made little impact in the results. In addition, Stewart et al. (2020) suggest that extending the time-series back to 1992 in the two short models resulted in greater recruitment estimates for years 1994 and 1995. The 2019 data revised the estimates of the 2012 year-class upward slightly but had little effect on the overall time-series, and the 2018 sex-ratio data was very similar to the 2017 information included in the preliminary analysis and therefore produced little additional change. Finally, the historical female spawning biomass estimated from the stock assessment ensemble was slightly larger than that estimated in previous assessments at the end of the time series, and considerably larger prior to the early 2000s, although the trend remains very similar in recent years using these updated data sources. Therefore, the data changes used do not produce important changes in the stock status.

The 2019 stock assessment results suggested the Pacific Halibut stock declined continuously from the late 1990´s to around 2012 (Figure 5). That trend might have been a result of declining size-at-age, as well as weaker recruitment strengths. Later, the spawning biomass increased gradually up to 2016, and then decreased to an estimated 194 million pounds (~87,850 t) at the beginning of 2020 (Stewart, 2020; Stewart and Hicks 2019).

Comparison with previous stock assessments shows the 2019 results are very close to estimates from the 2012 through 2018 assessments. As a result of the data change introduced, prior to 2012, the current 2019 assessment suggests a high probability of larger biomass than estimated in previous assessments (Figure 6); According to Stewart et al. (2020) this is largely the result of the new introduced sex-ratio data for the directed commercial landings indicating more females than in past analyses. All assessments since 2015 have indicated a decreasing spawning biomass in the terminal year (Figure 5 and Figure 7).

According to the 2019 stock assessment, current female spawning biomass was estimated to be 194 million pounds (87,856 t), corresponding to an 46% chance of being below the IPHC trigger reference point of SB30% and less than 1% chance of being below the IPHC limit reference point of SB20%. Although the stock has been declining since 2016, it is currently at 32% of the unfished state; therefore, the stock is considered to be “not overfished” (Stewart and Hicks, 2020).

39 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 4. Summary of estimated historical mortality by source (1888-2019); taken from Stewart et al. (2020).

Figure 5. Estimated spawning biomass temporal trends (1992-2012) base on the four individual models included in the 2019 stock assessment ensemble; shaded zones indicate approximately 95% credible intervals (Taken from Stewart et al, 2020).

40 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 6. Cumulative distribution of the estimated Pacific Halibut spawning biomass at the beginning of 2020. Vertical line represents the median (194 million pounds ~87,850 t). Taken from Stewart et al. (2020)

Figure 7. Retrospective comparison among recent IPHC stock assessments. 2012-2018 spawning biomass estimates-black lines; final biomass estimate of the assessment-red dot; 2019 stock assessment ensemble-shaded blue distribution; spawning biomass median-blue line (Taken from Stewart et al., 2020)

Stock assessment results suggest that Pacific halibut recruitment estimates show two recent picks in 1999 and 2005 (Figure 8). However, cohorts from 2006 through 2010 are estimated to be much smaller than

41 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

those from 1999 and 2005 which results in a high probability of decline in the stock and yield as these low recruitments become increasingly important to the age range over which much of the harvest and spawning takes place.

According to Stewart et al. (2020), following the recommendations from the external reviewer (Stokes, 2019) and the IPHC’s Scientific Review Board (IHPC, 2019; IHPC, 2020), the 2019 assessment has updated the spawning biomass calculation to include recent biological conditions, by using current weight-at-age and estimated recruitments influencing the current stock only. This “dynamic” calculation measures the effect of fishing on the spawning biomass, avoiding the potential situation where environmental and biological conditions could be combined with fishing effects. The probability that the stock is below the

SB30% level is estimated to be 46% at the beginning of 2020, with less than a 1% chance that the stock is below SB20%.

The IPHC’s interim management procedure specifies a target level of fishing intensity of a Spawning

Potential Ratio (SPR) corresponding to an F46%; this is equivalent to the fishing level that would reduce the lifetime spawning output per recruit to 46% of the unfished level given current biology, fishery characteristics and demographics. Based on the 2019 assessment, and including the higher proportion of females in the directed commercial landings than previously understood, the 2019 fishing intensity is

estimated to correspond to an F42% (credible interval: 29-57%).

Pacific Halibut management uses two additional reference points: a relative spawning biomass of 30% as a triggering reference point and a limit reference point at 20% of the unfished spawning biomass. A phase plot is used for the comparison of the relative spawning biomass and fishing intensity over the recent time period provides trends evaluations conditioned on the currently defined reference points. The Pacific halibut phase plot shows that the relative spawning biomass decreased as fishing intensity increased through 2010, then increased as the fishing intensity decreased through 2016, and has been relatively stable since then (Figure 9) and it is about the triggering reference point (SB30%). The overall trend is that the Pacific halibut is not overfished (Figure 9).

Regarding the major sources of uncertainty, Stewart et al. (2020) mentions the 2019 stock assessment includes uncertainty related with the estimation of model parameters, treatment of the data sources (short and long time-series), natural mortality (fixed vs. estimated), approach to spatial structure in the data, and other differences among the models used. Although this is an improvement over the use of a single assessment model, there are important sources of uncertainty that are not included. These sources include the sex ration information; treatment of spatial dynamics and movement rates among Biological Regions; inclusion of mortality, trends or explicit demographic linkages with Russian waters; and factors influencing recruitment, size-at-age, and some estimated components of the fishery removals

42 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 8. Estimated age-0 recruitment (MLE estimates) trends (1992-2015) based on the four models included in the 2019 stock assessment ensemble; vertical lines indicate approximate 95% credible intervals. Figure taken from Stewart et al. (2020).

Figure 9. Phase plot showing the time series (1992-2010) of estimated spawning biomass and fishing intensity relative to the reference point specified in the IPHC´s management (Taken from Stewart et al., 2020).

43 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Sablefish Sustainable management of the Sablefish stock is supported by stock assessments conducted by Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Marine Ecology and Stock Assessment Program, Auke Bay, Alaska. The stock assessment model configuration has not changed since 2010, though new data is incorporated each year. The researchers from the AFSC model the entire federally managed Alaska Sablefish fishery as one stock, integrating data from the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and the Gulf of Alaska. The Sablefish population is assessed with a separable age-structured model coded in AD Model Builder using a maximum likelihood and Bayesian approach to estimate population parameters. Parameters included are fishing mortality, absolute abundance, Selectivity, and catchability. This model extends earlier age structured models developed by Kimura (1990), Sigler (1999) and Fournier and Archibald (1982). The current configuration was accepted by the Groundfish Plan Team and NPFMC in 2016 (Model 16.5, Hanselman et al. 2016). The model is updated annually in conjunction with new longline survey data.

The assessment uses data from different sources as shown below (Table 11) and includes catch data from different fishing gears, length data from different fishing gears and countries, CPUE data from domestic fisheries and Japan, age and an abundance index from the NMFS GOA trawl survey. Besides, Sablefish discards by target fisheries are available for hook-and-line gear and “other” gear combined. Catch taken during the IHPC longline survey for the assessing Pacific Halibut is also incorporated in the Sablefish assessment.

According to Hanselman et al. (2019), Sablefish abundance increased during the mid-1960's due to strong year classes in the early 1960's (Figure 10). Biomass subsequently dropped during the 1970's due to heavy fishing and relatively low recruitment.

Management of the Sablefish fishery is based on three reference points or thresholds based on reduction from the unfished biomass. The target at MSY is 35%, a conservative target at 40% and a “minimum stock size threshold” or MSST at 17.5% or half the 35% target. The 2019 stock assessment recalculated reference point values and compared the status of the stock and the fishery against them. The evaluation about the stock status is divided in three parts: a) evaluating if the stock is subject to overfishing in terms of catch relative to an estimated overfishing level or OFL; b) evaluating if the stock is overfished from the estimated spawning biomass relative to the ½ B35% and B35% reference points; and c) the stock is tested to determine

if projected biomass will be above or below ½ B35% to identify if the stock is or is not approaching an overfished level.

According to Hanselman et al. (2019), Sablefish is managed under Tier 3 of North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) harvest rules. The calculation of reference points included only

recruitments from 1977-2015. The updated B40% value is 105,976 t. Since projected female spawning biomass (combined areas) for 2020 is 113,368 t, 7% higher than B40%, Sablefish is in sub-tier ‘a’ of Tier 3.

The updated F40%, and F35% point estimates from this assessment are 0.102, and 0.121, respectively. Thus,

the maximum permissible value of FABC under Tier 3a is 0.102, which translates into a 2020 ABC (combined areas) of 44,065 t. The adjusted OFL fishing mortality rate is 0.121, which translates into a 2020 OFL

44 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

(combined areas) of 51,726 t. It is important to note that these reference points do not yet include the 2016 year class and next year. When the 2016 year class enters the recruitment time series, relative stock

status will decrease because the B40% reference point will increase substantially. Model projections suggest that this stock is not subject to overfishing, not overfished, nor approaching an overfished condition.

In the evaluation of management and assessment performance over time, AFSC researchers use a phase- plane diagram of time series of Sablefish estimated spawning biomass relative to the unfished level and fishing mortality relative to FOFL (Figure 11). Recent management has constrained fishing mortality below

the limit rate, and until recently kept the Sablefish stock above the B35% limit as shown below (Figure 2).

Projected 2020 and 2021 spawning biomass estimates are exceeding the B35% and B40% limits (Hanselman et al., 2019). Instead of the maximum permissible ABC, Hanselman, et al. (2019) recommended the 2020 ABC to be 25% higher than the 2019 ABC, which represents a 57% reduction from the maximum ABC. They also commented that the final whale adjusted 2020 ABC of 18,763 t is 25% larger than the 2019 whale adjusted ABC. These recommendations are based on a potential overestimation of the 2016 year class and issues on the estimated recruitment for the year 2014 class.

Hanselman et al. (2019) carried a standard set of projections required by Amendment 56 for each stock managed under Tier 3. This set encompasses seven harvest scenarios designed to fulfil the requirements of Amendment 56, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the MSFCMA.

The first five scenarios provide a range of harvest options that are likely to bracket the final TAC for 2020 (“max FABC” refers to the maximum permissible value of FABC under Amendment 56):

1. F is set equal to max FABC (this scenario provides a likely upper limit on future TACs). 2. In 2020 and 2021, F is set equal to the author’s recommended whale corrected ABCs. For the remainder of the future years, maximum permissible ABC is used.

3. F is set equal to 50% of max FABC. (Rationale: This scenario provides a likely lower bound on FABC). 4. F is set equal to the 2014-2018 average F (for some stocks, TAC can be well below ABC, and recent

average F may provide a better indicator of FTAC than FABC). 5. F is set equal to zero.

The remaining two scenarios are used to fulfil MSFCMA’s requirement to determine whether a stock is currently in an overfished condition or is approaching an overfished condition:

6. F is set equal to FOFL. (Rationale: This scenario determines whether a stock is overfished. If the stock is expected to be, 1) above its MSY level in 2019, or 2) above ½ of its MSY level in 2019 and above its MSY level in 2029 under this scenario, then the stock is not overfished.)

7. In 2020 and 2021, F is set equal to max FABC, and in all subsequent years F is set equal to FOFL (this scenario determines whether a stock is approaching an overfished condition. If the stock is, 1) above its MSY level in 2021, or 2) above 1/2 of its MSY level in 2021 and expected to be above its MSY level in 2031 under this scenario, then the stock is not approaching an overfished condition).

45 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

According to results, the Sablefish stock is not being subject to overfishing. The official catch estimate for the most recent complete year (2018) is 14,341 t. This is less than the 2018 OFL of 29,507 t. Thus, the stock is not subject to overfishing.

Any stock that is below the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is defined to be overfished. Similarly, any stock that is expected to fall below its MSST in the next two years is defined to be approaching an overfished condition. Results from the seven projections and the established criteria suggest that the Sablefish stock is not overfished and is not approaching to an overfished condition (Figure 11).

Stock status relative to reference points are represented as biomass posterior probability distributions projected by 2019, 2020 and 2021 is shown below (Figure 12).

AFSC made projections of future spawning biomass with their credible intervals (Figure 13) and compared

with the B35% and B40% reference points are based on the 1979-2017 age-2 recruitments, and this projection predicts that the mean and median spawning biomass will be above both B35% and B40% by 2020 and continue to rise. The same Figure shows that in recent years the spawning biomass has been

fluctuating around MSY (B35%).

Table 11. Data used for the 2019 Sable fish stock assessment; years in bold are data new to this assessment, taken form Hanselman et al. (2019)

46 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 10. Estimated Sablefish total biomass (thousands t) and spawning biomass (bottom) with 95% MCMC credible intervals; taken from Hanselman et al. (2019).

47 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 11. Phase-plane diagram of time series of Sablefish estimated spawning biomass relative to the unfished level and fishing mortality relative to FOFL for author recommended model. Bottom is zoomed in to examine more recent years.

48 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 12. Posterior probability distributions of spawning biomass status relative to reference points. Dashed lines represent estimated reference points for 2020. Reproduced from Hanselman et al. (2019).

Figure 13. Estimates of female spawning biomass (thousands t) and their uncertainty. White line is the median and green line is the mean, shaded fills are 5% increments of the posterior probability distribution of spawning biomass based on MCMC simulations. Width of shaded area is the 95% credibility interval. Taken from Hanselman et al. (2019).

49 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

NSEI Sablefish Sustainable management of the Sablefish stock is supported by stock assessments conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In the last stock assessment, two important changes were proposed (Sullivan et al., 2019). ADFG scientist recommended the adoption of an integrated statistical catch-at-age (SCAA) model to inform NSEI fishery management. This model will allow for estimation of recruitment strength and variability and provide insight into how sablefish numbers and biomass have changed over time in the Chatham Strait. This recommendation implies stopping the use of the yield-per-recruit model, the annual mark-recapture experiment and the current year’s fishery age composition. The second recommendation is a management procedure that constrains the recommended ABC to a 15% annual maximum change. This “max 15% change” management procedure has been shown to increase fishery stability, maximize catch, and successfully achieve biological goals in long-term simulations conducted by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC; https://www.iphc.int/uploads/pdf/srb/srb014/ppt/iphc-2019-srb014- 08-p.pdf).

The current NSEI harvest policy will continue to define maximum permissible ABC at a fully-selected fishing mortality rate of 50; however, recommended ABCs will be constrained to a maximum 15% change between years. According to Sullivan et al. (2019), the SCAA model suggests a maximum permissible ABC 𝐹𝐹 of 1,382,902 lb at a fully-selected fishing mortality of 50. This is an increase of 30.7% from the 2019 ABC of 1,058,037 lb. Under the max 15% change management procedure, the recommended 2020 ABC is 𝐹𝐹 1,216,743 round lb, a 158,706 lb increase (15%) from the 2019 ABC.

The SCAA model is an integrated statistical catch-at-age model that fits abundance indices and composition data using statistical likelihoods. The model uses longline survey (1997-2019) and fishery (2002-2019), weight-at-age estimated from the weight-based von Bertalanffy model and estimates of female maturity-at-age from longline survey data (1997-2019), mark-recapture abundance, age composition, length compositions. The plus group for the SCAA model is 31, which allows us to use of the AFSC ageing error matrix and age-length transition matrices as inputs to the model.

The SCAA model estimates uncertainty in model parameters using a maximum likelihood approach. It includes measurement error in the data likelihoods and assumed process error in recruitment. Future versions of the SCAA model will be implemented in a Bayesian framework, and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling will be implemented using the No-U-Turn (NUTS) and tmbstan samplers in the R library (Monnahan and Kristensen, 2018). The integrated statistical catch-at-age (SCAA) model presented here was coded in TMB, an R library that leverages C/C++ functionality to calculate first and second order derivatives.

Biological reference points for NSEI sablefish were developed for the SCAA model. They are based on spawning potential ratio (SPR), or the average fecundity of a recruit over its lifetime divided by the average fecundity of a recruit over its lifetime when the stock is unfished. Spawning stock biomass is used as a proxy for fecundity (Sullivan et al., 2019).

50 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

According to Sullivan et al. (2019), A total of 122 parameters were estimated in the SCAA model. The model fits catch, pre-EQS fishery CPUE, and mark–recapture abundance reasonably well in most years (Figure 14). The model performs poorly during the period directly following the implementation of EQS in 1994 for all indices, including catch (Figure 14).

SCAA stock assessment results suggest that indices of age-2 recruitment, female spawning stock biomass, and exploitable abundance and biomass suggest that this stock has been in a period of low productivity since the mid-1990s (Figure 15). Sullivan et al. (2019b) also suggest that recruitment trends are comparable with federal values, and estimates of spawning stock biomass, exploitable biomass, and exploitable abundance are on par with past and current ADFG estimates (Hanselman et al. 2019, Sullivan et al. 2019). A time series of fishing mortality and harvest rate (the ratio of the predicted total catch to exploitable biomass) shows that peak exploitation occurred in the decade following the transition to EQS, 1995-2005 (Figure 16), suggesting that harvest rates during this time period were more than four times current levels. The 2020 stock assessment estimated the projected female spawning biomass as 15,004,767 lb, the unfished female spawning biomass as 22,409,188 lb, and the female spawning biomass at F50 (SB50%) as 11,204,594 lb; other indicators are shown below.

Table 12 List of indicators estimated during the 2020 stock assessment for the NSEI Sablefish.

51 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 14. Fits to indices of catch and abundance with the assumed error distribution shown as shaded grey polygons. a) harvest (round mt); b) fishery catch per unit effort in round kg per hook; c) survey catch per unit effort in number of fish per hook; d) mark–recapture abundance estimates in millions; taken from Sullivan et al. (2019).

52 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 15. Model predictions of (A) age-2 recruitment (millions), (B) female spawning stack biomass (million lb), (C) exploitable abundance (millions), and (D) exploitable biomass (million lb); taken from Sullivan et al. (2019b).

53 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 16. Model-estimated fishing mortality rate (top) and realized harvest rate (bottom), defined as the ratio of total estimated catch to exploitable biomass. Total estimated catch is the sum of landed catch and discarded biomass assumed to die post-release; taken from Sullivan et al. (2019b)

7.2.1.3 Seasonal Operation of the Fishery Pacific Halibut According to IPHC (2020), the following are the fishing periods for the Pacific Halibut fishery:

1. The fishing periods for each regulatory area apply where the catch limits specified in Section 12 have not been taken.

54 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

2. Each fishing period in the IPHC Regulatory Area 2A directed commercial fishery shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800 hours local time on 26 June, 27 June, 10 July, 24 July, 7 August, 21 August, 4 September, and 18 September, unless the Commission specifies otherwise. 3. Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of section 12, an incidental catch fishery is authorized during the sablefish seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by NOAA Fisheries. This fishery will occur between 1200 hours local time on 15 March and 1200 hours local time on 14 November. 4. Notwithstanding paragraph (2), and paragraph (7) of section 12, an incidental catch fishery is authorized during salmon troll seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgate by NOAA Fisheries. This fishery will occur between 1200 hours local time on 15 March and 1200 hours local time on 14 November. 5. The fishing period in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall begin at 1200 hours local time on 15 March and terminate at 1200 hours local time on 14 November, unless the Commission specifies otherwise. 6. All commercial fishing for Pacific halibut in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall cease at 1200 hours local time on 14 November. Sablefish The season dates have varied by several weeks since 1995, but the monthly pattern has been from March to November with the majority of landings occurring in May - June.

Chatham Strait sablefish In recent years, the sablefish season in Chatham Strait opened on September 1 and closed November 15. Beginning in 2003, the Chatham Strait fishery opened on August 15 and closed on November 15. The sablefish longine fishery in Clarence Strait runs from June 1 to August 15 and the pot fishery from September 1 to November 15.

7.2.1.4 Fishing and Management

Halibut A brief history of early management is found in Leaman (2007). Pacific halibut has been fished for hundreds of years by members of Indian tribes and First Nations groups who inhabited what is now known as Alaska, British Columbia, and the U.S. west coast (Washington, Oregon, and California). The North American commercial fishery officially started in 1888 when halibut were landed in Tacoma, Washington by the sailing vessel Oscar and Hattie and were subsequently shipped to Boston. Two other commercial vessels fished halibut that year, and halibut’s popularity soon grew because the fish, if well-iced, could be kept for an extended time without spoiling. In the 1890s, an extensive fleet of sailing vessels fished with 2-man dories. Large, company owned U.S. and Canadian steam-powered vessels soon dominated the fishery, carrying 10 to 12 dories and as many as 35 crew, compared to two or three dories and fewer than six crew on a smaller vessel. However, by the 1910s catch rates had declined and members of the halibut fishing industry asked the governments of both the U.S. and Canada for international management of the resource. The fleet itself was integrated since there were no international boundaries pertaining to fishing

55 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

at the time (IHPC, 2014). The International Fisheries Commission ((IFC) later re-named the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)) was created in 1923. The Pacific halibut fishery has been closely managed for nearly 100 years, and much is known about the history of fishery removals, population trends, and biological characteristics. Early management acted primarily through season restrictions. Pacific halibut conventions followed in 1930, 1937, and in 1953, when stock management goals (i.e. MSY management) were introduced. The 1979 protocol to the Convention of 1953 defined national areas of participation and revised the stock management goal to Optimum Yield (OY). The North Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 was the enabling U.S. legislation for the 1979 protocol.

Fishery regulations include the establishment of regulatory areas, mortality and fishery limits, in-season actions, release of Pacific Halibut, Retention of tagged Pacific Halibut, fishing periods, closed areas, closed periods, licenses, fishing gear, size limits, logs, receipt and possession of Pacific Halibut, fishing by native tribes, regulations for recreational fishing. More details of fishing regulations for the Pacific Halibut fishery are found in IPHC (2020) and section PI3. Sablefish Sablefish exploitation started at the end of the 19th century by U.S. and Canadian fishermen. The North American sablefish fishery started as a secondary activity of the halibut fishery of the U.S. and Canada. Initial fishing grounds were off Washington state and British Columbia and then spread to Oregon, California, and Alaska during the 1920's. Until 1957, only the U.S. and Canada caught sablefish, ranging from off northern California northward to Kodiak Island in the GOA; catches were relatively small, averaging 1,666 t from 1930 to 1957, and generally limited to areas near fishing ports (Low et al. 1976).

Japanese longliners started operations in the eastern Bering Sea in 1958. As the fishing grounds in the eastern Bering Sea were preempted by expanding Japanese trawl fisheries, the Japanese longline fleet expanded to the AI region and the GOA. Other foreign fleets besides Japan also caught sablefish. Substantial Soviet Union catches were reported from 1967-73 in the BS (McDevitt 1986). Considerable Korean catches were reported from 1974-1983 scattered throughout Alaska. Other countries reporting minor sablefish catches were Republic of Poland, Taiwan, Mexico, Bulgaria, Federal Republic of Germany, and Portugal. The Soviet gear was factory-type stern trawl and the Korean gears were longliners and pots (Low et al. 1976).

The U.S. longline fishery began increasing in 1982 in the GOA, and by 1988, the U.S. harvested all sablefish taken in Alaska. In 1995, The Individual Fishery Quotas (IFQ) system was implemented for hook-and-line vessels along with an 8-month season. The IFQ Program is a catch share fishery that issued quota shares to individuals based on sablefish and halibut landings made from 1988-1990. Since the implementation of IFQs, the number of longline vessels with sablefish IFQ harvests experienced a substantial anticipated decline from 616 in 1995 to 362 in 2011 (NOAA 2016). This decrease resulted because shareholders had consolidated their holdings and fish them off fewer vessels to reduce costs (Fina 2011). The season dates change by several weeks since 1995, but the monthly pattern has been from March to November with most of landings occurring in May - June.

56 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

According to Hanselman et al. (2019), pot fishing in the BSAI IFQ fishery is legal and landings have increased dramatically since 2000. The average catch in pots in the BS and AI was on average 0.5-0.7% of total catch from 1991-1999. On the other hand, pot fishing has been allowed in the GOA since 2017 but makes up a small proportion of the fixed gear catch (9% of the catch in the GOA in 2017 and 2018).

According to Sigler and Lunsford (2001), the IFQ management system has increased fishery catch rates and decreased the immature fish harvest. Catching efficiency (the average catch rate per hook for sablefish) improved 1.8 times with the change from an open-access to an IFQ system fishery. The change to IFQ also decreased harvest and discard of immature fish which improved the chance that these fish will reproduce at least once. Thus, the stock can provide a greater yield under IFQ at the same target fishing rate due to older fish selection.

Regarding management, the main management measures include de set up of management units, quota allocation for fishing gear, IFQ system, maximum retainable allowances and allowable fishing gear. More details on management measures are found in the P3 section. Chatham Strait sablefish State-managed sablefish fisheries in the Southeast Region (Chatham and Clarence Straits) are managed under a shared quota system administered by ADFG. All permit holders receive an equal share of the annually determined catch quota. The Chatham Strait fishery is a longline fishery. The Clarence strait fishery is primarily a longline fishery with some catch in pots. More details on management measures are found in the P3 section.

7.2.1.5 Catch profiles Halibut Pacific halibut catches consist of target commercial fishery landings and discard mortality (including research), recreational fisheries, subsistence, and discards in fisheries targeting other species (‘nondirected’ fisheries where Pacific halibut retention is prohibited). Over the period 1920-2019 catches have totaled 3.3 million metric tons, ranging annually from 16,000-45,000 t, with an annual average of 29,000 t (Figure 4). Annual catch was above this long-term average from 1985 through 2010, and has averaged 18,500 t from 2016-19.

Sablefish The average annual sablefish catch in Alaska was about 1,700 t from 1930 to 1957 and exploitation rates were low until Japanese vessels began fishing in the BS in 1958 and the GOA in 1963. Catches quickly augmented during the mid-1960s. Annual catches in Alaska reached peaks in 1962, 1972, and 1988 (Figure 17). The 1972 catch was highest, at 53,080 t, the 1962 and 1988 catches corresponded to 50% and 72% of the 1972 catch respectively. Evidence of declining stock abundance and passage of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act led to significant fishery restrictions from 1978 to 1985, as consequence the total catch was reduced substantially. Occasional recruitment increased abundance and catches during the late 1980's, coinciding with the domestic fishery expansion. Later, catches declined during the 1990's, then increased in the early 2000s, and have since declined to near

57 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

12,000 t in 2018 but begun to increase in 2019, mainly from a higher amount of trawl catch (Figure 17). TACs in the GOA are nearly fully utilized, while TACs in the BS and AI had been rarely fully utilized. Starting in 2018, and accelerating in 2019, the BS TACs and ABCs have been fully utilized (Hanselman et al. (2019).

Chatham Strait sablefish Catch data from 1980-2019 include harvest in the directed sablefish longline fishery, ADFG longline survey removals, and sablefish retained in other fisheries like the IFQ halibut longline fishery (Figure 14a). Changes in management during this period included a move to Limited Entry in 1985 and the Equal Quota Share (EQS) Program in 1994 (Olson et al. 2017). Additional sources of mortality not currently included in this model are sport, subsistence and personal use harvest, estimated bycatch mortality in the halibut fishery, and estimated dead loss, which includes mortality from sand fleas, sharks, and whales. High catches were observed in the period 1985-1999. The maximum catch was registered in 1993. Since 2000 a steady declining is observed up to 2015 with a slight increase in 2019-2019 (Figure 14a).

58 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 17. Long term and short term sablefish catch by gear type; taken from Hanselman et al. (2019).

59 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.2.1.6 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

Table 13. TAC and catch data for Pacific Halibut

TAC Year 2020 Amount 31,900,000 lbs1 UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount 31,900,000 lbs1 UoC* share of TAC Year 2020 Amount 31,900,000 lbs1 Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2019 Amount 38,610,000lbs1 recent) Year (second 2018 Amount 40,000,000 lbs2 most recent) 1Stewart et al. (2020) TCEY for reference SPR =46%

Table 14. TAC and catch data for Sablefish in Alaska

TAC Year 2020 Amount 18,763 t1 UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount 18,763 t1 UoC* share of TAC Year 2020 Amount 18,763 t1 Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2019 Amount 15,380 t2 recent) Year (second 2018 Amount 15,380 t2 most recent) 1Hanselman et al (2019) ABC 2Hanselman et al (2018) ABC

Table 15. TAC and catch data for NSEI Sablefish.

TAC Year 2020 Amount 1,216,743 lbs1 UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount 23,569,378 lbs UoC* share of TAC Year 2020 Amount 23,569,378 lbs 2 Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2019 Amount 1,058,037 lbs1 recent) Year (second 2018 Amount 920,093 lbs2 most recent) 1Sullivan et al. (2019) ABC 2Sullivan et al. (2018) ABC

60 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

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

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI). Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

According to the 2019 Pacific Halibut stock assessment (Stewart et al., 2020), the probability that the stock is below the SB30% level is estimated to be 46% at the beginning of 2020, with less than a 1% chance that the stock is below SB20%. Thus, the team concludes that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI reaching the SG 100 level.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Guide The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of post 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? Yes Yes

Rationale

IPHC researchers defined the target at MSY as 30% of the unfished biomass (IPHC, 2019c). According to the 2019 stock assessment, current female spawning biomass was estimated to be 194 million pounds (87,856 t), although the stock has been declining since 2016, it is currently at 32% of the unfished state and has been above that level in the last five years as shown in the phase plot in the background section; therefore, the stock is considered to be “not overfished” (Stewart and Hicks, 2020). Furthermore, the phase plot shows that the spawning biomass has been fluctuating above B30%. Taking into account this spawning biomass level, the team considers that the stock has been above the MSY level over recent years. Thus, the SG 100 level is met.

References

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

61 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Reference point SB20%, limit reference point 54910 t of spawning biomass B32%/B20%=1.6 used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference point SB30%, triggering reference 82,359.4 t of spawning B32%/B30% = 1.07 used in scoring point biomass stock relative to MSY (SIb)

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

62 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Rebuilding timeframes

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

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.3.1 (MSC V2.01) this PI is not scored.

According to the 2019 stock assessment (Stewart et al., 2020), current female spawning biomass was estimated to be 194 million pounds (87,856 t), corresponding to a 46% chance of being below the IPHC trigger reference point of SB30% and less than 1% chance of being below the IPHC limit reference point of SB20%. Although the stock has been declining since 2016, it is currently at 32% of the unfished state; therefore, the stock is considered to be “not overfished” (Stewart and Hicks, 2020). Thus, this PI 1.1.2 does not apply to this fishery.

b Rebuilding evaluation

Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is rebuilding stocks, or it is effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation highly likely based on stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates simulation modelling, timeframe. 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? NA NA NA

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.3.1 (MSC V2.01) this PI is not scored.

References

Stewart, I., and Hicks, A. 2020. Assessment of the Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) stock at the end of 2019. IPHC-2020-SA-01. 32 p.

63 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Draft scoring range NA

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

64 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve 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? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The harvest strategy established by the Commission includes well-defined control rules (30:20 rule; IPHC, 2019c), fishing regulations (IPC, 2019b), ability to control effort, well-designed monitoring (Stewart et al., 2020) for carrying out a stock assessment whose results are used to respond when the stock is approaching the threshold or limit reference points. The IPHC’s interim management procedure uses the relative spawning biomass of 30% as a trigger, to begin reducing the target fishing intensity to a limit at 20%, where directed fishing is halted due to the critically low biomass condition (Stewart et al., 2020). Additionally, the harvest strategy is designed to achieve a target level (F46%) included in the management objectives. Thus, the team concludes that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. The SG 100 level is met. b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guide The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the post to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been 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? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) at the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) completed an initial phase of evaluating management procedures and is now in the next phase consisting of scale and distribution components (IPHC, 2019c). The work program for 2020 includes completing the multiarea simulation framework and evaluating results before the presentation of the MSE product in 2021 with recommendations on scale and distribution components of the management procedure. As mentioned in the background section, the models used include uncertainty in the form of alternative hypotheses about several important axes of uncertainty, including natural mortality rates (estimated in the long time-series models, fixed in the short time-series models), environmental effects on recruitment (estimated in the long time-series models), and other model parameters (Stewart et al., 2020). Thus, the team concludes that the harvest strategy

65 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

has been fully evaluated and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives, including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Thus, the SG 100 level is reached.

c Harvest strategy monitoring

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

Rationale

The International Pacific Halibut Commission has an extensive monitoring program (estimates of coastwide mortality, fishery dependent and fishery independent data, and auxiliary biological information, and the FISS) aimed to carried out the stock assessment, taking in account several sources of uncertainty with the purpose of assess the status of the stock relative to threshold (B30%), limit (B20%) and target (F46%) reference points. Thus, the team concludes that there is monitoring in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Thus, the SG 60 level is met. d Harvest strategy review

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

Rationale

The IPHC has established a Management Strategy Evaluation with continuous work during the last two years. There is an annual internal review for the stock assessment by the IPHC´s Scientific Review Board (IHPC, 2019; IHPC,2020) and an external independent peer review (Stokes, 2019). Recommendations from reviews are incorporated to the stock assessment and the management strategy. Thus, the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. The SG 100 level is met. e Shark finning

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

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.4.3 (MSC V2.01) this PI does not apply to the fishery.

f Review of alternative measures

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

66 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Pacific halibut mortality consists of target commercial fishery landings and discard mortality (including research), recreational fisheries, subsistence, and discard mortality in fisheries targeting other species (Stewart et al., 2020). According to Martell et al. (2015), there is a 32-inch minimum size in the directed commercial fishery. In nondirected fisheries, retention of Halibut is prohibited. Post-release survival rates are gear dependent and it is assumed that 84% of the sub-legal halibut discarded from the directed halibut fishery survive. They also comment that wastage is defined as halibut mortality associated with discarding sub-legal fish and legal size fish above the landing limits in Washington and Oregon, as well as lost gear. Since the rationalization of the fishery in 1995, wastage due to lost gear has decreased substantially. Furthermore, since the implementation of Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) for the halibut fishery in 1995, sub-legal discards averaged 3.1% of the directed catch, and since 2010 sub-legal discards have been decreasing (Martell et al., 2015). Trumble et al. (2000) used tagging from the longline gear and found that Pacific Halibut with similar types of injuries experienced lower mortality after release from small (13/0) circle or autoline hooks than from large (16/0) circle hooks. In 2020 the North Pacific Fishery Management Council reported Pacific Halibut bycatch update, where the main bycatch aspects are discussed; it also includes a table with a list of 19 major actions taken to reduce halibut bycatch in Federal groundfish fisheries of Alaska from 1973 to 2020 (NPFMC, 2020). The team concludes there is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are implemented as appropriate. Thus, the SG 80 level is met. The reviews are not biennial, so the SG 100 level is not met.

References

IPHC. 2019b. Report of the 15th Session of the IPHC Scientific Review Board (SRB015). Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., 24-26 September 2019. IPHC–2019–SRB015–R, 18 pp IPHC. 2019c. IPHC Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE): update. IPHC-2020-AM096-12, 23 pp. Stewart, I., A. Hicks, R. Webster, and D. Wilson. 2020. Summary of the data, stock assessment, and harvest decision table for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) at the end of 2019. IPHC-2020-AM096-09 Rev_2. Stokes, K. 2019. Independent Peer Review for the 2019 IPHC Stock Assessment. https://www.iphc.int/uploads/pdf/sa/2019/stokes_2019- independent_peer_review_for_the_2019_iphc_stock_assessment.pdf

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

67 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Condition number (if relevant)

68 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

Guide Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced at 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 level consistent with (or the ecological role of the above) MSY, or for key LTL stock, most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The International Pacific Halibut Commission has set thresholds defined in the control rules (Stewart el al., 2020). These are when the spawning biomass falls below B20% and B30%. The 30:20 control rule establishes that fishing intensity is reduced when stock status is less than 30% of unfished biomass and fishing intensity stops when stock status is less than 20% of unfished biomass. The target threshold is established at a level of fishing intensity equal to the Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) corresponding to an F46%. The 2019 fishing intensity is estimated to correspond to an F42% (credible interval: 29-57%). According to IPHC (2019c), reasonable relative spawning biomass (RSB) at MSY (RSBMSY) proxy, including a precautionary allowance for unexplored sources of uncertainty, would be 30%. Besides, the stock assessment model takes into account the whale predation data. Thus, the HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock, most of the time; the SG 100 level is met. HCRs robustness to uncertainty

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

Rationale

The Pacific Halibut stock assessment includes the following major sources of uncertainty: uncertainty related to the estimation of model parameters, treatment of the data sources (short and long time-series), natural mortality (fixed vs. estimated), approach to spatial structure in the data, and other differences among the models used. The retrospective analysis made by IPHC scientists suggests that the stock assessments and the HCR are robust to the main uncertainties. Furthermore, whale predation data is incorporated into the stock assessment model to estimate indicators and reference points (Stewart et al., 2020). Thus, the team concludes

69 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

that the HCRs account for a wide range of uncertainties, including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. The SG 100 level is met. c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that post tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

According to Stewart et al. (2020), a phase plot is being used to compare the relative spawning biomass and fishing intensity during recent years for an evaluation of trends conditioned on the currently defined reference points (B30%, B20%). Furthermore, IPHC scientist estimate the cumulative distribution of 2020 ensemble spawning biomass estimates relative to the SB30% reference point. That curve represents the estimated probability that the biomass is less than or equal to the 30% value. The probability of the SB is less than SB30% is 0.46 (Stewart et al., 2020). Thus, the evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. The SG 100 level is met. References

IPHC. 2019c. IPHC Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE): update. IPHC-2020-AM096-12, 23 pp. Stewart, I., and Hicks, A. 2020. Assessment of the Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) stock at the end of 2019. IPHC-2020-SA-01. 32 p. Stewart, I., A. Hicks, R. Webster, and D. Wilson. 2020. Summary of the data, stock assessment, and harvest decision table for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) at the end of 2019. IPHC-2020-AM096-09 Rev_2.

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

70 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post 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 are 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? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment includes estimates of coastwide mortality, fishery dependent and fishery independent data, and auxiliary biological information. In particular, Pacific halibut mortality includes target commercial fishery landings and discard mortality (including research), recreational fisheries, subsistence, and discard mortality in fisheries targeting other species. The assessment also included biological data (age and length) from the commercial fishery and FISS and sex-ratio data from the commercial fishery landings (Stewart and Hicks, 2020). Additional information regarding environmental forcing (PDO) is also included. Results from the stock assessment include spawning biomass estimates and recruitment. Thus, A comprehensive range of information including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available, the SG 100 level is reached.

b Monitoring

Guide Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by post 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? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Every year several types of fishery independent and fishery data are collected to carry out the stock assessment. Pacific Halibut management uses three reference points: a triggering relative spawning biomass of 30% as a

71 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

triggering reference point, a limit reference point at 20% of the unfished spawning biomass and a target level of fishing intensity of a Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) corresponding to an F46% (Stewart et al., 2020). Spawning biomass and fishing mortality are monitored every year, a phase plot is used to monitor spawning biomass and fishing mortality relative to the mentioned reference points. When the SB is less than 30% some measures are taken to reduce the fishing mortality. Therefore, the team concludes that all information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty. Stewart et al. (2020) mentions the 2019 stock assessment includes uncertainty related to treatment of the data sources (short and long time-series) and approach to spatial structure in the data. All this information is used by the stock assessment to provide estimates of indicators and reference points to be used in the HCRs. Therefore, the team concludes that there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Thus, the SG 100 level is met.

c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on post all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Yes

Rationale

Coastwide mortality (including all sizes of Pacific halibut) from all sources in 2019 was estimated to be 39.7 million pounds1 (~18,000 t). Known Pacific halibut mortality consists of target commercial fishery landings and discard mortality (including research), recreational fisheries, subsistence, and discard mortality in fisheries targeting other species (Stewart et al., 2020) so the team concludes that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Thus, the SG 80 level is reached. References

Stewart, I., and Hicks, A. 2020. Assessment of the Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) stock at the end of 2019. IPHC-2020-SA-01. 32 p. Stewart, I., A. Hicks, R. Webster, and D. Wilson. 2020. Summary of the data, stock assessment, and harvest decision table for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) at the end of 2019. IPHC-2020-AM096-09 Rev_2.

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

72 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into post appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of the rule. species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

According to Stewart and Hicks (2020), the stock assessment methodology includes an ensemble of four models: two long time-series models, reconstructing historical dynamics back to the beginning of the modern fishery, and two short time-series models incorporating data only from 1992 to the present, a period where all estimates of all mortality sources mortality and survey indices are available for all regions. The assessment includes estimates of coastwide mortality, fishery dependent and fishery independent data, and auxiliary biological information. Following peer review recommendations, the 2019 assessment has updated the spawning biomass calculation to include recent biological conditions, by using current weight-at-age and estimated recruitments influencing the current stock only. Thus, the assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. The SG 100 level is met. b Assessment approach

Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates post 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? Yes Yes

Rationale

The IPHC’s interim management procedure specifies a target level of fishing intensity of a Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) corresponding to an F46%. Pacific Halibut management uses two additional reference points: a relative spawning biomass of 30% as a triggering reference point and a limit reference point at 20% of the unfished spawning biomass. A phase plot is used for the comparison of the relative spawning biomass and fishing intensity over the recent time period provides trends evaluations conditioned on the currently defined reference points. Thus, the assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated, therefore, the SG 80 level is reached. c Uncertainty in the assessment

Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into post major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes

73 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

Regarding the major sources of uncertainty, Stewart et al. (2020) mentions the 2019 stock assessment includes uncertainty related with the estimation of model parameters, treatment of the data sources (short and long time-series), natural mortality (fixed vs. estimated), approach to spatial structure in the data, and other differences among the models used. The stock assessment uses three reference points, including F46%, SB30% and SB 20%. For 2020, the 2019 fishing intensity is estimated to correspond to an F42% (credible interval: 29- 57%) and the probability that the stock is below the SB30% level is estimated to be 46% at the beginning of 2020, with less than a 1% chance that the stock is below SB20%. Therefore, the assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way and the SG100 level is achieved.

d Evaluation of assessment

Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale

In 2019, the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) carried out the Pacific halibut annual coastwide stock assessment, which included a full re-evaluation of all data sources and models used in the assessment. This re- evaluation process included five steps to update from the 2018 stock assessment to the preliminary results for 2019 (Stewart and Hicks 2019) and the final estimates reported in the Summary of the data, stock assessment, and harvest decision table for Pacific halibut at the end of 2019. Thus, the assessment has been tested recently.

According to Stewart and Hicks (2020), the stock assessment methodology includes an ensemble of four equally weighted models: two long time-series models, reconstructing historical dynamics back to the beginning of the modern fishery, and two short time-series models incorporating data only from 1992 to the present, a period where all estimates of all mortality sources mortality and survey indices are available for all regions. Thus, alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Thus, the level SG 100 is met.

e Peer review of assessment

Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The first phase of the 2019 stock assessment included a preliminary assessment with an external independent peer review (Stokes, 2019), and an internal review by the IPHC’s Scientific Review Board (IHPC, 2019; IHPC, 2020); thus, the SG 100 level is met. References

74 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

IPHC 2019. Report of the 14th Session of the IPHC Scientific Review Board (SRB014). Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., 26-28 June 2019. IPHC–2019–SRB014–R, 16 pp. IPHC 2019b. Report of the 15th Session of the IPHC Scientific Review Board (SRB015). Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., 24-26 September 2019. IPHC–2019–SRB015–R, 18 pp. Stokes, K. 2019. Independent Peer Review for the 2019 IPHC Stock Assessment. https://www.iphc.int/uploads/pdf/sa/2019/stokes_2019- independent_peer_review_for_the_2019_iphc_stock_assessment.pdf Stewart, I., A. Hicks, R. Webster, and D. Wilson. 2020. Summary of the data, stock assessment, and harvest decision table for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) at the end of 2019. IPHC-2020-AM096-09 Rev_2.

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

75 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Rationale

The most recent Sable fish stock assessment (Hanselman et al., 2019) showed that the mode of the posterior probability distribution of the spawning biomass status is above the B35% and B40% reference points; thus, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI. The SG 100 is met. b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Rationale

Results from the most recent stock assessment (Hanselman et al., 2019) showed that the spawning biomass has been fluctuating around MSY (B35%) in recent years. Additionally, the mode of the spawning biomass posterior probability is greater than B35% and the posterior distribution of the spawning biomass is above the B35% reference point as shown in the background section (Figure 12). Thus, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, reaching the SG 100 level. References

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point B17.5% Limit 46364.5 t SB estimated for 113,368/46364.5=2.4 used in scoring 2020 stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference point B35% (MSY) 92,729 t SB estimated for 113,368/92729=1.2 used in scoring B40% Target 2020 113,368/105,976=1.07

76 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

stock relative to 105,976 t SB estimated for MSY (SIb) 2020

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

77 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Rebuilding timeframes

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.3.1 (MSC V2.01) this PI is not scored.

Results from the seven projections done in the last stock assessment (Hanselman et al., 2019) and the established criteria (see background section) suggest that the Sablefish stock is not overfished and is not approaching to an overfished condition, thus this PI 1.1.2 does not apply to this fishery. b Rebuilding evaluation

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.3.1 (MSC V2.01) this PI is not scored.

References

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

78 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range NA

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

79 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

The harvest strategy established for the Sablefish fishery includes well defined control rules (Hanselman et al., 2019); when the spawning biomass falls below B40%, B35% fishing mortality is reduced, and when the spawning biomass falls below ½ MSY or B17.5% there is a call for a rebuilding plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). The harvest strategy also includes fishery regulations (NPFMC, 2019), the ability to control effort, and a well- designed monitoring (Hanselman et al., 2019) for carrying out a stock assessment whose results are used to respond when the stock approaches threshold of limit reference points. The team concludes that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. The SG 100 level is met.

b Harvest strategy evaluation

Rationale

In March 2018, Dr. Melissa Haltuch of the NMFS NWFSC presented the draft Sablefish MSE to the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), other Council advisors, and the Council (NPFMC, 2018). Pending the outcome of the SSC review of this MSE, the Council should adopt the Sablefish MSE if the SSC endorses its use in future Council decision-making. The team concludes that the harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. Thus, the SG80 level is met. The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated so the SG 100 level is not met. c Harvest strategy monitoring

80 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center has an extensive monitoring program (catch data from different fishing gears, discards, length data from different fishing gears and countries, CPUE data from domestic fisheries and Japan, age and an abundance index from the NMFS GOA trawl survey) aimed to carried out the stock assessment, taking in account several sources of uncertainty with the purpose of assess the status of the stock relative to threshold (B30% and B35%)and limit (B17.5%) reference points. Thus, the team concludes that there is monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Thus, the SG 60 level is met. d Harvest strategy review

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

Rationale

The NPFMC has a Management Strategy Evaluation. Recently some analyses were presented to examine the performance of a suite of sablefish ABC apportionment methods. This is a work in progress and AFSC scientists are seeking feedback on the operating model (OM) and the estimation model (EM) designs, alternative performance metrics that would be useful in comparing outcomes of apportionment methods, developing recommendations, and any other suggestions for simulation and model performance (Fenske et al., 2020). Besides, the Sablefish stock assessment is constantly tested. The SSC makes yearly requests regarding some aspects of the stock assessment (Hanselman et al., 2019) and AFSC scientists improve the models accordingly. Besides, an external review has been done recently (Klaer, 2016) and its recommendations were incorporated into the stock assessment and the management strategy. Thus, the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. The SG 100 level is met. e Shark finning

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.4.3 (MSC V2.01) this PI does not apply to the fishery.

f Review of alternative measures

81 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

There is no noteworthy unwanted catch of sablefish in the directed fishery. The vast majority of sablefish is retained and landed. This PI does not apply to this fishery. References

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

82 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

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

Rationale

In the North Pacific Fishery Management Council setting there are thresholds that are defined in the Council harvest rules. These are when the spawning biomass falls below B40%, B35% the fishing mortality is reduced, and when the spawning biomass falls below ½ MSY or B17.5% which calls for a rebuilding plan under the Magnuson- Stevens Act (MSA). MSA establishes that each scientific and statistical committee shall provide its Council ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch, preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and achieving rebuilding targets, and reports on stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, social and economic impacts of management measures, and sustainability of fishing practices. Thus, well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. Furthermore, the stock assessment includes estimates of Killer and Sperm Whale predation taking into account the ecological role of Sablefish. The team concludes the HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock. Thus, the SG100 level is met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of post robust to the main a 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? Yes Yes

Rationale

The latest stock assessment (Hanselman, 2019) includes estimates of Killer and Sperm whale predation an uncertainty related to the estimation of model parameters, uncertainty on natural mortality (development of a prior), approach to spatial structure in the data. Besides, the ABC recommendation takes into account three

83 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

types of uncertainty. AFSC scientists presented a reference model and seven alternatives addressing the recommendations on uncertainty issues made by the 2016 external review (Klaer, 2016). Several tests were done, and results suggest that the assessment and the HCRs are robust. Thus, the team concludes that the HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Thus, the SG100 level is achieved. c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows post tools used or available to that the tools in use are that the tools in use are implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels controlling exploitation. levels required under the required under the HCRs. HCRs.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

According with Hanselman (2019), a phase plot is being used to compare the relative spawning biomass and fishing intensity during recent years to evaluate the trends conditioned on the currently defined reference points (B40%, B35%, F40% and F35%). Additionally, to examine the posterior probability of falling below these reference points, AFSC scientist project spawning biomass into the future with recruitments varied as random draws from a lognormal distribution with the mean and standard deviation of 1979-2017 age-2 recruitments. Recent results suggest that the mode of the posterior probability is above B35% and B40%, thus the evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the the HCRs. The SG100 level is met. References

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

84 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

The Sablefish stock assessment (Hanselman et al., 2019) uses data from different sources as shown in the background section and includes catch data from different fishing gears, length data from different fishing gears and countries, CPUE data from domestic fisheries and Japan, age, and an abundance index from the NMFS GOA trawl survey. Besides, Sablefish discards by target fisheries are available for hook-and-line gear and “other” gear combined. Catch taken during the IHPC longline survey for the assessing Pacific Halibut is also incorporated in the Sablefish assessment. Every year an Environmental/Ecosystems considerations report is carried as part of the SAFE document. Therefore, the team considers a comprehensive range of information is available, reaching the SG 100 level. b Monitoring

Rationale

Data included in the annual stock assessment include relative abundance, age and length data from the longline survey; the fixed gear fishery provides relative abundance, age and length data; the trawl fisheries provides length data; updated catch data, projected catches, and estimates of killer and sperm whale depredation. Results from the stock assessment are used to estimate the ABC and reference points (B40%, B35%, F40%, and F35%) and apply the harvest control rules every year. According to Hanselman et al. (2019) for the 2019 and 2020, ABC

85 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

recommendations they took into account three types of uncertainties (estimate of the strength of the 2014- year class, environmental conditions, and projection assumptions). Thus, the team concludes that all information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. The SG 100 is met. c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on post all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Yes

Rationale

Annual catches from Alaska and the Bering Sea are available since 1930 (Hanselman et al., 2019). Sablefish discards by target fisheries are available for hook-and-line gear and “other” gear combined. From 1994 to 2004 discards averaged 1,357 t for the GOA and BSAI combined (Hanselman et al. 2008). Since then, discards have been similar, averaging 1,118 t during 2010 - 2019. Japanese trawlers caught Sablefish as bycatch in fisheries targeting other species. In the BS, the trawlers were mainly targeting rockfishes, Greenland turbot, and Pacific cod. In the GOA, sablefish were mainly caught as bycatch in the directed Pacific Ocean perch fishery until 1972 (Sasaki 1985). Substantial Soviet Union catches were reported from 1967-73 in the BS (McDevitt, 1986). Substantial Korean catches were reported from 1974-1983 scattered throughout Alaska. Other countries reporting minor sablefish catches were Republic of Poland, Taiwan, Mexico, Bulgaria, Federal Republic of Germany, and Portugal (Low et al. 1976). Thus , there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG 80 level is met. References

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

86 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

The Sablefish stock assessment (Hanselman et al., 2019) is used to model the entire federally managed Alaska Sablefish fishery as one stock, integrating data from the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and the Gulf of Alaska. The sablefish population is assessed with an age-structured model. It includes split sexes and many more data sources to attempt to more realistically represent the underlying population dynamics of sablefish. Thus, the assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA reaching the SG 100 level. b Assessment approach

Rationale

In the recent stock assessment (Hanselman et al., 2019), two scenarios were used to fulfil the MSFCMA´s requirements to determine whether the Sablefish is overfished. Two reference points are used, B35% and B40%. AFSC scientists use phase plot to compare the spawning biomass with these reference points. Thus, the team concludes that the assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock, reaching the SG 80 level c Uncertainty in the assessment

Rationale

Regarding the sources of uncertainty, Hanselmen et al (2019) reports that the latest stock assessment includes uncertainty related with the estimation of model parameters, uncertainty on natural mortality (development of a prior), approach to spatial structure in the data. AFSC scientist presented a reference model and seven alternatives addressing the recommendations on uncertainty issues made by the 2016 external review (Klaer,

87 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

2016). One of the main results from the stock assessment is the posterior probability density for the 2020 spawning biomass relative to the reference points. Therefore, the assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Thus, the SG 100 level is met. d Evaluation of assessment

Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale

The Sablefish stock assessment is constantly tested. The SSC makes yearly requests regarding some aspects of the stock assessment; for example, this year the SSC requested the AFSC scientist to continue to address lack-of- fit to compositional data in the 2018 assessment through exploration of alternative selectivity approaches including time-varying methods. In response, the AFSC attempted a number of exploratory models this year that explored whether selectivity alternatives could alleviate the poor fit to the abundance indices in last year’s assessment model. Several issues were addressed this year, more details are found in Hanselman et al. (2109). Thus, the team considers that the assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The SG 100 level is reached. e Peer review of assessment

Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes Yes

Qwz

Every year the Scientific and Statistical Committee and the Groundfish Plan team carry out an internal review of the stock assessment; they issue recommendations for the Sablefish stock assessment team. Besides, an external review has been done recently (Klaer, 2016). Therefore, the assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed, reaching the SG 100 level. References

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

88 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

89 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Rationale

According to Sullivan et al. (2019b), derived indices of age-2 recruitment, female spawning stock biomass, and exploitable abundance and biomass suggest that this stock has been in a period of low productivity since the mid-1990s (Figure 2). Recruitment trends are comparable with federal values, and estimates of spawning stock biomass, exploitable biomass, and exploitable abundance are on par with past and current ADFG estimates (Hanselman et al. 2019, Sullivan et al. 2019). Results also suggest that there was a noticeable recruitment peak in 2014 (Figure 15). The stock assessment defines the biological reference points based on spawning potential ratio SPR. It includes estimates of SB50% and the unfished biomass (SB100%) and F50. In particular, Sullivan et al. (2019b) report the unfished female spawning biomass, and the projected female spawning biomass; their ratio is 67%. Thus, the current spawning biomass is above SB50%. Thus, the team concludes that it is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired; the SG 80 level is met. b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Rationale

In 2020 the SCAA model was used for the first time (Sullivan, 2019b). The team received a preliminary version of the stock assessment, a later version was going to be released in May 2020, but the team did not receive it. The current version does not include estimates of MSY and other reference points, but the ratio for the projected female spawning biomass/unfished female spawning biomass is 67%. Thus, the team concludes that the stock is or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. The SG80 is met References

Hanselman, D. H., C. J. Rodgveller, K. H. Fenske, S. K. Shotwell, K. B. Echave, P. W. Malecha, and C. R. Lunsford. 2019. Chapter 3: Assessment of the sablefish stock in Alaska. In: Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for the groundfish resources of the GOA and BS/AI as projected for 2020. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501. Sullivan, J., Olson, A. and Williams, B. 2019. 2018 Northern Southeast Inside subdistrict sablefsh fishery stock assessment and 2019 management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report, No. 5J19-03, 1–81.

90 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Sullivan, J., Ehresmann. and Williams, B. In prep. 2019b Northern Southeast Inside subdistrict sablefsh fishery stock assessment and 2020 management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report, No. XXXX-XX, 1–62. Stock status relative to reference points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point No formal reference point 11,204,594 lb 15,004,767/11,204,594 = used in scoring was defined. The team 1.3 stock relative to considers that SB50% could PRI (SIa) work as a proxy for a reference point used in scoring stock relative to PRI Reference point No formal reference point 11,204,594 lb 15,004,767/11,204,594 = used in scoring was defined. The team 1.3 stock relative to considers that SB50% could MSY (SIb) work as a proxy for a reference point used in scoring stock relative to MSY

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

Information gap indicator More information sought

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

Condition number (if relevant)

91 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Rebuilding timeframes

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.3.1 (MSC V2.01) this PI is not scored.

b Rebuilding evaluation

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.3.1 (MSC V2.01) this PI is not scored.

References

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

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

92 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

93 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

The harvest strategy includes fishery regulations (NPFMC, 2019), the ability to control effort, and well-designed monitoring (Sullivan et al., 2019) for carrying out a stock assessment. ADFG estimates the maximum permissible ABC based on F50, restricted by a maximum 15% annual change (Sullivan et al., 2019b). A target reference point (BS50%) has been established, and the ABC depends on the estimate of the reference point reflecting the status of the stock. The harvest strategy includes fishery regulations (NPFMC, 2019), the ability to control effort, and well-designed monitoring (Sullivan et al., 2019) for carrying out a stock assessment. ADFG estimates the maximum permissible ABC based on F50, restricted by a maximum 15% annual change (Sullivan et al., 2019b). Target reference points BS50% and F50 have been established, and the ABC depends on the estimate of the reference points reflecting the status of the stock. Therefore, the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Thus, the SG100 is met. b Harvest strategy evaluation

Rationale

As mentioned in the background, the SCAA (i.e. statistical catch-at-age model) was implemented for the first time this year. The stock assessment with this new model is considered preliminary. It lacks a probabilistic approach and there has not been an internal or external review. Neither has a formal management strategy evaluation program been established. However, the stock assessment provides information to estimate the ratio of projected female spawning biomass/unfished female spawning biomass (667%). Thus, the team considers the harvest strategy may not have been fully tested, but evidence exists that it is achieving its

94 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

objectives (The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing). The SG 80 level is achieved c Harvest strategy monitoring

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

Rationale

There are several monitoring programs. ADFG carries out an annual long line survey, data is also monitored from the fisheries and the mark-recapture program. Information includes weight at age, maturity at age, catch, Fishery CPUE, Survey CPUE, age composition, length composition, retention probability and mark-recapture abundance. This information is used to carry out the stock assessment and provide information for management. The team considers that monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Thus, the SG 60 level is achieved. d Harvest strategy review

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

Rationale

The ADFG takes advantage of internal and external reviews made in the Federal case by the SSC and external reviews, adjusting their management measures accordingly for the state water stock assessment in recent years (Sullivan, 2019). Besides, a review recommended the change to the SCAA this year to improve the stock assessment, and several areas of improvement have been identified. Thus, the team concludes the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. The SG 100 level is met. e Shark finning

Rationale

In accordance with SA2.4.3 (MSC V2.01) this PI does not apply to the fishery.

f Review of alternative measures

95 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There is no noteworthy unwanted catch of sablefish in the directed fishery. The vast majority of sablefish is retained and landed. This PI does not apply to this fishery. References

NPFMC (North Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2019. Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. 130 p. https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/fmp/GOA/GOAfmp.pdf Sullivan, J., Olson, A. and Williams, B. 2019. 2018 Northern Southeast Inside subdistrict sablefsh fishery stock assessment and 2019 management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report, No. 5J19-03, 1–81. Sullivan, J., Ehresmann. and Williams, B. In prep. 2019b Northern Southeast Inside subdistrict sablefsh fishery stock assessment and 2020 management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report, No. XXXX-XX, 1–62.

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

96 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

The Chatham Strait sablefish fishery has defined a reference point (female spawning biomass at SB50%) that is used in management. This reference point could be considered a target reference point. This point is used to estimate the ABC that cannot exceed more than 15% of the ABC from the previous year. This procedure promotes fishery stability and predictability between years, while accounting for biological uncertainty and conservation concerns (Sullivan et al., 2019b). Thus, the team concludes that generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. Thus, the SG60 level is met. The stock assessment does not clearly state the actions that would be taken in case the current biomass falls below the NS50%, thus the team considers the HCRs are not well defined to ensure that the exploitation rate would be reduced in case the stock falls or approach a given reference point. Thus, the SG 80 level is not met.

b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Rationale

According to Sullivan et al. (2019b), the SCAA model estimates uncertainty in model parameters using a maximum likelihood approach. It includes measurement error in the data likelihoods and assumed process error in recruitment. Besides, concerns over suppressed spawning stock biomass, a degraded population age structure, and uncertainty in the magnitude of the 2014 year class have prompted conservative management actions in response to the increasing sablefish population. Therefore, the team concludes the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties.

97 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

c HCRs evaluation

Rationale

Results from the preliminary stock assessment (Sullivan et al., 2019b) suggest that the projected female spawning biomass is above the SB50% and it is 67% of the SB100%. The team concludes that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Thus, the SG80 is met. References

Sullivan, J., Ehresmann. and Williams, B. In prep. 2019b Northern Southeast Inside subdistrict sablefish fishery stock assessment and 2020 management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report, No. XXXX-XX, 1–62.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

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

Condition number (if relevant)

98 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

The NSEI Sablefish stock assessment (Sullivan et al., 2019) uses data from different sources such as longline survey (1997-2019) and fishery (2002-2019), weight-at-age estimated from the weight-based von Bertalanffy model and estimates of female maturity-at-age from longline survey data (1997-2019), mark-recapture abundance, age composition and length compositions. The team concludes that A comprehensive range of information, including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Thus, the SG 100 level is met.

b Monitoring

Rationale

ADFG carries out an annual long line survey, data is also monitored from the fisheries as a result two relative indices of abundance are estimated: Fishery CPUE and Survey CPUE. Catch data is gathered annually and to account for legal releases of small sablefish in NSEI, fixed retention probabilities and an assumed discard mortality of 16% were incorporated directly into the SCAA model following Sullivan et al. (2019b). This information is used to carry out the stock assessment and provide information for management, including stock abundance, biomass estimates, a reference point and the ABC. The team considers stock abundance and UoA

99 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

removals are regularly monitored 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. Thus, the SG 80 level is achieved. c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on post all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Yes

Rationale

To account for legal releases of small sablefish in NSEI, fixed retention probabilities, and assumed discard mortality of 16% were incorporated directly into the SCAA model following Sullivan et al. (2019). Thus, the team concludes there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. The level SG 80 is met References

Sullivan, J., Olson, A. and Williams, B. 2019. 2018 Northern Southeast Inside subdistrict sablefsh fishery stock assessment and 2019 management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report, No. 5J19-03, 1–81. Sullivan, J., R. Ehresmann, and B. Williams. In prep. 2019b Northern Southeast Inside subdistrict sablefish fishery stock assessment and 2020 management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report, No. XXXX-XX, 1–62.

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

100 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

ADFG used the SCAA model for the first time in 2020 for stock assessment. Therefore there are several areas of improvement (Sullivan et al., 2019b): implementing the SCAA model in a Bayesian framework; exploring poor retrospective patterns, and consider alternative parameterizations to improve retrospective performance; developing a framework to conduct sensitivity analyses on fixed selectivity, maturity, natural mortality; developing a framework to conduct projections to evaluate the stock status and assess risk. Thus, the team considers that the assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. Therefore, the level SG 80 is met, though the areas for improvement detailed above mean the assessment cannot be considered to take into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. b Assessment approach

Rationale

As mentioned, the stock assessment estimates the SB50% and SB100% and the projected female spawning biomass for 2020 (Sullivan et al., 2019b). These estimates are used to establish the ABC for the fishing season so there is an evaluation of the stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. Thus, the level SG 80 is achieved. c Uncertainty in the assessment

Rationale

According to Sullivan et al (2019b), the SCAA model estimates uncertainty in model parameters using a maximum likelihood approach. It includes measurement error in the data likelihoods and assumed process error in recruitment. Thus, the assessment takes uncertainty into account. The SG 80 level is met. Future

101 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

versions of the SCAA model will be implemented in a Bayesian framework, and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) thus results are not shown in a probabilistic way, so the SG 100 level is not met. d Evaluation of assessment

Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? No

Rationale

According to Sullivan et al. (2019b), the 2019 stock assessment includes for the first time the integrated statistical catch-at-age model, thus the assessment has not been tested. Thus, the SG 100 level is not met e Peer review of assessment

Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes No

Rationale

According to Sullivan et al (2019b) there was an internal ADFG review for the 2019 stock assessment on March 2020; thus, the assessment of stock status is subject to peer review, level SG 80 is met. The team does not have information of any external peer review carried out; thus, the SG 100 level is not met. References

Sullivan, J., R. Ehresmann, and B. Williams. In prep. 2019b Northern Southeast Inside subdistrict sablefish fishery stock assessment and 2020 management plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report, No. XXXX-XX, 1–62.

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

102 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.3 Principle 2

Principle 2: Ecosystem background Principle 2 evaluates two separate gear types, hook and line (HAL) and pot gear. HAL is used to target Halibut in Alaska’s EEZ. Halibut is also caught in IPHC 2A in Washington state waters using HAL. Sablefish are targeted in Alaska’s EEZ using HAL and pot gear in BSAI and GOA. This new certificate also includes Sablefish caught in Chatham Strait (Alaska state waters) using HAL.

Alaskan Management Strategy There is a strategy in place to manage the non-target species which consists of (1) a catch accounting system, (2) observer program to estimate catches of non-target species that was heavily restructured in 2013 to better sample the full groundfish fleet, including halibut vessels which previously had minimal coverage, (3) fishery independent surveys conducted by NOAA-Fisheries, IPHC, and ADFG, (4) statistical stock assessments for most non-target species, (5) a tiered system of assessments that provides for more precautionary annual catch limits when assessments use less precise methods and clear procedures exist for restricting catch limits if stock rebuilding is necessary, (6) mandatory use of seabird avoidance devices on all vessels larger than 55’ (i.e. tory lines) in the federal fisheries, and (7) a spatial management strategy that prohibits or restricts vessels from fishing in sensitive habitats. This system is expected to keep bycatch species at levels that are highly likely to be within biological limits and minimize impacts to habitat.

The evidence for successful implementation of this management strategy is manifest by regular (often annual or bi-annual) stock assessments, in season catch accounting and the healthy stock status for most non-target species relative to reference points. Stock assessment tiers 3-4 are based on relative spawning per recruit. Tier 3 is used when recruitment can be estimated whereas Tier 4 is used when recruitment cannot be estimated. Tier 5 is based on the species’ natural mortality rate.

Washington Management Strategy

In Washington, the strategy to manage non-target species consists of (1) a catch accounting system, (2) observer program to estimate catches of non-target species, (3) fishery independent surveys conducted by NOAA-Fisheries and IPHC, (4) statistical stock assessments for most non-target species, (5) a Seabird Avoidance Program, (5) Spatial management to restrict or prohibit fishing based on depth, species, and habitat (i.e. Groundfish Conservation Areas (GCAs)) The final rule to implement a seabird avoidance program in the Pacific groundfish fleet was implemented in Dec. 2015 and updated in 2020. As of January 10, 2020 in the IPHC Area 2A in WA state, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) requires vessels greater than 26ft LOA ‘to use streamer lines while setting gear or to set gear between civil dusk and civil dawn (night set) when fishing in Federal waters north of 36° North latitude’ (Federal Register 84 FR 67674).1

1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/11/2019-26523/magnuson-stevens-act-provisions- fisheries-off-west-coast-states-pacific-coast-groundfish-fishery

103 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.3.1.1 Observer Programs/Information Sources

Sources of Information

This fishery has significant sources of fishery dependent and fishery independent data that permit stock assessments for retained species, including a catch accounting system, fishery independent surveys, and an observer program.

a. Fishery independent surveys: IPHC and NOAA Fisheries conducts annual longline and trawl surveys in the Gulf of Alaska and in the Eastern Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands. This information is used directly in assessments.

b. Catch accounting system (CAS): The system uses information from multiple sources to provide an estimate of total groundfish catch, including at-sea discards, as well and estimates of prohibited species catch and other non-groundfish bycatch. Observer data, shoreside landing reports (“fish tickets”), vessel and shoreside production reports, and the enforcement database are combined to provide an integrated source for fisheries monitoring and in-season decision making (Figure 6). Participants in the North Pacific groundfish fisheries, including IFQ halibut, are required to use an electronic reporting system. E-Landings is a comprehensive system that inputs all catches, including self-reported discards and landed species. Catches can be submitted on-board the fishing vessel daily, so that the e-Landings system thereby provides real time catch accounting. Landing fish in the state of Alaska requires the use of fish tickets (landing receipts) that describe the amount and composition of all fish sold. Thus, together the fish ticket and e-Landings system provide precise quantitative information on the amount of fish landed. Thus, together the fish ticket and e-Landings system provide precise quantitative information on the amount of fish landed. In the catch accounting system, trips are classified based on the gross weight landed. Therefore, if a trip targeted both sablefish and halibut, but landed more sablefish it would be classified as such.

104 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 18. Diagram showing sources of data entering the Catch Accounting System. Source: Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

c. Observers: Vessels >= 40 LOA engaged in these fisheries have trips randomly selected to take on federal observers. The Observer Program underwent a significant restructuring in 2013 to expand observer coverage to nearly all catcher/processor vessels, the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries, and vessels between 40 feet and 60 feet length overall (LOA). In 2015, NMFS began testing Electronic Monitoring (EM) systems on vessels 40-57.5' LOA to include vessels that have traditionally been placed in a 'no-selection' pool because of safety or space constraints and get a better estimate of the overall sampling frame for statistical analysis. This restructure and EM testing, increases the amount and reliability of data available to determine fishery impacts on non-target species, though data gaps with vessels < 40 feet still exist. For updated information, see Observer Program section (below). In Washington, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center groundfish observer program observes commercial catches of groundfish as either targets or bycatch, for fisheries managed by the PFMC. The program has two units which are the West Coast Groundfish Observer (WCGOP) and the At-Sea-Hake Observer Program. The program was established in May 2001 by NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) and requires that all vessels in US EEZ waters (3-200 miles offshore) must carry an observer if notified by NMFS. NMFS jurisdiction has subsequently been expanded such that they may require that vessels fishing in state waters also carry observers (Jannot 2012).

105 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

d. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) conducts annual longline surveys within the Northern Southeast Inside (NSEI) Subdistrict of the Southeast District of the Gulf of Alaska. The NSEI longline survey is conducted annually to aid in the management of the NSEI sablefish fishery by providing catch per unit of effort (CPUE) and biological data to assess the abundance and general condition of the sablefish resource in Chatham Strait

e. The NSEI CAS is a combination of industry landings and observer data from 3 to 6 vessels per year (8-15% observer coverage). To monitor IFQ sablefish, ADFG uses observer data and since 2018 EM estimates of at-sea discards to apply to this fleet. The data contributes to the federal sablefish and halibut data set.

7.3.1.2 Overview of Non-target Catch

All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not part of the Unit of Certification are considered under Principle 2. This includes the following types of species:

. Primary species: Those species for which management tools and measures are in place that are intended to achieve stock management objectives, reflected in either limit or target reference points. . Secondary species: Those species that cannot be classified as primary or ETP species. Secondary species are also considered to be all species that are out of the scope of the standard (birds/ mammals/ reptiles/ amphibians) and that are not ETP species. . Endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) species: Species that are recognized by national ETP legislation or by selected international agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) or agreements under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Remember that a species can only be considered in one of the species components (i.e. primary, secondary or ETP). A species’ ETP status supersedes its assessment under one of the other categories.

In the MSC system, primary and secondary species that comprise the non-target catch are scored in the following manner:

. Main: Species that comprise >5% of the total catch by weight, or if they are species with vulnerable life histories that make up >2% of the catch. If a species is out-of-scope (birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians) then it is automatically designated as Main and also Secondary. . Minor: All species below these thresholds are classified as minor species unless the team provides explicit rationale to justify that the catch is perhaps exceptionally large or if the state of the stock is so poor that all impact by the UoA is important enough to consider, even if the catch proportion would normally mean that this would be a minor species. .

106 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Bait considerations In addition to considering species caught during fishing operations, the assessment included an evaluation of the bait that is used in the HAL, pot, and NSEI fisheries, as required by V 2.1 SA3.1.7. The team determined whether bait species are primary or secondary species based on the existence/absence of management measures and whether they are main or minor species based on catch volumes and the probability of them being less resilient species.

Traditionally, bait type and volume for all UoAs were not recorded or quantified in a systematic way. Since the 2nd reassessment of the US North Pacific halibut fishery and the US North Pacific sablefish fishery, and to address conditions identified in this joint fishery assessment, bait surveys from the HAL and pot gear fleets were collected by the client. These allowed the team to estimate bait volume, species, and annual variability for these fisheries. Survey results and raw data were provided to the assessment team in aggregated format. Via these surveys the client compared the total estimated bait weight (summed across all sampled vessels) to the annual total catch of these vessels to arrive at an overall estimated proportion of bait relative to catch. This proportion was then applied to the total annual catch of the HAL sablefish and halibut fishery and the pot sablefish fishery to estimate the total volume of bait used in the fisheries. Initially, bait species composition was reported by 11 HAL and/or pot vessels. In 2019 the client expanded the surveys to cover 23 HAL and 5 pot gear vessels, representing 22% and 26% of the Sablefish landings in 2019 for each gear type, respectively. Bait use surveys covered 10% of the activity for the halibut HAL fishery. The assessment team extrapolated the results of these surveys across the entire HAL and pot fleets to estimate the total volume of bait species used.

Chatham Strait sablefish The species composition of bait used in this fishery, as well as individual species contributions to the total amount of bait used in this fishery, is similar to that of the federal sablefish fishery according to fishery managers (Robert Alverson personal comms.). While qualitative information on bait use is available for Chatham Strait, the assessment team has not been provided with quantitative data regarding volumes or species contribution.

7.3.1.3 Overview of Species Classification

Information used to estimate catch composition for the HAL halibut and sablefish fisheries in Alaska’s EEZ and the NSEI-Chatham Strait came from the CAS. In 1981, the NSEI fishery was restricted to longline gear only. Catch data for 2015-2019 was analyzed across regions (BSAI and GOA) and years. No notable regional or annual differences were detected, and information was combined across these factors. As the NSEI-Chatham Strait data contributes to the federal sablefish and halibut data set, the team did not analyze it separately. The assessment team applied the same methods to its analysis of the sablefish pot fishery. Table 16 present observer data from 2015-2019 for these fisheries.

107 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 16. 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set longline hook and line fishery (NOAA, 2020).

Total Total Total % of UoA Common Observed Observed Scientific Name Catch Observed Name Catch Catch (t) Catch Retained Discarded Halibut Hippoglosus stenlolepis 87800.91 52787.89 35013.02 40.40% Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria 43719.52 40281.85 3437.67 20.12% Giant Albatrossia pectoralis Grenadier 28980.15 28980.15 13.33% Bait 14891.16 14891.16 6.85% Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias 7342.71 7342.71 3.38% Skates: other Including Bathyraja parmifera 5143.39 4.28 5139.10 2.37% Unidentified Albatrossia spp., Grenadier Coryphaenoides cinereus 5140.99 5140.99 2.37% Longnose skate Beringraja rhina 3384.30 110.73 3273.57 1.56% Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus 3205.59 692.82 2512.77 1.48% Thornyhead Sebastolobus spp. complex 3115.81 2295.41 820.40 1.43% Big skate Raja binoculata 2928.41 31.84 2896.57 1.35% Shortraker Sebastes borealis rockfish 1812.86 557.94 1254.92 0.83% Unidentified Sebastes spp. rockfish 1738.96 903.95 835.01 0.80% Hemitripterus bolini, Myoxocephalus Sculpin polyacanthocephalus, M. jaok, complex Hemilepidotus jordani 1712.86 4.47 1708.39 0.79% Misc fish 1658.70 1658.7 0.76% Sea star 1593.84 1593.84 0.73% Rougheye Sebastes aleutianus rockfish 1149.70 493.65 656.05 0.53% Arrowtooth Atheresthes stomias Flounder 813.98 35.40 778.58 0.37% Pacific sleeper Somniosus pacificus shark 457 457 0.21% Octopus Enteroctopus dofleini, Octopus complex sp. 154.19 11.98 142.21 0.07% Shark: other Lamna ditropis 89.76 89.76 0.04% State managed rockfish 82.16 82.16 0.04% Deep water flatfish 68.79 0.38 68.42 0.03% Greenland Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Turbot 64.97 1.08 63.90 0.03% Dusky rockfish Sebastes ciliates 51.99 8.08 43.91 0.02% Corals Bryozoans 41.78 41.78 0.02% Kamchatka A. evermanni flounder 41.02 41.02 0.02%

108 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Total Total Total % of UoA Common Observed Observed Scientific Name Catch Observed Name Catch Catch (t) Catch Retained Discarded Sea anemone unidentified 39.72 39.72 0.02% Shallow water flatfish 37.35 37.35 0.02% Other invertebrates 47.50 47.50 0.02% Pollock Gadus chalcogrammus 25.81 0.13 25.68 0.01% Snails 17.25 17.25 0.01% Sponge unidentified 14.94 14.94 0.01% Pacific Ocean Sebastes alutus perch 12.19 12.19 0.01%

Other flatfish 16.66 16.66 0.01% Total UoA Catch 217325.59 113116.21 104209.39 100.00%

Table 17. 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set pot fishery (NOAA, 2020)

Total Catch Common Name Total Catch Retained Total Catch Discarded % of UoA Catch (t) Sablefish 6442.79 5772.06 670.74 82.80% Bait 1048.00 1048.00 13.47% Halibut 106.71 84.93 21.78 1.37% Giant Grenadier 78.92 78.92 1.01% Arrowtooth Flounder 35.58 35.58 0.46% Snails 9.82 9.82 0.13% Greenland Turbot 8.10 8.10 0.10% Rougheye rockfish 6.90 6.07 0.83 0.09% Misc fish 6.79 6.79 0.09% Misc crabs 5.82 5.82 0.07% Shortraker rockfish 5.47 3.97 1.50 0.07% Deep water flatfish 4.28 4.28 0.05% Octopus complex 3.52 3.52 0.05% Thornyhead Unspecified 3.34 2.05 1.29 0.04% Rockfish 2.84 0.96 1.89 0.04% Sea star 3.23 3.23 0.04% Brittle star unidentified 2.42 2.42 0.03% urchins dollars cucumbers 1.81 1.81 0.02% Pacific cod 1.48 1.41 0.07 0.02% Rattail Grenadier 1.07 1.07 0.01% Unidentified sharks 0.75 0.75 0.01% Shallow water flatfish 0.67 0.67 0.01% Sea anemone unidentified 0.60 0.60 0.01% Invertebrate unidentified 0.67 0.67 0.01%

109 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Total Catch Common Name Total Catch Retained Total Catch Discarded % of UoA Catch (t)

Total UoA Catch 7781.23 6919.44 861.79 100.00%

Bait survey results and raw data were provided to the assessment team in aggregated format by fishery representatives. Survey information on individual bait species allowed the team to determine bait use by species for the HAL and pot fisheries. The following tables present this information for the HAL, pot and NSEI fisheries.

Table 18. 2015-2019 bait use from the US North Pacific bottom-set hook and line fishery (NOAA, 2020)

Scientific name Total Catch % of UoA Common Name (t) Catch Pollock AK Gadus chalcogrammus 3276.06 1.51% Herring AK Clupea pallasii 3276.06 1.51% AK chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta 2680.41 1.23% East Coast Herring Clupea harengus 1489.12 0.69% Alaska Grenadier Albatrossia spp. 1340.20 0.62% Squid Argentina Illex argentines 1042.38 0.48% West Coast Squid Doryteuthis opalescens 893.47 0.41% Pacific Saury Cololabis saira 446.73 0.21% (Taiwan/Korea/Japan) East Coast Squid Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii 148.91 0.07% Rockfish Alaska Sebastes spp. 148.91 0.07% Pacific Hake Merluccius productus 148.91 0.07%

Total UoA Catch 1789.1 6.85%

Table 19. 2015-2019 bait use from the US North Pacific bottom-set pot fishery (FVOA, 2020)

Common Name Scientific name Total Catch % of UoA (t) Catch Pollock AK Gadus chalcogrammus 293.44 3.77 Herring AK Clupea pallasii 345.84 4.44 East Coast Squid Doryteuthis (Amerigo) 94.32 1.21 pealeii Alaska Grenadier Albatrossia spp. 83.84 1.08 Pacific Saury Cololabis saira 83.84 1.08 (Taiwan/Korea/Japan) East Coast Herring Clupea harengus 41.92 0.54 Squid Argentina Illex argentines 41.92 0.54 West Coast Squid Doryteuthis opalescens 31.44 0.40 Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias 31.44 0.40 Total UoA Catch 1048 13.47%

110 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

In addition to the retained and discarded catch for the HAL and pot fisheries, NOAA uses data from its CAS to estimate seabird bycatch for the halibut and sablefish HAL fishery and the sablefish pot fishery in the BSAI and GOA. The following table summarizes these findings (Table 20).

Table 20. Estimated annual average seabird bycatch (individuals) in the BSAI and GOA from the US North Pacific halibut and sablefish bottom-set hook and line and sablefish pot fishery (Krieger et al. 2019)

Common name Scientific name HAL: average Pot: average takes/yr takes/yr Short-tailed Phoebastria None in last 10 albatross albatrus yrs Black-footed Phoebastria 298 Albatross nigripes Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 245 1 Gull Family Laridae 203 Laysan Albatross Phoebastria 137 immutabilis Shearwaters Ardenna and 39 Puffinus spp Unidentified 13 Unidentified Family 13 Albatross Diomedeidae Cormorant Family 3 Phalacrocoracidae

The assessment team categorized non-target species into the following MSC classifications: primary main and minor, secondary main and minor, ETP (Table 21). For some groups of organisms, data was not species specific. Because fishery managers choose to assess these group of species as complexes, the team maintained this classification when designating them into their appropriate MSC classifications.

111 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1

Table 21. Summary of Non-target Species as categorized for evaluation. ETP status may be NL (recognised in National Legislation), IA (listed in a binding International Agreement

Common name Scientific name Managed? Less % HAL catch % pot % NSEI Meets ETP Reason MSC classification resilient? catch catch criteria? Spiny dogfish Squalus Yes Yes 3.38% No Primary Main acanthias Skate complex Including Yes Yes 5.28% No Primary Minor Bathyraja parmifera, Beringraja rhina, Raja binoculata Shark complex Including: Yes Yes 0.25% No Primary Minor Somniosus pacificus, Lamna ditropis Pacific cod Gadus Yes No 1.48% 0.02% No Primary Minor macrocephalus Thornyhead Sebastolobus Yes No 1.43% 0.04% No Primary Minor complex spp. Shortraker Sebastes borealis Yes No 0.83% 0.07% No Primary Minor rockfish Sculpin complex Including: Yes No 0.79% No Primary Minor Hemitripterus bolini, Myoxocephalus polyacanthoceph alus Rougheye Sebastes Yes No 0.53% 0.09% No Primary Minor rockfish aleutianus Arrowtooth Atheresthes Yes No 0.37% 0.46% No Primary Minor flounder stomias Octopus Including: Yes No 0.07% 0.05% No Primary Minor complex Enteroctopus dofleini, Octopus sp.

112 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Common name Scientific name Managed? Less % HAL catch % pot % NSEI Meets ETP Reason MSC classification resilient? catch catch criteria? Greenland Reinhardtius Yes No 0.03% 0.10% No Primary Minor turbot hippoglossoides Dusky rockfish Sebastes ciliates Yes No 0.02% 0.04% No Primary Minor Kamchatka Atheresthes Yes No 0.02% No Primary Minor flounder evermanni Pacific herring Clupea pallasii Yes No 1.51% 4.44% No Primary Minor Argentine Illex argentines Yes No 0.48% 0.54% No Primary Minor shortfin squid East Coast Doryteuthis Yes No 0.07% 1.21% No Primary Minor Squid (Amerigo) pealeii Alaskan chum Oncorhynchus Yes No 1.23% No Primary Minor salmon keta Pollock AK Gadus Yes No 1.52% 3.77% No Primary Minor chalcogrammus Grenadier Including: Yes No 15.70 1.01% No Secondary Main complex Albatrossia spp., Coryphaenoides (including Giant cinereus Grenadier) Northern Fulmarus No Yes 245 1 No Secondary Main fulmar glacialis (individuals/y (individuals r) /yr) Gull complex Including: Larus No Yes 203 No Secondary Main glaucescens, L. (individuals/y hyperboreus, L. r) argentatus Shearwater Including: No Yes 39 No Secondary Main complex Ardenna (individuals/y tenuirostris, A. r) griseus Sea stars, sea Yes No <2% <2% No Secondary Minor anemones, corals/bryozoan s, snails,

113 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Common name Scientific name Managed? Less % HAL catch % pot % NSEI Meets ETP Reason MSC classification resilient? catch catch criteria? sponges, crabs, urchins/dollars/ cucumbers, brittle stars Pacific Saury Cololabis saira No No 0.21% 1.08 No Secondary Minor (Taiwan/Korea/ Japan) Short-tailed Phoebastria Yes Yes None in last Yes NL, IA ETP albatross albatrus 10 yrs Black-footed Phoebastria No Yes 298 IA ETP albatross nigripes individuals/yr Laysan Phoebastria No Yes 137 IA ETP albatross immutabilis individuals/yr Sperm whale Physeter Yes Yes NL, I ETP macrocephalus Yelloweye Sebastes Yes Yes NL ETP rockfish ruberrimus

114 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 7.3.1.4 Primary Main Species In the HAL fishery, the spiny dogfish is the only Primary Main species. There are no Primary Main species caught in the pot fishery. The biology of the spiny dogfish (i.e. long-lived species, late maturity) makes them less resilient, and as the species comprises above 2% of the catch, it is considered a main species.

Species: Spiny dogfish Biology Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) are found from the Bering Sea and GOA to Baja California, Mexico. They are a long-lived species (80 years) and adults grow slowly, reaching 2.5 to 3.5 feet in length. Females mature at an average age of 35, males mature at an average age of 19 and release their young (up to 22 pups) in shallow bays. Spiny dogfish are opportunistic feeders, eating whatever prey is available. They mainly eat small, schooling pelagic fish such as herring, and small invertebrates such as shrimp, crab, and squid (NOAA Fisheries, 2020).

Status The spiny dogfish is the most common shark species that interacts with the HAL fishery in the BSAI and GOA. There were no recorded shark interactions with the BSAI and GOA pot fishery. The following is a summary of the species stock assessment results presented in Tribuzio et al. (2018a) for the BSAI: . The species is part of a Tier 6 complex with no reliable estimates of biomass . Average catch of the species is 14 t . The species has an ABC of 18 t and an OFL of 24 t . Current catches are below the recommended ABC because sharks are generally considered undesirable. . Overfishing in not considered to be occurring for this species and data do not exist to determine if the complex is overfished. . The following is a summary of the species stock assessment results presented in Tribuzio et al. (2018b) for the GOA: . The species is considered Tier 5 and its estimated biomass is 56,181 t . Average catch of the species is 1,885 t . The species has an ABC of 4,087 t and an OFL of 5,450 t . There is no evidence to suggest that overfishing is occurring for any shark species in the GOA because the OFL has not been exceeded. . Data do not exist to determine if the complex is overfished. . There are currently no directed commercial fisheries for shark species in federally or state managed waters of the GOA, and most incidental catch is not retained. . Management The NMFS does not manage spiny dogfish in the BSAI and GOA as an individual but rather as a complex that includes Pacific sleeper sharks, salmon sharks, and other/unidentified sharks. The estimated catch of

115 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

spiny dogfish is therefore part of the group which contains these additional species. The BSAI shark complex is assessed on a biennial stock assessment schedule. In even years a full stock assessment document is presented. BSAI sharks are a Tier 6 complex in the BSAI and are proposed to be a Tier 5 complex in the GOA.

Figure 19: Summary of management measures per 2018 BSAI shark complex stock assessment (Tribuzio et al. 2018a)

The shark complex in the GOA is regularly assessed on a biennial stock assessment schedule. The 2017 assessment was delayed until 2018 to coincide with the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BSAI) shark stock complex assessment and in future years both assessments will be done in even years. GOA sharks have been a Tier 6 complex, but, the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and overfishing level (OFL) for spiny dogfish are calculated using a Tier 5 approach (termed Tier 6*) with the survey biomass estimates, as estimated with a random effects model, considered a minimum estimate of biomass.

Figure 20: Summary of management measures per 2018 GOA shark complex stock assessment (Tribuzio et al. 2018b)

Information Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) surveys and fishery observer catch records provide biological information on shark species that occur in the BSAI. Sharks are generally long-lived and slow growing. There is insufficient life-history data for any of the species to compare between or within the GOA and BSAI. Genetic studies conducted on spiny dogfish have indicated that there is no significant stock structure within the GOA or BSAI (Ebert et al. 2010, Verissimo et al. 2010). Preliminary results of an ongoing genetics study of Pacific sleeper sharks detected two distinct mitochondrial lineages which are equally present across the range of the species (S. Wildes, NMFS, AFSC pers. comm.). Development of 7 novel microsatellite markers revealed low variability in this species. Only 2 markers resulted in allele frequency heterozygosity greater than 0.75 (Wildes, et al. in review). Staff are planning to identify additional nuclear markers with ddRAD sequencing and to examine close-kin mark-recapture methods to help estimate effective population size and anticipate results to inform the stock structure template for the species in

116 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

2019. Figure 21 presents 2018 stock assessment information regarding the Pacific sleeper shark’s and the spiny dogfish shark’s estimated relative population in the BSAI region.

Figure 21: Estimated relative population of spiny dogfish and Pacific sleeper sharks in the BSAI (Tribuzio et al. 2018a)

Similar to the BSAI, the AFSC surveys and fishery observer catch records provide biological information on shark species that occur in the GOA for the same three shark species. There are currently no directed commercial fisheries for shark species in federal or state managed waters of the GOA, and most incidentally caught sharks are not retained. There is an ADFG Commissioner’s Permit fishery for spiny dogfish in lower Cook Inlet; however, only one application has been received to date and the permit was not issued. Spiny dogfish are also allowed as retained incidental catch in some ADFG managed fisheries with minimal landings reported.

117 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 22: Spiny dogfish and other shark species biomass estimates in the GOA (Tribuzio et al. 2018b)

7.3.1.5 Primary Minor Species The assessment team identified a combined 21 individual species or species complexes of Minor Primary species that are caught by HAL fishers. All Minor Primary pot fishery species/complexes are represented in the HAL fishery.

Species: Skate complex (Alaska, Longnose, Big Skate) Biology A diverse assemblage of skates are captured and discarded at sea. Skate life cycles are similar to sharks, with relatively low fecundity, slow growth to large body sizes, and dependence of population stability on high survival rates of a few well developed offspring (Moyle and Cech 1996). The primary skates caught in the HAL fishery are Alaskan skates in the BSAI, and big and longnose skates in the GOA (Ormseth 2014; 2014b).

The general range of the big skate extends from the Bering Sea to southern Baja California in depths ranging from 2 to 800 m. The longnose skate has a similar range, from the southeastern Bering Sea to Baja California in 9 to 1,069 m depths (Love et al. 2005). While these two species have wide depth ranges, they are generally found in shallow waters in the Gulf of Alaska. The AFSC Age and Growth Program has recently reported a maximum observed age of 25 years for the longnose skate in the GOA. In the same study, the

118 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

maximum observed age for GOA big skates was 15 years (Table 22). GOA skates appeared to be generalists, consuming locally abundant invertebrates and fishes, including several commercially important taxa (e.g. pandalid shrimps, tanner crabs, gadids, flatfishes). As common benthic predators and competitors with other groundfishes, the studied skate assemblage may play an influential role in trophic dynamics and regulation of demersal marine communities in the Gulf of Alaska (Ebert et al. 2008).

The Alaska skate is distributed throughout the EBS shelf habitat area, most commonly at depths of 50 to 200 m (Stevenson 2004), and has accounted for between 91% and 97% of aggregate skate biomass estimates since species identification became reliable in 1999 (Ormseth 2014b). Age and size at 50% maturity were 9 years and 92 cm TL for males and 10 years and 93 cm TL for females (Table 22). Skates are predators in the BSAI FMP area. Some species are piscivorous while others specialize in benthic invertebrates; additionally, at least three species, deepsea skate, roughtail skate, and longnose skate, are benthophagic during the juvenile stage but become piscivorous as they grow larger (Ebert 2003, Robinson 2006). The Alaska skate, which eats primarily pollock (as do most other piscivorous animals in the EBS). The food web indicates that aside from sperm whales, most of the “predators” of EBS skates are fisheries, and that cod and halibut are both predators and prey of skates.

Table 22. Life history characteristics of skate species commonly caught in the BSAI and GOA HAL fishery (Ormseth 2014).

Common Name Max. obs. Max obs. Are, length Mature (50%) Feeding Mode N Depth Length (TL age embryos/egg Range cm) case (m) Alaska Skate 118 (M), 15(M), 9 yrs, 92 cm (M), 10 yrs, 93 predatory 1 17-392 119 (F) 17 (F) cm (F) Big Skate 244 15 4.8 yrs, 68 cm (F), 6.1 yrs, 87 predatory 1-7 16-402 cm (M) Longnose Skate 180 25 12.3, 96 cm (F), 8.8 yrs, 72 Benthopelagic; 1 9-1096 cm (M) predatory

Status A diverse assemblage of skates are captured and discarded at sea part as part of the HAL fishery, in addition to the trawl fishery. In the BSAI, “skates: other” make up about 3.60% of the total observed HAL catch, and are primarily comprised of Alaska skates. In the GOA, longnose and big skates are recorded separately and make up roughly, 1.56% and 1.35% of the catch, respectively. Included in the 2018 stock assessment are the following results (Ormseth, 2018):

. Big skate biomass has increased substantially in the southeastern Bering Sea. It is likely these skates are part of the Gulf of Alaska population. . Exploitation rates of Bering and big skates exceed 0.1. While this is a concern, there are several reasons why these rates are likely acceptable.Alaska skate is common in the northern Bering Sea

119 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

survey area, and increased abundance there matches the overall increase in the Alaska skate population. . The project model indicates that Alaska skate is not overfished, subject to overfishing, or approaching an overfished condition. . There were no sets of environmental and fisheries observations that supported an inference of an impending severe decline in the BSAI skate complex or individual species in the BSAI.

In the GOA there are currently no target fisheries for skates, and directed fishing for skates is prohibited. Incidental catches in other fisheries are sufficiently high that skates are considered to be “in the fishery” and harvest specifications are required. The GOA skate complex is managed as three units. Big skate and longnose skate have separate harvest specifications, with Gulf-wide overfishing levels (OFLs) and Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) specified for each GOA regulatory area. Included in the 2018 stock assessment are the following results (Ormseth, 2019b):

. Big skate biomass increased relative to 2017 (2019 survey estimate of 43,482 t versus 33,610 in 2017). This resulted in a slight increase in the random-effects model biomass estimate and corresponding increase in the overall recommended harvest. Because the distribution of big skate biomass among areas shifted in 2019, the ABC in the CGOA actually declined and the increased ABC occurred in the WGOA and EGOA. . The longnose skate biomass decreased in 2019 (survey biomass estimates of 32,279 t in 2019 versus 49,501 t in 2017). The area ABCs fell in the CGOA and EGOA while increasing slightly in the WGOA. . The biomass of other skates continues to decline from a peak in 2013. This resulted in reduced OFL and ABC. . The increased biomass of big skates on the eastern Bering Sea shelf observed beginning in 2013 continues. There is strong evidence to suggest that these skates originated in the GOA and that there is exchange between the areas. This movement is likely influencing GOA biomass estimates.

Management Full assessments for the BSAI and GOA skate complexes are conducted in even years when full survey data from the trawl fishery are available. In off years, the assessments include updated data regarding catch and biomass. Information on the stock status of shark species is collected through both fishery dependent and fishery independent mechanisms, including the fishery independent surveys, catch accounting system, and observer program. More detail is provided in “Source of Information” section (Above).

The BSAI skate complex is managed in aggregate, with a single set of harvest specifications applied to the entire complex. However, to generate the harvest recommendations the stock is divided into two units. Harvest recommendations for Alaska skate, the most abundant skate species in the BSAI, are made using the results of an age structured model and Tier 3. The remaining species (“other skates”) are managed

120 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

under Tier 5 due to a lack of data. The Tier 3 and Tier 5 recommendations are combined to generate recommendations for the complex as a whole (Ormseth, 2019a).

Figure 23: Alaska skate harvest recommendations for the BSAI (Ormseth, 2018)

There are currently no target fisheries for skates in the GOA, and directed fishing for skates is prohibited. Incidental catches in other fisheries are sufficiently high that skates are considered to be “in the fishery” and harvest specifications are required. The GOA skate complex is managed as three units. big skate and longnose skate have separate harvest specifications, with Gulf-wide overfishing levels (OFLs) and Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) specified for each GOA regulatory area (western [WGOA], central [CGOA], and eastern [EGOA]). All remaining skate species are managed as an “other skates” group, with Gulf-wide harvest specifications. All GOA skates are managed under Tier 5, where OFL and ABC are based on survey biomass estimates and natural mortality rate. Effective January 27, 2016 NOAA’s Alaska Regional Office indefinitely reduced the maximum retainable amount for all skates in the GOA from 20% to 5% (Ormseth, 2019b).

121 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 24: Big skate harvest recommendations for the GOA (Ormseth, 2019)

Figure 25: Longnose skate harvest recommendations for the GOA (Ormseth, 2019)

Information

122 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The Alaska skate is distributed throughout the EBS shelf habitat area (Figure 6), most commonly at depths of 50 to 200 m, and has accounted for between 91% and 97% of aggregate skate biomass estimates since species identification became reliable in 1999. Alaska skate is also found on the EBS slope and in the AI, but in much smaller numbers. Bottom trawl surveys of the northern Bering Sea (NBS) conducted by the AFSC in 2010, 2017, and 2018 indicate that substantial numbers of Alaska skate occur in the NBS area; they are also the only skate species that has been observed so far in the NBS.

In September 2012 a report on skate stock structure was submitted to the Plan Team. The report was an evaluation of the potential for conservation concerns arising from among-species differences in spatial distribution within the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) skate complex and the distribution of fishery catches. Evaluation of spatial management concerns is seriously hampered by a lack of reliable species- level catch accounting, which is the highest priority for enhancing skate conservation and management. Although too sparse to properly evaluate the issue, the available data suggest that the current spatial management practice (i.e. BSAI-wide harvest specifications and catch accounting) is appropriate for this complex. The overall exploitation rate is low relative to natural mortality. The following figures from the complex’s 2018 stock assessment provide addition information.

Figure 26: Spawning biomass estimates for Alaska skates in the BSAI (Ormseth, 2018)

123 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 27: Tragectory of relative fishing mortality and relative spawning biomass for Alaska skates in the BSAI (Ormseth, 2018)

There are several indices of skate abundance in the GOA, including longline and trawl surveys. Because of the comprehensive spatial coverage the NMFS uses bottom trawl survely as its primary source of skate stock assessment information. In recent years big skate biomass has fluctuated with an overall declining trend, whereas the biomass of longnose skates has increased since 2011. The biomass of other skates included in this complex declined in 2015 and 2017. The following figure from the complex’s 2017 stock assessment present this data in more detail.

124 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 28: Biomass estimates for big skates (top), longnose skates (middle), and other skates in the GOA (Ormseth, 2019b)

125 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Species: Shark complex (Pacific sleeper shark, spiny dogfish, salmon shark, other/unidentified sharks) The Pacific sleeper shark (Somniosus pacificus) ranges in the North Pacific from Japan along the Siberian coast to the Bering Sea and southward to southern California and Baja California, Mexico. In Alaskan marine waters, they occur on the continental shelf and slope of the Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska. Their total length is in excess of 365 cm for females and 397 cm for males. Little is known about their reproduction. Tagging studies show that they demonstrate limited geographic movement (<100km/yr). They feed on cetaceans, seals, flatfish, rockfish, pollock, and invertebrate species including crab.

One of the five species belonging to the family Lamnidae, the salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) is a close relative of the Atlantic and Southern Pacific porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus). Salmon sharks have been documented at depths of 668 m. The salmon shark is a coastal-littoral and pelagic shark that ranges close inshore to just off beaches. They occur alone or in fleets or aggregations of many particularly during dense salmon and schooling fish runs. Salmon sharks are found along the West coast of the United States from California to Alaksa, ranging as far West as the Aleutians and the Sea of Japan. Female salmon sharks reach maturity after about 10-12 years with males maturing a few years sooner. Adult salmon sharks have been verified to reach almost 10 feet long and several hundred pounds with males being relatively smaller and lighter in form. As with other high performance open ocean predators like tunas and swordfishes, lamnid sharks have a unique ability to sustain elevated body temperatures relative to surrounding water temps (Pelagic Shark Research Foundation, 2020).

The Pacific sleeper shark, spiny dogfish, and salmon shark are the most common shark species that interact with the HAL fishery in the BSAI and GOA. There were no recorded shark interactions with the BSAI and GOA pot fishery. For 2019–2020, the BSAI fishery impacts to the shark complex as a whole include the following: For 2019–2020 the recommended maximum allowable ABC is 517 t and the OFL is 689 t for the shark complex, which are the same as the previous assessment (Tribuzio et al. 2018a). . Current catches are well below the recommended ABC because sharks are generally considered undesirable. . Due to the 2 million ton cap in the BSAI, the total allowable catch (TAC) has been set well below the recommended ABC since the inception of the shark complex in 2011. . Total shark catch in 2017 was 142 t and catch in 2018 was 94 t, as of October 9, 2018. . The stock complex was not subject to overfishing last year, and data do not exist to determine if the complex is overfished. . The HAL fishery’s GOA impacts to the shark complex according to the most recent 2018 assessment include: . There is no evidence to suggest that over fishing is occurring for any shark species in the GOA because the OFL has not been exceeded.

126 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

. Total shark catch in 2017 was 1,632 t and catch in 2018 was 2,141 t as of October 9, 2018. The authors recommend that the shark complex be managed with spiny dogfish as a Tier 5 species using Model 15.3A and the remaining sharks as Tier 6 species using Model 11.0. . The recommended ABC is 8,184 t and OFL is 10,913 t for the shark complex. This is an 81% increase over the 2018 ABC of 4,514 t. This increase is due to the structural changes between Model 15.1 and Model 15.3A. . There are currently no directed commercial fisheries for shark species in federally or state managed waters of the GOA, and most incidental catch is not retained (Tribuzio et al. 2018b). . The BSAI shark complex (Pacific sleeper shark, spiny dogfish, salmon shark, and other/unidentified sharks) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) is assessed on a biennial stock assessment schedule. In even years a full stock assessment document is presented. BSAI sharks are a Tier 6 complex with the over fishing limit (OFL) based on maximum historical catch between the years 2003–2015 and acceptable biological catch (ABC) is 75% of OFL.

The GOA shark complex is regularly assessed on a biennial stock assessment schedule. The 2017 assessment was delayed until 2018 to coincide with the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BSAI) shark stock complex assessment and in future years both assessments will be done in even years. GOA sharks have been a Tier 6 complex.

Species: Pacific cod Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) is a transoceanic species, commonly found on the continental shelf and upper slope, occurring at depths from shoreline to 500 m. Pacific cod is distributed widely over the BSAI and GOA areas. Pacific cod are managed under two Fishery Management Plans: one for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands region and the other for the Gulf of Alaska region. Information on the stock status of Pacific Cod species is collected through both fishery dependent and fishery independent mechanisms, including the fishery independent surveys, catch accounting system, and observer program. More detail is provided in “Source of Information” section (Above). The species is managed as a Tier 5 species. Catch in all Alaskan federal fisheries exceeded the ABC in 2018. In the Aleutian Islands, the TAC has been reduced so that the catch will not exceed the ABC. In the Eastern Bering Sea, the TAC was exceded in 2018, though from 1980 through 2018 TAC averaged about 85% of ABC and the catch has not exceeded the OFL (Thompson et al., 2019; Thompson and Thorson, 2019; Barbeaux et al., 2019).

Species: Thornyheads (Shortspine thornyhead, Longspine thornyhead) Thornyheads (Sebastolobus spp.) are groundfish belonging to the family Scorpanenidae, which contains the rockfishes. Thornyheads are distributed in deep water habitats throughout the north Pacific. NOAA classifies the thornyhead complex as a Tier 5 stock (because of the absence of age information needed for age-structured assessment models) and is on a biennial stock assessment schedule with a full stock assessment produced in even years and no stock assessment produced in odd years. The recommended

127 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

overfishing limit for 2020 is 2,688 t. The five year average catch in all GOA fisheries is 1,109 t which does not exceed the 2020 ABC of 2,016 t. Currently, the stock was not being subjected to overfishing. There is currently no directed fishery for the thornyhead species complex, but they are commonly caught and retained as part of the groundfish trawl and HAL fisheries. Despite thornyheads being one of the most valuable of the rockfish species, they are not being subject to a directed fishery and they are still managed using a “bycatch only” status in the BSAI and GOA (Echave and Hulson, 2018).

Species: Rockfish (shortraker, rougheye, dusky, northern rockfish) The shortraker (Sebaster borealis), rougheye (S. aleutianus), dusky (S. ciliates), and northern rockfish (S. polyspinis) are groundfish belonging to the family Scorpanenidae. Many species are distributed along the continental slope in the north Pacific from Point Conception in southern California to Japan. Characteristics of rockfishes including fidelity to localized habitats, slow growth, late maturation, and remarkably long life spans. Approximately 36 species of Sebastes have been documented by fishery observers in the waters off Alaska. The shortraker stock is classified as a Tier 5 stock. All other species in this complex are assessed as Tier 3 stocks. The shortraker and dusky rockfish stocks in the GOA are not being subjected to overfishing, are not currently overfished, nor are they approaching a condition of being overfished. The rougheye rockfish stock in the GOA is not being subjected to overfishing, is not currently overfished, nor is it approaching a condition of being overfished. The northern rockfish stock in the BSAI is not being subjected to overfishing, is not currently overfished, nor is it approaching a condition of being overfished (NOAA, 2018).

Additional species In addition to the above memtioned species, the following species/complexes interect with the BSAI and GOA HAL and pot fisheries and were classified as Minor Primary species by the assessment team: . Sculpin complex: Bigmouth (Hemitripterus bolini), great (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus), plain (M. jaok) yellow Irish lord (Hemilepidotus jordani). Stock is classified as a Tier 5 in the BSAI and GOA. . Flounder: Arrowtooth (Atheresthes stomias) and Kamchatka (A. evermanni). Stocks in the BSAI and GOA are managed with the Tier 3 assessment model. . Octopus complex: Eight species (Octopus sp.) including the giant Pacific octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) and (E. dofleini). Harvest recommendations for the octopus complex in the BSAI and GOA are made using a modified Tier 6 approach . Greenland Turbot (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides): Assessed as a Tier 3 stock in the BSAI. . Pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus): The stock is assessed at Tier 3 in the BSAI and GOA . Pacific Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus): The stock is assessed at Tier 3 in the BSAI and GOA . Sole complex: Flathead (Hippoglossoides elassodon), rex (Glyptocephalus zachirus), rock (Lepidopsetta bilineata), yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera). Flathead is managed in Tier 3 in the

128 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

BSAI and GOA and rex is manaded as Tier 3 in the GOA. Rock is managed as a Tier 1 stock in the BSAI and GOA. Yellowfin qualifies as a Tier 1 stock in the BSAI. . Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus monopterygius): Atka mackerel is managed under Tier 6 in the BSAI and GOA. . Pacific Hake (whiting) (Mercluccius productus): Assessed by the Joint Technical Committee of the Pacific Hake/Whiting Agreement Between the Governments of the United States and Canada. . Alaska plaice (Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus): Alsaka plaice is managed as a single species under Tier 3 in the BSAI.

Bait

Bait types and estimated amounts were presented for the HAL and pot fisheries in Table 19 and Table 20. No single species exceeded 5% and therefore the assessment team classified them as Primary minor species. The following is a description of the most notable bait species used in these fisheries:

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) is a coastal schooling species. They are found in large schools in depths from the surface to 1,300 feet (400 m). Herring can live up to 19 years. Adult Pacific herring migrate inshore, entering estuaries to breed once per year, with timing varying by latitude. Herring feed on phytoplankton and zooplankton in nutrient-rich waters associated with oceanic upwelling. Young feed mainly on crustaceans, but also eat decapod and mollusk larvae, whereas adults prey mainly on large crustaceans and small fishes. Herring population abundance trends are very dynamic and are subject to fairly substantial changes on both large and small geographic scales. The primary cause for such fluctuations in abundance is environmental change that affects herring growth and recruitment. The Southeast Alaska Herring Management plan (5 AAC 27.190(3)) requires the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to assess the abundance of mature herring for each stock before allowing commercial harvest. Harvest policies are then guided by a maximum exploitation rate of 20% of the mature biomass, which is consistent with other herring fisheries on the west coast of North America. In 2018 ADFG undertook stock assessment surveys, including summaries of herring spawn deposition surveys and age-weight-length sampling, which are the principle model inputs used to forecast herring abundance. During the 2017– 2018 season, a commercial winter bait fishery was opened in Craig with a guideline harvest level of 1,387 tons. A commercial purse seine sac-roe fishery was opened in Sitka Sound with a guideline harvest level of 11,128 tons. A commercial spawn-on-kelp fishery was open in Craig, with an allocation of 1,602 tons of herring. Herring harvested commercially during the 2017–2018 season totaled 3,636 tons, not including herring pounded for spawn-on-kelp fisheries (Hebert, 2018).

Alaska Pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) Pollock is a semi-pelagic schooling fish widely distributed in the North Pacific Ocean. The pollock target fishery in the Gulf of Alaska is entirely shore-based with approximately 95% of the catch taken with pelagic trawls. Pollock in the central and western Gulf of Alaska (GOA) are managed as a single stock independently of pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. In the GOA it is assessed as a Tier 3 species. Trawl surveys have been conducted by Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) beginning in 1984 to assess

129 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

the abundance of groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska. Starting in 2001, the survey frequency was increased from once every three years to once every two years. The catch estimate for the most recent complete year (2018) is 158,095 t, which is less than the 2018 OFL of 187,059 t. but above the ABC of 158,518. Therefore, the stock is not subject to overfishing and spawning biomass, estimated to be 227,000 t in 2019, is above B35% (170,000 t). Therefore, GOA pollock is not currently overfished (Dorn et al, 2019). The AI pollock stock assessment has changed to a biennial cycle with full assessments in even years timed with the Aleutian Islands bottom trawl survey, and partial assessments in odd years. The estimates of spawning biomass for 2019 and 2020 from the current year (2019) projection model are 98,172 t and 102,413 t, respectively. The 2019 total catch was 70 t while ABC is 52,887 and OFL is 64,240 t. The 2019 estimate is above B35% at 71,147 t. The stock is not being subject to overfishing, is not currently overfished, nor is it approaching a condition of being overfished (Barbeaux et al., 2019). Alaska pollock is the dominant species in terms of catch in the EBS region, accounting for 70% of the groundfish harvest. ABC for 2019 was 2,163,000 t and OFL was 3,913,000 t and the total catch was 1,365,549. The stock is not being subject to overfishing, is not currently overfished, nor is it approaching a condition of being overfished (Ianelli et al, 2019).

Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentines) have a very fast life cycle and only live for about one year. During that time, they grow from tiny (one millimeter) juveniles to their maximum size, reproduce once, and die. This species actively feeds on pelagic crustaceans, other squids, and small bony fishes. Throughout their short lifetime, individuals eat a variety of prey of different sizes. The Argentine Squid is the target of an extremely large fishery, throughout its range. The management framework includes a set of policies and measures designed to promote the sustainability of fishery resources including: (i) establishment and subsequent expansion of the restricted area for protecting juvenile common hake and other species—an area currently comprising nearly 400,000 km2 ; (ii) establishment of a satellite-based Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) for the fishing fleet, designed to oversee compliance at sea with the prohibitions on fishing in the restricted areas; (iii) a requirement to place inspectors and observers aboard the commercial fleet to monitor catches and compliance with fishing regulations; and (iv) instituting Individual and Transferable Catch Quotas (CITC) (IADB 2013). In some recent years, as many as one million metric tonnes (2.2 billion pounds) of this species have been captured in a single fishing season. It is the second largest (by weight) squid fishery in the world. Catch levels have varied significantly in recent years, with some years being much lower than the million tonne maximums, but populations seem to consistently bounce back (likely a result of the very fast life cycle and high number of eggs produced by each female). In a recent analysis of this species, scientists determined it to be of least concern (Clyde et al. 1984). There is a formal stock assessment process for this species carried out by the Falkland Islands Fisheries Department. In its 2019 assessment, the stock was not considered to be overfished (Winter, 2019).

East Coast Squid Longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) has a lifespan of less than one year. The species grows quickly, up to 1.6 feet mantle length but usually less than one foot and is most abundant between Georges Bank and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina They have a short life span, reproducing right before

130 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

they die at around six to eight months old. Their growth and development is highly sensitive to environmental conditions. The Northwest Atlantic population of longfin squid is managed as a single stock. During 2016, the last available assessment by NMFS, the longfin squid stock was not overfished. During 1976-2016, annual biomass ranged between 25,806 t and 175,894 t. The stock is believed to be lightly exploited because annual catches during 1987-2016 were less than annual biomass and did not result in a multi-year decrease in biomass (Hendrickson, 2017).

Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) have wide distribution in the Pacific, and historically have been the most abundant of the salmon along the coast. Chum salmon experience a rapid growth rate during their first few months at sea and reach maturity at around four years old. Although chum salmon has low fecundity and its spawning behaviour makes it vulnerable to net fishing pressure, this is partially offset by the production of large eggs that the fish buries. That strategy, in addition to substantial hatchery production, make it resilient to fishing pressure. The Alaskan chum salmon fishery has extensive management measures in place that include scientific monitoring, gear restrictions, bycatch reduction measures, and a limited entry program to control capacity. The 2014 chum salmon harvest of 6.7 million fish ranks 21st since statehood and was below the recent 10-year average of 10.5 million. Most chum salmon production in the region is attributable to hatchery production. Before hatchery chum salmon production became significant in 1984, the 1962–1983 regional average chum salmon harvest was 1.6 million (Munro and Volk, 2015). While some chum salmon populations were once overfished, most stocks are currently considered healthy.

7.3.1.6 Secondary Main Species

Species: Grenadier Complex (Giant Grenadier, Pacific Grenadier) Biology Grenadiers (Albatrossia spp.) are deep-sea fishes related to hakes and cods that occur world-wide in all oceans. Also known as “rattails”, they are especially abundant in waters of the continental slope, but some species are found at abyssal depths. At least seven species of grenadier are known to occur in Alaskan waters, but only three are commonly found at depths shallow enough to be encountered in commercial fishing operations or in fish surveys: giant grenadier (Albatrossia pectoralis), Pacific grenadier (Coryphaenoides acrolepis), and popeye grenadier (Coryphaenoides cinereus) (Mecklenburg et al., 2002). Of these, giant grenadier has the shallowest depth distribution, overlapping primarily with the sablefish distribution, and the largest apparent biomass, and hence is by far the most frequently caught grenadier in Alaska (Rodgveller and Hulson, 2014). Giant grenadier range from Baja California, Mexico around the arc of the north Pacific Ocean to Japan, including the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk (Mecklenburg et al., 2002), and they are also found on seamounts in the Gulf of Alaska and on the Emperor Seamount chain in the North Pacific (Clausen, 2008). In Alaska, they are especially abundant on the continental slope in waters >400 m depth.

131 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Status Due to a lack of necessary information, NMFS cannot establish a minimum stock size threshold from which to determine whether grenadier species complex (a Tier 5 stock) are overfished or approaching an overfished condition; however, on annual basis, NMFS can determine whether overfishing is occurring for tiers 4 and 5 stocks. The Alaska Fisheries Science Center estimates the grenadier species complex OFL in the annual Tier 5 stock assessment. For 2015, the maximum allowable ABC for the BSAI is 75,274 t and for the GOA is 30,691 t (Table 23) (Rodgveller and Hulson, 2014).). This ABC is a 12% increase for the BSAI and a 12% decrease for the GOA. The majority of this catch occurs in the longline fishery which comprised an average of 6,281.56 mt for fishing seasons 2013-2014. The halibut longline fishery accounted for an additional 643.33 mt of grenadier bycatch, although this was likely caught on trips that targeted both sablefish and halibut, because giant grenadier are rarely at the depth fished for halibut. The inclusion of giant grenadier bycatch is a result of the artifact that the catch accounting system designates halibut v. sablefish trips based on the total poundage of species landed, meaning even if a trip targeted sablefish but landed more halibut, the CAS would reflect a species composition more characteristic of a sablefish trip. Overfishing is not occurring in either the BSAI or GOA. Grenadiers catch is well below OFL and ABC and thus not subject to overfishing and there is no indication that grenadier are overfished or approaching an overfished condition

Table 23. Tier 5 computations for giant grenadier OFL and ABC are summarized as follows (AI = Aleutian Islands, EBS = Eastern Bering Sea, GOA = Gulf of Alaska; biomass, OFL, and ABC are in mt) for 2015 (Rodgveller and Hulson 2014)

Management Traditionally grenadiers have not been included in the BSAI and GOA Groundfish FMPs, despite the high level of bycatch in the longline fishery. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council recently adopted a Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA) to include grenadiers in the Ecosystem Component of the FMPs. Species or species groups can be included and considered in the Ecosystem Component if they are: 1. A non-targeted species or species group; 2. Not subject to overfishing, overfished, or approaching an overfished condition;

132 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

3. Not likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished in the absence of conservation and management measures; and 4. Not generally retained (a small amount could be retained) for sale or commercial use.

Under the PPA, NMFS will establish record-keeping and reporting requirements for grenadiers, and grenadiers would be closed to “directed fishing.” Further, Maximum Retainable Amount of grenadiers as an incidental catch species would be established and limit grenadier retained catch to 8% (NPFMC 2014). These measures improve catch estimation, thereby helping to reduce scientific uncertainty, as well as preventing “unmanaged target fishing” of grenadiers. This Council action provides management measures necessary to reduce the vulnerability of grenadiers to overfishing as an incidental catch species (NMFS 2013). FMPs may be reviewed by the Council to determine whether changing conditions have changed the applicability of the “ecosystem component” species classification criteria for a species. If viable markets for grenadiers can be developed then the “not generally retained for sale or personal use” and possibly the “a non-targeted species or species group” criteria may no longer be valid (NMFS 2013). If dramatically increased catch were to occur in the future then the “not subject to overfishing and/or overfished” criteria may no longer be valid. If such changes in criteria become a future concern the Council could initiate analysis of whether grenadiers meet the criteria for being reclassified as “in the fishery.”

Information NMFS has not assessed the complex as part of its North Pacific groundfish stock assessments since 2014. Information on the stock status of grenadier species is collected through both fishery dependent and fishery independent mechanisms, including the fishery independent surveys, catch accounting system, and observer program. More detail is provided in Sources of Information (Above).

While little is presently known about the interactions of grenadiers with other groundfish species, the PPA (discussed above) may improve the level of scientific knowledge through, at a minimum, recording of their harvest and/or placing limits on their harvests. Thus, PPA does provide the precautionary management structure needed to sustainably manage the grenadier stock to potentially promote its sustainability and the sustainability of other groundfish species with which grenadier may have important ecological interactions.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has identified several research priorities (Rodgveller and Hulson 2014) for this species complex that include:

a. Because early life history information for giant grenadier is nil, studies are also needed to investigate where larvae and young juveniles reside. b. Evaluation of the catchability of giant grenadier in the bottom trawl surveys, which would affect the accuracy of subsequent biomass estimates. Studies are needed on whether this fish is a completely benthic species or if individuals sometimes move off-bottom.

133 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

c. Validation of the AFSC Research Ecology and Fisheries Management (REFM) Division aging methodology for giant grenadier. d. Further analysis and study of competition for hooks that may affect giant grenadier catch rates on the AFSC longline survey. e. Continue a study to examine if the three different shapes of otoliths found in giant grenadier. f. Represent separate species or subpopulations. This is an ongoing cooperative project between the Marine Ecology and Stock Assessment program at Auke Bay Laboratories (ABL), REFM Age and Growth Lab, and the ABL genetics lab.

Species: Sea birds (Northern fulmar, gulls, shearwaters) In the HAL fishery, one seabird species (Northern fulmar) and two groups (gulls, shearwaters) are the most commonly taken and are considered main secondary species. According to Krieger et al. (2019), the pot fishery has only recorded one seabird (Northern fulmar) as bycatch since 2012.

The northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) or Arctic fulmar, is a highly abundant sea bird found primarily in subarctic regions of the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans. From 2015 through 2019 1,232 Northern Fulmar were taken in the HAL fishery, an average of 246 birds per year. The global population size is extremely large and appears to be increasing, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable. When compared to estimates of the total population size estimate of 7,000,000 pairs or 20,000,000 individuals, the fishery accounts for a negligible annual mortality of the species (BirdLife International, 2020).

There are over 20 resident gull species in Alaska, including three large gulls: glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens), glaucous gull (L. hyperboreus), and herring gull (L. argentatus). Gulls tend to colonize and are very aggressive, often exhibiting much antagonism toward members of their own and other species. In late winter and early spring, glaucous-winged gulls appear at their colony sites, often before the snow melts. They prefer open, grassy hillsides of islands but will nest in a variety of locations. Colony size may range from less than 10 to as many as 10,000 pairs (ADFG, 1998) and most species are of least concern according to the IUCN Redlist.

Short-tailed (Ardenna tenuirostris) and sooty (A. griseus) shearwaters breed in the Southern Hemisphere, in and near Australia and New Zealand. After breeding, they migrate huge distances to spend the austral winter in the highly productive waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas. They are both some of the most abundant seabirds in the world with estimated global populations of about 20 million for each species. They are common in the pelagic waters of Alaska during the northern summer although declines have been noted recently in some areas including evidence that the sooty shearwater has disappeared from some former nesting islands in New Zealand because of habitat degradation (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2006; Audubon, 2020).

134 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.3.1.7 Secondary Minor Species HAL and pot All Secondary Minor species in the HAL fishery are taken at low levels. These species groups include: sea stars, sea anemones, corals/bryozoans, snails, and sponges. Trends in their relative abundance are monitored in trawl surveys and reported in the Ecosystem SAFE reports (Siddon and Zador 2018). Various species groups and complexes are considered Secondary Minor species in the pot fishery, including: snails, crabs, sea stars, urchins/dollars/cucumbers, brittle stars, and sea anemones. Relative abundance data, coupled with the low catches of these taxa, indicate that these Secondary Minor species are exploited are very low levels.

Bait Pacific Saury Pacific saury (Taiwan/Korea/Japan) (Cololabis saira) is widely distributed in the western North Pacific from subarctic to subtropical waters and is an important pelagic species in Japan, Russia, Korea, and Taiwan. The total landings of this species in these countries increased from 171,692 metric tons (t) in 1998 to 449,738 t in 2011. NMFS consideres the stock to be data poor and its Vulnerability Evaluation Working Group produced a productivity and susceptibility indice in 2009 to determine the vulnerability of the stock which received a susceptibility score of 1.91, a productivity score of 2.70 and a vulnerability score of 0.96 (Patrick et al., nd) . This analysis do not extend to the Taiwan/Korea/Japan stock.

135 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.3.1.8 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species Hook and line gear Species: Short-tailed Albatross Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) are large (body length 33 to 37 inches; wingspan 84 to 90 inches) pelagic birds in the order Procellariiformes (tube-nosed marine birds; USFWS 2008). Short-tailed albatross are long-lived and first breed at age five or six years, with females laying one egg each year (USFWS 2008). Nesting areas are open and treeless, with little vegetation. Most of the birds breed at the Tsubamezaki colony on Torishima Island, which is an active volcano.

In the non-breeding season, short-tailed albatross primarily range along the continental shelf and slope regions of the North Pacific (Figure 29), possibly due to the presence of squid, which are an important prey species (Figure (Suryan et al. 2006). The predominant amount of post-breeding time is spent off Alaska, and large groups have been observed over the Bering Sea canyons, which serve to funnel water and food onto the shelf edge (Piatt et al. 2006). Short-tailed albatross are also more active during the day than night (Suryan et al. 2007, as cited in USFWS 2008).

Figure 29. Short-tailed albatross locations tracked between 2002 and 2012, showing adult (red) and juvenile (orange) distributions in the North Pacific. Where shown, white lines represent the exclusive economic zones of countries within the range of the short-tailed albatross (USFWS, 2014).

Status

136 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the species declined to near extinction, primarily as a result of hunting at the breeding colonies in Japan. Although population estimates of short-tailed albatross before exploitation are not known, there are estimates of at least 300,000 breeding pairs on the island of Torishima, Japan alone (USFWS 2008). Historically, albatross were killed for their feathers and various body parts, and eggs were collected for food (USFWS 2008). Starting in about 1885, the feather trade contributed to the decline and near extinction of the short-tailed albatross.

Originally numbering in the millions, the worldwide population of breeding age birds is estimated to be approximately 1,928 individuals and the worldwide total population is approximately 4,354 individuals (USFWS 2014; the population was estimated at 400 in 1988, 700 in 1994). The current population status was recently reviewed in detail by USFWS (2014), which stated that “The 3-year running average population growth rate based on eggs laid at Torishima since 2000 ranges from 5.2 - 9.4 percent.” There was a translocation effort at Mukojima in the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands from 2008-2012 and early accounts seem promising. Additionally, a pair of short-tailed albatross at Midway Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands has successfully bred during three seasons (USFWS 2014).

The incidental take levels of short-tailed albatross have not been exceeded during the current or any previous biological opinions. However, in 2014, NMFS confirmed that two short-tailed albatross were taken by one vessel in the AK Pacific cod hook and line groundfish fishery. These represented the second take of short-tailed albatross in a two-year period and resulted in a re-initialization of the biological opinion. The revised final biological opinion issued by the USFWS determined that activities by the north pacific groundfish fleet are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Short Tailed Albatross (USFWS 2015).

Management NMFS re-initiated consultation with USFWS because increases in the short-tailed albatross population in conjunction with increases in observer coverage and total effort (as estimated by total hooks deployed), increase the likelihood of observing short-tailed albatross interactions in the groundfish fisheries, especially where short-tailed albatross have historically been taken (NMFS 2015). Given the increase in short-tailed albatross population, there is concern from NMFS, the Council, USFWS, and the industry that exceeding the take level from the biological opinion (USFWS 2003b) could result in an interruption to fishing prior to reinitiating consultation. The revised final Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS determined that activities by the north pacific groundfish fleet are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross (USFWS 2015). The biological opinion stipulated several Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) that are necessary and appropriate for NMFS to minimize take of short- tailed albatross:

a. RPM 1: The NMFS shall minimize the risk of short-tailed albatross interacting with the hook and- line fishery. Because short-tailed albatross are caught and killed by baited hooks in the hook-and- line fishery, minimization measures shall be employed to reduce the likelihood that they will attack the baited hooks.

137 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

b. RPM2: The NMFS shall establish a multi-stakeholder, Alaska Groundfish and Short-tailed Albatross Working Group as an advisory body to the NMFS and the USFWS for the purposes of reducing fishery interactions with short-tailed albatross and seabirds. This group will work toward facilitating adaptive management to minimize and avoid take of short-tailed albatross and other seabirds. c. RPM3: The NMFS shall monitor the groundfish fisheries for interactions with short-tailed albatross and report all observed, reported and estimated takes, of short-tailed albatross to the Service, and report on the efficacy of avoidance and minimization measures. d. RPM4: The NMFS shall facilitate the salvage of short-tailed albatross carcasses taken by longline or trawl fishing vessels. Every effort should be made to retain short-tailed albatross carcasses for scientific and educational purposes.

Incidental take limits have been established by NMFS for the short-tailed albatross based on USFWS Biological Opinion. Incidental take limits (i.e. mortalities) are set such that—since 2016/2017—up to 6 short-tailed albatrosses are allowed to be taken in the BSAI and GOA hook and line or trawl fisheries over a 2-year period (Eich 2018). Up two incidental takes of short-tailed albatrosses over a two-year period are allowed in the Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska. If the take limit is exceeded, then NMFS would initiate discussions with USFWS regarding actions to take.

All longline vessels >55’ are required to use seabird avoidance devices (Figure 30) that have been demonstrated to markedly reduce seabird mortality. The adoption of these measures has reduced seabird takes by one-third (Fitzgerald et al. 2008), and albatross takes by 85% (Fitzgerald et al. 2008). Several other methods for reducing seabird bycatch are also used by fishers including setting at night, using weights on gear to decrease sink time, offal discharge regulations, and under water setting tubes. Although reductions in seabird catch have been significant in the last several years, some seabirds are still caught in the sablefish fishery.

If a short-tailed albatross is hooked and there is a fisheries observer on board the vessel, the observer will report the short-tailed albatross take to NMFS. The USFWS will be notified of the take within 48 business day hours. If there is not an observer on board the vessel, NMFS requests that the albatross specimen be retained and reported immediately to NMFS or USFWS (NMFS 2015).

138 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 30. Streamer lines used to reduce seabird bycatch in hook-and-line fisheries (Melvin 2000).

In the short-tailed albatross incidental take statement (USFWS 2015), USFWS anticipated up to six short- tailed albatross could be reported taken bi-annually (every 2 years) as a result of the hook-and-line groundfish fishing activities in the BSAI and GOA areas regulated by NMFS. The Alaska groundfish fisheries have not exceeded the incidental take allowed by the incidental take statement. If the take was exceeded, NMFS would have to cease the activities (e.g. groundfish fishery) causing the take, until a consultation is reinitiated. In reality, consultation can be reinitiated quite quickly.

Information NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) annually updates estimates of seabirds caught as bycatch in commercial groundfish and halibut fisheries operating in Federal waters off Alaska. This annual report details seabird bycatch estimates by gear type for the years 2010 through 2018 (Krieger et al. 2019).

The Observer Program monitors fish, bycatch, and marine mammal and seabird interactions in Alaska’s federally managed groundfish fisheries and parallel groundfish fisheries in State waters. The Observer Program also monitors catch of sablefish allocated under the IFQ and CDQ Program. Information collected by observers, used in conjunction with reporting and weighing requirements, provides the foundation for in-season management and for tracking species-specific catch and bycatch amounts. All observers entering the Observer Program receive training on seabird data collection responsibilities and how to identify dead seabirds, as well as specific information for the identification of species of interest including short-tailed albatross, red legged kittiwake, Steller’s and spectacled eiders, and marbled and Kittlitz’s murrelets (AFSC 2015). This training is provided during their initial 3-week certification course. Each subsequent year, observers receive a briefing before their first deployment that reviews seabird data collection and identifications (NMFS 2015f).

139 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

NMFS has estimated seabird bycatch using Catch Accounting System in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries since 2007 and in the sablefish fisheries since 2013 (Fitzgerald et al. 2013). Seabird estimates are based on at-sea sampling by observers (AFSC 2015). In the CAS, observer data are used to create seabird bycatch rates (a ratio of the estimated bycatch to the estimated total catch in sampled hauls). The observer information from the at-sea samples is used to create bycatch rates that are applied to unobserved vessels. For trips that are unobserved, the bycatch rates are applied to industry supplied landings of retained catch. Expanding on the observer data that are available, the extrapolation from observed vessels to unobserved vessels is based on varying levels of aggregated data (post-stratification). Data are matched based on processing sector (e.g., CP or CV), week, target fishery, gear, and Federal reporting area (NMFS 2015). Krieger et al. (2019) report that no short-tailed albatross have been caught as bycatch by the sablefish and halibut HAL fishery in the last 10 years.

Species: Black-footed albatross, Laysan albatross Status Black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) have vulnerable life-histories (e.g. low reproduction outputs, long life spans), and as out of scope species were classified as Main Bycatch in the 2016 reassessment of the US North Pacific halibut fishery and the US North Pacific sablefish fishery. Since this time, both species were added to Annex I of the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP, 2018) and are therefore, according to SA3.1.5.2, considered ETP species for this assessment, though the US remains a non-party to the Convention and the species. Though not listed in the country’s ESA, laysan and black-footed albatross are listed as birds of conservation concern by USFWS, which means that without additional conservation efforts, they are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA (Krieger et al., 2019). Laysan albatross was downgraded from vulnerable to near threatened in 2012 according to the IUCN redlist. BFA are also classified as near threatened.

Management Required seabird bycatch mitigation measures, as stated under NOAA Wildlife and Fisheries Title 50 CFR part 679:

• Vessels > 55 ft LOA in the EEZ must use a minimum of a paired streamer line of a specified performance and material standard • Vessels > 26 ft LOA and ≤ 55 ft LOA must use a minimum of a single (if using snap gear) or paired (if using other than snap gear) streamer line of a specified performance and material standard

Information In 2018, NOAA produced a summary report on seabird bycatch and mitigation efforts in Alaska Fisheries covering 2016-2017 (Eich et al. 2018). There have been no takes of short-tailed albatross 2015-2017 (as of October 25, 2017) (S. Fitzgerald, N).

140 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 31: Estimated albatross bycatch in Alaska groundfish and halibut fisheries from 2010 through 2018 (halibut fisheries 2013 through 2018 only). Blacked-footed albatross denoted by black triangles, Laysan albatross by gray circles, short-tailed albatross by c by charcoal squares

The most striking seabird bycatch trend has been the increase in catches of the BFA over the past few years, with Sablefish HAL contributing 53% and 43% from halibut HAL to overall bycatch estimated in GOA0F . Despite relatively high recent BFA bycatch in the halibut fishery, the bycatch occurring in the Sablefish GOA fishery is of greater concern, as this fishery operates largely over the continental shelf where interactions with BFA are more common (Eich et al. 2018). The Sablefish HAL fishery in GOA has consistently had the highest bycatch of BFA. The reason behind rising catches of BFA in GOA is currently unknown, and further research into environmental aspects such as food availability, and population abundance/distribution changes is needed (Eich et al. 2018; E. Melvin, Washington Sea Grant, personal communication).

Recent research regarding the population status of BFA and Laysan albatross as well as catch rates in the Alaska groundfish HAL highlight the importance of continued monitoring of this issue. Melvin et al (2019) analyzed 23 years catch rates across the four largest AK fisheries (HAL Sablefish, turbot, halibut, and cod). There was a precipitous decline in seabird bycatch throughout the early 2000s with the voluntary and later mandatory implementation of streamer lines on vessels x > 56ft LOA (Melvin et al., 2019). BPUE (birds per 1,000 hooks) dropped by 77-90% (Melvin et al. 2019). However, in recent years, there has been an increase in catch rates, though seabird bycatch is far below (magnitude of three and two times lower for albatross and non-albatross species) compared to pre-streamer line implementation levels (Melvin et al. 2019). Melvin et al (2019) describe: ‘The increasing trend in albatross BPUE in the Sablefish fishery was consistent across all four management areas, suggesting a pervasive, area-independent driver. In the Sablefish fishery the annual bycatch trends of nonalbatross species varied in all areas and were uncoupled

141 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

to trends in albatross BPUE, suggesting that in the same fishery albatrosses and nonalbatross species were responding to different forces.’

Reasons for the increase in seabird BPUE are unknown, but may be related to improper streamer line deployment, or changes in fishing effort or seabird spatial distribution (Melvin et al., 2019). Importantly, this research identified that ‘in the Sablefish fishery, three vessels accounted for 46% of the 94 albatrosses caught’, highlighting the opportunity for industry to identify and direct seabird conservation efforts toward certain vessels/areas.

A recent population evaluation of BFA found that fisheries bycatch appears to be limiting the population whilst Laysan albatross appear more affected by island-based threats, such as habitat conversion of breeding areas (Bakker et al., 2017). Given the pelagic nature and wide distribution of albatross species, population-wide census’s are extremely difficult. All reproduction for these species occurs on a limited number of islands. Population status of both these species is assessed through annual nest-counts conducted by USFW over the last 100 years. Evidence presented in this study, as well as others, identifies fisheries bycatch as a major factor negatively impacting the population, with BFA bycatch consistently exceeding the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) (Bakkar et al. 2017; Lewison and Crowder, 2003). It is important to highlight that BFA is a widely distributed species that interacts with many fisheries throughout its range, and therefore, there is no direct link between concerns with current fisheries bycatch levels and the AK Sablefish or halibut fishery. However, these latest BFA and Laysan analyses do highlight the need to continue to monitor the population status and catch rates of these species.

Sperm whale Biology Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) weigh between 35,000-57,000 kg frequent ocean waters to depths of up to 3,219 m. Their diets include mainly squid (including colossal squids and giant squids), octopuses and deepwater fishes, but they also prey upon sharks and skates. They are reported to consume approximately 3% of their body weight in squid per day. Females reach maturity at 8-11 years, and males mature at approximately 10 years, and the species’ life span can reach 77 years. Females give birth to a single calf after a gestation period of 14-16 months. Calves then nurse for up to 2 years (MarineBio, 2020).

Status Sperm whales are classified as endangered under the ESA. The IUCN’s Redlist considers the species endangered with a decreasing global population trend.

Management NMFS classifies fisheries that interact with ESA species in the following way: . Tier 1: Considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock, across all fisheries, is less than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with the stock will be placed in Category III (unless those fisheries interact with other stock(s) for which total

142 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the next tier (Tier 2) of analysis to determine their classification. . Tier 2: Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. o Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level (i.e., frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals). o Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level (i.e., occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals). o Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level (i.e., a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals). In 2020 NMFS classified the BSAI halibut HAL fishery as Category III for sperm whales and the GOA sablefish HAL fishery as Category II. PBR is calculated to be 0.5 sperm whales (Muto et al., 2019).

Information In the 2017 North Pacific sperm whale stock assessment report (SAR), the total annual level of human- caused mortality and serious injury for the population in 2011-2015 was 3.7 whales in US commercial fisheries. The largest threats are believed to come from entanglement and ship strikes due to increased vessel traffic due to increased shipping in higher latitudes. NMFS publishes its final List of Fisheries (LOF) for 2019, as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The LOF for 2019 reflected information on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. NMFS must classify each commercial fishery on the LOF into one of three categories under the MMPA based upon the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to each fishery. Yearly catches support adding the North Pacific stock of sperm whales to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Alaska Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands halibut longline fishery. The commenters also recommend NMFS elevate the Alaska Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands halibut longline fishery to a Category I fishery because the mean estimated annual mortality (1.5 sperm whales) exceeds the PBR level in the proposed 2018 stock assessment report of 0.5 sperm whales. NMFS responded to this comment by adding the North Pacific stock of sperm whales to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the BSAI halibut longline fishery as a Category III fishery where it remains in 2020 (NOAA, 2019).

Species: Yelloweye Rockfish Biology Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) are distributed in the northeastern Pacific Ocean from the western Gulf of Alaska to northern Baja California (Hart 1973, Love et al. 2002). Yelloweye are strongly associated with rocky bottom types, especially areas of high-relief such as caves and large boulders (Love et al. 2002). Mainly solitary, it is widely believed that yelloweye are very sedentary after settlement, with adults moving only short distances during their entire lifetime. They are long-lived (the oldest observed

143 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

age is 147 years, from Washington in 2005), late-maturing and slow growing. Adult yelloweye are piscivorous predators eating most small pelagic and groundfish species as available.

Status Yelloweye rockfish are listed as threatened under the ESA (NMFS, 2017). The coast-wide abundance of yelloweye rockfish is estimated to have dropped below the SB40% management target in 1988 and the overfished threshold in 1994. During 2002-2010, the total cumulative estimated yelloweye mortality (130 mt) represented only 69% of the summed ACLs and only 39% of the summed OFLs for that period. The total 2010 catch (11.4 mt) is just 3% of the peak annual catch that occurred in the early 1980s. These catch levels represent a 95% reduction from average catches observed in the 1980s and 1990s. Since 2002, the total 8-year cumulative catch (130 mt) has been only 69% of the sum of the ACLs for 2002-2010 and only 39% of the sum of the OFLs for that period. Yelloweye rockfish are caught coastwide in all sectors of the fishery. Yelloweye are particularly vulnerable to hook-and-line gears, including Halibut longlines, which are effective in the high relief habitats yelloweye reside. In aggregate, all sources of removals have been below both the OFL and ACL set for each year. The yelloweye population residing in the waters of Puget Sound is thought to be isolated from coastal waters and this Distinct Population Segment for the species is listed under the ESA. Furthermore, Puget Sound is designated as critical habitat for this species. While halibut longline operations have historically been a large source of Yelloweye bycatch, the current management measures are effectively limiting the impact of these fisheries on the rebuilding plan (NOAA, 2014).

Management Before 2000, yelloweye rockfish were managed as part of the Sebastes Complex, which included all Sebastes species without individual assessments, OFLs and ACLs (Previously termed ABCs and OYs but referred to under the current terms from here forward). In 2000, the Sebastes Complex was divided into three depth-based groups (for areas north and south of 40° 10’ N. latitude), and yelloweye rockfish were managed as part of the minor shelf rockfish group until 2002. Since then, there has been species-specific management, and total catch has been below both the OFL and ACL for yelloweye each year. These catch levels represent a 95% reduction from average catches observed in the 1980s and 1990s (Taylor and Wetzel 2011). Managers have constrained catches by eliminating all retention of yelloweye rockfish in both commercial and recreational fisheries, instituting broad spatial closures (some specifically for moving fixed-gear fleets away from known areas of yelloweye abundance), and creating new gear restrictions intended to reduce trawling in rocky shelf habitats and the coincident catch of rockfish in shelf flatfish trawls. Critical habitat was designated for yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio in the Puget Sound/ Georgia Basin in November 2014. Depth management is the main tool used for controlling yelloweye rockfish fishing mortality in the Washington and Oregon recreational fisheries.

Information Data for yelloweye rockfish are relatively sparse, especially regarding current trends. Historical catches are also uncertain, as yelloweye comprise a small percentage of overall rockfish removals and actual species-composition samples are infrequently available for historical analyses. In Alaska, sport harvest is estimated through the statewide harvest survey, creel sampling, and the charter logbook program. While there

144 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report remain uncertainties with respect to recreational catches of yelloweye, it does not represent a substantial concern for the rebuilding plan (Taylor 2011). The following research topics were suggested in the 2009 assessment and are repeated here with minor modifications and additions. Progress on these points could improve the ability of this assessment to reliably model the yelloweye rockfish population dynamics in the future and provide better monitoring of progress toward rebuilding:

1. Develop and implement a comprehensive visual survey. 2. Do a scientific review of current efforts to develop and improve stock size indices for yelloweye based on IPHC (including additional stations) and make recommendations on the best approaches to develop such indices. 3. Explore a recalculation of GLMM estimates in the IPHC survey that explores station effects which allows inclusion of stations that differ over time. 4. Investigate the development of a WA recreational yelloweye CPUE based on the recreational halibut fishery. Consider a full time series and one ending in 2002, since the yelloweye RCA in waters off northern WA was implemented in 2003. 5. Encourage the collection of samples to refine the estimate biological parameters, particularly maturity and fecundity. 6. Continue to evaluate the spatial aspects of the assessments, including growth, the number and placement of boundaries between areas, as well as the northern boundary with Canada. 7. Investigate alternative ways of re-weighting. This issue is relevant for all west coast stock assessments. 8. Investigate how best to account for the variability in dates in trawl surveys through a meta- analysis. This issue is relevant for all west coast stock assessments. 9. Conduct a historical catch reconstruction for WA to match those produced for OR and CA. This issue is relevant for all west coast stock assessments. 10. Access and processing of recreational data (catch and biological sampling) currently entails differing locations and formats for data from each of the three states and RecFIN. RecFIN is difficult to use and estimates from it don’t match the total mortality estimates also provided by the state agencies. A single database that holds all raw recreational data in a consistent format would reduce assessment time spent on processing these data and potential introduction of errors or alternate interpretations due to processing. 11. The IPHC data organization should be revisited. Currently biological samples cannot be linked to the station from which they were collected. Age data for 2003-2005 is disconnected from length and sex information and other unknown issues may persist in these data. A thorough evaluation of what data are reliable and a final determination of what information is lost, or can potentially be recovered, is needed. 12. Instigate discard sampling of yelloweye bycatch in the directed Pacific halibut fishery. 13. Different trends in CPUE of yelloweye in the CA recreational fishery have been identified. CPUE by port from 1980 to 2000 should be analyzed using clustering methods to identify regions with a similar demographic trajectory. This could lead to improvements in management of the stock as well as possibly inform refinements of the spatial structure of future assessment models.

145 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Pot gear The sablefish pot fishery does not interact with ETP species; there have been no reports of ETP seabird catches or of entanglements from marine mammals.

7.3.1.9 Habitat Impacts

Overview

When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (this is called the “managed area” for assessment purposes).

According to MSC FCPV2.1 GSA 3.13.3, the assessment team must determine and justify which habitats are commonly encountered, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats) for scoring purposes, [where]:

“A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA; and

A VME shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines (definition provided in GSA 3.13.3.22) [as having one or more of the following characteristics: uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity]. This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth.”

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

146 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Both commonly encountered and VME habitats are considered ‘main’ habitats for scoring purposes (GSA 3.13.3).

BSAI For the purposes of an MSC assessment, the main habitats are those that are commonly encountered and the vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs). The commonly encountered habitats in the BSAI and GOA areas vary from deep, rocky bottoms to shallow rises or banks. In 2005, NOAA published the Final environmental impact statement (EIS) for essential fish habitat (EFH) in Alaska which identified EFH for fisheries managed by the NPFMC, recommending an approach to identify Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) and specifying an objective to minimize to the extent practicable, the possible adverse effects of fishing on EFH (NOAA, 2005). As a result, all FMPs now include a description and identification of EFH, adverse impacts, and actions to conserve and enhance habitat. The NPFMC conducts a complete review of EFH every five years.

HAPCs are specific sites within EFH that are of ecological importance to the long-term sustainability of managed species, are rare, or are susceptible to degradation or development. HAPC proposals may be solicited every five years, coinciding with the EFH five-year review or may be initiated at any time by the NPFMC. Current HAPCs in BSAI and GOA are mapped here: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/hapc_ak.pdf. With regard to VMEs, NMFS and the NPFMC have designated EFHs and HAPCs within the UoAs’ fishing areas.

The following HAPCs have been designated in the BSAI management area: 1) Bowers Ridge Habitat Conservation Zone (Bowers Ridge and Ulm Plateau; bottom contact gear prohibited), 2) Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Area (Bowers Seamount, mobile bottom contact gear prohibited), 3) skate egg concentration areas, and 4) four areas designated as the Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat Protection Areas where no contact with the bottom is permitted. Details of these areas are provided on the NPFMC website (http://www.npfmc.org/habitat-protections/habitat-areas-of-particular-concern-hapc/) and the BSAI FMP (NPFMC 2014). NOAA’s Deep-Sea Coral Research and Technology Program is funding research in Alaska to examine the location, distribution, ecosystem role, and status of deep-sea coral and sponge habitats to identify additional areas with may need protection.

GOA The GOA seabed includes gravels, silty mud, and muddy to sandy gravel, as well as areas of boulders and hardrock. The shelf, between Cape Cleare (148° W) and Cape Fairweather (138° W), is relatively wide (up to 100 km). The dominant shelf sediment is clay silt that comes primarily from either the Copper River or the Bering and Malaspina glaciers. Sand predominates nearshore. Most of the western GOA shelf (west of Cape Igvak) consists of steep and sharply dissected slopes. The shelf consists of many banks and reefs with numerous coarse rocky bottoms and patchy bottom sediments. Near Kodiak Island the shelf consists of flat relatively shallow banks cut by transverse troughs of bedrock outcrops and coarsely fragmented sediment interspersed with sand bottoms.

147 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

In February 2005, bottom trawling for all groundfish species was prohibited in 10 designated areas along the continental shelf of the GOA. The GOA Slope Habitat Conservation Areas, which are thought to contain high relief bottom and coral communities, total 2,086 nm2. Additionally, the NPFMC adopted several new HAPCs. The Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Area encompasses all 16 seamounts in federal waters off Alaska, named on NOAA charts, 15 of which are in the GOA (Brown, Chirkikof, Marchand, Dall, Denson, Derickson, Dickins, Giacomini, Kodiak, Odessey, Patton, Quinn, Sirius, Unimak, and Welker). Bottom- contact fishing is prohibited in all of these HAPCs, an area which totals 5,329 nm2.

Chatham Strait Chatham Strait extends for 150 miles from the junction of Icy Strait and Lynn Canal to Coronation Island and the open sea. The deep, fault-formed fjord, 3–10 miles wide, is navigable and forms part of the Inside Passage between Alaska and Washington state. Common sablefish fishing depths range from 200-400 fathoms. The Strait shares similar habit traits with the greater GOA in terms of species and bathymetry. Gorgonian octocorals, the most abundant corals in Alaska, are present within the strait (Stone et al., 2017). Contained within the Strait is the Gulf of Alaska Slope Habitat Conservation Area (NOAA, 2018b). Fishing activity within this area and extending beyond the Strait’s mouth into the GOA is closed to nonpelagic trawl use (Figure 33). The sablefish stock is managed via the GOA Groundfish FMP (NOAA, 2018b).

Washington EFH that are of ecological importance off the coast of Washington include coral and sponge habitats, estuarine eelgrass beds, and other marine/estuarine benthic habitats such as sandy bottom, cobble and vegetated surfaces, and rocky habitat (PFMC, 2019). The Pacific Fishery Management Council identified six HAPC types on which to focus management and restoration efforts. The current HAPC types are: estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, rocky reefs, and “areas of interest” (a variety of submarine features, such as banks, seamounts, and canyons, along with Washington State waters.) (PFMC 2005). The Areas of Interest off of Washington include all waters and sea bottom in state waters shoreward from the three nautical mile boundary of the territorial sea shoreward to MHHW

7.3.1.10 Longline hook and line and pot gear Status HAL gear is generally thought to have minimal impacts on the seafloor relative to other gear types, but can impact corals by entangling and dislodging them (as evidenced by coral bycatch, Livingston 2003). Similarly, pot fishing is considered to have a minimal impact upon the environment apart from the potential for ghost fishing, although this can be mitigated by inbuilt biodegradability of pots and gear recovery schemes (Grieve et al. 2014). However, longline and pot gears can have an impact on certain sensitive habitat as evidenced by limited underwater observations. The actual capture of gorgonian and stony corals, as examples, has been verified by commercial fisheries observers and NMFS surveys. Damage can be caused to corals, sponges, and some other sessile organisms by hooking, by crushing and plowing by pots and anchors, and from shearing by groundlines upon retrieval (Grieve et al. 2014). The sablefish hook and line fishery encountered an average of 10.02 mt of benthic structure forming organisms in 2015- 2019 (sponges, corals, gorgonians and sea pens combined). The BSAI sablefish pot fishery only

148 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

encountered an average of 0.02 t of benthic structure forming organisms (sponges, corals, gorgonians and sea pens combined) in 22015-2019 (NOAA CAS 2019). However, a large proportion of this gear is set on soft substrate where effects are considered negligible. Corals and other benthic forming structures were not recorded in observer data for the pot fishery.

The most important corals in Alaska waters are gorgonians, scleractinians and soft corals (Gersemia sp.). The distribution of corals has been assessed through NOAA trawl survey catch rates (Heifetz et al. 2002) and via smaller scale submersible surveys / observations (McConnaughey et al. 2009; Stone 2006). Identifying trends in these corals is difficult because they are encountered infrequently (Martin 2009), but nonetheless no discernible trend in gorgonians or scleractinians are apparent (Martin 2009). Areas of high coral density areas (coral gardens) have been identified, some in SE Alaska but most in the Aleutian Islands. Stone (2006) and Heifetz (2009) conducted submersible surveys of deep water corals and sponges in the Aleutian archipelago to describe depth distributions and also the incidence of visible damage or other footprints of fishing activities. They report substantial rates of coral damage, which is greatest in areas opened to trawling and least in regions infrequently trawled. Stone (2006) compares the depth distributions of corals to those of longlining and finds that in general, longlining sets are slightly shallower than the depths with peak coral densities, but there was substantial overlap between coral and longline hook and line and pot depth distributions.

The Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Impact Statement (NMFS 2005) concluded that the effects of commercial fishing on the habitat of sablefish is minimal or temporary in the current fishery management regime primarily based on the criterion that sablefish are currently above minimum stock size threshold.

Management There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on coral habitats which consists of (1) closing coral garden sites to all bottom-contact fishing in the Aleutian Islands and (2) closing coral garden sites in SE Alaska to bottom-contact fishing gears; (3) monitoring trends in relative abundance via the NOAA-Fisheries trawl surveys. There is a transparent criterion for identifying and classifying habitats as “Habitat Areas of Particular Concern” (HAPC) on the basis of rarity, ecological importance, sensitivity and level of disturbance (NPFMC, 2010). Coarse grain habitat mapping is already available and on-going efforts are seeking to provide finer grained, depth and habitat-specific information by sharing platforms with AFSC survey and NOAA vessels (AFSC, 2008).

Additionally, six Habitat Conservation Zones with especially high density coral and sponge habitat were closed to all bottom-contact fishing gear (longlines, pots, trawls) in 2005 (Figure 32). These “coral garden” areas total 110 nm2 and function as de facto marine reserves. To improve monitoring and enforcement of the Aleutian Island closures, a vessel monitoring system is required for all fishing vessels in the Aleutian management area. In Southeast Alaska, three sites with large aggregations (“thickets”) of long-lived Primnoa coral are also identified as HAPCs. These sites, in the vicinity of Cape Ommaney and Fairweather grounds, total 67 nm2. The Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat Protection Area designates five zones within these sites where submersible observations have been made, totaling 13.5 nm2. All bottom-contact gear (longlines, trawls, pots, dinglebar gear, etc.) is prohibited in this area (Table 24).

149 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 32. Map of existing habitat closure areas, species, and gear closures in Alaskan Waters. Source: NOAA Fisheries 2020. Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/tool-app/habitat-conservation-area- maps

150 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 24. Habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) descriptions and regulations Source: NMFS 2015. Available at: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/hapc_ak.pdf

151 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

All fishery management plans include a description and identification of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and actions to conserve and enhance habitat. Maps of essential fish habitat areas are used for understanding potential effects of proposed development and other activities. Each FMP contains the following EFH components: EFH identification and description for managed species, fishing and non- fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, conservation and enhancement recommendations for EFH, and research and information needs. The EFH provisions in each FMP must be reviewed, and if appropriate, revised, every 5 years.

Information NOAA’s overarching Habitat and Ecological Processes Research (HEPR) program is responsible for research to support habitat-based and ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. Projects focus on integrated studies that improve understanding of habitat and ecological processes. Key research areas include the loss of sea ice, essential fish habitat, ocean acidification and “The Bering Sea Project”

Figure 33: Habitat designations and closed areas in the BSAI and GOA (from https://www.npfmc.org/habitat-protections/)

In 2012, the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center began an Alaska Coral and Sponge initiative. The work is sponsored by NOAA and consists of a three-year field research program in the AK region for deep sea coral and sponges, in order to better understand the location, distribution, ecosystem role and status of

152 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

deep sea coral and sponge habitat. The overall initiative includes eleven projects: developing a coral habitat map for the GOA and AI, and a geologically interpreted substrate map for AK; investigations of Prinmoa corals in the GOA; estimation of the effects of commercial fixed gear fishing on coral and sponge using underwater cameras; and measurements of oxygen and pH and increased collections of coral and sponge specimens from the summer bottom trawl surveys. The initiative is intended to result in management products that can be of utility to the NPFMC, for example in the annual Ecosystem Assessment, the AI Fishery Ecosystem Plan, or the 2015 5-year Essential Fish Habitat Review (AKSCI 2013a; AKSCI 2013b; Martin 2009, NMFS 2012).

Washington The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has developed documents that describe and map EFH, and suggest management measures to reduce impacts from fishing and non-fishing activities, for coastal pelagic species, salmon, groundfish, and highly migratory species. The Council uses fishing gear restrictions, time and area closures, harvest limits, and other measures to lessen adverse impacts on EFH (PFMC 2005). When doing so, the Council considers whether the fishing activity is harming the habitat, the nature and extent of the damage, and whether management measures can be enforced. The Council also considers the long-term and short-term costs and benefits to the fishery, fishing communities, and the habitat.

In addition to identifying EFH and describing HAPCs, the Council also adopted mitigation measures directed at the adverse impacts of fishing on groundfish EFH. Principal among these are closed areas to protect sensitive habitats. There are three types of closed areas: bottom trawl closed areas, bottom contact closed areas, and a bottom trawl footprint closure. The 34 bottom trawl closed areas are closed to all types of bottom trawl fishing gear. The bottom trawl footprint closure closes areas in the EEZ between 1,280 meters (700 fathoms) and 3,500 meters (1,094 fathoms), which is the outer extent of groundfish EFH (PFMC 2005). The 17 bottom contact closed areas are closed to all types of bottom contact gear intended to make contact with bottom during fishing operations, which includes fixed gear, such as longline and pots.

153 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 34: Map showing EFH areas designated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Map created by NOAA NMFW Northwest Regional Office and available at http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/newInv/EFHI/docs/pfmc_datasheet.pdf.

Habitat Type: Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME)

Corals – the distribution of corals is well understood based on photographic data and from predictive habitat models of the BS with correct classification of presence/absence of 93%. Low densities of coral were consistent with the lack of hard substrates. Corals are rarely encountered in the NMFS bottom trawl survey in the BS and therefore trends in CPUE are not presented in the Ecosystem Considerations SAFE (Siddon and Zador 2018). Fishery observer data shows that corals and other bryozoan species represent 0.02% of the HAL catch and were not registered among the organisms that interact with the pot fishery.

154 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Sea Pens and Sea Whips – sea pens and sea whips are widely distributed in the UoAs with correct classification of presence/absence of 90%. Relative CPUE of sea whips from NMFS bottom trawl surveys exhibits large interannual variation but has been relatively high since about 2003 (Siddon and Zador 2018). Although interactions were widespread only 9% of individuals showed damage, and the spatial footprint of the fishery relative to the size of the Bering Sea is very limited. The apparent impacts on sea whips fall substantially short of the 20% threshold for considering damage as serious or irreversible.

Additionally, six Habitat Conservation Zones with especially high density coral and sponge habitat were closed to all bottom-contact fishing gear (longlines, pots, trawls). These “coral garden” areas total 110 nm2 and function as de facto marine reserves. To improve monitoring and enforcement of the Aleutian Island closures, a vessel monitoring system is required for all fishing vessels in the Aleutian management area. In Southeast Alaska, three sites with large aggregations (“thickets”) of long-lived Primnoa coral are also identified as HAPCs. These sites, in the vicinity of Cape Ommaney and Fairweather grounds, total 67 nm2. The Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat Protection Area designates five zones within these sites where submersible observations have been made, totaling 13.5 nm2. All bottom-contact gear (longlines, trawls, pots, dinglebar gear, etc.) is prohibited in this area.

7.3.1.11 Ecosystem Impacts Status The NPFMC has been committed to the development and implementation of ecosystem-based management (EBM) for some time. The principles and goals of EBM are described in the GOA and BSAI groundfish FMPs. The NPFMC Ecosystem Committee provides advice to the NPFMC on ecosystem issues in the North Pacific in the light of national ecosystem discussions and suggests new ways for the NPFMC to engage in EBM.

The primary goal of the NPFMC's ecosystem assessment is to summarize and synthesize historical climate and fishing effects on the shelf and slope regions of the eastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, and the Arctic, from an ecosystem perspective and to provide an assessment of the possible future effects of climate and fishing on ecosystem structure and function. Research has focused on quantifying food web linkages to increase understanding of how external forces such as fishing may cause unanticipated shifts in ecosystem composition.

The two food web interactions relevant to evaluating the removal of sablefish biomass on the ecosystem are the “top down” release of sablefish prey species or the “bottom up” decline in productivity of sablefish predators. Sablefish are mid- to upper trophic level opportunistic predators. Adults consume mostly benthic invertebrates and fishes (Yang and Nelson 2000, Yang et al., 2006). They do not constitute a dominant component of the feeding habits of any known predator; although feeding habits of large predators such as sperm whales are not well resolved (Hanselman et al. 2012). However, the estimated

155 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

natural mortality rate of sablefish and biomass of the population indicate relatively low levels of energy flow from sablefish to other predators (i.e. bottom up effects).

The Ecosystem Status reports for the GOA and BSAI provide an extensive accounting of the dynamics of key biophysical drivers and indicators of ecosystem and community structure (Siddon and Zador, 2018; Zador and Ortiz, 2018; Zador and Yasumiishi, 2018). Moreover, indicators of community structure in the Eastern Bering Sea (e.g. species richness, community size-spectra) do not suggest that groundfish fisheries are having significant adverse effects but instead are more responsive to changes in spatial distribution of stocks and environmental conditions (Mueter and Lauth, 2009; Boldt et al., 2008).

Management Ecosystem context and management is overseen by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is one of the national leaders in implementing ecosystem- based management. The council’s Fishery Management Plans specify a strategy to address, monitor and regulate ecosystem impacts of the fishery. Ecosystem-level constraints also factor into management decisions via a cap in total ecosystem removals for the Eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska based on considerations of the maximum surplus production of these ecosystems (Mueter, 2009). The stated ecosystem-based management goals of the NPFMC are:

1. Maintain biodiversity consistent with natural evolutionary and ecological processes, including dynamic change and variability 2. Maintain and restore habitats essential for fish and their prey 3. Maintain system sustainability and sustainable yields for human consumption and non-extractive uses 4. Maintain the concept that humans are components of the ecosystem (Zador 2014)

The overall NPFMC Groundfish fisheries management plan also has specified ecosystem goals to: Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management; Improve the procedure to adjust acceptable biological catch levels as necessary to account for uncertainty and ecosystem factors; Continue to protect the integrity of the food web through limits on harvest of forage species; Incorporate ecosystem-based considerations into fishery management decisions, as appropriate. Stock assessments include specific consideration of ecosystem impacts of each fishery, and the annual catch limits (total allowable catch) are based on scientific advice that first estimates total allowable biological catch based on single-species perspectives that are then modified downwards to account for ecosystem considerations.

Each year since 1999, NPFMC has developed an Ecosystem Considerations report including information on indicators of ecosystem status and trends. In 2002, stock assessment scientists began using indicators contained in this report to systematically assess ecosystem factors such as climate, predators, prey, and habitat that might affect a particular stock. Information regarding a particular fishery’s catch, bycatch and temporal/spatial distribution can be used to assess possible impacts of that fishery on the ecosystem. Indicators of concern are highlighted within each assessment and can be used by the Groundfish Plan

156 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Teams and the NPFMC to justify modification of allowable biological catch recommendations or time/space allocations of catch.

Perhaps the most effective element that will act to prevent ecosystem impacts is a precautionary strategy to setting harvest levels: presently most stocks are well above their reference points, and only a small number of fisheries are part of overfishing rebuilding plan (e.g. king crab). Most groundfish are either near or well above biomass levels that would produce maximum sustainable yield (Worm et al. 2009). Across all groundfish stocks, exploitation rates are between 10 and 13 % (Mueter 2009), and groundfish biomass is above the level that would produce total aggregate maximum sustainable yield (Mueter 2009).

In February 2014, the Council reviewed a discussion paper on the development of a Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), and decided to seek public input on what the objectives might be for a Bering Sea FEP, and how the plan could be structured to be of benefit to fishery management decision-making. The Council heard from stakeholders and the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Ecosystem Committee, and Advisory Panel between February and October 2014. The Council requested the Ecosystem Committee to continue development of the Bering Sea FEP, including developing a draft set of goals and objectives for Council consideration, and proposing an approach and format for an FEP. Given concerns about staff resources and dwindling budgets, the Council has not yet committed to tasking of the FEP, but rather has asked the Committee to investigate possible objectives and structure for a future Council discussion

• Understand and plan for impacts of climate change • Understand trade-offs among ecological, social, and economic factors of fishery harvest • Identify buffers needed to mitigate uncertainty • Create a cohesive plan for BS EBFM (rather than current piecemeal approach); define EBFM for the Council • Precautionary management, and shifting the burden of proof • Prioritize research, management based on ecosystem understanding, identify pathway of research to management • Identify areas of risk and opportunities to mitigate • Consider subsistence needs and traditional ecological knowledge • Define the Council’s management process for broader public (for transparency and accountability – social contract); fishery audience, but also include importance of food security for broader audience • Balance the different values of Bering Sea user groups

At this same meeting the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council adopted an Ecosystem Policy that shall be given effect through all of the Council’s work, including long‐term planning initiatives, fishery management actions, and science planning to support ecosystem‐based fishery management. The Council intends that fishery management explicitly take into account environmental variability and uncertainty, changes and trends in climate and oceanographic conditions, fluctuations in productivity for managed

157 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

species and associated ecosystem components, such as habitats and non-managed species, and relationships between marine species. Implementation will be responsive to changes in the ecosystem, and our understanding of those dynamics, incorporate the best available science, including local and traditional knowledge, and engage scientists, managers, and the public.

Information Information on ecosystem structure and effects of sablefish fishing therein derives from data collected as part of Alaska Fisheries Science Center trawl and longline surveys, an extensive annual food habits collection program that dates to the 1980s, assessments for all main retained and discarded species, and monitoring of susceptible and vulnerable seabird populations. Moreover, ongoing research has been synthesizing this information via quantitative modelling (Aydin et al. 2007) and via comparative analyses (Gaichas and Francis, 2009).

The current status and objectives of the NPFMC EBM are described at http://www.npfmc.org/wp- content/PDFdocuments/membership/EcosystemCommittee/EBFMstatus.pdf. The NPFMC has developed an Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan (http://www.npfmc.org/wp- content/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/AIFEP/AIFEP12_07.pdf). The Plan is a strategic policy and planning document intended to be an educational tool and resource that can provide the NPFMC with both an “early warning system” and an ecosystem context for fishery management decisions affecting the Aleutian Islands area.

The NPFMC has initiated the development of a Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan (http://www.npfmc.org/bsfep/) to provide a synthesis of ecosystem information relevant to fisheries and help managers consider the ecosystem perspective in fishery decision making. In 2006, the NPFMC signed a Memorandum of Understanding with 10 federal agencies and four state agencies to create the Alaska Marine Ecosystem Forum (AMEF) (http://www.npfmc.org/alaska-marine-ecosystem-forum/). The AMEF seeks to improve coordination and cooperative understanding between the agencies on issues of shared responsibilities related to the marine ecosystems off Alaska’s coast. There is no known plan for a GOA Fishery Ecosystem Plan.

A central ecosystem tool relevant to holistic groundfish management in AK is the “Ecosystem Status Reports” that accompany the annual compilation of stock assessment documents called the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports (Siddon and Zador, 2018; Zador and Ortiz, 2018; Zador and Yasumiishi, 2018). Here, biophysical and ecological indicators relevant to ecosystem monitoring are tracked and reported annually. This Ecosystem Considerations Appendix is a significant compendium of information giving indicators and time-series that are relevant to groundfish management. In 2002, stock assessment scientist began using indicators from the appendix to systematically assess ecosystem factors such as climate, predators, prey and habitat that might affect particular stocks. Data contributors have also been asked to provide a rationale explaining the importance of indices they contribute, and explanation of impacts of any observed trends on the ecosystem or ecosystem components and how the information can be used to inform groundfish management decisions. Many of the time series are available on the web with author permission at: http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/reem/ecoweb/index.cfm

158 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Washington Status Each year the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) Ecosystem Work Group develops a “California Current Ecosystem Status Report” for the Council. The 2020 Annual Report, reflects trends in physical, biological, and socio-economic indicators. The CCE has experienced exceptional ocean warming over the past seven years, due to a mixture of El Niño events and large marine heat waves. While this has impacted some aspects of ecosystem productivity, juvenile groundfish production has been high, supporting ongoing recovery of many groundfish stocks (Harvey et al., 2020).

Management In April 2013, the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted an FEP, the Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix, and a schedule for implementation. The purpose of the FEP is to enhance the Council’s species-specific management programs with more ecosystem science, broader ecosystem considerations and management policies that coordinate Council management across its Fishery Management Plans and the California Current Ecosystem (PFMC 2013). The FEP outlines a reporting process wherein NOAA provides the Council with a yearly update on the state of the California Current Ecosystem (CCE), as derived from environmental, biological and socio-economic indicators. NOAA’s California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment team is responsible for this report which the PFMC uses to guide decision-making and allocation.

Information The California Current IEA uses a combination of conceptual and empirical models (i.e. Atlantis Ecosystem Model) to integrate information and assess indicators. Atlantis is a simulation modeling approach that integrates physical, chemical, ecological, and anthropogenic processes in a three-dimensional spatially explicit domain. The model represents key exploited species at the level of detail necessary to evaluate direct effects of fishing and also represents other anthropogenic and climate impacts on the ecosystem as a whole (Levin and Schwing, 2011). Data comes from a variety of sources including CalCOFI oceanographic and biological surveys, NMFS triennial annual trawl surveys, PacFIN commercial fishing database, and other supporting sources (Levin and Schwing, 2011).

159 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main primary species stock status

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

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA

Rationale

Hook and line Spiny dogfish Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) composes 3.38% of the 2015-2019 HAL catch in the BSAI and GOA and is considered a less resilient species. There are currently no directed commercial fisheries for shark species in federally or state managed waters of the GOA, and most incidental catch is not retained The NMFS does not manage spiny dogfish in the BSAI and GOA as an individual but rather as a complex. The BSAI shark complex is assessed on a biennial stock assessment schedule. In even years a full stock assessment document is presented. BSAI sharks are a Tier 6 complex in the BSAI and are proposed to be a Tier 5 complex in the GOA.

BSAI The average catch of spiny dogfish in the BSAI is 14 t. The species has an ABC of 18 t and an OFL of 24 t. The number of spiny dogfish caught during halibut and sablefish HAL activities is below the recommended ABC. According to the species’ 2018 Tier 6 stock assessment, overfishing in not occurring (Tribuzio et al. 2018a).

GOA/Chatham Strait

160 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The species is considered Tier 5 and its estimated biomass is 56,181 t. Average catch of the species is 1,885 t and it has an ABC of 4,087 t and an OFL of 5,450 t. There is no evidence to suggest that overfishing is occurring for any shark species in the GOA because the OFL has not been exceeded (Tribuzio et al. 2018b).

Given this analysis, it is highly likely that spiny dogfish in both the BSAI and the GOA is above PRI, thus meeting SG80. But since the species is not assessed individually, it is not possible to have a high degree of confidence that spiny dogfish is above PRI and is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY and as a result, SG100 is not met.

Pot There are no Main Primary species in the pot fishery and this issue is not scored.

Bait Though bait as a complex comprises 6.85% of the HAL catch and 13.47% of the pot catch, no individual species contributes at or more than 5% of the catch and none of these species are considered less resilient. They are therefore assessed as Primary Minor species in SIb below.

b Minor primary species stock status

Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI.

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? Fixed hook and line: No Pots: No Bait Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and pot The assessment team evaluated the status of minor species caught with both hook and line and pot gear with respect to the likelihood of them being above PRI. This was accomplished by taking the average catch of minor species and comparing it to the ABC for each species or species complex. All Primary Main species caught with pot gear interact with the HAL fishery and therefore both fisheries were scored together.

Table 25: Minor species caught with hook and line and pot gear

Minor species 5-year average ABC (t) Overfished (BSAI and GOA) catch (t) Skate complex 17,611 t 42,714 t No Shark complex 94 t 517 t

161 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Pacific cod (Gadus 273,064 218,600 No macrocephalus) Thornyhead 1,109 2,016 No complex Shortraker rockfish 208 1603 No (Sebastes borealis) Sculpin complex 38,102 235,592 No Rougheye rockfish 1,292 1,428 No (Sebastes aleutianus) Arrowtooth 32,404 223,690 No flounder (Atheresthes stomias) Octopus complex 822 4,556 No Greenland turbot 2,581 9,625 No (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) Dusky rockfish 2,929 3,700 No (Sebastes ciliates) Kamchatka 5,028 9,737 No flounder (Atheresthes evermanni)

Skate complex The skate complex composes 5.3% of the 2015-2019 hook and line catch and includes the longnose skate (Beringraja rhina), the big skate (Beringraja binoculata) and other unidentified organisms in the family Rajidae including the Alaska skate (Bathyraja parmifera). BSAI The Alaska skate and “other skates” complex had a combined 2019 ABC of 42,714 t. (Ormseth, 2019a). The author estimates that the 2019 hook and line catch will be 17,611 t. The 2019 catch is on track to be substantially lower than during the 2011-2018 period, which saw catches increasing every year, averaging 23,400 t. The assessment’s harvest recommendations state that the complex is not overfished.

GOA The Big skate, longnose skate, and “other skates” complex had a combined 2019 ABC of 10,405 t. (Ormseth, 2019b). The study estimates that the 2019 hook and line catch will be 3,017 t. The 2018-2019 catch is estimated to be the lowest since 2005 and reflects the 2016 regulation that reduced the maximum retainable amount for all skates in the GOA. The assessment’s harvest recommendations state that the complex is not overfished.

Given this analysis, it is highly likely that the complex in both the BSAI and the GOA is above PRI, thus meeting SG80. But since not all species within the complex are assessed individually, it is not possible to have a high degree of confidence that the species are above PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY and as a result, SG100 is not met.

Shark complex The shark complex composes 0.25% of the 2015-2019 HAL catch and includes the Pacific sleeper shark (Somniosus pacificus), and the salmon shark (Lamna ditropis).

BSAI

162 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

For 2019–2020 the recommended maximum allowable ABC is 517 t and the OFL is 689 t for the BSAI shark complex. Current catches are well below the recommended ABC. The BSAI TAC has been set well below the recommended ABC since the inception of the shark complex in 2011. Total shark catch in 2017 was 142 t and catch in 2018 was 94 t, as of October 9, 2018. The stock complex was not subject to overfishing in 2017, and data do not exist to determine if the complex is overfished (Tribuzio et al. 2018a).

GOA Total shark catch in 2017 was 1,632 t and catch in 2018 was 2,141 t as of October 9, 2018. The recommended ABC is 8,184 t and OFL is 10,913 t for the shark complex. This is an 81% increase over the 2018 ABC of 4,514 t. There are currently no directed commercial fisheries for shark species in federally or state managed waters of the GOA, and most incidental catch is not retained. There is no evidence to suggest that over fishing is occurring for any shark species in the GOA because the ABC and OFL have not been exceeded (Tribuzio et al. 2018b).

Other complexes The three additional complexes (thornyhead, sculpin, octopus) do not meet SG100 given the criteria used for SIa.

Other species It is highly likely that the six species whose catch is below the ABC (shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland turbot, dusky rockfish, kamchatka flounder) are above the PRI given that these species are not being overfished according to their NMFS North Pacific groundfish stock assessments, and they meet SG100.

Pacific cod is the only example of the Primary Minor BSAI and GOA species or species complexes that interact with the HAL and pot fisheries whose catch exceeded the ABC in 2018. In the Aleutian Islands, the TAC has been reduced so that the catch will not exceed the ABC. In the Eastern Bering Sea, the TAC was exceded in 2018, though from 1980 through 2018 TAC averaged about 85% of ABC and the catch has not exceeded the OFL. In the GOA for 2020 the federal directed fishery was suspended due to the stock being below B20%. Given the information presented in Thompson et al., 2019; Thompson and Thorson, 2019; Barbeaux et al., 2019 including the GOA’s rebuilding strategy, it is highly likely that that stock is above the PRI for the BSAI and the UoA does not hinder Pacific cod rebuilding in the GOA, meeting SG100.

Bait Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) comprise 4.44% of the pot fishery catch and 1.51% of the HAL catch. Herring are assessed by ADFG and harvest policies are guided by a maximum exploitation rate of 20% (Hebert, 2018). While it is highly likely that herring extracted from the assessed stock is above the PRI, the % of herring managed by ADFG compared to the % of herring from other stocks used as bait in the HAL and pot fisheries is unclear. For this reason the assessment team cannot determine if Pacific herring is highly likely to be above the PRI. As a result, the species does not meet SG100.

Alaska pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) is the second most prevalent bait species and comprises 3.77% of the pot fishery catch and 1.51% of the HAL catch. For 2019–2020 the recommended maximum allowable ABC is 2,218,887 t. Current catches are well below the recommended ABC (1,365,549 t) and the stock is not currently subject to overfishing (Barbeaux et al., 2019; Dorn et al, 2019; Ianelli et al, 2019). It is highly likely that the species is above its PRIs and therefor meets SG100.

163 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentines) make up 0.54% of the pot catch and 0.48% of the HAL catch. The species is not considered overfished per the Falkland Inlands Fisheries Department’s 2019 assessment (Winter, 2019).

Similarly, East Coast Squid, longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) make up 1.21% of the pot catch and 0.07% of the HAL catch. According to Hendrickson (2017), the species is lightly exploited because annual catches during 1987-2016 were less than annual biomass and did not result in a multi-year decrease in biomass. In light of these determinations, these bait species are highly likely to be above their PRIs and meet SG100.

Alaskan chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) make up 1.23% of the HAL catch. The fishery has extensive management measures in place that include scientific monitoring, gear restrictions, bycatch reduction measures, and a limited entry program to control capacity (Munro and Volk, 2015). And considering that most chum salmon production in the region is attributable to hatchery production, it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI and meets SG100.

References

Barbeaux, S., Aydin, K., Fissel, B., Holsman, K., Laurel, B., Palsson, W., Rogers, L., Shotwell, K., Yang, Q., and Zador, S. (2019). Chapter 2: Assessment of the Pacific cod stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. https://archive.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2019/GOApcod.pdf Barbeaux, S.J., Ianelli, J. and Palsson, W. (2019). Chapter 1A: Assessment of the pollock stock in the Aleutian Islands. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://archive.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2019/AIpollock.pdf Dorn, M.W., Deary, A. L. and Fissel, B.E. (2019). Chapter 1: Assessment of the Walleye Pollock Stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. https://archive.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2019/GOApollock.pdf Edwards, A.M., I.G. Taylor, C.J. Grandin, and A.M. Berger. 2018. Status of the Pacific Hake (whiting) stock in U.S. and Canadian waters in 2018. Prepared by the Joint Technical Committee of the U.S. and Canada Pacific Hake/Whiting Agreement, National Marine Fisheries Service and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 222 p. Hebert, K. (2018). Southeast Alaska 2018 Herring Stock Assessment Surveys. Fishery Data Series No. 19-12. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FDS19-12.pdf Hendrickson, L.C. (2017). Longfin Inshore Squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) Stock Assessment Update for 2017. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/59073cc9be65945087783a84/14936 46537724/Doryteuthis_update_April_2017.pdf Ianelli, J., Fissel, B., and Kirstin Holsman. (2019). Chapter 1: Assessment of the Walleye Pollock Stock in the Eastern Bering Sea. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://archive.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2019/EBSPollock.pdf Monro, A.R., Volk, E.C., (2015). Summary of Pacific Salmon Escapement Goals in Alaska with a Review of Escapements from 2006 to 2014. Fishery Manuscript Series No. 15-04. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMS15-04.pdf NOAA. (2019). 2019 North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports for 2020 Fisheries. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/population-assessments/2019-north-pacific-groundfish- stock-assessments NOAA. (2018). 2018 North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports for 2020 Fisheries. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/population-assessments/2018-north-pacific-groundfish- stock-assessments#bering-sea-and-aleutian-islands-stock-assessments Ormseth, O.A. (2019a). Partial assessment of the skate stock complex in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://archive.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2019/BSAIskate.pdf Ormseth, O.A. (2019b). Assessment of the skate stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. https://archive.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2019/GOAskate.pdf Thompson, G.G. and Thorson, J.T. (2019). Chapter 2: Assessment of the Pacific cod stock in the Bering Sea. NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. https://archive.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2019/EBSpcod.pdf

164 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Thompson, G.G., Spies, I.B., Palsson, W.A. (2019). Chapter 2: Assessment of the Pacific cod stock in the Aleutian Islands. NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. https://archive.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2019/AIpcod.pdfTribuzio, C.A., Rodgveller, C., Echave, K. and Hulson, P.J. (2018a). Assessment of the shark stock complex in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/afsc/REFM/Docs/2018/BSAI/BSAIshark.pdf Tribuzio, C.A., Echave, K., Rodgveller, C., and Hulson, P.J. (2018a). Assessment of the shark stock complex in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/afsc/REFM/Docs/2018/BSAI/BSAIshark.pdf Tribuzio, C.A., Rodgveller, C., Echave, K. and Hulson, P.J. (2018b). Assessment of the shark stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/afsc/REFM/Docs/2018/GOA/GOAshark.pdf Winter, A., (2019). Joint Survey and Stock Assessment Shortfin squid Illex argentines. SA-2019ILL. https://www.fig.gov.fk/fisheries/component/jdownloads/send/24-illex-stock-assessment-reports/146-illex- stock-assessment-2019?Itemid=0

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range HAL: >80 Pots: >80 Bait HAL: >80 Bait Pots: >80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.1.1 Scoring Calculation

UoA Element SI a SI b Element PI score score

Spiny dogfish 80 N/A 100

Skate complex N/A 80 80

Shark complex N/A 80 80

Pacific cod N/A 100 100 HAL/pot/ 95 Thornyhead complex N/A 80 80

Shortraker rockfish N/A 100 100

Sculpin complex N/A 80 80

Rougheye rockfish N/A 100 100

165 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Arrowtooth flounder N/A 100 100

Octopus complex N/A 80 80

Greenland turbot N/A 100 100

Dusky rockfish N/A 100 100

Kamchatka flounder N/A 100 100

Pacific herring N/A 80 80

Alaska pollock N/A 100 100

Argentine shortfin squid N/A 100 100 Bait: Hal, pot East Coast Squid, longfin N/A 100 100 inshore squid

Alaskan chum salmon N/A 100 100

166 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary 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

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

Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and pot There is a strategy in place to manage primary species and species complexes which consists of (1) catch accounting system (2) observer program to estimate discarded catch (3) fishery independent surveys conducted by NOAA- Fisheries (4) statistical stock assessments for all of the main bycatch species complexes (5) a tiered system of assessments that provides for more precautionary annual catch limits when assessments use less precise methods. The tiered, precautionary procedure for setting annual catch limits provides a high likelihood that stocks will be maintained at levels above their reference points and, and clear procedures exist for restricting catch limits if stock rebuilding is necessary.

All species and complexes for the HAL and pot fisheries are assessed via this strategy. Estimated OFL and ABC levels for these species and complexes are reviewed either annually or biennially. These measures are expected to maintain primary species and species complexes at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. Managers have developed fisheries management plans for each species and complex that represent a strategy for managing primary species.

Considering this rationale, there is a management strategy in place for the UoAs that is expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI and the SG60, 80, and 100 levels are all met.

Bait Considering bait species, the UoAs source three of the four primary bait species from fisheries that implement the management strategy above. The bait amounts that these fisheries purchase are a fraction of the total catch and do not hinder the recovery of the bait-stocks. Furthermore, managers collect bait survey information

167 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

as part of their management activities. Used together, these measures form a partial strategy that meets SG80 but not a strategy at the SG100 level.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, 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 fishery similar fisheries/species). the fishery and/or species and/or species involved. involved. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and pot Annual or biennial biomass surveys and stock assessments inform the TACs for primary species which, according to these assessments, are achieving overall objectives to maintain the stocks within biological limits in either/both the BSAI and GOA. Annual estimates of the catch composition of primary species from the Observer Program demonstrate that there is high confidence that strategy is working and both fisheries meet the SG100 level.

Bait There is evidence that there is a partial strategy that the UoAs have put in place during the five years since the previous reassessments of the US North Pacific halibut fishery and the US North Pacific sablefish fishery; the exception to this is the lask of information regarding the geographic region from which Argentine squid is obtained. The lack of clear evidence regarding a strategy that is being implemented successfully for Argentine shortfin squid prevents the assessment team from scoring it at the SG100 level. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes

Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL, pot, bait

168 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

There is robust evidence, in the form of annual or biannual stock assessments, showing stocks are not overfished or subject to overfishing for all species/complexes assessed by the NMFS. Application of annual catch limits and accountability measures by the NMFS and the NPFMC as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act provide further evidence of successful implementation of the strategy. The SG80 and SG100 levels are met for the HAL and pot fisheries. However, lack of clear evidence that there is a strategy that is being implemented successfully for all bait species prevents the assessment team from scoring bait at the SG100 level. d Shark finning

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA

Rationale

HAL, pot Based on observer coverage and reports from fishery managers, there is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not occurring. No sharks were reported taken by the pot fishery and neary all the shark catch from the HAL fishery was discarded. From a legal stance, “The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prohibit any person under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in the finning of sharks, possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass, and landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass.” On January 4, 2011, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 was signed into law, amending the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Shark Conservation Act requires that all sharks in the United States, with one exception, be brought to shore with their fins naturally attached.” This regulation, along with the NMFS CAS and its observer data, national vessel monitoring system, enforcement database, vessel production reports, shoreside landing reports, shoreside production reports, and e-landings database work together to deliver the required confidence and external validation (in alignment with SA2.4.4.1) that shark finning is not taking place. Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. The SG100 is met for all fisheries. e Review of alternative measures

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch primary species. of main primary species and of all primary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA

169 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

HAL, pot Individual species and species complexes stock assessments provide an opportunity for managers to review bycatch and observer program data. This constitutes a regular review (in the form of annual or biannual stock assessments) of the effectiveness of measures to minimize fishery related mortality. Additionally, the NMFS provided an annual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize HAL and pot mortality of unwanted catch of all primary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate. Therefore, the SG100 is met for the HAL and pot fisheries. It is unclear whether this process is undertaken for the fisheries that supply the HAL and pot fisheries their Argentine shortfin squid, and therefor bait does not reach SG100. References

SSC. 2019. 26th Meeting of the Scientific Sub-Committee of the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission, 17-18 July 2019, ISEN, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Report of the SSC, 14 p.

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

Condition number (if relevant)

170 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

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

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA

Rationale

Hal and pot The North Pacific groundfish and Pacific halibut fisheries collect qualitative and quantitative fishery dependent and fishery independent information on primary species. This information, obtained though annual fishery independent surveys, catch accounting system, and an observer program, inform annual/biannual stock analyses for individual species and species complexes. For a full discussion of the fishery-specific information please see ‘Sources of Information’ section (above). There remain gaps with respect to quantitative, accurate and verifiable information for any retained species catch from boats <40ft LOA for both the HAL and pot fisheries. Additionally, some of the primary organisms in both of these fisheries are not recorded to the species level making it difficult assess the fisheries’ impacts on individual species. Therefore, we cannot score this element at SG100; however, there is adequate quantitative information to assess main primary species with respect to status, therefore meeting SG80. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status.

171 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Met? Fixed hook and line: No Pots: No

Bait Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and pot Information from the HAL and pot catch accounting system and observer programs is adequate to quantitativly assess outcome status of retained species with respect to biologically based limits. Despite gaps in observer coverage for boats <40ft LOA, dockside monitoring and landings data provide information sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. While much of this information is sufficient to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status, it is not sufficient to estimate species complexes (thornyhead, sculpin, and octopus complex) with respect to individual species status. This being the case, SG100 is not met for the HAL and pot fisheries.

Bait Quantitative information from surveys from 23 HAL and 5 pot gear vessels, representing 22% and 26% of the Sablefish landings in 2019 for each gear type and 10% of the activity for the halibut HAL fishery, is available. This information is adequate to begin to estimate the fisheries’ impact on all minor primary bait species in some but not in all areas of the UoAs. For this reason, the assessment team concluded that the available information is not sufficient to fully estimate its impacts with respect to status and SG100 is not met for this component.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

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

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and pot Information from the fisheries’ catch accounting systems, observer programs, and dockside sampling programs is adequate to support partial strategies to manage main primary species. However, due to limitations in the observer program, there are information gaps associated with catch composition from HAL and pot fishing vessels <40ft LOA limiting the adequacy of the data to support a strategy with a high degree of certainty. This gap also impedes the fishery’s ability to properly quantify non-target species relative to landings (main/minor spp.) Information is, however, sufficient to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species as evidence by these species/complexes FMPs, stock assessments, and reference points and both fisheries meet SG80.

172 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Bait Bait surveys that estimate bait volume, species, origin, and annual variability for these fisheries support their partial strategy to manage primary species. However, these are not available for all of the UoAs. Specifically, the assessment team was only provided with qualitative bait use, including species composition, for the Chatham Strait HAL sablefish fishery. While bait information for the HAL and pot fisheries is adequate to support measures to manage primary species, it is not adequate to support a partial strategy to manage these species. For this reason, it meets the SG60 but not the SG80 level.

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range HAL: ≥80 Pots: ≥80 Bait Bait HAL: 60-79 Bait Pots: ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought for bait species composition and quantity used by the fishery in Chatham Strait

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

Condition number (if relevant)

173 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not 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

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

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not demonstrably effective hinder recovery and partial strategy in place such rebuilding. that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA

Rationale

HAL and pot Grenadiers are assessed as a complex of species; however, NMFS has not assessed the complex as part of its North Pacific groundfish stock assessments since 2014. Therefore we assessed the complex as a Secondary species.

174 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Grenadiers comprise 16.32% of the total HAL catch and 2.1% of the pot catch (including grenadier used as bait). The most recent assessment indicated an ABC of 75,274 t in 2014 for the BSAI and 30,691 for the GOA. The recorded catch of giant grenadiers averaged 18 t throughout all fisheries in 2014 (Rodgveller and Hulson, 2014). This total is significantly below the established ABC, though ABC values are unofficial because NMFS cannot establish a minimum stock size threshold from which to determine whether the grenadier species complex (a Tier 5 stock) are overfished or approaching an overfished condition. NMFS can however determine whether overfishing is occurring for tiers 4 and 5 stocks and in 2014 stated that it was not occurring for this species’ complex. For these reasons, it is highly likely that grenadiers are above biologically based limits, thus meeting SG80. But because they are assessed as a complex and it has been 6 years since their last assessment, there is not a high degree of certainty that they are above biologically based limits and therefore do not meet SG100 for either the HAL or pot fishery.

Out of scope species: Birds In the HAL fishery, one seabird species (Northern fulmar) and two groups (gulls, shearwaters) are the most commonly taken and are considered main secondary species. No sea birds are taken in the pot fishery.

An estimated 245 Northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) are taken by the HAL fishery per year and 1 individual/yr by the pot fishery (Krieger et al. 2019). The global population size is extremely large and appears to be increasing, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable. When compared to estimates of the total population size estimate of 7,000,000 pairs or 20,000,000 individuals (BirdLife International, 2020). The fishery accounts for a negligible annual mortality of the species.

There are over 20 resident gull species in Alaska, including three large gulls: glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens), glaucous gull (L. hyperboreus), and herring gull (L. argentatus). Colony size may range from less than 10 to as many as 10,000 pairs (ADFG, 1998) and most species are of least concern according to the IUCN Redlist . An estimated 203 gulls are taken by the HAL fishery per year and no individual/yr are taken by the pot fishery (Krieger et al. 2019). Given this information, the fishery accounts for a negligible annual mortality of gulls.

Short-tailed (Ardenna tenuirostris) and sooty (A. griseus) shearwaters are some of the most abundant seabirds in the world with estimated global populations of about 20 million for each species (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2006; Audubon, 2020). Considering that an estimated 39 shearwaters are taken by the HAL fishery per year and no individual/yr are taken by the pot fishery (Krieger et al. 2019, the fishery has very little to no impact on these two species.

In reference to this sea bird analysis, the assessment team concludes that there is a high degree of certainty that these species are above biologically based limits and meet SG100.

b Minor secondary species stock status

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

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes

175 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Pots: Yes

Bait Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and Pot Most secondary minor species are taken at low levels in the HAL and pot fisheries. In the HAL fishery, sea stars, sea anemones, corals/bryozoans, snails, sponges, are Secondary Minor species. In the pot fishery, snails, crabs, sea stars, urchins/dollars/cucumbers, brittle stars, sea anemones are Secondary Minor species.

Trends in relative abundance of motile epifauna (e.g, sea stars, brittle stars, snails and other echinoderms) are regularly monitored in trawl surveys and reported in the Ecosystem SAFE reports (Siddon and Zador 2018). In the BS, the relative abundance of sea stars has fluctuated without trend since the early 1990s. Structural epifauna (including anemones) and scyphozoan jellies have varied without trend since 2011. Similar time series of relative abundance of these groups is evident in the AI and GOA as well (Zador and Ortiz 2018, Zador and Yasumiishi 2018). These relative abundance data coupled with the low catches of these taxa, indicate that these Secondary Minor species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits and therefore SG100 is met.

Bait While it is likely that some secondary minor species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits, the assessment team was not provided with evidence that this is true for all secondary species so SG100 is not met

References

ADFG. (1998). Gulls. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/gulls.pdf BirdLife International. (2020). Data Zone. Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/northern-fulmar-fulmarus-glacialis/details Audubon. (2020). Guide to North American Birds. Short-tailed Shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris. https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/short-tailed-shearwater Krieger, J.R., Eich, A.M., and Fitzgerald, S.M. (2019). Seabird Bycatch Estimates for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries: 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/AKR-20, 41 p. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/20231 Patrick, W.S., Spencer, P., Ormseth, O., Cope, J. and Field, J. (nd). Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine the vulnerability of a stock: with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. Vulnerability Evaluation Working Group Report. https://www.npfmc.org/wp- content/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/ACL/Vulnerability509.pdf Rodgveller K and Hulson P. 2014. Assessment of the Grenadier Stock Complex in the Gulf of Alaska, Eastern Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Anchorage, AK. pp. 963-1000. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2006). Alaska Seabird Information Series. SOOTY SHEARWATER Puffinus griseus. https://www.fws.gov/r7/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/pdf/sosh.pdf Siddon, E. and Zador, S. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Eastern Bering Sea. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://access.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/REEM/ecoweb/pdf/2018ecosysEBS-508.pdf Zador, S., and Ortiz, I., 2018. Ecosystem Status Report 2018: Aleutian Islands, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report, North Pacific Fishery Management Council https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/gulls.pdf Zador, S. and Yasumiishi, E. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Gulf of Alaska.

176 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range HAL: ≥80 Pots: ≥80 Bait Bait HAL: ≥80 Bait Pots: ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

UoA Element SI a SI b Element PI score score

Grenadier complex 80 N/A 80

Northern fulmar 100 N/A 100

Gull complex 100 N/A 100

Shearwater complex 100 N/A 100

Sea stars N/A 100 100

Sea anemones N/A 100 100 HAL/pot 95 Corals/bryozoans N/A 100 100

Snails N/A 100 100

Sponges N/A 100 100

Crabs N/A 100 100

Urchins/dollars/cucumbers N/A 100 100

Brittle stars N/A 100 100

177 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain 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

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place post if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. secondary species at/to rebuilding of main secondary levels which are highly likely species at/to levels which to be above biologically are highly likely to be above based limits or to ensure biologically based limits or to that the UoA does not ensure that the UoA does hinder their recovery. not hinder their recovery. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No

Rationale

Hal and pot In Alaska, there is a strategy in place to manage most bycatch fish species which consists of (1) extensive catch accounting system (2) observer program to estimate discarded catch (3) fishery independent surveys conducted by NOAA- Fisheries (4) statistical stock assessments for all of the main bycatch species (5) a tiered system of assessments that provides for more precautionary annual catch limits when assessments use less precise methods. The tiered, precautionary procedure for setting annual catch limits provides a high likelihood that stocks will be maintained at levels above their reference points and, and clear procedures exist for restricting catch limits if stock rebuilding is necessary.

In Washington, there is a strategy to manage non-target species which consists of (1) a catch accounting system, (2) observer program to estimate catches of non-target species, (3) fishery independent surveys conducted by NOAA-Fisheries and IPHC, (4) statistical stock assessments for most non-target species, (5) a Seabird Avoidance Program, (6) Spatial management to restrict or prohibit fishing based on depth, species, and habitat (i.e. Groundfish Conservation Areas (GCAs)) The final rule to implement a seabird avoidance program in the Pacific groundfish fleet was implemented in Dec. 2015. This rule mandates the use of streamer lines by vessels >/= 55ft length overall (LOA) using bottom longline gear to harvest groundfish. Members of the client group, the FVOA already voluntarily use streamer lines on their vessels.

Grenadiers There is a partial strategy for managing the species complex of grenadiers, since they have not traditionally been included in the BSAI and GOA Groundfish FMPs, despite the high level of bycatch in the longline fishery.

178 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

While the North Pacific Fishery Management Council includes Grenadiers “unofficial” stock assessments in the Ecosystem Component of the FMPs, the last available stock assessment for this complex was published in 2014. Under the Preferred Preliminary Alternative (PPA), NMFS will establish record-keeping and reporting requirements for grenadiers, and grenadiers would be closed to “directed fishing.” Further, Maximum Retainable Amount of grenadiers as an incidental catch species would be established and limit grenadier retained catch to 8% (NPFMC 2014). These measures help to better estimate catch, reduce scientific uncertainty, prevent “unmanaged target fishing” of grenadiers, and reduce the vulnerability of grenadiers to overfishing as an incidental catch species (NMFS 2013) and represent a partial strategy for managing grenadier bycatch and are expected to maintain the grenadier species bycatch at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits and requirements of SG80 are met for this element.

Out of scope species: Birds There is a partial strategy to manage Northern fulmar, gull, and shearwater bycatch that involves all longline vessels’ >55’ use of seabird avoidance devices that have been demonstrated to markedly reduce seabird mortality. The adoption of these measures has reduced seabird takes by one-third (Fitzgerald et al. 2008). Several other methods for reducing seabird bycatch are also used by fishers including setting at night, using weights on gear to decrease sink time, offal discharge regulations, and under water setting tubes. Although reductions in seabird catch have been significant in the last several years, some seabirds are still caught in the HAL fishery. This partial strategy is expected to maintain seabird bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits and requirements of SG80 are met for this element.

Bait The bait amounts of secondary species that these fisheries purchase are a fraction of the total catch and do not hinder the recovery of the bait-stocks. Furthermore, managers collect bait survey information as part of their management activities in some of the assessed UoAs. Used together, these measures form a partial strategy that meets SG80 but not a strategy at the SG100 level.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, 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? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No Rationale

HAL and pot There is some objective basis, however outdated, for confidence that the partial strategy for grenadiers is working based on reported observer data, annual surveys, and catch accounting system indicating that the HAL fishery is having minimal impacts on the complex’s stock status. The most recent stock assessments concluded that overfishing was not occurring, though, again, this is from 2014. Therefore, requirements of the SG80 are met but testing does not support high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or species involved and SG100 is not met.

179 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

There is high confidence that the partial strategies for seabird species is working based on reported observer data, annual surveys, and catch accounting system indicating that the HAL fishery is having minimal impacts on these species stock status. Therefore, requirements for SG100 are met.

Bait There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy for secondary bait species, including Pacific saury, is working based on NMFS productivity and susceptibility indices, annual surveys, and other qualitative information collected by fishery managers. This meets SG80, but it does not support with high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work and SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post 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? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes

Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and Pot There is some evidence for successful implementation of this management strategy manifest by the healthy stock status for main bycatch species. Furthermore, the ability to access reported landings and estimated total landings data as well as annual stock assessment reports for these species provides clear evidence that the strategy is being successfully implemented and the halibut fishery is having minimal impacts on secondary species. Seabird bycatch estimates for these HAL show a continued low rate of bycatch (Eich et al. 2018) and observer reports for the pot fishery do not demonstrate interaction with the gear type. Taken together, it can be concluded that there is clear evidence the strategy is being successfully implemented and achieving its objective. Therefore, the SC60, SG80 and SG100 levels are met.

Bait There is some evidence that the measures/partial strategy for secondary bait species, including Pacific saury, are being implemented successfully based on NMFS productivity and susceptibility indices. This meets SG80, but not SG100.

d Shark finning

Pots: NA Pots: NA Pots: NA

Bait Bait Bait

180 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA

Rationale

There are no secondary shark species in these UoAs; therefore, this SI is not scored.

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

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

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL, pot, bait The UoAs have reviewed alternative measures to minimize unwanted catch, but not all secondary species have been considered on a biennial basis. NOAA regularly reviews mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch. Therefore, all UoAs meet SG60 and SG80 but not SG100. References

Krieger, J.R., Eich, A.M., and S.M. Fitzgerald. 2019. Seabird Bycatch Estimates for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries: 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/AKR-20, 41 p. doi:10.25923/hqft-we56.

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

Condition number (if relevant)

181 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

182 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post 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 with impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the respect to status. secondary species with UoA on main secondary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No

Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait HAL: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA Bait Pots: NA

Rationale

HAL and pots The North Pacific HAL and pot fisheries collect qualitative and quantitative sources of fishery dependent and fishery independent information. In some cases this information is used in stock assessments for Main Secondary species, including annual fishery independent surveys, catch accounting system, and an observer program. However, due to limitations on the coverage of boats <40ft LOA, there is a lack of verifiable information on the catch of bycatch species from this sector. Together, these measures constitute a partial strategy for managing and minimizing bycatch of main secondary species and are adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status. For these reasons, SG60 and SG80 for all gear types, but we cannot conclude that the fishery meets SG100.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

183 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Met? Fixed hook and line: No Pots: No

Bait Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and pots Information on the biomass and species composition of the catch from the Observer Program is adequate to support measures to manage minor secondary species. Combined with resource surveys, annual stock assessments, and conservation measures listed in various species/species complexes FMPs, these data support a partial strategy to manage minor secondary species. The SG100 level is not completely met, as some Minor Secondary species are only assessed as a complex as part of the NMFS’s Ecosystem SAFE reports. Therefore, SG100 is not met.

Bait While some information exists regarding the UoA on minor secondary species, it is not adequate to assess their status and therefore SG100 is not met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post 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? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No

Bait Bait Bait Bait HAL: Yes Bait HAL: No Bait HAL: No Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: Yes Bait Pots: No

Rationale

HAL and pots Information from the fishery independent surveys, catch accounting system, and observer programs is sufficient to support a partial strategy for grenadier and sea bird management. However, due to limitations in the observer program, there remain information gaps associated with Main Secondary catch from fishing vessels <40ft LOA. Because of these information gaps, while information is available to support management measures and a partial strategy, it is not yet adequate to support a to manage all secondary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Therefore, SG80 is met but the HAL and pot fisheries do not meet SG100.

Bait Alaska EEZ bait surveys for secondary species that estimate bait volume, species, origin, and annual variability for these fisheries support their partial strategy to manage these species. However, this information in its entirety is not available for Chatham Strait. Specifically, the assessment team was only provided with qualitative

184 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

bait use, including species composition, for the state managed HAL sablefish fishery. While bait information for the HAL and pot fisheries is adequate to support a partial strategy for the federal halibut and sablefish fisheries, it is not adequate to support a partial strategy to manage bait species in the state managed Chatham Strait sablefish fishery. For this reason, the Alaska EEZ meets the SG80 and Chatham Strait meets the SG60 level. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range HAL: ≥80 Pots: ≥80 Bait Pots: ≥80 Bait HAL: 60-79 Information gap indicator More information sought for bait species composition and quantity used by the fishery for Chatham strait

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

Condition number (if relevant)

185 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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

Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the MSC there is a high degree of population/ stock are known UoAs on the population certainty that the combined and likely to be within these /stock are known and highly effects of the MSC UoAs are limits. likely to be within these within these limits. limits. Met? Seabirds (short-tailed Seabirds (short-tailed Seabirds (short-tailed albatross): Yes albatross): Yes albatross): No Yelloweye rockfish: NA Yelloweye rockfish: NA Yelloweye rockfish: NA Sperm whale: NA Sperm whale: NA Sperm whale: NA

Rationale

The ETP species considered in their respective PIs are listed in Table 20. The assessment team categorized non- target species into the following MSC classifications: primary main and minor, secondary main and minor, ETP. For some groups of organisms, data was not species specific. Because fishery managers choose to assess these groups of species as complexes, the team maintained this classification when designating them into their appropriate MSC classifications.

Seabirds The short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) is listed as endangered under the ESA and is the only species of bird that interacts with the HAL fishery with national protection requirements. USFWS anticipates up to six short-tailed albatross can be reported taken biannually (every 2 years) as a result of groundfish fishing activities using demersal longline or trawl gear in the BSAI and GOA fishery management plan areas. In August 2017, NMFS AK Region produced an updated biological assessment specific to the effects of the Pacific Halibut fisheries in waters off AK on ETP species. Among the findings, the report’s biological assessment concluded that the commercial Pacific Halibut fishery in U.S. Convention waters off Alaska is likely to adversely affect the short- tailed albatross (NMFS, 2017). This statement, however, was not directed in its entirety towards the HAL fishery as no short-tailed albatross have been recorded taken in the last 10 years by this fishery, in addition to no recorded takes in the pot fishery (Krieger, 2019). Based on these data, the threat to the recovery of this species by the HAL and pot fisheries is negligible. Therefore, it is highly likely that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits and SG60 and 80 are met. Since observer coverage does not include 100% of the HAL fleet, there is not a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits and SG100 is not met.

There are no national and/or international limits for Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) and black- footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) so they are not considered here.

Yelloweye rockfish There are no national and/or international limits for this species.

186 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Sperm whale There are no national and/or international limits for sperm whales.

b Direct effects

Guide Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of post UoA are likely to not hinder highly likely to not hinder confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Seabirds: Yes Seabirds: Yes Seabirds: No Yelloweye rockfish: Yes Yelloweye rockfish: Yes Yelloweye rockfish: No Sperm whale: Yes Sperm whale: Yes Sperm whale: No

Rationale

Seabirds A recent population evaluation of black-footed albatross found that fisheries bycatch appears to be limiting the population whilst Laysan albatross appear more affected by island-based threats, such as habitat conversion of breeding areas (Bakker et al., 2017). Given the pelagic nature and wide distribution of albatross species, population-wide census’s are extremely difficult. All reproduction for these species occurs on a limited number of islands. Population status of both these species is assessed through annual nest-counts conducted by USFW over the last 100 years. Evidence presented in this study, as well as others, identifies fisheries bycatch as a major factor negatively impacting the population, with black-footed albatross bycatch consistently exceeding the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) (Bakkar et al. 2017; Lewison and Crowder, 2003). It is important to highlight that black-footed albatross is a widely distributed species that interacts with many fisheries throughout its range, and therefore, there is no direct link between concerns with current fisheries bycatch levels and the HAL. However, these latest analyses do highlight the need to continue to monitor the population status and catch rates of these species.

Since seabird bycatch in the HAL fishery is low for both black-footed albatross and laysan albatross and it is unlikely to have detrimental direct effects on these seabird species, the SG60 and SG80 levels are met. However, because of issues extrapolating short tailed albatross takes from observed trips and lack of observer coverage on boats <40 ft LOA, there is not a high degree of confidence that there is no significant detrimental direct impact, and SG100 is not met.

Yelloweye Rockfish Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) abundance is estimated to have dropped below the SB40% management target in 1988 and the overfished threshold in 1994. During 2002-2010, the total cumulative estimated yelloweye mortality (130 mt) represented only 69% of the summed ACLs and only 39% of the summed OFLs for that period. The total 2010 catch (11.4 mt) is just 3% of the peak annual catch that occurred in the early 1980s. These catch levels represent a 95% reduction from average catches observed in the 1980s and 1990s. Since 2002, the total 8-year cumulative catch (130 mt) has been only 69% of the sum of the ACLs for 2002-2010 and only 39% of the sum of the OFLs for that period (Taylor and Wetzel 2011). Managers have constrained catches by eliminating all retention of yelloweye rockfish in both commercial and recreational fisheries, instituting broad spatial closures (some specifically for moving fixed-gear fleets away from known areas of yelloweye abundance), and creating new gear restrictions intended to reduce trawling in rocky shelf habitats and the coincident catch of rockfish in shelf flatfish trawls (Taylor and Wetzel, 2011).

From 2014-2018 the limited entry sablefish fishery in WA caught a total of 1.19mt of the species (NWFSC, 2020). While it is assumed that the current management measures are effectively limiting the impact of these fisheries on the rebuilding plan, the species continues to be listed in the ESA (NMFS, 2017a). Therefore, direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species, meeting SG80 but there does not exist

187 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

a high degree of confidence that this is occurring because the NWFSC information was not accompanied with fate data and SG100 is therefore not met.

Sperm whale In 2020 NMFS classified the BSAI and GOA halibut HAL fisheries as Category III for sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) and the GOA sablefish HAL fishery as Category II. PBR is calculated to be 0.5 sperm whales for the North Pacific stock. The mean estimated annual mortality for sperm whales in the HAL fishery (1.5 sperm whales) exceeds the stock’s PBR, however the PBR only applies to a small portion of the stock's range and as such is considered an underestimate(Muto et al., 2019).

GSA3.1.8 requires that, in assessing the impact of a UoA on P2 species, this should include both observed and unobserved fishing mortality, where unobserved mortality may include IUU fishing, animals that may die after encountering fishing gear that may not be recorded, and mortality that may result from lost fishing gear that continues to fish (ghost fishing). The level of observer coverage for the UoA (vessels <40 ft and therefore with no observer coverage comprise 19% of the commercial landings, and make up 37% of the fleet by number) means that there is greater likelihood of there being unobserved mortality of all ETP species. This has been factored into the scores assigned above for each type of ETP species.

Unobserved mortality may also occur through ghost fishing but any lost longline gear is only likely to capture fish while the bait remains on the hook and the mortality rate from lost longlines is usually low (Macfadyen et al. 2009).

While, it is highly likely that the impacts of the HAL fishery are within these limits and SG60 and 80 are met, the exceeded PBR prohibits the assessment team from concluding, with a high degree of certainty, that the effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits and SG100 is not met.

c Indirect effects

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

Rationale

Seabirds The revised Programmatic Biological Assessment on the Effects of the Pacific Halibut Fisheries in Waters off Alaska on the Endangered Short-tailed Albatross (NMFS, 2017b) concluded that groundfish fisheries are not likely to have substantial indirect effects on the short-tailed albatross populations. The assessment addressed indirect effects, such as trophic impacts from fishery removals by HAL fisheries. This determination indicates that indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. Indirect effects have not been explicitly studied in laysan and black-footed albatross. Given the level of the bycatch of those species relative to population size, it can be concluded that the HAL and pot fisheries are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts, thereby meeting the SG80 level. However, there remains uncertainty regarding all indirect effects on ETP seabird species and the SG100 level is not met.

Yelloweye Rockfish

188 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Indirect effects including habitat alteration and trophic cascades have been considered and are thought to be highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. There is also a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on this species, meeting SG100.

Sperm whale Indirect effects of the HAL and fishery on sperm whales are not considered likely as sablefish and halibut are not a major source of food. Given this, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on whales and the SG100 level is met. References

Ford, C.M. Gabriele, D.K. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J.M. Straley, B. Taylor, J. Urban, D. Weller B.H. Witteveen, and M. Yamaguchi. (2019). Estimates of abundance and migratory destination for north Pacific humpback whales in both summer feeding areas and winter mating and calving areas. Paper SC/66b/IA21 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. Hanson, M.B., Good, T.P. Jannot, J. E. and McVeigh, J. (2019). Estimated humpback whale bycatch in the U.S. West Coast Groundfish Fisheries 2002-2017. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/06/agenda-item- i-4-a-nmfs-report-4-humpback-whale-bycatch-in-2016-2017-in-the-u-s-west-coast-groundfish-fisheries- electronic-only.pdf/ Krieger, J.R., Eich, A.M., and Fitzgerald, S.M. (2019). Seabird Bycatch Estimates for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries: 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/AKR-20, 41 p. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/20231 Macfadyen, G.; Huntington, T.; Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. Rome, UNEP/FAO. 2009. 115p. Muto, M.M., Helker, V.T., Angliss, R.P., Boveng, P.L., Breiwick, M. et al. (2019). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce. file:///C:/Users/andrew.bystrom/Downloads/noaa_20606_DS1.pdf NMFS. (2017a). Endangered and Threatened Species; Removal of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Canary Rockfish From the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species and Removal of Designated Critical Habitat, and Update and Amendment to the Listing Descriptions for the Yelloweye Rockfish DPS and Bocaccio DPS. NOAA. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/23/2017-00559/endangered-and-threatened- species-removal-of-the-puget-soundgeorgia-basin-distinct-population NMFS. (2017b). Programmatic Biological Assessment on the Effects of the Pacific Halibut Fisheries in Waters off Alaska on the Endangered Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), the Threatened Alaska-breeding Population of the Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri), and the Threatened Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri). NMFS Alaska Region Sustainable Fisheries Division Juneau, Alaska. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/19215 NOAA. (2018). List of Fisheries for 2018. 85 FR 21079. 83 FR 32093. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/11/2018-14811/marine-mammal-stock-assessment- reports Taylor IG, Wetzel C. 2011. Status of the U.S. yelloweye rockfish resource in 2011 (Update of 2009 assessment model), Pacific Fishery Managemetn Council. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/Yelloweye_2011_Assessment_Update.pdf

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

189 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.3.1 Scoring Calculation UoA Element SI a SI b SI c Element PI score score

Seabirds (short-tailed 80 80 80 80 albatross) HAL 85 Yelloweye rockfish NA 80 100 90

Sperm whale NA 80 100 90

190 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.2 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

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

a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

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

Rationale

Seabirds Given current observer coverage, use of streamer lines, and mortality notification there is a comprehensive strategy which is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Required seabird bycatch mitigation measures, as stated under NOAA Wildlife and Fisheries Title 50 CFR part 679 require vessels > 55 ft LOA in the EEZ to use a minimum of a paired streamer and vessels > 26 ft LOA and ≤ 55 ft LOA to use a minimum of a single (if using snap gear) or paired (if using other than snap gear) streamer line. Several other methods for reducing seabird bycatch are also used by fishers including setting at night, using weights on gear to decrease sink time, offal discharge regulations, and under water setting tubes. If a short-tailed albatross is hooked and there is a fisheries observer on board the vessel, the observer will report the short-tailed albatross take to NMFS. The USFWS will be notified of the take within 48 business day hours. If there is not an observer on board the vessel, NMFS requests that the albatross specimen be retained and reported immediately to NMFS or USFWS (NMFS 2015f). Although reductions in seabird catch have been significant in the last several years, seabirds are still caught in the halibut fishery. Despite this, the HAL’s comprehensive strategy for managing its impacts on seabirds is designed to achieve above national and international requirements, meeting SG100.

Yelloweye rockfish In 2017, NMFS released a Recovery Plan for yelloweye rockfish. The plan addresses all of the known threats— drawing on existing information to prioritize actions. The plan uses an adaptive management approach for conducting the research required to manage and recover listed rockfish and inform implementation of actions to ensure each of the potential threats does not limit recovery (NMFS, 2017b). The recovery program details approximately 45 actions that address population abundance, demographics, and habitat associations; recovery goals; protection and restoration; education and outreach; documentation of bycatch; and public support. This

191 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

strategy for managing HAL catch of this species is designed to achieve above national and international requirements, meeting SG100.

Sperm whale The BSAI and GOA Groundfish FMPs state that the UoAs shall follow the numerous requirements laid out by the ESA and MMPA for sperm whales, including managing commercial fishery impacts, monitoring bycatch, and applying regulatory and conservation actions. As a reaction to the HAL’s mean estimated annual mortality exceeding the 0.5 PBR for sperm whales, NMFS added the North Pacific stock of sperm whales to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the BSAI halibut longline fishery as a Category III fishery in 2020 (NOAA, 2019). A clear interaction mitigation strategy is not available for the HAL fishery and while there is a strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species that meets SG80, there is not a comprehensive strategy that meets SG100.

b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure strategy in place for the UoA does not hinder the the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Seabirds: NA Seabirds: NA Seabirds: NA Yelloweye rockfish: NA Yelloweye rockfish: NA Yelloweye rockfish: NA Sperm whale: NA Sperm whale: NA Sperm whale: NA

Rationale

Not applicable since there are national and international requirements in place for most ETP species. Therefore, all ETP species are assessed under SI a. c Management strategy evaluation

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

Rationale

Seabirds The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery, including observer data and the extrapolated takes from the catch accounting system, which provide an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work to achieve objectives, based on information directly about the fishery, as well as information about estimated catches for the entire fleet. This quantitative information supports high confidence that the strategy will work, whereby meeting SG100.

Yelloweye rockfish

192 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work based on fishery dependent and fishery independent information collected. The NMFS (2017b) Recovery plan for the species is informed by the following data: 1) Fishery independent data 2) Estimates of fecundity, maturity, length-weight relationships and ageing error from various sources; 3) Informative priors on natural mortality and stock recruit steepness derived from other fish and yelloweye stocks; 4) Commercial (targeted and bycatch) and recreational catch estimates 5) Commercial and recreational fishery biological data (age and length) from 1968-2010; 6) Fishery dependent catch-per-unit-effort series from recreational and charter observer programs. This represents a strategy based on information directly about the fishery and species involved, and a quantitative analysis that supports high confidence that the strategy will work, thus meeting SG100.

Sperm whale The strategy is based on information directly about the HAL fishery and the species involved. The PBR is defined, though according to comments made during the LOF process it does not apply to the entire North Pacific sperm whale stock, and as a result, MNFS classified the BSAI halibut HAL fishery as Category III for sperm whales and the GOA sablefish HAL fishery as Category II for sperm whales. Given this, there is an objective basis for confidence (but not high confidence) that the strategy will work based on information directly about the fisheries and the species involved. For this reason SG80 is met but SG100 is not met.

d Management strategy implementation

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

Rationale

Seabirds There is clear evidence, from observer data and the extrapolated takes from the catch accounting system, that the strategy is being successfully implemented, including a very high rate of adoption of bycatch reduction measures across the groundfish fleet. SG80 and SG100 levels are met.

Yelloweye Rockfish There is clear evidence from fishery independent and fishery dependent information that the strategy is working given progress made towards the rebuilding goals. SG80 and SG100 levels are met.

Sperm whale Available observer data from NOAA for the Alaska halibut and sablefish HAL fishery does not show interaction with sperm whales. The BSAI halibut HAL fishery’s and the GOA sablefish HAL fishery’s recent ascension to Category III and Category II (respectively) for sperm whales has therefore had very little time to demonstrate whether or not ESA and MMPA management strategies have been successfully implemented. But taking into account the observer data, there is some evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully, thus meeting SG80 but not SG100. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness

193 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Seabirds: Yes Seabirds: Yes Seabirds: No Yelloweye rockfish: Yes Yelloweye rockfish: Yes Yelloweye rockfish: No Sperm whale: Yes Sperm whale: Yes Sperm whale: No

Rationale

There is evidence from the observer program for the GOA and BSAI HAL fisheries that catch of ETP species is consistently below the levels established by national requirements and rebuilding plans. This meets SG80 for all species, but since the assessment team has not been provided information regarding whether there is a biennial review process, SG100 is not met. References

NMFS. (2017a). Endangered and Threatened Species; Removal of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Canary Rockfish From the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species and Removal of Designated Critical Habitat, and Update and Amendment to the Listing Descriptions for the Yelloweye Rockfish DPS and Bocaccio DPS. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/23/2017-00559/endangered-and-threatened-species- removal-of-the-puget-soundgeorgia-basin-distinct-population NMFS. (2017b). Rockfish Recovery Plan. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16866 NOAA. (2019). List of Fisheries for 2019. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/16/2019-10139/list-of-fisheries-for-2019 NOAA. (2020). List of Fisheries for 2020. 85 FR 21079. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/16/2020-06908/list-of-fisheries-for-2020

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.3.1 Scoring Calculation UoA Element SI a SI b SI c SI d SI e Element score PI score

Seabirds 100 80 100 80 90

HAL Yelloweye rockfish 100 100 100 80 95 90

Sperm whale 80 80 80 80 80

194 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

195 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

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

Rationale

There is qualitative and quantitative information being collected annually for seabirds, yelloweye rockfish, and sperm whales to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of these ETP species.

Seabirds Available information allows for fishery related mortality of ETP species to be estimated by managers and is the product of annual estimates of bycatch from the Observer Program collected from the HAL fisheries in the BSAI and GOA. Data on the mortalities of ETP seabirds is known to be within limits identified in recovery plans and regulations on seabird avoidance (USFWS, 2018; Krieger et al., 2019; NOAA Fisheries, 2020). This represents adequate information to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated, but because of gaps in observer coverage for boats <40ft LOA we cannot conclude this information provides a high degree of certainty and SG100 is not met.

Yelloweye Rockfish Sufficient information is available to allow fishery related mortality and impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated and includes: 1) Fishery independent data: including relative abundance indices, length and age data from the International Pacific Halibut Commission’s (IPHC) longline surveys, and the NWFSC Observer Program (2020) 2) Estimates of fecundity, maturity, length-weight relationships and ageing error from various sources; 3)

196 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Informative priors on natural mortality and stock recruit steepness derived from other fish and yelloweye stocks; 4) Commercial (targeted and bycatch) and recreational catch estimates; 5) Commercial and recreational fishery biological data (age and length); 6) Fishery dependent catch-per-unit-effort series from recreational and charter observer programs from all three states. Although, because of gaps in the recreational fishery we cannot score this at SG100.

Whales Similarly, the fishery records interactions, estimated in annual population assessments, with sperm and humpback whales and, according to NOAA (2019), these instances are rare and contribute little to mortality rates being above these species’ PBRs. The assessment team considers this information adequate to meet SG80 but not SG100. b Information adequacy for management strategy

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

Rationale

Seabird NMFS has estimated seabird bycatch using CAS in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries since 2007 and in the halibut fisheries since 2013 (Fitzgerald et al. 2013). Seabird estimates are based on at-sea sampling by observers. In the CAS, observer data are used to create seabird bycatch rates (a ratio of the estimated bycatch to the estimated total catch in sampled hauls). The observer information from the at-sea samples is used to create bycatch rates that are applied to unobserved vessels. For trips that are unobserved, the bycatch rates are applied to industry supplied landings of retained catch. Expanding on the observer data that are available, the extrapolation from observed vessels to unobserved vessels is based on varying levels of aggregated data (post- stratification). Considering this, the observer program and CAS provide information sufficient to determine if the halibut fishery is a threat to short-tailed, laysan and black-footed albatross population recovery but because of observer coverage gaps for boats <40ft, there is a lack of verifiable data on the magnitude of all impacts from the fishery. With this being the case, information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy (but not a comprehensive) to manage impacts on these species and SG80 is met but not SG100.

Yelloweye Rockfish Because of the issues mentioned in SI a related to impacts from recreational fishing, we cannot conclude that information is sufficient to support a comprehensive strategy and cannot score this element at SG100. However, the uncertainties with respect to recreational catches of yelloweye are not considered to represent a substantial concern for the current rebuilding plan and the information available is therefore considered adequate to support a full management strategy but not a comprehensive one, therefore meeting SG80 but not the 100 level (NMFS, 2017b).

Whales The information collected is considered accurate and verifiable with respect to the HAL and pot fisheries’ direct impacts on sperm and humpback whales, but since the entire sperm whale stock that potentially interacts with

197 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

this fishery is not assessed, in addition to gaps in observer coverage for both fisheries, the information available on this population meets the SG80 but not the 100 level. References

Fitzgerald, S.M., J. Cahalan, J. Gasper, and J. Mondragon. 2013. Estimates of Seabird Bycatch in Alaskan Groundfish Fisheries Using the Alaska Region Catch Accounting System, 2007-2011. Poster presented at the Pacific Seabird Group 40th Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, Feb 2013. Document available at: http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/pubs/posters/pdfs/pFitzgerald03_seabird-bycatch.pdf USFWS. 2018. Seabirds. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/alaska/pages/migratory-birds/seabirds. NOAA Fisheries. (2020). Seabird avoidance gear and methods. Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/bycatch/seabird-avoidance-gear-and-methods Krieger, J.R., Eich, A.M., and S.M. Fitzgerald. (2019). Seabird Bycatch Estimates for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries: 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/AKR-20, 41 p. doi:10.25923/hqft-we56.NOAA. (2019). List of Fisheries for 2019. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/16/2019-10139/list-of-fisheries-for-2019 NMFS. (2017b). Rockfish Recovery Plan. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16866 NWFSC (2020). Observer Program, NOAA Fisheries, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E, Seattle, WA 98112

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

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.3.3 Scoring Calculation UoA Element SI a SI b Element score PI score

Seabirds 80 80 80

HAL Yelloweye rockfish 80 80 80 80

Sperm whale 80 80 80

198 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

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

Rationale

Ecosystem evaluations and groundfish management plans in the UoAs examine the impacts of HAL and pot gear on seafloor EFHs and HAPCs. While these gear types (anchors or weights, hooks, mainlines, pots) are in contact with the seafloor and can alter habitats by smothering, overturning, or undercutting emergent organisms, researchers and fishery managers conclude that fishing activities are highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure (e.g., coral and sponge habitats, sandy bottoms, vegetates surfaces, rocky substrates) in the UoAs (PFMC, 2019; Siddon and Zador, 2018; Zador and Ortiz, 2018; Zador and Yasumiishi, 2018).

The fishery predominately operates over soft substrate where the impacts are considered negligible. Fixed hook and line gear operations predominately occur over soft substrate, and their impact on habitat is generally thought to have minimal effects on the seafloor relative to other types of gear (e.g. trawling); however, there is still potential for impacts on corals by entangling and dislodging them (as evidenced by coral bycatch, Livingston 2003) but this is discussed below in SIb.

Pot fishing is considered to have a minimal impact upon the environment apart from the potential for ghost fishing. NMFS regulations require that each pot used to fish for sablefish be equipped with a biodegradable panel at least 18 inches (45.72 cm) in length and sewn up with untreated cotton thread, the effects of which reduce the ability of lost sablefish pots to ghost fish (NOAA, 2016b). In Alaska, sablefish pot fishing occurs in strings of up to 135 pots per set (Hanselmen et al. 2019). However, depending on where the gear is set and how it is retrieved it can still have detrimental effects on sensitive habitats (Jenkins and Garrison, 2012), including corals.

The references studies related to the impact of longlining and pot gear use on habitats in the UoAs provide sufficient evidence that both gears are highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point of irreversible harm. For this reason, the HAL and pot fisheries both meet the SG100 level. b VME habitat status

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

199 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

would be serious or would be serious or would be serious or irreversible harm. irreversible harm. irreversible harm.

Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No Rationale

The VMEs for these UoAs are the designated EFHs; HAPCs; and other coral, sponges, sea pens, and sea whips habitats. The most recent 5-year review of EFH took place in 2016 using a new Fishing Effects (FE) model to assess the impacts of fishing activities on EFH. Using this new model over the period 2003 to 2016, it is estimated that 2.9% of sablefish EFH in the BS is impacted by sablefish fisheries and 2.4% in the BSAI. (http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/EFH/EFH_FE_output_BS_locked.xlsx) (http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/EFH/EFH_FE_output_AI_locked.xlsx)

While the assessment team did not find similar studies for the HAL halibut fishery, observer data shows that capture of corals and sponges represents 0.02% and 0.01% of the catch respectively. To compare, the total catch of corals and sponges in pot gear was less than 0.01% of the total catch.

Longline and pot gear can have an impact on certain sensitive habitat as evidenced by limited underwater observations (Livingston 2003). The actual capture of gorgonian and stony corals, as examples, has been verified by commercial fisheries observers and NMFS surveys (NOAA CAS 2019). Damage can be caused to corals, sponges, and some other sessile organisms by hooking, by crushing and plowing by pots and anchors, and from shearing by groundlines upon retrieval. However, a large proportion of this gear is set on soft substrate where effects are considered negligible (Pham et al. 2014). Furthermore, HAL and pot observer data show that interactions with coral organisms is <.02% of the catch (and less for sponges, se apens, and sea whips), well shy of the 20% threshold for considering damage as serious or irreversible (Siddon and Zador 2018). Furthermore, habitat protections in Alaska and Washington have been set up to protect highly sensitive coral habitats.

While it is highly unlikely that HAL and pot fishing activities reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (meeting the SG60 and SG80 levels), however, evidence is not available of move-on rules or other strategies that would further mitigate these impacts and the SG100 level is not met.

c Minor habitat status

200 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

There is not sufficient evidence with regard to minor habitats so none of the UoAs meet SG100.

References

Hanselman, D.H., C.J., Rodgveller, K.H. Fenske, S. K. Shotwell, K. B. Echave, P. W. Malecha and C.R., Lunsford. 2019. Assessment of the sablefish stock in Alaska. In Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for the groundfish resources of the GOA and BS/AI. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501. Heifetz, J. 2002. Coral in Alaska: distribution, abundance and species associations. Hydrobiologia. 471: pp 1928 Jenkins LD, Garrison K. 2012. Fishing gear substitution to reduce bycatch and habitat impacts: An example of social–ecological research to inform policy. Mar. Policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.06.005 Livingston, P.A. 2003. Ecosystem considerations for 2004. In Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the groundfish resources of the EBS/AI and GOA. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage. Available at: www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/safes/2003/ecosystem2003.pdf. Martin, M. (2009). HAPC Biota – Gulf of Alaska. In Boldt J. and Zador, S. Eds. Ecosystem Impacts for 2010. Appendix C, 2009 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. McConnaughey, R. A., J. V. Olson, and M. F. Sigler. (2009). Alaska Fisheries Science Center essential fish habitat data inventory. AFSC Processed Rep. 2009-01, 40 p. NOAA. (2016b). Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow the Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Fishery; Amendment 101. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/28/2016-31057/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic- zone-off-alaska-allow-the-use-of-longline-pot-gear-in-the-gulf Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). (2019). Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan: Appendix C. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/06/revised-groundfish-fmp-appendix-c-part- 1.pdf/ Pham, C.K., Diogo, H., Menezes, G., Porteiro, F., Braga-Henriques, A., Vandeperre, F. and Morato, T., 2014. Deep-water longline fishing has reduced impact on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. Scientific reports, 4. Siddon, E. and Zador, S. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Eastern Bering Sea. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://access.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/REEM/ecoweb/pdf/2018ecosysEBS-508.pdf Stone, R.P., Malecha, P.W. and Masuda, M.M. (2017). A Five-Year, In Situ Growth Study on Shallow-Water Populations of the Gorgonian Octocoral Calcigorgia spiculifera in the Gulf of Alaska. Plos One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169470 Zador, S., and Ortiz, I., 2018. Ecosystem Status Report 2018: Aleutian Islands, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report, North Pacific Fishery Management Council https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/gulls.pdf Zador, S. and Yasumiishi, E. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Gulf of Alaska.

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

201 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range HAL: ≥80 Pots: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

202 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

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

Alaska There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on coral habitats which consists of (1) closing coral garden sites to all bottom-contact fishing in the Aleutian Islands and (2) closing coral garden sites in SE Alaska to bottom-contact fishing gears; (3) monitoring trends in relative abundance via the NOAA-Fisheries trawl surveys. There is a transparent criterion for identifying and classifying habitats as “Habitat Areas of Particular Concern” on the basis of rarity, ecological importance, sensitivity and level of disturbance (NPFMC 2010). The Council adopted an environmental impact statement for EFH in 2005, which has been subsequently reviewed and updated in 2010 and 2017.

All fishery management plans include a description and identification of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and actions to conserve and enhance habitat. Maps of essential fish habitat areas are used for understanding potential effects of proposed development and other activities. Each FMP contains the following EFH components: EFH identification and description for managed species, fishing and non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH, conservation and enhancement recommendations for EFH, and research and information needs. The EFH provisions in each FMP must be reviewed, and if appropriate, revised, every 5 years.

Washington The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has developed a strategy which describes and maps EFH, and suggests management measures to reduce impacts from fishing and non-fishing activities, for coastal pelagic species, salmon, groundfish, and highly migratory species.

The Council uses fishing gear restrictions, time and area closures, harvest limits, and other measures to lessen adverse impacts on EFH (PFMC, 2019). When doing so, the Council considers whether the fishing activity is harming the habitat, the nature and extent of the damage, and whether management measures can be enforced. The Council also considers the long-term and short-term costs and benefits to the fishery, fishing communities, and the habitat.

To identify EFH for groundfish, NMFS developed a GIS-based assessment model that looked at the occurrence of groundfish in relation to depth, latitude, and substrate type. Ultimately the Council identified groundfish EFH as all waters from the high tide line (and parts of estuaries) to 3,500 meters (1,914 fathoms) in depth. HAPCs are a subset of EFH used to focus management and restoration efforts. The Council identified six HAPC types. The current HAPC types are: estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, rocky reefs, and “areas of interest” (a variety of submarine features, such as banks, seamounts, and canyons, along with Washington State waters.)

203 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Taken together for Alaska and Washington, this represents a strategy in place for managing the impact of the HAL fishery on habitat types and meets SG 100. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general will work, based on based on information directly experience, theory or information directly about about the UoA and/or comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). involved. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for preventing structural habitat damage (including closed areas for seamounts and corals, gear restrictions to minimize impacts, and research to improve knowledge) will work given relatively low levels of coral and sponge bycatch. While VMS and observer data provide a basis for testing, a defined process is lacking in Alaska and Washington to support this strategy. Due to this, the SG60 and SG80 levels are met. Annual SAFE documents provide a means of testing management measures against objectives providing high confidence the habitat management strategy will work, thus meeting the SG100 level. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

There is some evidence from the observer program indicating a very few structure forming organisms are being captured with halibut and sablefish HAL gear and with sablefish pot gear. by halibut longlining operations (NOAA CAS 2019). VMS data on the spatial and temporal aspects of fishing activities also provides quantitative evidence that strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective and therefore meets SG100. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its management requirements management requirements management requirements to protect VMEs. and with protection and with protection measures measures afforded to VMEs afforded to VMEs by other by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, MSC fisheries, where where relevant. relevant. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No

204 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

Alaska Additionally, six Habitat Conservation Zones with especially high density coral and sponge habitat were closed to all bottom-contact fishing gear (longlines, pots, trawls). These “coral garden” areas total 110 nm2 and function as de facto marine reserves. To improve monitoring and enforcement of the Aleutian Island closures, a vessel monitoring system is required for all fishing vessels in the Aleutian management area. In Southeast Alaska, three sites with large aggregations (“thickets”) of long-lived Primnoa coral are also identified as HAPCs. These sites, in the vicinity of Cape Ommaney and Fairweather grounds, total 67 nm2. The Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat Protection Area designates five zones within these sites where submersible observations have been made, totaling 13.5 nm2. All bottom-contact gear (longlines, trawls, pots, dinglebar gear, etc.) is prohibited in this area.

Washington In addition to identifying EFH and describing HAPCs, the Council also adopted mitigation measures directed at the adverse impacts of fishing on groundfish EFH. Principal among these are closed areas to protect sensitive habitats. There are three types of closed areas: bottom trawl closed areas, bottom contact closed areas, and a bottom trawl footprint closure. The 34 bottom trawl closed areas are closed to all types of bottom trawl fishing gear. The bottom trawl footprint closure closes areas in the EEZ between 1,280 meters (700 fathoms) and 3,500 meters (1,094 fathoms), which is the outer extent of groundfish EFH (PFMC 2005). The 17 bottom contact closed areas are closed to all types of bottom contact gear intended to make contact with bottom during fishing operations, which includes fixed gear, such as longline and pots.

Given VMS and Observer Program data for both of these regions, the UoAs comply with management and protection measures to protect VMEs; however, no move on rules are in place for this fishery. Therefore, the assessment team concludes that the HAL and por fisheries demonstrate some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs, thus meeting the SG80 but not the SG100 level. References

NOAA Catch Accounting System (CAS). (2019). Alaska Catch Accounting System. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/sustainable-fisheries/alaska-catch-accounting-system North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). (2010). North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Initial Review Draft: Environmental Assessment / Regulatory Impact Review / Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for proposed amendment 86 to the Fishery Management Plan of the Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands Management area and amendment 76 to the Fishery Management Plan of the Gulf of Alaska: Restructuring program for observer procurement and deployment in the North Pacific. June 2010. Pp. 380. http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/analyses/observer/amd86_amd76_earirirfa0311.pdf Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2005. Amendment 18 (Bycatch Mitigation Program) Amendment 19 (Essential Fish Habitat) to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/A18-19Final.pdf Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). (2019). Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan: Appendix C. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/06/revised-groundfish-fmp-appendix-c-part-1.pdf/

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

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

205 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

206 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all post the main habitats are vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their broadly understood. habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence OR relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No Rationale

Bottom habitat data in the GOA (NOAA, 2020) BSAI has been compiled and analysed in multiple studies and databases (Zimmerman et al., 2019; Richwine et al.,2018). The types, distributions, and vulnerability of the main habitats in the BSAI and GOA are known at the scale relevant to the UoAs as described in the EFH report and FMPs and by NOAA data. Habitats in the AI are less well understood, but taken as a whole there is information on the nature, distribution, and vulnerability of main habitat types in Alaskan waters.

Regarding Wasington, to identify EFH for groundfish, NMFS developed a GIS-based assessment model that looked at the occurrence of groundfish in relation to depth, latitude, and substrate type. Ultimately the Council identified groundfish EFH as all waters from the high tide line (and parts of estuaries) to 3,500 meters (1,914 fathoms) in depth. HAPCs are a subset of EFH used to focus management and restoration efforts. The Council identified six HAPC types. The current HAPC types are: estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, rocky reefs, and “areas of interest” (a variety of submarine features, such as banks, seamounts, and canyons, along with Washington State waters.)

Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since the distribution of all habitats is not known over their ranges. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully. of gear use on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction

207 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

overlap of habitat with and on the timing and fishing gear. location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the Some quantitative consequence and spatial information is available and attributes of the main is adequate to estimate the habitats. consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No Rationale

Alaska Sufficient information from the observer program, trawl surveys, and habitat mapping are available to allow the nature of most impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and provide reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear from boats in the observer program. However, because of limitations of observer coverage on boats <40ft LOA, there is no reliable information on spatial extent and timing of interactions from that sector which may disproportionately impact more shallow, inshore waters. Likewise, the physical impacts of pot gear on all habitat types have not been fully quantified

Washington There is sufficient data from the observer program indicating a very few structure forming organisms are being captured by longlining operations (NOAA CAS 2019). However, there is a lack of directed studies on the effects of longlining in Washington.

Because gear impacts have not been quantified fully, both gear types do not meet the SG100 level.

c Monitoring

Guide Adequate information Changes in all habitat post continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

Alaska Sufficient information from the observer program, trawl surveys, and habitat mapping continue to be collected in such a way as to allow detection of increased risk to habitat from changes in fishing effort. Additionally, Martin (2009) describes trends in deep water corals and other biogenic habitat based on trawl survey bycatch and finds little evidence for persistent trends in corals in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands or Gulf of Alaska. Furthermore, EFH designations are revisited every 5 years to help measure changes in habitat distributions over time.

Washington

208 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Sufficient data from the observer program continue to be collected to allow detection of increased risk to habitat caused by changes in fishing effort.

While changes in all habitat distributions over time are not measured and the fisheries do not meet SG100, there is adequate information collected to detect and increase in risk to the main habitats, therefore meeting SG80.

References

NOAA. (2020). Alaska bathymetry: data and publications. https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/afsc/RACE/groundfish/bathymetry/Data.htm Richwine, K. A., K. R. Smith and R. A. McConnaughey. 2018. Surficial sediments of the eastern Bering Sea continental shelf: EBSSED-2 database documentation. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC- 377, 48 p. Zimmermann, M., Prescott, M.M. and Haeussler, P.J. (2019). Bathymetry and Geomorphology of Shelikof Strait and the Western Gulf of Alaska. Geosciences 2019, 9(10), 409; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9100409

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

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

Condition number (if relevant)

209 | Page Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to disrupt The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post the key elements underlying disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements function to a point where structure and function to a underlying ecosystem there would be a serious or point where there would be structure and function to a irreversible harm. a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

The assessment team evaluated the available information regarding ecosystem impacts in the GOA, BSAI, Washington, and Chatham Strait. As the gear types, and fishery operations are similar across the regions as they relate to ecosystem impacts, we have only evaluated the overall impact of HAL and pot gear use rather than region specific impacts.

The NPFMC has developed and implemented multiple assessments and plans (i.e., stock assessments, EISs, FEPs, and FMPs) that evaluate different ecosystem aspects. Specifically, the primary goal of the NPFMC's ecosystem assessment is to summarize and synthesize historical climate and fishing effects on the shelf and slope regions of the eastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, and the Arctic, from an ecosystem perspective and to provide an assessment of the possible future effects of climate and fishing on ecosystem structure and function. Research has focused on quantifying food web linkages to increase understanding of how external forces such as fishing may cause unanticipated shifts in ecosystem composition. The Ecosystem Status reports for the GOA and BSAI provide an extensive accounting of the dynamics of key biophysical drivers and indicators of ecosystem and community structure (Siddon and Zador, 2018; Zador and Ortiz, 2018; Zador and Yasumiishi, 2018). Moreover, indicators of community structure in the Eastern Bering Sea (e.g. species richness, community size-spectra) do not suggest that groundfish fisheries are having significant adverse effects but instead are more responsive to changes in spatial distribution of stocks and environmental conditions (Mueter and Lauth 2009; Boldt et al. 2008).

Each year the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) Ecosystem Work Group develops a “California Current Ecosystem Status Report” for the Council. The 2020 Annual Report, reflects trends in physical, biological, and socio-economic indicators. The CCE has experienced exceptional ocean warming over the past seven years, due to a mixture of El Niño events and large marine heat waves. While this has impacted some aspects of ecosystem productivity, juvenile groundfish production has been high, supporting ongoing recovery of many groundfish stocks (Harvey et al., 2020). Additionally, approximately 1/3 of the managed species within the groundfish fishery management plan (FMP) have been evaluated (either recently or historically) for the overfished threshold based on stock assessment results. Most of the recently assessed groundfish species are above the biomass limit reference point, and are thus not in a depleted “overfished” status, and no overfishing occurred on these stocks prior to their most recent assessments (NMFS 2015).

These indicators are evidence that the halibut and sablefish HAL and pot fisheries are highly unlikely to disrupt key elements of the ecosystem and they meet SG100.

References

Boldt, J, S. Bartkiw, P. Livingston, J. Hoff, and G. Walters 2008. Community size spectrum of the bottom trawl- caught community of the Eastern Bering Sea. Stock Assessment and Evaluation (SAFE) Report. Appendix A. Ecosystem Considerations. http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/reem/ecoweb/html/EcoContribution.cfm?ID=69 Harvey, C., Garfield, T., Williams and G., Tolimieri, N. (2020). California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) California Current Ecosystem Status Report, 2020. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/02/g-1-a-iea-team-report-1.pdf/ Mueter, F., Lauth, R. 2009. Average local species richness and diversity of the groundfish community. Community size spectrum of the bottom trawl-caught community of the Eastern Bering Sea. Stock Assessment and Evaluation (SAFE) Report. Appendix A. Ecosystem Considerations. Available at: http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/reem/ecoweb/EcoChaptMainFrame.cfm?ID=57 NMFS 2015. California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) State of the California Current Report. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/E1b_NMFS_Rpt2_MAR2015BB.pdf Siddon, E. and Zador, S. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Eastern Bering Sea. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://access.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/REEM/ecoweb/pdf/2018ecosysEBS-508.pdf Zador, S., and Ortiz, I., 2018. Ecosystem Status Report 2018: Aleutian Islands, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report, North Pacific Fishery Management Council https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/gulls.pdf Zador, S. and Yasumiishi, E. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Gulf of Alaska.

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

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

Condition number (if relevant)

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

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that post 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 UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

Alaska Ecosystem context and management is overseen by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is one of the national leaders in implementing ecosystem-based management. The council’s Fishery Management Plans specify a strategy to address, monitor and regulate ecosystem impacts of the fishery. Ecosystem-level constraints also factor into management decisions via a cap in total ecosystem removals for the Eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska based on considerations of the maximum surplus production of these ecosystems

Each year since 1999, NPFMC has developed an Ecosystem Status Report including information on indicators of ecosystem trends. In 2002, stock assessment scientists began using indicators contained in this report to systematically assess ecosystem factors such as climate, predators, prey, and habitat that might affect a particular stock. Information regarding a particular fishery’s catch, bycatch and temporal/spatial distribution can be used to assess possible impacts of that fishery on the ecosystem. Indicators of concern are highlighted within each assessment and can be used by the Groundfish Plan Teams and the NPFMC to justify modification of allowable biological catch recommendations or time/space allocations of catch.

Washington In April 2013, the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted the Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), the Ecosystem Initiatives Appendix, and a schedule for implementation. The purpose of the FEP is to enhance the Council’s species-specific management programs with more ecosystem science, broader ecosystem considerations and management policies that coordinate Council management across its Fishery Management Plans and the California Current Ecosystem. The FEP outlines a reporting process wherein NOAA provides the Council with a yearly update on the state of the California Current Ecosystem (CCE), as derived from environmental, biological and socio-economic indicators. NOAA’s California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) team is responsible for this report which the PFMC uses to guide decision-making and allocation.

Taken together, Alaska and Washington management efforts represent a partial strategy to manage ecosystem impacts and both gear types meet SG80 but not SG100. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, 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/ ecosystems). the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved. ecosystem involved. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

Alaska The partial strategy makes use of available physical, biological, and fishing effort information collected via trawl surveys, observer data, and ocean monitoring assets and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. The strategy includes the BSAI and GOA FMPs with the objective to “ensure the sustainability of fishery resources and associated ecosystems for the benefit of future”. The Council has adopted measures to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious and irreversible harm to the ecosystem, as well as to accelerate ecosystem-based management principles that protect managed species from overfishing and increase habitat protection and bycatch constraints.

Washington The California Current IEA uses a combination of conceptual and empirical models (i.e. Atlantis Ecosystem Model) to integrate information and assess indicators. Atlantis is a simulation modeling approach that integrates physical, chemical, ecological, and anthropogenic processes in a three-dimensional spatially explicit domain. The model represents key exploited species at the level of detail necessary to evaluate direct effects of fishing and also represents other anthropogenic and climate impacts on the ecosystem as a whole (Levin and Schwing 2011). Data comes from a variety of sources including CalCOFI oceanographic and biological surveys, NMFS triennial annual trawl surveys, PacFIN commercial fishing database, and other supporting sources (Levin and Schwing 2011). Additionally, the PFMC has a Fishery Ecosystem Plan that helps the Council incorporate ecosystem science into its fishery management decisions. The Plan focuses on specific ecosystem topics and how they affect managed fisheries. Recent initiatives include protection of unfished forage fish, ecosystem indicators, and the effects of climate change on fishing communities (PFMC, 2020).

There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. Furthermore, Annual information and analysis (i.e., Ecosystem Considerations SAFE documents) directly from the UoAs and ecosystem involved provide a means of testing management measures against objectives providing high confidence the management strategy will work ,thus meeting the SG100 level. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post 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? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

Clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective comes from the Ecosystem Status Reports which provide an extensive accounting of the dynamics of key biophysical drivers and indicators of ecosystem and community structure (Siddon and Zador, 2018, Zador and Ortiz, 2018, Zador and Yasumiishi, 2018). Additionally, data from the fishery collected by the observer programs

and research trawl and acoustic surveys monitor key elements of the ecosystem. The SG80 and SG100 levels are met for all gear types. References

PFMC. (2020). Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem Revised Chapters 1 & 2. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/04/fishery-ecosystem-plan- revised-chapters-1-2.pdf/ Siddon, E. and Zador, S. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Eastern Bering Sea. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://access.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/REEM/ecoweb/pdf/2018ecosysEBS-508.pdf Zador, S., and Ortiz, I., 2018. Ecosystem Status Report 2018: Aleutian Islands, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report, North Pacific Fishery Management Council https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/gulls.pdf Zador, S. and Yasumiishi, E. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Gulf of Alaska.

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

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

Condition number (if relevant)

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

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements of the broadly understand the key ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

Alaska Information on ecosystem structure and effects of HAL and pot fishing in the GOA and BSAI, derived from trawl and longline surveys, an extensive annual food habits collection program, assessments for all main retained and discarded species, monitoring of susceptible and vulnerable seabird populations, and monitoring and conservation of sensitive habitats (Siddon and Zador, 2018; Zador and Ortiz, 2018; Zador and Yasumiishi, 2018). Ecosystem indicators are tracked annually and reported in the Ecosystem Considerations appendix of the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports. This information is adequate to broadly understand key aspects of the ecosystem.

Washington The California Current IEA uses a combination of conceptual and empirical models (i.e. Atlantis Ecosystem Model) to integrate information and assess indicators. Data comes from a variety of sources including CalCOFI oceanographic and biological surveys, NMFS triennial annual trawl surveys, PacFIN commercial fishing database, and other supporting sources (Levin and Schwing 2011). This information is adequate to broadly understand key aspects of the ecosystem and supports the Fishery Ecosystem Plan that helps the Council incorporate ecosystem information into its fishery management decisions (PFMC, 2020).

Information is adequate to broadly understand the elements of the ecosystem and both SG60 and SG80 are met for both gear types. b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guide Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the post these key ecosystem elements these key ecosystem elements UoA and these ecosystem can be inferred from existing can be inferred from existing elements can be inferred from information, but have not been information, and some have existing information, and have investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: No Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: No Rationale

Alaska and Washington The Ecosystem Status report provides detail about trends and dynamics of several key ecosystem indicators. However, there remain key knowledge gaps related to the relatively imprecise estimates of total impacts to non-target species and their ecological roles. Effects of the fishery on biogenic structures are not precisely determined, and any secondary effects that this may induce are also not well known. On the whole, there is a relatively high amount of information on the ecosystems in which this fishery operates and on the main impacts that the fishery might have but not all have been investigated.

ETP species impacts from longline and pot gear use are well documented (Krieger et al., 2019; Muto et al. 2019). Pot gear impacts to bottom fauna have been estimated in the GOA (NOAA, 2005). The long-term effects index for long-line impacts on fish habitat features are also documented (NOAA, 2005). The SG60 and SG80 are met. The effects of longline gear on bottom habitat have not been studied in the GOA in addition to the impacts of lost pot gear (although biodegradable material is believed to mitigate some of the impacts associated with pot ghost fishing).

On the whole, there is a relatively high amount of information on the ecosystems in which this fishery operates and on the main interactions that the fishery might have, but not all have been investigated. The SG60 and SG80 are met but SG100 is not met. c Understanding of component functions

Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 post components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, species, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP species and ETP species and Habitats) in the Habitats are identified and the ecosystem are known. main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

Alaska and Washington Information on ecosystem structure and effects of halibut and sablefish HAL and pot fishing derives from data collected as part of trawl and longline surveys, an extensive annual food habits collection program, assessments for all main retained and discarded species, monitoring of susceptible and vulnerable seabird populations, and monitoring and conservation of sensitive habitats. Taken together this provides reliable information on the impacts of the fishery and functional roles of the main components of the ecosystem. The SG100 level is met for both gear types. d Information relevance

Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts of the available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to UoA on the components and allow some of the main elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. to be inferred. Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

Alaska and Washington Information on ecosystem structure and effects of halibut and sablefish HAL and pot fishing derives from data collected as part of trawl and longline surveys, an extensive annual food habits collection program, assessments for all main retained and discarded species, monitoring of susceptible and vulnerable seabird populations, and monitoring and conservation of sensitive habitats. This information is sufficient to allow consequences of fishery impacts to be inferred, thereby meeting SG100. e Monitoring

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

Met? Fixed hook and line: Yes Fixed hook and line: Yes Pots: Yes Pots: Yes Rationale

Alaska and Washington Information on ecosystem structure and effects of halibut and sablefish HAL and pot fishing derives from data collected as part of trawl and longline surveys, an extensive annual food habits collection program, assessments for all main retained and discarded species, monitoring of susceptible and vulnerable seabird populations, and monitoring and conservation of sensitive habits. This information is considered by management teams when setting and allocating catch limits and is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. The assessment team concludes that the SG100 level is met for both gear types. References

Krieger, J.R., Eich, A.M., and Fitzgerald, S.M. (2019). Seabird Bycatch Estimates for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries: 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/AKR-20, 41 p. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/20231 Muto, M.M., Helker, V.T., Angliss, R.P., Boveng, P.L., Breiwick, M. et al. (2019). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce. file:///C:/Users/andrew.bystrom/Downloads/noaa_20606_DS1.pdf NOAA. (2005). Volume I: Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/17391 PFMC. (2020). Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem Revised Chapters 1 & 2. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/04/fishery-ecosystem-plan-revised-chapters-1- 2.pdf/ Siddon, E. and Zador, S. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Eastern Bering Sea. NPFMC Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE. https://access.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/REEM/ecoweb/pdf/2018ecosysEBS-508.pdf Zador, S., and Ortiz, I., 2018. Ecosystem Status Report 2018: Aleutian Islands, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report, North Pacific Fishery Management Council https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/gulls.pdf Zador, S. and Yasumiishi, E. (2018). Ecosystem Status Report 2018 Gulf of Alaska.

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

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

Condition number (if relevant)

7.4 Principle 3

Principle 3 background

7.4.1.1 National Level Management The fishery management system evaluated in this report is a combination of: 1) the framework of the IPHC (a joint US-Canada international body), 2) frameworks of two US Regional Fishery Management Councils; namely, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (with jurisdiction in Alaska), and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (with jurisdiction on the U.S. West Coast). The principle legislative instrument for fisheries management in the US is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), originally passed by the US Congress as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) in 1976. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implements the MSA, which contains ten National Standards to which Fishery Management Plans must adhere. The procedures on how NMFS meets the Standards through implementing guidelines are published in the US Federal Register at 50 CFR Part 600 subpart D.

The Pacific halibut commercial fishery began in the late 1880s. As an industry led initiative, Canadian and US governments provided the first framework for international management in 1924 under a signed convention by creating the International Fisheries Commission (IFC) to manage the Pacific halibut resource. In 1953 the Convention was modified and the IFC became the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). Today the IPHC performs assessments and research on the Pacific halibut stocks, recommends total allowable catches by fishing area, and determines regulatory measures related to conservation issues. The IPHC Commissioners recommend TACs for each country (US and Canada). The management authority for each country is then responsible for setting and managing the domestic TAC.

The MSA provided for the establishment of eight Regional Fisheries Management Councils, responsible for the development of Fishery Management Plans (discussed below). Implementation falls under federal law CFR › Title 50 › Chapter VI › Part 660 › Subpart D › Section 660.131. Under this jurisdiction, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) recommends management and enforcement measures to NMFS, the agency charged with implementation. Regulations recommended by the NPFMC must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) before being implemented through the NMFS.

The MSA was re-authorized in 1996, with added provisions to rebuild overfished fisheries, protect essential fish habitat, and reduce bycatch. The MSA was further strengthened with its re-authorization in 2007. The Act now requires fishery management plans to establish mechanisms for specifying annual catch limits at levels such that overfishing does not occur, calls for measures to ensure accountability within these limits, and requires that the limits do not exceed the scientific recommendations made by the Councils’ Scientific and Statistical (SSC) committees. Additionally, the MSA re-authorization in 2007 promoted the use of limited access privilege programs – an important feature of fishery management in Alaska.

The NPFMC manages six fishery management plans covering 140+ species within 47 stocks and stock complexes, including pollock, cod, rockfish, crab, scallops, halibut, and state-managed salmon fisheries. The NPFMC also works very closely with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) to coordinate management programs in federal and state waters (0-3 nm from shore). Many fishery resources are harvested in waters under both state and federal jurisdiction. As such, the NPFMC and state work together to address habitat concerns, catch limits, allocation issues, and other management details through coordination meetings and delegation of management oversight to one agency or the other.

For waters off the US West Coast (WA-OR-CA), the Pacific Council manages fisheries for about 119 species of salmon, groundfish, coastal pelagic species (sardines, anchovies, and mackerel), and highly migratory species (tunas, sharks, and swordfish). The PFMC also makes allocation decisions for halibut, in concert with the International Pacific Halibut Commission. The Council implements allocation decisions with a Halibut Catch-Sharing Plan; discussed under ‘Access Rights’, below. The PFMC has developed a management policy and objectives to guide its development of management recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce. The Council process emphasizes public participation and involvement in fisheries management. Management measures developed by the Council are recommended to the Secretary of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Management measures are implemented by NMFS West Coast Regional offices and enforced by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, the 11th and 13th Coast Guard Districts, and local enforcement agencies.

7.4.1.2 Alaska State Management Whereas groundfish fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; 3–200 nm offshore) fall under federal authority, the State of Alaska manages groundfish fishery resources within state territorial (0–3 nm) waters. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages these groundfish (including sablefish) fishery resources in following two decisively different ways: . ADFG coordinates management activities with the NPFMC in terms of habitat impacts, TAC determination, and quota allocation through common meetings and coordinated management oversite and the delegation of responsibilities from one responsible body to another. ADFG issues emergency orders for state waters that duplicate NMFS management actions, except that gear or other restrictions may vary. These emergency orders establish parallel fishing seasons or parallel fisheries in outside coastal waters allowing vessels to fish for groundfish in state waters with the same seasons as the federal fisheries. . Conversely, the State of Alaska also establishes “state waters” or state-managed fisheries with separate catch quotas (termed Guideline Harvest Level or GHL in state management), and fishing seasons under state groundfish regulations. Seven state groundfish management areas have been established in the Eastern Gulf of Alaska (EGOA) (Southeast Alaska) and occur within the Southeast District. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has management jurisdiction over all groundfish resources within state waters in the EGOA area including the Northern Southeast Inside (NSEI) Subdistrict and the Southern Southeast Inside (SSEI) Subdistrict. The NSEI sablefish fishery is an example of a state managed fishery (Olson et al., 2017; ADFG 2019a).

Alaska legislature created the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and the Alaska Board of Fish (BOF) with the purpose of conservation and development of fisheries resources [Alaska Statute 16.05.221]. The General Commercial Fisheries Regulations establishes the basic regulations that give the ADFG and BOF the powers to regulate and manage the state fishery resource and describe the extent of their regulatory powers. The BOF has the authority to make regulatory decisions described in Alaska Statute 16.05.251 including: establishing open and closed seasons and areas for taking fish; setting quotas, bag limits, harvest levels and limitations for taking fish; and establishing the methods and means for the taking of fish; and the ADFG is responsible for management actions based on those decisions.

7.4.1.3 Fishery-Specific Management

Objectives for the Fishery Halibut The IPHC performs assessments and research on the Pacific halibut stocks, recommends total allowable catches by fishing area, and determines regulatory measures related to conservation issues. The Commission is responsible for research on Pacific halibut and submits its recommended regulatory measures to the US and Canadian governments for approval and fishers of both nations are required to observe the approved regulations. The IPHC recommends regulations for halibut fishing in 10 areas of the EEZs of Canada and the US. Some of the IPHC regulations apply generally to all halibut fishers; and other regulations apply specifically to commercial fishers, sport fishers, US Treaty Indian Tribes, Canadian Aboriginal groups, and those engaged in customary and traditional fishing. It’s management objectives are as follows: . Keep biomass above a limit to avoid critical stock sizes . Limit catch variability . Maximize directed fishing yield A initiative of the IPHC is the use of an operating Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) model: a formal process for evaluating alternative management options against a range of assessment considerations and assumptions (e.g. observation and process uncertainty, alternative possible stock dynamics and structures). The intent of the MSE process is to use the knowledge of different advisory groups to build shared objectives for the fishery and accepted means of evaluating management options and performance. The four key components required in developing an MSE are: (1) a clearly defined set of management objectives, (2) a set of performance measures related to the objectives, (3) a set of alternative management procedures, and (4) a means of evaluating the performance measures. The Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB) is a cross-disciplinary group, with representatives from industry, science, fisheries management, and IPHC staff. In 2013, the Commission approved the formation of the MSAB to advise it on the development and evaluation of candidate objectives and strategies for managing the halibut resource.

Figure 35. An illustration of the four major component processes used in Management Strategy Evaluation. First, fisheries objectives must be defined that ultimately define performance measures. A suite of alternative management procedures are developed and used to fill each row of the performance measures table. The evaluation of each management procedure is done over a range of scenarios that span the range of uncertainty in the current understanding of a fishery’s dynamics. Lastly, communication with stakeholders is a key step in refining fisheries objectives and designing new management procedures that are robust to uncertainty. Source: IPHC.

Sablefish Regarding sablefish, the NPFMC has established groundfish management plans that pertain to the management of the species in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska (NPFMC, 2018a; NPFMC, 2018b). Each of these FMPs contain 46 short- and long-term objectives grouped into nine categories that guide its adaptive management decision making. The Council’s objectives can be found imbedded within its stated Management Philosophy and Policies that is has adopted to help guide and define its approach to conservation and management of fisheries. These objectives are well-defined and measurable, consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed in MSC Principles 1 and 2 and are explicit within the fishery management system. The annual SAFE reports, and other assessments, provide measures of the extent to which the specific objectives are being achieved. The NPFMC’s objectives are as follows: . Prevent Overfishing . Promote Sustainable Fisheries and Communities . Preserve Food Web . Manage Incidental Catch and Reduce By-Catch and Waste . Avoid Impacts to Seabirds and Marine Mammals . Reduce and Avoid Impacts to Habitat

. Promote Equitable and Efficient Use of Fishery Resources . Increase Alaska Native Consultation . Improve Data Quality, Monitoring and Enforcement.

The PFMC is committed to developing long-range plans for managing the Washington, Oregon, and California groundfish fisheries that will promote a stable planning environment for the seafood industry, including marine recreation interests, and will maintain the health of the resource and environment. The Council has established 17 objectives that is separates into conservation, economics, and social factors topics. These objectives are stated in Chapter 2 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP (PFMC, 2019b); the conservation topic’s objectives include the following: . Maintain an information flow on the status of the fishery and the fishery resource which allows for informed management decisions as the fishery occurs. . Adopt harvest specifications and management measures consistent with resource stewardship responsibilities for each groundfish species or species group. Achieve a level of harvest capacity in the fishery that is appropriate for a sustainable harvest and low discard rates, and which results in a fishery that is diverse, stable, and profitable. This reduced capacity should lead to more effective management for many other fishery problems. . For species or species groups that are overfished, develop a plan to rebuild the stock as soon as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in which the United States participates, and the interaction of the overfished stock within the marine ecosystem. . Where conservation problems have been identified for non-groundfish species and the best scientific information shows that the groundfish fishery has a direct impact on the ability of that species to maintain its long-term reproductive health, the Council may consider establishing management measures Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP 8 December 2019 to control the impacts of groundfish fishing on those species. Management measures may be imposed on the groundfish fishery to reduce fishing mortality of a non-groundfish species for documented conservation reasons. The action will be designed to minimize disruption of the groundfish fishery, in so far as consistent with the goal to minimize the bycatch of non-groundfish species, and will not preclude achievement of a quota, harvest guideline, or allocation of groundfish, if any, unless such action is required by other applicable law. . Describe and identify EFH, adverse impacts on EFH, and other actions to conserve and enhance EFH, and adopt management measures that minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts from fishing on EFH

In terms of state specific fisheries management objectives, ADFG developed a set of guiding principles that guide it’s management activities under state and federal law. These are: . Provide for the greatest long-term opportunities for people to use and enjoy Alaska’s fish, wildlife, and habitat resources.

. Improve public accessibility to, and encourage active involvement by the public in, the department’s decision-making processes. . Build a working environment based on mutual trust and respect between the department and the public, and among department staff. . Maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and provide the most accurate and current information possible. . Foster professionalism in department staff, promote innovative and creative resource management, and provide ongoing training and education for career development.

Fisheries Regulations to Meet Objectives Federal fisheries The North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the IPHC play an active role in the management of Pacific halibut and sablefish. The Halibut Act allows these two Councils to develop regulations, including limited access regulations, that do not conflict with the regulations adopted by the Commission (16 U.S.C. §§ 773c, (c)). Regulations recommended by the Council must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) before being implemented through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS has responsibility for managing the fishery for halibut according to regulations approved by the Secretary.

Although neither Council has developed an explicit Pacific halibut fishery management plan, each Council has approved provisions that supplement IPHC regulations. Their principal actions to date have centered on allocating the IPHC’s area-based catch limits to commercial, sport, tribal, and community user groups.

The NPFMC primarily manages sablefish in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands, harvested by longline and pot gear. It has an open and participatory process, and conducts public meetings allowing all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of FMPs and amendments, and other Council decisions. The NPFMC is made up of 11 voting members from the states of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, and one from NMFS. It also has members from other agencies, and many advisory bodies. The Council reviews and revises, as appropriate, the assessments and specifications with respect to the optimum yield from each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)). The NPFMC has developed a management policy and objectives to guide its development of management recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce (NPFMC 2009).

In 2015, a regulation change was proposed by NPFMC to allow the use of sablefish pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, and in 2016 NMFS issued regulations authorizing the use of longline pot gear in the fishery. (NOAA, 2016).

State-managed fisheries Sablefish have been historically managed by ADFG with limitations on fishing seasons and harvest levels. Season limitations were first imposed in 1945 for the NSEI management area. In an effort to improve

management, the board adopted an equal quota share (EQS) system for the NSEI area in 1994. Management regulations, including annual harvest objectives (AHOs), fishing seasons, and gear specifications, are defined for the NSEI sablefish fishery. In the Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict, sablefish may be taken only with longlines (ADFG, 2018). There is no parallel fishing season for sablefish in the state-managed 0–3 mile zone in outside coastal waters of Southeast Alaska (Olson et al., 2017).

The EQS system requires the department to divide the AHO equally among the permits eligible for the NSEI sablefish fishery. In 2003, the board adopted regulations allowing fishermen to apply a 5% overage or a 5% underage from the previous year to the current year’s EQS in an effort to reduce discard mortality and to acknowledge the difficulties in landing exact amounts of fish. Sablefish may not be harvested for use as bait (Olson et al., 2017). All individuals holding quota in this fishery are issued a State of Alaska Commercial Fishery Entry Commission (CFEC) permit.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) Region I Groundfish Project actively manages and performs research for the NSEI Chatham Strait directed HAL fishery for sablefish via the following activities:

. Fishery and data review . Statistical catch-at-age model . Outlook for sablefish quota/decrement review

In 1988, the department began annual longline research surveys in NSEI to assess the relative abundance of sablefish. The department sets the AHO in NSEI for a given year using the survey and fishery data from previous years. Since 2003, AHOs have been set in NSEI by applying a harvest rate to an estimate of biomass that is calculated from mark–recapture and weight-at-age data. Application of an age-structured model (ASA) using fishery, survey, and mark–recapture data is being explored to estimate abundance of sablefish in NSEI. A similar model is used by NOAA fisheries for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska sablefish assessment (Olson et al., 2017).

Vessels are required to land all sablefish caught in a Subdistrict and submit a completed fish ticket to ADFG prior to taking the species in another Subdistrict. CFEC permit holders are required by ADFG to maintain an accurate logbook of all HAL fishing sets that includes information on the date, the specific location of harvest by latitude and longitude, in degrees and decimal minutes, for start and ending positions, hook spacing, the amount of gear (number of hooks) used, the depth of each set, the estimated weight of all target species taken, an estimated weight of the bycatch retained or discarded at sea, and the tag number of any tagged fish landed (ADFG, 2018).

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) evaluates stock status and establishes the Northern Southeast Inside (NSEI) acceptable biological catch (ABC) and subsequent annual harvest objective (AHO) using data from fishery-independent surveys (longline and pot gear), commercial fishery CPUE, and

biological data (age, weight, length, and maturity) from the surveys and fishery. There were 78 valid CFEC permits for 2019.

7.4.1.4 Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance (MCS) National level management

Enforcement authorities operate a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system in the Alaskan sablefish and halibut fishery. NOAA maintains 15% observer coverage on HAL and pot vessels >40 ft LOA and 30% Electronic Monitoring (EM) coverage for fixed gear vessels (NOAA, 2019). The MSA charges two federal agencies with the authority to implement provisions of the Act: the NMFS and the US Coast Guard (USCG). The USCG enforces fisheries law and regulations at sea in conjunction with NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement and other federal, state, tribal, interstate and international organizations. The State of Alaska Department of Public Safety (Wildlife Troopers, Marine Enforcement Section) also enforces federal regulations under the MSA and other laws through a Joint Enforcement Agreement with NMFS.

For violations that are significant, or for repeat violators, the agent refers the case to the NOAA General Counsel’s Office for Enforcement and Litigation for further action. Penalty schedules, which specify the civil penalties for violations of federal fisheries regulations, have been developed for each region’s fisheries. The penalty schedule for groundfish and IFQ Fisheries off the coast of Alaska contains sanctions for various violations of sablefish IFQ regulations.

As stated in the third surveillance reports for the US North Pacific sablefish and halibut fisheries3: The Office of Law Enforcement, Alaska Division (AKD), works closely with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Alaska Wildlife Troopers (AWT), industry, Observer Program, and observer providers to address incidents that affect observers and observer work environments, safety, and sampling. The 2019 USCG annual report was not available, but the USGC reported boarding 124 sablefish and halibut boats between April-May 2019, in which no fishery violations were detected (USGC 2019). During the January 1 to June 30, 2019 period, NOAA charged the following civil administrative cases as follows for the IFQ fishery, specific to halibut and groundfish landings. These cases demonstrate a functional and transparent sanction system: . AK1803165; F/V Ambition – Individual charged under the Northern Pacific Halibut Act for retaining 627 lbs. of halibut without an IFQ permit. A Written Warning was issued. The proceeds of the violation ($2,686) were seized. . AK1802901; F/V Buccaneer – Operator and vessel owner charged under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for engaging in a fishery that required retention of groundfish without a valid Federal Fisheries Permit and submitting an inaccurate report to NMFS. A $6,000 NOVA was issued.

3 US North Pacific Sablefish Fishery 3rd Surveillance Report. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-north-pacific-sablefish/@@assessments

There have been no major changes to the way enforcement is carried out systematic non-compliance has not been an issue since the fishery was re-certified in 2016.

Alaska state management ADFG’s BOF establishes the state’s fishing regulations. The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) states that all fish, wildlife, and their habitats are held in trust for the beneficiaries (the public) by each state. In Alaska, the state Legislature is the trustee, and it delegates most of the trustee role to BOF, while occasionally passing laws to guide or constrain the board’s actions. Under this management scheme, ADFG is responsible for monitoring the resource and providing biological recommendations to the trustee (BOF) to safeguard the resource (ADFG, 2020a). The department does not require at-sea observer coverage in Inside groundfish fisheries. Only limited data on at-sea discards are recorded (Olson et al., 2017). NOAA does, however, maintain 15% observer coverage on HAL and pot vessels >40 ft LOA (NOAA, 2019), meaning there is observer data collected for the sablefish catch between 0-3nm from the mouth of Chatham Strait, in addition to survey data collected within the Strait as part of ADFG’s mark recapture program, the data from which is used for stock assessment purposes.

The primary responsibility for enforcing fish and wildlife-related statutes and regulations lies with the Alaska Department of Public Safety, through its Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers. Biologists and other ADFG staff participate in enforcement activities and assist the Wildlife Troopers as needed; however, law enforcement is not a primary function of ADFG (ADFG, 2020b). Alaska Wildlife Troopers enforce regulations passed by BOF, in addition to performing the following activities relating to fisheries protection in state managed waters: . Preventing unlawful and illegal fisheries harvests, and sales of sport fish and commercial wild stocks. . Protecting watersheds and other important habitat areas, including by reducing non-compliance with environmental permits. . Additionally, the Fish and Wildlife Safeguard was created as a non-profit volunteer citizen's organization to assist the Alaska Wildlife Troopers by allowing private citizens to report a resource law violation. Through these cooperative efforts, the organization gives the public an opportunity to become involved in protecting Alaska's natural resources (Alaska Department of Public Safety, 2020). . . As recently as February 2020, Alaska State Troopers charged two fishers with NSEI commercial sablefish closed period and commercial fish in closed waters with prohibited species aboard the vessel violations. One was additionally charged with submitting a false logbook (https://www.kinyradio.com/news/news-of-the-north/wildlife-troopers-cite-sitka-men-for- sablefish-log-violations/).

Access Rights

Sablefish

Groups that are granted specific access rights to the sablefish fishery include 1) IFQ, holders,2) CDQ holders, and 3) participants in the state-managed sablefish fishery (e.g. Chatham Strait).

IFQ Program The NPFMC developed and approved an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for the commercial sablefish fishery in Alaska in 1995. Initial quota shares were assigned to vessel owners or leaseholders who had at least one landing in the years 1988, 1989, or 1990, with the amount of quota share allocated based on the highest 5-year historical catch records between 1985-1990. The share percentage is multiplied by the annual quota assigned to the IFQ fishery to arrive at the permit-specific TAC on an annual basis. Quota shares are specific to vessel class (catcher boats versus freezer longliners) with catcher boats further divided into vessel length categories. Transfer and leases of quota share is governed under 50 CFR § 679.41.

CDQ Program The fishery management system explicitly recognizes and accounts for the rights of people dependent on marine fishing in the form of the CDQ Program in Western Alaska and a subsistence sablefish fishery in waters in and off Alaska managed by the State of Alaska. As authorized and governed by the MSA as amended in 2006, the CDQ Program receives annual allocations of quota for groundfish, halibut, crab, and prohibited species in the BSAI Management Area to allow these communities to ‘start and support regionally based, commercial seafood or other fisheries-related businesses’ (Section 305(i)(1) of the MSA). Sablefish quotas are included under the Groundfish CDQ allocation. Sablefish CDQ allocation for the hook and line and pot gear portion of the TAC is set at 20% (per management area BS and AI). As the CDQ permits are a subset of the IFQ allocation, are eligible for commercial landings, and may be fished on the same trips as IFQ sablefish, CDQ permitted landings are included in the UoA.

Halibut IFQ Program The NPFMC developed and approved an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program – implemented in 1995 – for the commercial Pacific halibut fishery, to allocate portions of the IPHC’s catch limits in the regulatory areas off Alaska. Initial quota shares were assigned to vessel owners or leaseholders who had at least one landing in the years 1988, 1989, or 1990, with the amount of quota share allocated based on the highest 5-year historical catch records between 1984-1990. The share percentage is multiplied by the annual quota assigned to the IFQ fishery to arrive at the permit-specific TAC on an annual basis. Quota shares are specific to vessel class (catcher boats versus freezer longliners) with catcher boats further divided into vessel length. Transfer and leases of quota share is governed under 50 CFR § 679.41.

CDQ Program For IPHC regulatory Area 4 (the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands: See Figure 3), the NPFMC has approved a Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) that allocates a percentage of the Pacific halibut quota to six Community Development Quota groups. As authorized and governed by the MSA as amended in 2007, the CDQ Program receives annual allocations of quota for groundfish, halibut, crab, and prohibited species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area to allow these communities to ‘start and support

regionally based, commercial seafood or other fisheries-related businesses’ (Section 305(i)(1) of the MSA). As the CDQ permits are a subset of the IFQ allocation, are eligible for commercial landings, and may be fished on the same trips as IFQ halibut, CDQ permitted landings are included in the UoA.

For both the IFQ and CDQ permits, annual permits identify permissible harvest areas, which must be reported at landing. Annual permits cover an entire season, which generally runs from March to November. The E-landings catch accounting system (CAS) is used at landing to electronically deduct the volume of sablefish landed from the permit holder’s annual allocation. Vessels must notify the Office of Law Enforcement before making a landing, and product may only be landed at permitted locations (as a Registered Buyer according to 50 CFR § 679.4).

Chatham Strait GHLs Whereas the federal sablefish fishery’s catch is controlled through the FMP which establishes an IFQ management program for this fishery, state sablefish fisheries are managed outside the IFQ program using a GHL. The Chatham Strait sablefish fishery is one of three major state inside sablefish fisheries which are limited entry as stated under 5 AAC 28.160 in the Groundfish Commercial Fisheries Regulations. For the Strait, ADFG recommends an annual harvest objective that it determines using survey and fishery catch per unit effort and biological characteristics of the population, in addition to the results of an annual stock assessment using mark-recapture methods to estimate the species’ population abundance. The Alaska Wildlife Troopers enforce GHLs in state waters (Ciccia-Romito et al., 2014).

State of Washington The Halibut Catch-Sharing Plan allocates the IPHC’s catch limit for Area 2A (waters off Washington, Oregon, California) among all user groups (non-Treaty Indian commercial and sport users, and Treaty Indian commercial, ceremonial and subsistence users). Specifically, the Halibut Catch-Sharing Plan is a framework that dictates how the IPHC and NMFS will divide the total allowable catch (TAC) for Oregon, Washington, and California halibut fisheries (Area 2A). The total TAC is set each January by the IPHC, who also endorses the Catch Sharing Plan allocations set by the Council. Allocations between some recreational areas are subject to in season and other changes. For a description of how the halibut harvest is shared, see the 2020 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan which was adopted by the Council and recommended for NMFS implementation. Each year the Council solicits proposed changes to the Catch Sharing Plan for its September meeting and takes comments on proposed changes between its September and November meetings. The Council then makes final recommendations for changes at its November meeting.

Review and Audit of the Management Plan

Halibut The Commission facilitates public participation in management via five advisory bodies and various State, Provincial, and Federal agencies. The Commission's advisory bodies include the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board, the recently convened Management Strategy Advisory Board, and the Scientific Review Board (IPHC, 2019). In 2019 IPHC published an update to its

2017 management strategy evaluation (MSE). The document updated activities including defining objectives, results for management procedures related to coastwide fishing intensity, development of a framework for distributing the Total Constant Exploitation Yield (TCEY), and the MSE program of work (IPHC, 2019). The MSE completed a phase of looking at procedures management relative to the coastwide scale of the Pacific halibut stock and fishery. Results of the MSE simulations were presented at the 95th Session of the IPHC Annual Meeting (AM095) and the 13th Session of the IPHC Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB).

Per the report, the next phase of the MSE is to “Investigate management procedures related to the distribution of the TCEY. The TCEY is the mortality limit composed of mortality from all sources except under 26 inch (U26) bycatch, and is determined by the Commission at each Annual Meeting for each IPHC Regulatory Area.” The evaluation presented the objectives that the MSAB and the IPHC are using to evaluate management procedures. It then summarizes the results of the simulations investigating the coastwide scale portion of the management procedure (IPHC, 2019).

Sablefish Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council submits FMPs and FMP amendments to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, The Council conducts public hearings so as to allow all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of FMPs and amendments, and reviews and revises, as appropriate, the assessments and specifications with respect to the optimum yield from each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)) (NPFMC 2015).

ADFG groundfish regulations in 5 AAC 284 apply to the adjoining waters of the exclusive economic zone for all groundfish species, or groundfish species in an area, not included in the federal groundfish management plan; or, as in the case of the NSEI Chatham Strait sablefish fishery, groundfish species for which a federal management plan delegates authority to the state to manage a groundfish fishery in the exclusive economic zone (ADFG, 2020c).

7.4.1.5 Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions Halibut The UoA area of operation is within United States EEZ, off the coasts of: 1) the State of Alaska (IPHC Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E) and 2) the State of Washington (the northern portion of IPHC Area 2A). Pacific halibut caught and landed in Canadian waters have been assessed as a separate Unit of Certification because of differences in governance.

The fishery management system evaluated in this report is a combination of: 1) the framework of the IPHC (a joint US-Canada international body), and 2) frameworks of two US Regional Fishery Management

4 ADF&G Chapter 28 Groundfish Fishery: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/aac.asp#5.28

Councils; namely, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (with jurisdiction in Alaska), and 2) the Pacific Fishery Management Council (with jurisdiction on the U.S. West Coast). The IPHC Commissioners recommend TACs for each country (US and Canada). The management authority for each country is then responsible for setting and managing the domestic TAC. Consultations with indigenous peoples are conducted through the NPFMC and PFMC frameworks, but there are not separate indigenous management jurisdictions.

As discussed under Principle 1, the Pacific halibut stock ranges from Alaska to California and is considered a single stock (straddling US and Canada) for the purposes of stock assessment. The stock assessment model is coastwide; however, spatially explicit data are used to apportion the TAC between IPHC fishing areas so that different amounts of quota allocation are recommended by fishing area. Pacific halibut are not considered a highly migratory species and are also not considered to be a discrete stock on the high seas.

Figure 36. IPHC managed areas. All areas are considered in the unit of certification except area 2B (Canada), which is covered under a separate certificate (Source IPHC)

Sablefish In Alaska, sablefish occur along the outer coast in the Gulf of Alaska, along the Aleutian Islands and in the Bering Sea with the majority of the harvest taken from the central Gulf and in Southeast. The area of operation of the fishery in the UoA is in the federally managed waters off the coast of the State of Alaska, within United States EEZ, which extends from 3 to 200 miles from shore. (Fig. 1). Sablefish in Outside Alaskan coastal waters from the shore to 3 miles offshore are jointly managed by Federal and State authorities. Sablefish in Inside Alaskan waters which include the NSEI region, are managed by ADFG.

The fishery management system evaluated in this report is the framework of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council as well as ADFG (below). Consultations with indigenous peoples are conducted through the NPFMC; there are no separate indigenous management jurisdictions. The stock is assessed as a single population in the Federal waters off Alaska. They are managed by discrete regions that distribute exploitation throughout their wide geographical range. There are four management areas in the Gulf of Alaska: Western, Central, West Yakutat, and East Yakutat/Southeast Outside (SEO) and two management areas in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI): the eastern Bering Sea (EBS) and the Aleutian Islands region.

Figure 37: Sablefish Regulatory Areas and Districts (Source: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/rr/figures/fig14.pdf)

NSEI Chatham Strait Sablefish ADFG, through its evaluation of the NSEI sablefish stock status, establishes the fishery’s acceptable biological catch (ABC) and subsequent annual harvest objective (AHO). Error! Reference source not found. presents ADFG management jurisdictions including the location of the NSEI Subdistrict. Regarding Alaska’s Inside waters, both the NSEI and the SSEI. Subdistricts are evaluated as a separate stock for management purposes.

Figure 38: Southeast District groundfish management area boundaries in Southeast Alaska waters

7.4.1.6 Recognized Interest Groups The NPFMC has an open and participatory process for both fisheries, and conducts public meetings allowing all interested persons an opportunity to be consulted in the development of FMPs and amendments, and other Council decisions (NPFMC 2012). The NPFMC is made up of 11 voting members from the states of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon; and one from NMFS. It also has non-voting members from other agencies, and many advisory bodies.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council is made up of 14 voting representatives from Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho; many advisory bodies; and 16 staff members located in Portland, Oregon. Some Council members represent state or tribal fish and wildlife agencies, and some are private citizens who are knowledgeable about recreational or commercial fishing or marine conservation. Apart from state and tribal representatives, Council members are chosen by the governors of the four states within the Council region, in conjunction with the Secretary of Commerce.

The IPHC facilitates public participation in management via five advisory bodies and various State, Provincial, and Federal agencies. The Commission's advisory bodies include the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board, the recently convened Management Strategy Advisory Board, and the Scientific Review Board.

ADFG’s BOF is composed of seven members who serve three-year terms. Members are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature. BOF’s works within a system of local fish advisory committees around the state to provide a forum for the collection and expression of regional opinions on fish issues. As such BOF reviews proposals submitted by advisory committees to change commercial fishing regulations. Given this structure, public involvement is one of BOF’s most essential aspects. Advisory committees and regional councils provide a local forum to discuss fish and wildlife issues and provide recommendations to the boards. Currently there are 84 committees throughout the state that provide regional expertise concerning local fish and wildlife issues (ADFG, nd).

7.4.1.7 Arrangements for On-going Consultations Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council submits FMPs and FMP amendments to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. The NPFMC is made up of 11 voting members from the states of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon; and one from NMFS. It also has members from other agencies, and many advisory bodies. The Council reviews and revises, as appropriate, the assessments and specifications with respect to the optimum yield from each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)). The NPFMC has developed a management policy and objectives to guide its development of management recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce (NPFMC 2009). The NPFMC has an open and participatory process through which the Council conducts public hearings so as to allow all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of FMPs and amendments, and reviews and revises, as appropriate, the assessments and specifications with respect to the optimum yield from each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)) (NPFMC 2015)Consultations with indigenous peoples are conducted through the NPFMC; there are not separate indigenous management jurisdictions.

ADFG’s advisory committees, as established by the BOF, work in conjunction with the Bureau to develop regulatory proposals, evaluate and develop proposals and recommendations to the Board, and provide a public forum for fish conservation. In instances when BOF chooses not to follow the recommendations of the local advisory committee, it must inform the committee of its action and provide the reasons for not following the proposed recommendations. To further demonstrate the tools that ADFG has in place to facilitate ongoing consultations, its commissioner delegates the authority to the advisory committees for emergency closures during established seasons, ensuring that the committees have the responsibility and the authority to participate in the management process (ADFG, nd).

7.4.1.8 Planned Education and Training for Interest Groups At this stage, the assessment team is not aware of occurrence of planned education and training for interest groups, but will follow-up on this issue during the site visit.

7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales The performance indicators below are evaluated at the federal (i.e. NPFMC/IPHC commission level) as well as the state level for the NSEI Chatham Strait fishery operating in Alaska State waters. Both levels of jurisdiction have been evaluated for the Chatham Strait component, and where the State management component has resulted in a different score than the federal fisheries, this has been clearly indicated in the scoring issue guidepost.

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

a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

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

Met? Yes Yes Yes Rationale

The US has an effective national legal system. The Magnuson-Stevens Act1 (MSA), in combination with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),2 the Endangered Species Act (ESA),3 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),4 Administrative Procedures Act (APA),5 and other treaties, laws, and policies govern the management system for the Alaskan sablefish fishery. The North Pacific Halibut Act6 of 1982 implements the Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea between Canada and the US.7 The Convention established the International Fisheries Commission, now known as the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). The Halibut Act provides for the appointment of US Commissioners8 to the IPHC, specifies the responsibilities that the US Secretary of Commerce has for carrying out the treaty, and provides for the regulation of the US portion of fishery by the North Pacific and Pacific Fishery Management Councils.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) established the structure, procedures, and requirements for federal fishery management in the US. The MSA contains ten national standards for fishery conservation and management. The national standards of particular relevance to MSC Principles 1 and 2 are as follows: (1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. (3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. (9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch. The National Standard Guidelines for National Standard 3 in the MSA speak directly to cooperation with other parties where necessary to deliver appropriate management outcomes: “Cooperation and understanding among entities concerned with the fishery (e.g., Councils, states, Federal Government, international commissions, foreign nations) are vital to effective management. Where management of a fishery involves multiple jurisdictions, coordination among the several entities should be sought in the development of an FMP. Where a range overlaps Council areas, one FMP to cover the entire range is preferred. The Secretary designates which Council(s) will prepare the FMP, under section 304(f) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.” (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations 2019) The US has a long history of organized cooperation internally with individual states and regional fishery commissions and internationally with bilateral and multilateral agreements and treaties, including membership in numerous regional fishery management bodies. Cooperation is required by law and treaty and NMFS has developed binding procedures that govern such cooperation. (NMFS 2015)

The federal policies and practices based on these legal foundations constitute an appropriate and effective legal framework for delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2 and the requirements of the SG100 level are met.

b Resolution of disputes

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

Rationale

The management system resolves most disputes within its highly participatory, open, and transparent structure and processes. The NPFMC relies on a consensus approach among advisory bodies and allows for minority reports should these groups fail to reach consensus (NPFMC 2009; 2014).

Section 302 of the MSA, and the APA, mandate the Regional Fishery Management Councils follow specific procedures for discussing and resolving disputes on fisheries policy. The NPFMC resolves disputes (after weighing staff reports, advisory body reports, NMFS legal counsel advice, and public testimony) by majority vote held in public session as required in Section 302 of the MSA. All stakeholders have an opportunity for input prior to the decision by the Secretary of Commerce

Dissatisfied parties affected by Council and NMFS decisions can appeal the decision to the Appeals Office in the NMFS Alaska Regional Office, which adjudicates appeals of initial administrative determinations made under the

authority of 50 C.F.R. Part 679 and Part 680.9 The jurisdiction of the Appeals Office's includes the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for Pacific halibut and sablefish, the Western Alaska Community Development Program, and other management programs. These dispute resolution mechanisms have proven to be effective at dealing with most issues, avoiding legal disputes, and are appropriate for the context of the sablefish fishery. In cases where the Council processes have not resolved disputes, the parties involved can and do, by law, resolve the disputes in the federal court system. There is ample evidence (c.f. NAPA 2002) that the management system attempts to comply with binding judicial decisions.

In the state of Alaska, The BOF – established by Statute 16.05.221 for the purposes of the conservation and development of the fisheries resources of the state – is a fishery sustainability and harvest allocation dispute resolution mechanism. The BOF is authorized to establish no-take zones, open and closed season, quotas, and harvest levels. and establishing the methods and means for the taking of fish. The BOF resolves disputes via public meetings during which it receives and reviews proposals and testimony. Its findings are published on ADFG’s webpage. If disputes cannot be resolved through the BOF process they can ultimately be adjudicated through the State court system.

The requirement that the management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective has been met and therefore the State management component meets SG 60, 80 and 100. c Respect for rights

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

Rationale

The US management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly for Treaty Tribes. The relationship between federally recognized Indian Tribes and the Federal government is one of sovereign to sovereign and has been described at length by the federal judiciary and referred to in federal law. Federal agencies are required to consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Federally- recognized Indian Tribes under E.O. 13175 (NOAA 2013).

The fishery management system explicitly recognizes and accounts for the rights of people dependent on marine fishing in the form of the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program and a subsistence halibut fishery in waters in and off Alaska. As authorized and governed by the MSA as amended in 2006, the CDQ Program receives annual allocations of quota for groundfish, halibut, crab, and prohibited species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area to allow these communities to ‘start and support regionally based, commercial seafood or other fisheries-related businesses’ (Section 305(i)(1) of the MSA).10 Implemented in 2003, the subsistence halibut fishery allows rural and Alaska native persons to ‘practice the long-term customary and traditional harvest of Pacific halibut for food in a non-commercial manner’.11

The BOF, along with the Federal Subsistence Board and a series of regional Advisory Committees, considers the impact of fisheries on coastal communities and indigenous peoples that are closely tied to state managed

marine resources. The process regularly seeks and considers input from stakeholders to understand and address socioeconomic issues related to the fishery.

In this way, the management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 and it meets the SG 60, 80 and 100 levels.

References

1 Public Law 94-265 as contained in 16 U.S.C. 38). 2 The MMPA protects marine mammals by prohibiting take of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S.

3 The ESA conserves species that are in danger of extinction.

4 NEPA requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their major proposed actions.

5 The APA insures that the public is kept informed of the organization, procedures, and rules of Federal agencies, provides for public participation, and prescribes uniform standards.

6 U.S.C. §§ 773-773k

7 The Convention (available at http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halcom/history/1923us.htm) was first signed in 1923, subsequently modified by the parties in 1930, 1937 and 1953, and added a protocol to the Convention in 1979. Much of the original wording and intent of the treaty remains in effect. The Convention mandates the IPHC to conduct research on and ‘make recommendations as to the regulation of the halibut fishery of the North Pacific Ocean, including the Bering Sea, which may seem desirable for its preservation and development.’ (http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halcom/about.htm).

8 The three US Commissioners consist of an official of NOAA, and two persons who are knowledgeable or experienced concerning the fishery, with one an Alaskan resident and one an Alaska nonresident. At least one of the three Commissioners has to be a voting member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

9 A chief administrative judge, one administrative judge, an appeals specialist and an administrative assistant staff the Appeals Office.

10 For more information on the CDQ program see NRC (1999) and the websites by the NPFMC (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/CDQ/CDQ.htm), the NMFS Alaska Regional Office (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/cdq/default.htm), and the Western Alaska Community Development Association (http://www.wacda.org/).

11 Federal Register Vol 68, No 72, April 15, 2003; p. 18145. Also see http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ram/subsistence/faq.htm and 50 CRF Part 300, 600 and 679, which contain regulations relating to subsistence halibut fishing in Alaska.

ADFG (2019a) Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Groundfish Fisheries. Juneau, Alaska. https://www.ADFG.alaska.gov/index.cfm?ADFG=CommercialByFisheryGroundfish.main NOAA. 2013. NOAA Procedures for Government-to-Government Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. NOAA 13175 Policy

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

Draft scoring range Federal: ≥80 State: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Roles and responsibilities

Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process have management process have management process have been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) created eight regional fishery management councils (councils) responsible for the fisheries that require conservation and management in their region. The councils are composed of both voting and non-voting members representing the commercial and recreational fishing sectors in addition to environmental, academic, and government interests. The MSA (Section 302(g)) directs each Fishery Management Council to ‘establish, maintain, and appoint members to committees and advisory panels’. The MSA specifies the roles and responsibilities of the individuals involved in the management process.

The NPFMC consults with a variety of interested and affected parties through its committees, advisory panels, plan teams, and workgroups (NPFMC 2009; 2014). The NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) is active in the NPFMC management process, as the primary provider of scientific information for marine fisheries stock assessment and management in Alaska. Additionally, the NMFS Alaska Regional Office (ARO) operates closely with NPFMC to develop and implement fisheries management regulations for Alaska marine fisheries.

The United States and Canada participate in the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and promulgate regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC is a management body of long standing with a well understood management process. Under Article III of the Halibut Convention, the Commissioners of the IPHC are authorized to submit fishery management regulations to the two governments for approval.1 The Commissioners annually review the regulatory proposals made by the IPHC scientific staff and consider proposals from the industry, the Conference Board, and the Processors Advisory Group. The Conference Board (representing Canadian and American commercial, sport, subsistence, and first nations/native American harvesters) and the Processor Advisory Group (representing halibut processors) offer fishers' and processors’ perspectives on the regulatory proposals presented at IPHC annual meetings. Union and vessel owner organizations from both nations select members of the Board.

For each of these organizations, the functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. Thus, the requirements for scoring at the SG100 level are met.

State The roles and responsibilities of ADFG and BOF within the management system are well defined and understood, having been established through legislation and tested during the agencies’ regulatory work. These processes are also available to the public through ADFG’s website which describes the role and function of the organisation and of the individuals within it. Among those actively involved in the management process include Local Advisory Committees and native associations. Furthermore, interested fishery parties are encouraged to participate in the BOF process through the ADFG website and local ADFG offices and staff. The requirements for scoring at the SG100 level are met.

b Consultation processes

Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek relevant information from and accept relevant and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge, to knowledge. The knowledge. The inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Federal The IPHC, focused solely on Pacific halibut, has a structured consultation process that seeks and accepts information from stakeholders via Advisory Body meetings, workshops , and an Annual Meeting (IPHC.int). Also, the NPFMC and PFMC consult with a variety of interested and affected parties through their committees, advisory panels, plan teams, and workgroups (NPFMC 2009; 2012).

The NPFMC and PFMC consult with a variety of interested and affected parties through its committees, advisory panels, plan teams, and workgroups (NPFMC 2009; 2012).

In response to Executive Order 13175 (www.state.gov/documents/organization/136740.pdf), NMFS and the NPFMC have developed a formal framework for consultation and collaboration with Alaska Native representatives in the development of policies, legislation, regulations, and programs.2 The FMPs for GOA and BSAI groundfish include the objective to increase Alaska Native consultation by collecting and incorporating local and traditional knowledge, and increase Alaska Native participation and consultation in fishery management. One of the eight appointed members of the PFMC is from an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho. By law, all Councils must conduct public hearings “to allow all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of fishery management plans and amendments” (16 USC 38 Section 1852(h)).

The consultation processes, which include regular meetings of the consultative groups and widely distributed documents, regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The system exhibits consideration of the information and explains how it is used (NPFMC 2009; 2012).

The requirements for scoring at the SG100 level are met.

State

All comments, consultations, proceedings and decisions to the BOF are compiled and posted on the State of Alaska and the ADFG meeting information websites. In this manner, the BOF has developed an open and transparent process for development and refinement of management policies and plans for fishery management. The process’s goal is to create an atmosphere of strong representation and attendance at each of its meetings to give interest groups a chance to advocate and testify on behalf of their region’s commercial fishing fleet. BOF meets at least twice annually to review regulation changes proposed by its advisory committees (ADFG, 2016). The Board also considers out-of-cycle issues in annual state-wide work sessions and will meet 6 times in 2020 in different parts of the state to discuss specific fishery subjects (https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fisheriesboard.meetinginfo).

Per BOF AS44.62.220, ‘an interested person may petition an agency, including the Boards of Fisheries and Game, for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation. The petition must clearly and concisely state the substance or nature of the regulation, amendment, or repeal requested, the reason for the request, and must reference the agency's authority to take the requested action. Within 30 days after receiving a petition, a board will deny the petition in writing, or schedule the matter for public hearing under AS 44.62.190 - 44.62.210, which require that any agency publish legal notice describing the proposed change and solicit comment for 30 days before taking action. AS 44.62.230 also provides that if the petition is for an emergency regulation, and the agency finds that an emergency exists, the agency may submit the regulation to the lieutenant governor immediately after making the finding of emergency and putting the regulation into proper form.’

Regulatory proposals and testimony are invited from the public and other stakeholders. Related technical information is provided by ADFG and every proposal is considered in an open public meeting which typically extends for multiple days depending on the region. BOF encourages the submission of draft proposals which are often presented as brief statements summarizing intended regulation changes.

Through this process, the management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. The SG 60, 80, and 100 scores are met for this component.

c Participation

Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Federal The fishery management system for Pacific halibut (including IPHC, NPFMC, and PFMC) has effective consultative processes that are open to all parties, provides clear guidance to organizations and individuals involved in the management process with their roles and responsibilities explicitly defined for key areas of responsibility and interaction (IPHC.int; www.pcouncil.org; NPFMC (2009, 2012).

The IPHC holds Advisory Body meetings, workshops , and an Annual Meeting all open to the public (http://www.iphc.int/meetings-and-events.html); providing the opportunity and encouragement for all interested parties to be involved.

The NPFMC process is the primary means for soliciting stakeholder consultation relevant to the Alaska sablefish fisheries. The NPFMC develops a meeting agenda and prepares a briefing book on issues of concern to fisheries management. Stakeholders are encouraged to prepare written and oral testimony on these issues. Written testimony submitted before briefing book deadlines is incorporated into the briefing book. Stakeholders can also provide public comment during the council meeting. The process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, meeting SG 100.

State ADFG’s BOF is composed of seven members who serve three-year terms. Members are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature. BOF works within a system of local fish advisory committees around the state to provide a forum for the collection and expression of regional opinions on fish issues. As such BOF reviews proposals submitted by advisory committees to change commercial fishing regulations. Given this structure, public involvement is one of BOF’s most essential aspects. Advisory committees and regional councils provide a local forum to discuss fish and wildlife issues and provide recommendations to BOF. Currently there are 84 committees throughout the state that provide regional expertise concerning local fish and wildlife issues (ADFG, nd). Additionally, stakeholders not able to make the various meetings can tune in, get documents, and interact online. Regulatory proposals and testimony are invited from the public and other stakeholders. Because the consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement, the SG 100 level is met.

References

ADFG. (nd). History of Alaska’s Fish and Game Board Process. http://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=29&docid=64284 NPFMC. 2009. Navigating the North Pacific Council Process. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage AK. NPFMC. 2012. Statement of organization, practices, and procedures of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Draft). North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage AK Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Federal: ≥80 State: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes Federal: Yes State: No Rationale

Federal The management system has clear long-term policy objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and incorporates the precautionary approach.

The IPHC is mandated by Article III of the Convention to ‘make recommendations as to the regulation of the halibut fishery of the North Pacific Ocean, including the Bering Sea, which may seem desirable for its preservation and development’. The IPHC achieves this objective with its precautionary harvest policy (described under PIs 1.1.2, 1.2.1, and 1.2.2 in this Evaluation Table, above). Specific objectives of the IPHC include: 1) accommodation of the underlying biology of the fish, 2) accounting for all removals, 3) implementation of evolving assessment methodologies, 4) development and evaluation of harvest policy, and 5) the fostering of a consultative management process (Hare and Clark, 2007).

The NPFMC and PFMC are bound by the MSA, which specifies the long-term objectives (especially National Standards 1, 8, 9) and establishes a formal set of processes for setting short-term objectives and management measures to achieve the long-term objectives. The National Standards Guidelines (50 C.F.R. 600.310 et seq.) direct the authorities that develop and approve Fishery Management Plans to apply the precautionary approach when setting control rules in a fishery. The Guidelines describe how to address uncertainty such that there is a low risk that limits are exceeded, and mandate that ‘Control rules should be designed so that management actions become more conservative as biomass estimates, or other proxies, for a stock or stock complex decline and as science and management uncertainty increases’ (50 CFR 600.310, National Standard 1). The policies, regulations and implementing guidelines explicitly mandate the application of the precautionary approach as defined and described by the international scientific community.

The above evidence indicates that the fishery management system has clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, and they are explicit within and required by management policy. This satisfies all of the conditions for SG 100.

State The Alaska State constitution defines the sustainable use of marine resources in Article 8, as ‘fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.’

ADFG’s work is guided by the following: . Mission . Guiding principles . Core services . Goals ADFG states the mission of the Division of Commercial Fisheries is to manage commercial, subsistence, and personal use fisheries in the interest of the economy and general well-being of the citizens of the state, consistent with the sustained yield principle, and subject to allocations through public regulatory processes. In addition, the Core Services states a mission to “ensure the conservation of natural stocks of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants based on scientifically sound assessments”.

Regarding Alaskan statutes, rules, and regulations, the State has clear, long-term objectives explicitly identified in Alaska State Statute Title 16 (Fish and Game), Chapter 5 (Fish and Game Code) Section 251 Regulations of the Board of Fisheries (Alaska State Statutes, 2020). BOF regulations stated under AS 16.05.251 include: . Setting apart fish reserve areas, refuges, and sanctuaries in the waters of the state over which it has jurisdiction . Establishing open and closed seasons and areas for the taking of fish; if consistent with resource conservation and development goals, the board may adopt regulations establishing restricted seasons and areas . Setting quotas, bag limits, harvest levels, and sex and size limitations on the taking of fish . Establishing the means and methods employed in the pursuit, capture, and transport of fish . Watershed and habitat improvement, and management, conservation, protection, use, disposal, propagation, and stocking of fish . Investigating and determining the extent and effect of disease, predation, and competition among fish in the state, exercising control measures considered necessary to the resources of the state . Requiring, in a fishery, observers on board fishing vessels, as defined in AS 16.05.475 (d), that are registered under the laws of the state, as defined in AS 16.05.475 (c), after making a written determination that an on-board observer program is the only practical data-gathering or enforcement mechanism for that fishery . Establishing nonexclusive, exclusive, and superexclusive registration and use areas for regulating commercial fishing Additionally, Chapter 10 (Fishing and Fishing Regulations) Section 165 (Utilization of Groundfish Taken in a Commercial Fishery) AS 16.10.165 states that a person may not recklessly waste or cause to be wasted groundfish taken in a commercial fishery (Alaska State Statutes, 2020).

These policies represent clear, long-term objectives that guide decision making consistent with the MSC fisheries standard. Furthermore, BOF uses a precautionary approach, involving the application of prudent foresight that takes into account the uncertainties in many of the fisheries it manages, and its intent is consistent with the MSC-MSCI vocabulary definition derived from Article 6, UN Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of UNCLOS of 10 December 1982. Because these objectives are directly stated, they are considered to be explicit within management policy, meeting the SG80 level. It is unclear, however, how these objectives are required by management policy, so the SG100 level is not met.

References

Hare, S. and W. Clark. (2007). 2007 IPHC harvest policy analysis: past, present, and future considerations. International Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, WA. Alaska State Statutes. (2020). Alaska Legal Resource Center. https://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title16/Chapter05/Section251.htm

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

Draft scoring range Federal: ≥80 State: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable post broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management specific management 1 and 2, are explicit within the system. system. fishery-specific management system. Met? Federal: Yes Federal: Yes Federal: Yes State: Yes State: Yes State: No Rationale

Federal Both the IPHC and NPFMC have explicit short and long-term objectives for the fishery with NPFMC having additional groundfish objectives that are consistent with achieving outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 2. IPHC objectives are primarily consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 1.

The IPHC is mandated by Article III of the Convention to make recommendations as to the regulation of the halibut fishery of the North Pacific Ocean, including the Bering Sea, which may seem desirable for its preservation and development’. The IPHC achieves this objective in a specific way with its precautionary harvest policy. The specific objectives of the IPHC include: 1) accommodation of the underlying biology of the fish, 2) accounting for all removals, 3) implementation of evolving assessment methodologies, 4) development and evaluation of harvest policy, and 5) the fostering of a consultative management process.

Research is a key function of the IPHC, directly supporting continuing objectives of the Commission, including: 1) improving the annual stock assessment and quota recommendations; 2) developing information on current management issues; and 3) adding to knowledge of the biology and life history of halibut (IPHC 2015b) Specific research objectives, which connect to the IPHC mandate and support the assessment and management objectives of the Commission fall under four areas: 1) Stock identification and assessment; 2) Harvest policy and management; 3) Biology, physiology, and migration; and 4) Ecosystem interactions and environmental influences.

The NPFMCs GOA and BSAI groundfish FMPs set management policies for Alaska sablefish, and contain 46 short- and long-term objectives grouped into nine categories: 1) Prevent Overfishing, 2) Promote Sustainable Fisheries and Communities, 3) Preserve Food Web, 4) Manage Incidental Catch and Reduce By-Catch and Waste, 5) Avoid Impacts to Seabirds and Marine Mammals, 6) Reduce and Avoid Impacts to Habitat, 7) Promote Equitable and Efficient Use of Fishery Resources, 8) Increase Alaska Native Consultation, and 9) Improve Data Quality, Monitoring and Enforcement. Additionally, short term objectives are articulated annually in the sablefish SAFE document.

These objectives are well-defined and measurable, consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed in MSC Principles 1 and 2 and are explicit within the fishery management system. The annual SAFE reports, and other assessments, provide measures of the extent to which the specific objectives are being achieved.

The federal fishery management system satisfies all of the elements for SG 100.

State The State managed sablefish fishery has performance based, short and long-term objectives explicitly identified in Alaska State Statutes Title 16 (Fish and Game), Chapters 5 (Fish and Game Code) and 10 (Fishing and Fishing Regulations), in addition to regulations including policies and management plans written into the Alaska State Legislature’s Administrative Code.

Regarding specific regulations for this fishery, Chapter 28, Article 4 of the Alaska State Legislature’s Administrative code for the groundfish fishery determine the following regarding Eastern Gulf of Alaska sablefish harvest guidelines:

5 AAC 28,160: “In the Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict, the department will set the annual guideline harvest limit for the taking of sablefish based on information available to the department, including estimates of sablefish biomass” (The Alaska State Legislature, 2019).

5 AAC 28.170: “The department shall determine the annual amount of sablefish equal quota share by dividing the annual harvest objective by the number of CFEC permits and interim use permits eligible to be fished in the fishery. The department shall use the best available information, including harvest rate and biological data, to set the annual harvest objective” (The Alaska State Legislature, 2019).

The use of these objectives and fishery specific regulations guide decision making, are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, and are explicit within and required by management policy. Given this rationale, the State management system meets the SG100 level.

ADFG has a Mission Statement and Guiding Principles that the assessment team considers the basis for the objectives for NSEI sablefish management consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by the MSC’s Principles 1. Using these as a backdrop to its management activities, ADFG evaluates stock status and establishes the NSEI acceptable biological catch (ABC) and subsequent annual harvest objective (AHO) using data from fishery-independent surveys (longline and pot gear), a mark–recapture project since 1997, commercial fishery CPUE, and biological data (age, weight, length, and maturity) from the surveys (Sullivan et al., 2019). The NSEI sablefish season is strictly defined from 8:00 a.m. August 15 until 12:00 noon November 15 and catch is closely managed so that “The operator of a vessel taking sablefish in the Northern or Southern Southeast Inside Subdistricts shall, before taking sablefish in another area, unload all sablefish taken in either subdistrict and submit a completed fish ticket to the department” (5 AAC 28.110), ensuring that vessel catch is monitored and the AHO adhered to.

Regarding MSC Principal 2, 5 AAC 28.175 in the Alaska State Legislature determines that vessels must use logbooks in the Chatham Strait fishery and the set specific data must include: date, location, hook spacing, number of hooks, set depth, estimated weight of all target species and bycatch species (retained and discarded, and tag number of any tagged fish landed. Furthermore, in the Outside parallel fishery in waters between 0-3 nm from the mouth of Chatham Strait, vessels are required to use torry lines to mitigate their seabird take and vessels >40 ft LOA must participate in the observer program. In contrast to the parallel fishery, the Chatham Strait sablefish fishery does not have an observer program. Observer data is collected by the Outside sablefish fishery at the mouth of Chatham Strait and the catch is recorded during mark recapture and other fishery research activities; however, NOAA is not able to separate this data from its associated federal data sets (Mary Furuness personal comms.). Due to this, no standalone observer data was made available to the assessment team.

For these reasons, we conclude that the fishery’s management system has short and long-term objectives which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 and are explicit within the

fishery. Because the fishery does not have an observer program it is difficult to measure these objectives’ impacts as they refer to Principal 2. Therefore, the fishery meets SG80 but not SG100. References

Sullivan, J., Olson, A. and Williams, B. (2019). 2018 Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict Sablefish Fishery Stock Assessment and 2019 Management Plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries. 89 pp. North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). (2018b). Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/fmp/GOA/GOAfmp.pdf The Alaska State Legislature. (2019). 31st Legislature(2019-2020) Alaska Admin Code 5 AAC 28.090. http://www.akleg.gov/basis/aac.asp#5.28.090

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

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

Condition number (if relevant)

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

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

Federal Information provided in 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.2.1 show that the IPHC and two US Management Councils (NPFMC and PFMC) have established effective decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives of the fishery.

The IPHC undertakes decision-making relating to total allocations based on results of the stock assessment conducted by IPHC staff and consulted on annually by several advisory bodies including the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board and the Management Strategy Advisory Board. IPHC also has the: 1) Scientific Review Board -- to provide an independent scientific review of Commission science products and programs, 2) a Management Strategy Evaluation Board -- to oversee the development of an operating halibut fishery management model that will permit evaluation of various strategies to achieve management objectives, and 3) performance metrics that it uses in its management performance evaluation (IPHC, 2019).

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council both play an active role in the management of Pacific halibut. The Halibut Act allows these two Councils to develop regulations, including limited access regulations, that do not conflict with the regulations adopted by the Commission (16 U.S.C. §§ 773c, (c)). Regulations recommended by the Councils must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) before being implemented through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS has responsibility for managing the fishery for halibut according to regulations approved by the Secretary. The NPFMC and PFMC both have a well-defined, open and participatory decision-making process; conducting public meetings allowing all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of FMPs and amendments, and other Council decisions.

Decision-making for the Alaska sablefish fishery occurs within the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) process, incorporating input from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the states of Alaska, Washington and Oregon, and numerous industry, academic, and NGO stakeholders. The process used by the NPFMC for decision making is described in the Council guide for navigating the Council’s Practices and Procedures (NPFMC, 2019).

These decision-making procedures result in measures and strategies that achieve the fishery-specific objectives, thereby meeting the requirements of the SG80 level for this scoring issue.

State The BOF is a decision making body charged with making allocative and regulatory choices and rulings through the integration of scientific evidence, societal values, and economic demands. The Board’s review of management plans, amendments and other regulatory changes include input from ADFG staff, Regional ADFG advisory committees, non-ADFG scientists, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), stakeholders and the general public. Regarding civil participation, the BOF holds multiple public meetings each year at various locations throughout Alaska with each decision being recorded in a public forum after public comments.

Using the annual stock assessment of the species’ population in Chatham Strait, BOF approves the fishery’s annual harvest objective and quota allocation to permit holders through its equal quota share system. Imbedded within its guiding principals in the following language: “Improve public accessibility to, and encourage active involvement by the public in, the department’s decision making processes” (ADFG, 2018). This decision making process results in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives and SG 80 is therefore met.

b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

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

Federal The IPHC and two US Management Councils (NPFMC and PFMC) have decision-making processes with proven records of responding to virtually all issues that are identified by research, monitoring, evaluation studies, and by consultations with stakeholders and other interested parties. The processes are transparent, operate in a timely manner, and take into account the wider implications of the decisions.

The IPHC holds an annual meeting and encourages public participation in management via 1) five advisory bodies that meet throughout the year, and 2) various State, Provincial, and Federal agencies. The Commission's advisory bodies include the Conference Board, the Processor Advisory Group, the Research Advisory Board, the recently convened Management Strategy Advisory Board, and the Scientific Review Board. Information on the roles and responsibilities of each of these can be found in Appendix 2 of this report. Additionally, the IPHC self- reported progress on recommendations from an outside management review process in 2012 can be found in Appendix 4 of this report. Response to all management issues is provided in the form of supporting documents, minutes of meetings, and public testimony published on the IPHC website. Annual reports posted on the website include the “Bluebook” (a detailed recap of the Annual IPHC meeting) and the ‘RARA” (a detailed IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities). The broad array of participants in this process ensures that account is taken of the wider implications of the decisions.

The NPFMC and PFMC both have a well-defined, open and participatory decision-making process; conducting public meetings allowing all interested persons an opportunity to be heard in the development of FMPs and amendments, and other Council decisions.

The decision-making process at both Councils relies heavily on the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committees, Advisory Panels, Plan/Management Teams, Workgroups, and regular public hearings to identify issues of concern for fishery managers to address. All of these groups meet regularly and report the issues of concern to the Council for consideration in its decision-making deliberations. As mandated by the MSA, and APA, the processes must be open and transparent, with supporting documents, minutes of meetings, and testimony published on the Council’s website.

There are three key steps in the Councils decision-making process that produces the management plans and regulations to achieve the objectives: First, a Council develops a fishery management plan employing processes that proactively identify the issues and examine the implications that the proposed regulations may have beyond the fishery (other fisheries, the ecosystem, coastal communities, etc.). Second, the Secretary of Commerce evaluates the proposed plan, its wider implications, and whether it is consistent with all relevant laws. Third, NMFS, the states, and the US Coast Guard and their partners implement the provisions of the plan.

The evidence shows that decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Through the available information reviewed by the assessment team, it is not possible to determine if the process responds to all issues. Therefore, SG 80 is met but the fisheries do not meet SG 100. The assessment team will be following up with stakeholders during the site visit regarding evidence for whether the IPHC/NPFMC responds to all issues.

State BOF’s work with 84 advisory committees around the state guarantees its accessibility by the public and therefore the likelihood that it is exposed to all issues identified in the fishery. The structure also provides a forum for the collection and expression of regional opinions on fish issues. As such BOF reviews proposals submitted by advisory committees to change commercial fishing regulations. Given this structure, public involvement is one of BOF’s most essential aspects. Specific to the NSEI, BOF reviews and approves the management plan for Chatham Strait on an annual basis. The information contained in the management plan is responsive to the annual stock assessment, meaning that every year the Board reviews and approves the fishery’s AHO based on the most recent assessment of the sablefish stock, therefore responding to fluctuations in the species’ population.

At the ADFG Webex online meeting in Sitka with Southeast Alaska sablefish stakeholders and interested members of the public on April 20, 2020, the following agenda items were discussed for the NSEI Chatham Strait sablefish fishery: . Fishery and data review . Statistical catch-at-age model . Outlook for sablefish quota/decrement review The meeting was held virtually, giving stakeholders the opportunity to participate despite travel restrictions due to Covid-19.

The assessment team did not find any issues in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation, and consultation that were not attended to by BOF in a transparent, timely, and adaptive manner. However, SG100 was not considered as met as it was not possible to verify whether the decision-making processes reports to all issues. c Use of precautionary approach

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

Federal The IPHC and two US Management Councils (NPFMC and PFMC) have decision-making processes that use the precautionary approach and are based on the best available information.

Use of the precautionary approach at IPHC is evidenced by the IPHCs precautionary harvest policy, described under PIs 1.1.2, 1.2.1, and 1.2.2. Additionally, The IPHC is unique as a fishery management organization, in that it is well staffed by scientists focused solely on one fish: the Pacific halibut. This has fostered a long history (since the 1920s) of using the best available information for decision making.

Adaptive management of fisheries and other natural resources is a well-established practice at all levels of government in the US. For marine resources, the President’s Interagency Ocean Task Force produced several recommendations, since incorporated in Executive Order 13547, to apply ecosystem-based management and adaptive management to address ocean resource challenges (CEQ 2010). For marine fisheries specifically, the National Standards Guidelines for Standard 2 require that Fishery Management Councils amend FMPs ‘as new information indicates the necessity for change in objectives or management measures’ (Sec. 600.315(d)) and ‘prepare and review annually a Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) report for each fishery management plan’ (Sec. 600.315(e)). SAFE reports contain information on the most recent condition of fish stocks, ecosystems, and the social and economic status of user groups.

The Councils follow the National Standards Guidelines (50 C.F.R. 600.310 et seq.) when developing fishery management measures. The Guidelines for National Standard 1 instruct each Council and NMFS to apply the precautionary approach when setting control rules in a fishery. The Councils also are subject to National Standard 2 of the MSA, which mandates that ‘conservation and management measures shall be based on the best available scientific information’ (50 CFR 600.315). The Councils SSCs are charged with the task of reviewing the science behind management recommendations; determining if the information provided constitutes the ‘best available scientific information’.

Requirements are met at the SG80 level.

State ADFG evaluates stock status and establishes the NSEI sablefish acceptable biological catch and subsequent annual harvest objective on a yearly basis. Inherent in the information used by researchers in this assessment is catch information from other federally and state managed sablefish fisheries (Sullivan et al., 2019). The AHO is adjusted before the start of the subsequent fishing season to reflect assessment results.

ADFG’s assessment considers uncertainty in recruitment events in its calculation of the fishery’s ABC. According to the department, the strategy is precautionary and its application provides stabilization to the fishery and buffers it against impacts of overfishing (ADFG, 2018b).

BOF’s decision making processes are based on the best available information using biological and socioeconomic information, public comments, input from advisory committees, and guidance from the Alaska Department of Public Safety and the Alaska Department of Law when creating stake managed fishery regulations. Its incorporation of various state government entities’ input into its decision-making processes, while not directly stating the use of the precautionary approach for this fishery, provide a structure that supports BOF’s use of caution when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate. Additionally, the

estimate of exploited sablefish abundance used to determine the ABC for 2019 used a subjective, precautionary measure (Sullivan et al., 2019). Given these examples and others, it can be said that BOF makes decisions using the precautionary approach and that its mandated decisions are based on the best available science, SG80 is met.

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

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

Federal The IPHC and two US Management Councils (NPFMC and PFMC) have well-developed systems for the formal reporting of fishery performance and management actions, including how the management system responded to findings emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation, and review activity.

At the IPHC, a formal reporting on all management issues is provided in the form of supporting documents, minutes of meetings, and public testimony published on the IPHC website. Annual reports posted on the website include the “Bluebook” (a detailed recap of the Annual IPHC meeting) and the ‘RARA” (a detailed IPHC Report of Assessment and Research Activities).

Formal reporting of fishery performance and Council deliberations and actions occurs throughout the NPFMC and PFMC processes (NPFMC 2009; 2012; pcouncil.org). A detailed briefing book provides stakeholders with all of the information used by the Council members for decision-making. Draft documents (e.g., stock assessments, plan amendments, environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements) are readily available on Council and government websites.

Final decisions, including comments from the public and specific responses from the decision-makers, are also posted for easy access. This provides comprehensive, formal reporting of the management system response to relevant findings and information.

Requirements are met at the SG100 level.

State ADFG’s advisory committees, as established by the BOF, work in conjunction with the Bureau to develop regulatory proposals, evaluate and develop proposals and recommendations to the Board, and provide a public forum for fish conservation. In instances when BOF chooses not to follow the recommendations of the local advisory committee, it must inform the committee of its action and provide the reasons for not following the proposed recommendations.

BOF provides public access to fisheries meeting information and department reports via the ADFG website (https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fisheriesboard.meetinginfo&date=10-15- 2020&meeting=anchorage). Department reports include fisheries data supporting decisions, and the reasons why decisions were made. Publicly available documents that contain this information include the 2019–2020 Statewide Commercial Groundfish Fishing Regulations and the 2018 Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict Sablefish Fishery Stock Assessment and 2019 Management Plan. Furthermore, successive NSEI sablefish management plans contain corrections to data analysis results.

Based on this information the assessment team considers that the state managed sablefish fishery in the NSEI provides formal reporting to all interested stakeholders, comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions, and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. It therefore meets SG100.

e Approach to disputes

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

Federal Legal challenges to the US Pacific halibut fishery do not typically arise at the level of the IPHC, but rather occur at the Federal level in the US.

The Office of General Counsel (GC), which represents NMFS, provides legal advice and counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA GC has established a formal guideline for maintaining the agency administrative record (Schiffer 2012). This agency administrative record becomes an important aspect of justifying decisions and avoiding lawsuits. Further, NOAA and NMFS consult with plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs to settle disputes. The management system process includes proactive response from the decision-making agencies to legal actions brought against the management system, and strives to prepare decisions in substantive compliance with laws and regulations to minimize the likelihood of lawsuits, thereby meeting the requirements of the SG 100 level.

State BOF’s management system is designed to implement judicial decisions arising from legal challenges and disputes where appropriate. It is also designed to avoid legal disputes through its implementation of a transparent and inclusive fisheries management process both internally and among the various stakeholder groups, commissions, and government agencies it works with. Additionally, there is efficient public engagement and responsiveness by the management system through the BOF process which is considered to support a proactive approach to resolving and/or mitigating legal disputes. Fishery allocation and jurisdictional issues are periodically challenged in the court system and adjudicated. For these reasons, the management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges whereby meeting SG 100.

References

ADFG. (2016). Frequently used policies of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2017- 2018/common_used_policies.pdf ADFG. (2018a). 2019-2020 Statewide commercial groundfish fishing regulations. 180 p. ADFG. (2018b). Memorandum. State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game. http://www.ADFG.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/commercial/southeast/nsei_2018_aho_memo.pdf IPHC. (2019). Goals, Objectives, and Performance Metrics for the IPHC Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/msab/msab13/iphc-2019-msab013-07.pdf NPFMC (2019). Statement of organization, practices, and procedures. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. https://www.npfmc.org/wp- content/PDFdocuments/membership/Council/NPFMC_SOPP_October2019.pdf Sullivan, J., Olson, A. and Williams, B. (2019). 2018 Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict Sablefish Fishery Stock Assessment and 2019 Management Plan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries. 89 p.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range Federal: >80 State: >80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a MCS implementation

Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has been monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented implemented in the fishery surveillance system has been in the fishery and there is a and has demonstrated an implemented in the fishery reasonable expectation that ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Federal: Yes Federal: Yes Federal: No State: Yes State: No State: No Rationale

Federal Enforcement authorities operate a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system in the Alaskan sablefish and halibut fishery. NOAA maintains 15% observer coverage on HAL and pot vessels >40 ft LOA and 30% Electronic Monitoring (EM) coverage for fixed gear vessels (NOAA, 2019). The MSA charges two federal agencies with the authority to implement provisions of the Act: the NMFS and the US Coast Guard (USCG). The USCG enforces fisheries law and regulations at sea in conjunction with NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement and other federal, state, tribal, interstate and international organizations. The State of Alaska Department of Public Safety (Wildlife Troopers, Marine Enforcement Section) also enforces federal regulations under the MSA and other laws through a Joint Enforcement Agreement with NMFS.

As stated in the third surveillance reports for the US North Pacific sablefish and halibut fisheries : The Office of Law Enforcement, Alaska Division (AKD), works closely with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Alaska Wildlife Troopers (AWT), industry, Observer Program, and observer providers to address incidents that affect observers and observer work environments, safety, and sampling. The 2019 USCG annual report was not available, but the USGC reported boarding 124 sablefish and halibut boats between April-May 2019, in which no fishery violations were detected (USGC 2019).

During the January 1 to June 30, 2019 period, NOAA charged the following civil administrative cases as follows for the IFQ fishery, specific to halibut and groundfish landings. These cases demonstrate a functional and transparent sanction system: . AK1803165; F/V Ambition – Individual charged under the Northern Pacific Halibut Act for retaining 627 lbs. of halibut without an IFQ permit. A Written Warning was issued. The proceeds of the violation ($2,686) were seized.

. AK1802901; F/V Buccaneer – Operator and vessel owner charged under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for engaging in a fishery that required retention of groundfish without a valid Federal Fisheries Permit and submitting an inaccurate report to NMFS. A $6,000 NOVA was issued. There have been no major changes to the way enforcement is carried out systematic non-compliance has not been an issue since the fishery was re-certified in 2016.

The MCS system has demonstrated an ability to enforce management measures, Strategies, and rules. However, the Assessment Team is concerned that 1) VMS is not a requirement on all vessels, and 2) a gap in Observer Program coverage exists for vessels <=40 ft LOA. Requirements of the SG80 level (but not the SG100 level) are met for this Scoring Issue.

State According to ADFG (2018a), in state waters west of 144° W. long., a vessel participating in a parallel groundfish fishery must have on board the vessel an activated vessel monitoring system (VMS) approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This area is West of the Chatham Strait and therefore HAL sablefish vessels are not required to use VMS. There is no observer coverage inside Chatham Strait and seabird avoidance methods are not required by ADFG. ADFG fishery managers do however monitor harvest through daily harvest reports from fishermen and with fish tickets submitted at the time of landing. State managers track harvest, effort, weather, stock spawning condition (through regular communication with fishermen and processor fleet managers), delivery schedules, and fleet fishing patterns daily throughout the fishery to track harvest and formulate closures.

5 AAC 28.175 in the Alaska State Legislature determines that vessels must use logbooks in the Chatham Strait fishery to record set specific data. ADFG evaluates stock status and establishes the NSEI ABC and AHO using data from fishery-independent surveys (longline and pot gear), a mark–recapture project since 1997, commercial fishery CPUE, and biological data (Sullivan et al., 2019). The Chatham Strait sablefish catch is closely managed so that vessels cannot mix the catch with that from another area (5 AAC 28.110), ensuring that vessel catch is monitored, and the AHO adhered to. In-season management decisions are based on data collected from the fisheries and resource assessment surveys, fish tickets, logbooks, and the dockside sampling of sablefish (ADFG, 2012). The Alaska Fisheries Information Network (AKFIN) supports the data needs of fisheries analysts by consolidating commercial fisheries data and dispensing those data upon request (https://akfin.psmfc.org/). AKFIN undertakes an extensive port sampling system for collection and editing of fish ticket data from virtually all of the major ports of landing from Ketchikan to Adak and the Pribilof Islands, with major emphasis on Sitka, Homer, Kodiak, and Dutch Harbor. The port sampling program includes collection of harvest data, such as catch and effort, and also the collection of biological data on the species landed, and age determination based on samples of age structures collected from landed catches (ADFG, 2012).

Additionally, regarding MSC implementation, the Alaska Enforcement Division (AKD) uses Enforcement Officers (EO’s), Special Agents (SA’s) and partnerships with other agencies to provide effective enforcement for over 842,000 square miles of ocean, 6,600 miles of coastline and 2,690 islands off of Alaska. EO’s conduct patrols and inspections and provide compliance assistance and SA’s investigate civil and criminal violations of marine resource laws.

Given the available information, the assessment team concludes that a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and there is a reasonable expectation that it is effective. Through its lack of observer coverage and VMS use, the fishery does not demonstrate an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Therefore, the state fishery meets SG60 but not SG80.

b Sanctions

Guide Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- post compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are

some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Federal: Yes Federal: Yes Federal: No State: Yes State: Yes State: No Rationale

Federal Under the published policy for assessing civil penalties, there are three options available to an investigating agent for pursuing a violation of fisheries law and regulations. If a violation is not significant or is technical, the agent may issue a ‘Fix-It Ticket’ that allows the violator to correct the violation within a specified time period. For modestly significant violations, the agent may issue a ‘Summary Settlement’ notice, which allows the violator to pay a reduced penalty. Fix-It Ticket allowances and Summary settlement penalties follow the guidelines by developed and published by NOAA’s Offices of Law Enforcement and of General Counsel. For violations that are significant, or for repeat violators, the agent refers the case to the NOAA General Counsel’s Office for Enforcement and Litigation (GCEL) for further action.

Penalty schedules, which specify the civil penalties for violations of federal fisheries regulations, have been developed for each region’s fisheries. The penalty schedule, Groundfish & Individual Fishing Quota Fisheries off The Coast of Alaska, contains sanctions for various violations of sablefish IFQ regulations. As an example, the possession or sale of 100 to 1,500 pounds of IFQ sablefish without an annual quota share carries a fine of $15,000 to $50,000, plus forfeiture or value of the illegal fish. For a person holding an IFQ overage during the final voyage of the year, carries a civil penalty ranging from $1 - $6 per pound, plus forfeiture of the entire catch overage or its value.

By law sanctions should be consistently applied; in other words, comparable sanctions should be issued for comparable violations. There is no evidence either way whether or not sanctions are consistently applied in the Alaska Region; however, no complaints of inconsistent or arbitrary treatment by enforcement authorities have come to our attention. Most observers of the fishery believe that the sanctions provide effective deterrence. Also, the evidence on non-compliance supports this claim (NOAA 2014).

However, the Assessment Team is concerned that 1) VMS is not a requirement on all vessels, and 2) a gap in Observer Program coverage exists for vessels <=40 ft LOA (see Sic, below). Requirements of the SG80 level (but not the SG100 level) are met for this Scoring Issue.

State Under Alaska Statutes Title 16 - Fish and Game Chapter 16.05 - Fish and Game Code and Definitions Article 04 - Licensing of Commercial Fishing Crew members and Vessels Sec. 16.05.723 Misdemeanor commercial fishing penalties: A person who negligently violates AS 16.05.440 - 16.05.690, or a regulation of the Board of Fisheries or the department governing commercial fishing, is guilty of a misdemeanor and in addition to punishment under other provisions in this title, including AS 16.05.195 and 16.05.710, is punishable upon conviction by a fine of not more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both (Alaska Statutes, 2015). As recently as February 2020, Alaska State Troopers charged two fishers with NSEI commercial sablefish closed period and commercial fish in closed waters with prohibited species aboard the vessel violations. One was additionally charged with submitting a false logbook (https://www.kinyradio.com/news/news-of-the- north/wildlife-troopers-cite-sitka-men-for-sablefish-log-violations/).

Therefore, it is considered that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence, thereby meeting the SG 80. While fishers and enforcement officer may consider sanctions provide an effective deterrent, it is difficult to demonstrably show this to be the case, therefore the SG 100 is not met.

c Compliance

Guide Fishers are generally thought Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management comply with the fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including, providing information of providing information of providing information of importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery. Met? Federal: Yes Federal: Yes Federal: No State: Yes State: No State: No Rationale

Federal Regulations for the sablefish IFQ fishery require that fishers maintain logbooks and regularly report their catches, landings, and other measures of fishing activity to NMFS. There is generally widespread compliance with the logbook requirement, with only a few violations of the requirement every year (NOAA 2015). Thus, it is clear that some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the fishery management system, and thus the requirements are met at the SG80 level.

For this Scoring Issue, the SG 100 level requires a high degree of certainty that fishers are complying with the fishery management system. As noted at the time of re-certification in 2011, a shortcoming of the MCS program is the ability to monitor where sablefish fishing takes place(e.g. with vessel monitoring systems (VMS) or monitor bycatch and discards of seabirds and other protected species (e.g. via the Observer Program).

The Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), required on many groundfish vessels (e.g. in the Alaska Pollock and cod fisheries) is not currently a requirement for the IFQ fishery; for example, in 2012 only 68 sablefish trips used the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) checkout.

Managers have recognized that data collection by onboard observers is currently the only reliable and verifiable method available to gain fishery discard and biological information on fish, and data concerning seabird and marine mammal interactions with fisheries (NMFS 2014). Evidence exists to show that the quality of the Observer program has improved since the re-certification in 2011, as a result of a re-structuring effort that began in January of 2013. Targeted coverage rates by the observer Program in 2015 was 11% for small vessels, and 24% for large vessels.

While the reliability of the program has clearly increased, the Team has not seen evidence to affirm a “high degree of confidence” that fishers are fully complying with the management system, at this time. Vessels are not required to carry VMS on board (to document fishing locations), and Observer Program coverage rates (to document bycatch) are not 100%. Thus scoring is met at the SG 80 level, but not the SG100 level at this time.

State A variety of Alaska State agencies undertake efforts to inform fishers about their obligations under the fishery- specific management system. BOF holds multiple public meetings each year at various locations throughout Alaska that serve, among other things, to inform fishers about their obligations. Fish tickets are reported by buyers and fishermen must comply with the catch sampling work performed by ADFG staff. This information is sufficient to conclude that Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. It does not, however, provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment. Thus scoring is met at the SG60 level, but not the SG80 level at this time. More information will be sought regarding evidence available/used by the management system to demonstrate that fishers comply with the management system.

d Systematic non-compliance

Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance. Met? Federal: Yes State: Yes Rationale

Federal There have been no major changes to the way enforcement is carried out, and systematic non-compliance has not been an issue since the fishery was re-certified in 2015. The requirement for scoring at the SG80 level is met for this Scoring Issue.

State No evidence of systematic non-compliance nor has it been reported by any stakeholder. Therefore, the SG 80 is met. References

ADFG. (2018a). 2019-2020 Statewide commercial groundfish fishing regulations. 180 p. ADFG. (2012). State of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Associated Investigations in 2011. https://www.psmfc.org/tsc-drafts/2012/AK_TSC_2011_4_9_12v5.pdf Alaska Statutes. (2015). Title 16 - Fish and Game Chapter 16.05 - Fish and Game Code and Definitions Article 04 - Licensing of Commercial Fishing Crew members and Vessels Sec. 16.05.723. https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/2015/title-16/chapter-16.05/article-04/section-16.05.723 NOAA. (2019). 2020 Annual deployment plan for observers and electric monitoring in the groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/2020-annual-deployment-plan- observers-groundfish-and-halibut-fisheries-alaska

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range Federal: >80 State: 60-79 Information gap indicator Additional information is needed to demonstrate the fishery’s ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

Additional evidence is needed that demonstrates fishers comply with the management system under assessment.

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

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

PI 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Evaluation coverage

Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Federal: Yes Federal: Yes Federal: No State: Yes State: Yes State: No Rationale

Federal At IPHC, key parts of the management system were evaluated as part of an external review process held in 2012, and progress in meeting the recommendations that followed from that review is evaluated annually (see Appendix 4). Additionally, the IPHC has a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process in place that holds promise as a mechanism to evaluate all parts of the management system under the Commission’s purview (see 3.2.1, above).

The NPFMC and PFMC each meet five times a year, and they both have mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts of the management system. For NPFMC, the annual management process is detailed in Council Operating Procedure 1H (NPFMC 2009; 2012). Under the annual cycle, management measures are put into place and adjusted through routine in-season evaluation and actions. Amendments to the NPFMC groundfish fishery management plans have averaged about two per year since the implementation of the council system, demonstrating the wide range of management topics evaluated by the NPFMC, effectively covering all parts of the management system. Additionally, the US Congress reviews the MSA every five years and amends it as necessary.

The SG80 level is met for this Scoring Issue. The SG100 level is not met because there is no evidence that the IPHCs MSE process is an effective mechanism to evaluate all parts of the management system.

State The BOF conducts an annual review of the NSEI sablefish stock assessment. During this process, external parties (i.e., consultants contracted by various user groups, experts that department staff has asked for input, etc.) provide input and comment on the results. As this is the case, the BOF process provides a mechanism through which stakeholders and/or ADFG staff can evaluate portions of the fishery specific management system. And though no policy is clearly defined, to the knowledge of the assessment team, for evaluating the fishery, the public has input into the management system via advisory committees, testimony, and BOF meetings, all of which are mechanisms to evaluate the Chatham Strait sablefish fishery. This process does not, however, provide an opportunity for review all parts of the management system and therefor the fishery meets SG 80 but not the SG 100 level. b Internal and/or external review

Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional internal subject to regular internal subject to regular internal review. and external review.

and occasional external review. Met? Federal: Yes Federal: Yes Federal: Yes State: Yes State: No State: No Rationale

Federal In 2019 IPHC published an update to its 2017 management strategy evaluation (MSE). The document updated activities including defining objectives, results for management procedures related to coastwide fishing intensity, development of a framework for distributing the Total Constant Exploitation Yield (TCEY), and the MSE program of work (IPHC, 2019). The MSE completed a phase of looking at procedures management relative to the coastwide scale of the Pacific halibut stock and fishery. Results of the MSE simulations were presented at the 95th Session of the IPHC Annual Meeting (AM095) and the 13th Session of the IPHC Management Strategy Advisory Board (MSAB).

The NPFMC management system undergoes internal review as part of the annual harvest specification process, involving the NPFMC Groundfish Plan Teams, Advisory Panel, SSC, public comment, and Council Member discussions. All NPFMC recommendations are externally reviewed by NMFS, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce, and NOAA OGC reviews proposed actions to assure compliance with the MSA. Further external review can occur through legal challenges, which have the effect of refining understanding of requirements under laws and regulations. The NPFMC has mechanisms that evaluate all parts of the management system. The results of these evaluations can be found in Council Operating Procedure (NPFMC 2009; 2012).

The SG100 level is met for this Scoring Issue.

State Some ADFG management programs/systems, including those associated with salmon, cod, and groundfish (in the Prince William Sound Management Area), are reviewed both internally and externally, though no such process could be found by the assessment for programs concerning sablefish in NSEI waters. An outside review panel of fishery experts from the NPFMC meets to assess the NSEI stock assessment program.

While this offers some general evidence that ADFG managed fisheries undergo internal and external reviews, more evidence is needed to confirm how the sablefish fishery specific management system is externally reviewed, what organization conducts the review and how often. Without such evidence of external review for the NSEI sablefish management system, the SG 80 level is not met.

References

IPHC. (2019). An update on the IPHC Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process for SRB014. https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/srb/srb014/iphc-2019-srb014-08.pdf NPFMC. (2012b) Introduction to the Council process. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage AK. https://www.npfmc.org/wp content/PDFdocuments/meetings/IntrotoProcess.pdf NPFMC. (2009). Navigating the North Pacific Council Process. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage AK. http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/help/Navigating_NPFMC.pdf

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range Federal: ≥80 State: 60-79 Information gap indicator More information is needed about regular internal and occasional external review of the fishery-specific management system.

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

Condition number (if relevant)

8 Appendices

8.1 Assessment information

Previous assessments

The US North Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries are in their 3rd re-assessments. The first certificate cycle extended from 2006-2011. The second certificate cycle was from 2011-2016. The current fishery certificate will expire in February 2022. The two fisheries were previously assessed under separate certificates, however, they have been combined in this assessment for efficiency. The Chatham Strait UoA has not been previously assessed under the MSC standard.

There were 3 conditions in the halibut fishery and 5 in the sablefish fishery. All conditions are closed except for one related to bait information in the halibut fishery; this will be evaluated in the 4th year surveillance audit.

Copies of this and all assessment downloads are available here: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-north-pacific-halibut/@@certificates https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/us-north-pacific-sablefish/@@certificates

Table 26. Summary of previous halibut assessment conditions

Condition PI(s) Year closed Justification

By surveillance Year 3, the US Halibut 1.2.3 Year 1 Sensitivity analyses conducted by the fishery shall assure that there is b,c IPHC on the effect of alternative levels of information on Pacific Halibut removals discard on the stock assessment indicate from the stock by the groundfish fleet, that differences in the estimated biomass including sufficient and comprehensive are insignificant under varying estimates from vessels < 40 ft. LOA. Stock assumptions about the level of discards. abundance and fishery removals are This is considered evidence that errors in regularly monitored at a level of accuracy computing total mortality attributable to and coverage consistent with the harvest the fishery are small enough for the control rule. control rule to function as required. Information in the fishery is sufficient to estimate removals of halibut, even with the <40ft vessels. By surveillance Year 3, the client will 2.1.3 Behind Target Insufficient coverage of the fleet for the provide adequate information on the a,b,c,d in the 3rd Year bait survey was provided in the 3rd type, volume, and variability of bait used Surveillance surveillance audit. This condition is in the fishery to effectively assess the audit expected to be closed out in the 4th outcome status with respect to these surveillance audit. species, to support a partial strategy if necessary, and determine if there is any increased risk level due to changes in the operation of the fishery.

By surveillance year 3, the client will 2.2.3 d Year 3 Information is sufficient to meet SG80 provide adequate spatial fishing effort or requirements as there is an appropriate catch composition information on the level of observer coverage on larger nature and the amount of bycatch from vessels in regions where the <40ft vessels vessels <40 ft LOA to determine if there is operate. a risk posed by this segment of the fishery that is different from the rest of the fleet and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch.

Table 27: Summary of previous sablefish assessment conditions

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed Hook and line gear: 2.1.3 Year 3 Client conducted bait surveys The client will provide adequate information on the type, a,b,c,d of the fleet which were volume, and variability of bait used in the fishery to sufficient to estimate the type, effectively assess the outcome status with respect to volume and variability of bait these species, to support a partial strategy if necessary, used in the fishery. and determine if there is any increased risk level due to changes in the operation of the fishery. Pot Gear: 2.1.3 Year 3 Client conducted bait surveys By surveillance year 3, the client will provide adequate a,b,c,d of the fleet which were information on the type, volume, and variability of bait sufficient to estimate the type, used in the fishery to effectively assess the outcome volume and variability of bait status with respect to these species, to support a partial used in the fishery strategy if necessary, and determine if there is any increased risk level due to changes in the operation of the fishery. Pot gear: 2.1.3 Year 3 Observer data for pot gear By surveillance year 3, the Client will provide adequate a,b,c,d were provided for the fleet information from the NOAA Catch Accounting System on during all surveillance audits. the nature and extent of retained species to determine Data show the pot gear to be the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the highly selective with sablefish strategy to manage retained species by the next amounting to 95% of the catch. surveillance audit. Pot gear: 2.2.3a,b,c Year 3 Observer data for pot gear The fishery shall collect sufficient information from were provided for the fleet fishery independent surveys, catch accounting systems, during all surveillance audits. and the restructured observer program are collected on Data show the pot gear to be a regular and ongoing basis to assess changes in risk to highly selective with sablefish outcome status, and monitoring is conducted to assess amounting to 95% of the catch. bycatch species mortalities. Pot gear: 2.3.3a,b,c Year 3 Observer data for pot gear The fishery shall collect sufficient information from the were provided for the fleet fishery independent surveys, catch accounting system, during all surveillance audits. and observer programs is adequate to support measures Data show the pot gear to be to manage the impacts on ETP species, however since highly selective with sablefish pot fishing activities have not yet started in the GOA amounting to 95% of the catch. there is an information gap related to ETP species

impacts from that fleet preventing measurement of ability to support a full strategy to manage impacts.

8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques

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. Most information required for the assessment was provided by the client or was available online. The team requested additional data and reports that were provided by IPHC, NOAA, ADFG, and NMFS-AFSC staff.

. No PIs score below 60 (cannot receive certification) . The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above . The aggregate score for each Principle is calculated using the MSC-provided scoring worksheet, which provides a weight per PI to be multiplied by the PI score received, where the sum of all weighted PI scores for a given Principle is provides the final Principle Score. . Scoring worksheets can be downloaded from the MSC website here:

Scoring and Report Development Process

ACDR: The Announcement Comment Draft Report was completed on August 17 ,2020. The client decided to continue with the full assessment.

Publication of ACDR: Publication of the Announcement Comment Draft Report was published on DATE.

Scoring Methodology

The assessment team followed guidelines in MSC FCP v2.1 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 is considered at the 60, 80, and 100 scoring guidepost levels. The decision rule described in Table 29 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 29.

Table 29. 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 FCPV2.1 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.

5 MSC FCPV2.1 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.

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 FCPV2.1 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 Table 2 as follows:

1. Few: Less than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, one SI out of 3 is considered few.

2. Some: Equal to half. Ex: if there are a total of four SIs, two SIs out of 4 is considered some.

3. Most: More than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, two SIs out of 3 is considered most.

8.3 Peer Review reports

To be included at the PCDR stage.

8.4 Stakeholder input No stakeholder input has been received yet.

8.5 Conditions To be drafted at PCDR stage.

8.6 Client Action Plan To be added at PCDR stage.

8.7 Surveillance To be added at CPRDR stage.

8.8 Harmonised fishery assessments

Principle 1 harmonization

Table 36. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization for Principle 1.

Fishery Status Principles for Conformity Harmonization Assessment Body 2 Canada Pacific halibut (British Certified MRAG Principle 1, all Columbia) Mar 2019

Table 37. Scoring differences across Canada Pacific Halibut fishery

Performance US Halibut BC Halibut Indicators (PIs) 100 90 1.1.1 NA NA 1.1.2 95 95 1.2.1 1.2.2 100 100

1.2.3 100 90

1.2.4 100 100

Table 38. Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6) Scoring differences are related to use of a different stock assessment. There is also currently a disagreement in scoring regarding the impact of a lack of observer coverage on the <40ft boats on being able to meet information needs required by the harvest control rule.

Harmonization discussions between SCS and MRAG has been initiated and the scores of this report will be altered to reflect harmonization scoring consensus. Discussions will be finalized prior to the publication of the PCDR for the US North Pacific Halibut fishery. If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination

N/A

Principle 3 harmonization

Table 39. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization for Principle 3.

Fishery Status Principles for Conformity Harmonization Assessment Body 2 GOA Pollock Certified 3.1.X MRAG January 2016 3 GOA Flatfish Certified 3.1.X MRAG October 2015 4 GOA Cod Certified 3.1.X MRAG June 2015 5 BSAI and GOA Atka Mackerel, Certified 3.1.X MRAG Pacific Ocean perch, northern Jan 2020 rockfish, and dusky rockfish 6 BSAI and GOA Cod Reassessment, PCDR 3.1.X MRAG March 2020

Table 40. Scoring differences

BSAI and GOA Atka Mackerel, Performance Pacific Ocean BSAI and GOA GOA Flatfish GOA Cod GOA Pollock Indicators (PIs) perch, northern Cod rockfish, and dusky rockfish

3.1.1 0 0 0 0 0

3.1.2 0 0 0 0 0

3.1.3 0 0 0 0 0

Table 41. Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6)

No scoring differences occurred across the fisheries for harmonization.

If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination

N/A

8.9 Objection Procedure To be added at the PCR stage.

8.10 Complete catch tables for the UoA Table 42: Full list of organisms that interact with the HAL fishery from 2015-2019 as reported by observers (NOAA, 2020).

Total Total % % of UoA Common Total Catch Observed Observed Discarded Scientific Name Observed Name (t) Catch Catch Catch Retained Discarded Halibut Hippoglosus stenlolepis 87800.91 52787.89 35013.02 16.11% 40.40% Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria 43719.52 40281.85 3437.67 1.58% 20.12% Giant Albatrossia pectoralis Grenadier 28980.15 28980.15 13.33% 13.33% Bait 14891.16 14891.16 0.00% 6.85% Somniosus pacificus, Shark Squalus acanthias, S. complex suckleyi, Lamna ditropis 7818.22 3.19 7815.03 3.60% 3.60% Including Bathyraja Skates: other parmifera 5143.39 4.28 5139.10 2.36% 2.37% Albatrossia spp., Unidentified Coryphaenoides Grenadier cinereus 5140.99 5140.99 2.37% 2.37% Longnose Beringraja rhina skate 3384.30 110.73 3273.57 1.51% 1.56% Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus 3205.59 692.82 2512.77 1.16% 1.48% Thornyhead Sebastolobus spp. complex 3115.81 2295.41 820.40 0.38% 1.43% Big skate Raja binoculata 2928.41 31.84 2896.57 1.33% 1.35% Shortraker Sebastes borealis rockfish 1812.86 557.94 1254.92 0.58% 0.83% Unidentified Sebastes spp. rockfish 1738.96 903.95 835.01 0.38% 0.80% Hemitripterus bolini, Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus, Sculpin M. jaok, Hemilepidotus complex jordani 1712.86 4.47 1708.39 0.79% 0.79% Misc fish 1652.79 1652.79 0.76% 0.76% Sea star 1593.84 1593.84 0.73% 0.73% Rougheye Sebastes aleutianus rockfish 1149.70 493.65 656.05 0.30% 0.53% Arrowtooth Atheresthes stomias Flounder 813.98 35.40 778.58 0.36% 0.37% Octopus Enteroctopus dofleini, complex Octopus sp. 154.19 11.98 142.21 0.07% 0.07% State managed rockfish 82.16 82.16 0.04% 0.04% Deep water flatfish 68.79 0.38 68.42 0.03% 0.03% Greenland Reinhardtius Turbot hippoglossoides 64.97 1.08 63.90 0.03% 0.03%

Total Total % % of UoA Common Total Catch Observed Observed Discarded Scientific Name Observed Name (t) Catch Catch Catch Retained Discarded Dusky Sebastes ciliates rockfish 51.99 8.08 43.91 0.02% 0.02% Corals Bryozoans 41.77613808 41.78 0.02% 0.02% Kamchatka A. evermanni flounder 41.02 41.02 0.02% 0.02% Sea anemone unidentified 39.72 39.72 0.02% 0.02% Shallow water flatfish 37.35 37.35 0.02% 0.02% Pollock Gadus chalcogrammus 25.81 0.13 25.68 0.01% 0.01% Snails 17.25 17.25 0.01% 0.01% Sponge unidentified 14.94 14.94 0.01% 0.01% Pacific Ocean Sebastes alutus perch 12.19 12.19 0.01% 0.01% Misc crabs 10.69 10.69 0.00% 0.00%

Flatfish 9.60 9.60 0.00% 0.00% urchins dollars cucumbers 8.38 8.38 0.00% 0.00% Sea pens whips 7.62 7.62 0.00% 0.00% Hippoglossoides Flathead sole elassodon 6.18 6.18 0.00% 0.00% Benthic urochordata 6.00 6.00 0.00% 0.00% Invertebrate unidentified 4.75 4.75 0.00% 0.00% Northern Sebastes polyspinis rockfish 4.36 4.36 0.00% 0.00% Brittle star unidentified 2.00 2.00 0.00% 0.00%

Greenlings 1.99 1.99 0.00% 0.00%

Scypho jellies 1.63 1.63 0.00% 0.00%

Bivalves 1.60 1.60 0.00% 0.00% Pleurogrammus Atka mackerel monopterygius 1.55 1.55 0.00% 0.00%

Eelpouts 0.74 0.74 0.00% 0.00%

Squid 0.73 0.73 0.00% 0.00%

Total Total % % of UoA Common Total Catch Observed Observed Discarded Scientific Name Observed Name (t) Catch Catch Catch Retained Discarded Glyptocephalus Rex sole zachirus 0.67 0.67 0.00% 0.00% Misc crustaceans 0.66 0.66 0.00% 0.00%

Gunnels 0.58 0.58 0.00% 0.00% Lepidopsetta bilineata Rock sole 0.16 0.16 0.00% 0.00% Hermit crab unidentified 0.07 0.07 0.00% 0.00% Limanda aspera Yellowfin sole 0.03 0.03 0.00% 0.00% Other osmerids 0.02 0.02 0.00% 0.00% Merluccius productus Pacific Hake 0.01 0.01 0.00% 0.00% Pleuronectes Alaska Plaice quadrituberculatus 0.01 0.01 0.00% 0.00% Total UoA Catch 217325.59 113116.21 104209.39 47.95% 100.00%

Table 43: Full list of organisms that interact with the pot fishery

Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch % % of UoA Common Name (t) Retained Discarded Discarded Catch Sablefish 6442.79 5772.06 670.74 8.62% 82.80% Bait 1048.00 1048.00 0.00% 13.47% Halibut 106.71 84.93 21.78 0.28% 1.37% Giant Grenadier 78.92 78.92 1.01% 1.01% Arrowtooth Flounder 35.58 35.58 0.46% 0.46% Snails 9.82 9.82 0.13% 0.13% Greenland Turbot 8.10 8.10 0.10% 0.10% Rougheye rockfish 6.90 6.07 0.83 0.01% 0.09% Misc fish 5.58 5.58 0.07% 0.07% Shortraker rockfish 5.47 3.97 1.50 0.02% 0.07% Deep water flatfish 4.28 4.28 0.05% 0.05% Octopus 3.52 3.52 0.05% 0.05%

Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch % % of UoA Common Name (t) Retained Discarded Discarded Catch Thornyhead Unspecified 3.34 2.05 1.29 0.02% 0.04% Misc crabs 5.82 5.82 0.07% 0.07% Rockfish 2.84 0.96 1.89 0.02% 0.04% Sea star 3.23 3.23 0.04% 0.04% urchins dollars cucumbers 1.81 1.81 0.02% 0.02% Brittle star unidentified 2.42 2.42 0.03% 0.03% Pacific cod 1.48 1.41 0.07 0.00% 0.02% Rattail Grenadier 1.07 1.07 0.01% 0.01% Unidentified sharks 0.75 0.75 0.01% 0.01% Shallow water flatfish 0.67 0.67 0.01% 0.01% Misc fish 0.61 0.61 0.01% 0.01% Sea anemone unidentified 0.60 0.60 0.01% 0.01% Kamchatka flounder 0.30 0.30 0.00% 0.00% Rex sole 0.29 0.29 0.00% 0.00% Eelpouts 0.19 0.19 0.00% 0.00% Scypho jellies 0.14 0.14 0.00% 0.00% Sponge unidentified 0.19 0.19 0.00% 0.00% Corals Bryozoans 0.07 0.07 0.00% 0.00% Hermit crab unidentified 0.05 0.05 0.00% 0.00%

Sea pens whips 0.02 0.02 0.00% 0.00% State-managed Rockfish 0.01 0.01 0.00% 0.00% Invertebrate unidentified 0.01 0.01 0.00% 0.00%

Total UoA Catch 7781.23 6919.44 861.79 11.08% 100.00%

In addition to identifying the HAL and pot fisheries’ Primary Main and Minor species, the team calculated catch trends for all observed organisms from 2015-2019. Table 44: 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set longline hook and line fishery presented by year (NOAA, 2020) and Table 45: 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set pot fishery by year (NOAA, 2020) present this data by year. Main and Minor species are in bold text.

Table 44: 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set longline hook and line fishery presented by year (NOAA, 2020)

Common Name 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Halibut 40.29% 38.59% 42.15% 37.89% 43.35% Sablefish 21.11% 18.80% 19.29% 20.73% 20.73% Giant Grenadier 13.92% 20.87% 13.94% 9.95% 6.89% Bait 6.79% 6.48% 6.98% 6.87% 7.20% Unidentified sharks 1.67% 2.29% 3.57% 6.96% 3.83% Skate complex 2.37% 1.76% 2.02% 3.00% 2.77% Rattail Grenadier 2.38% 1.27% 2.16% 2.90% 3.26% Longnose skate 1.63% 1.37% 1.62% 1.40% 1.78% Pacific cod 1.73% 1.25% 1.37% 1.29% 1.76% Thornyhead Unspecified 1.49% 1.39% 1.38% 1.70% 1.19% Big skate 0.84% 1.51% 1.54% 1.56% 1.32% Shortraker rockfish 0.73% 0.70% 0.68% 1.07% 1.04% Rockfish 0.71% 0.79% 0.71% 0.80% 1.01% Unidentified sculpin 0.67% 0.64% 0.55% 1.16% 0.96% Misc fish 0.71% 0.60% 0.62% 0.79% 1.12% Sea star 1.59% 0.76% 0.36% 0.47% 0.39% Rougheye rockfish 0.52% 0.35% 0.41% 0.69% 0.72% Arrowtooth Flounder 0.44% 0.25% 0.38% 0.40% 0.40% Octopus 0.10% 0.05% 0.01% 0.08% 0.11% State managed rockfish 0.02% 0.05% 0.02% 0.06% 0.03% Deep water flatfish 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% Greenland Turbot 0.07% 0.04% 0.01% 0.03% 0.00% Dusky rockfish 0.02% 0.03% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01% Corals Bryozoans 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% 0.02% Kamchatka flounder 0.02% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% Sea anemone unidentified 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.01% Shallow water flatfish 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.01% 0.02% Pollock 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% Snails 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% Sponge unidentified 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Pacific Ocean perch 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Misc crabs 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%

Common Name 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Flatfish 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Urchins dollars cucumbers 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%

Sea pens whips 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Flathead sole 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% Benthic urochordata 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Invertebrate unidentified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Northern rockfish 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Brittle star unidentified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Greenlings 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Scypho jellies 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Bivalves 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Atka mackerel 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Eelpouts 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Squid 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Rex sole 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Misc crustaceans 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Gunnels 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Rock sole 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Hermit crab unidentified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Yellowfin sole 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other osmerids 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Pacific Hake 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Alaska Plaice 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Table 45: 2015-2019 observed catch from the US North Pacific bottom-set pot fishery by year (NOAA, 2020)

Common Name 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sablefish 77.62% 0.00% 81.44% 82.97% 83.69% Bait 12.42% 0.00% 13.21% 13.52% 13.63% Halibut 0.00% 0.00% 1.08% 1.53% 1.48% Giant Grenadier 2.96% 75.17% 2.57% 0.72% 0.24% Arrowtooth Flounder 2.86% 0.00% 0.75% 0.33% 0.29% Snails 2.07% 1.14% 0.15% 0.11% 0.04% Greenland Turbot 0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.06% Rougheye rockfish 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.12% 0.09% Misc fish 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.15% 0.07% Shortraker rockfish 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.07% 0.09% Deep water flatfish 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.05% 0.03% Octopus 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.04% 0.07% Thornyhead Unspecified 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.07% 0.03% Misc crabs 0.43% 14.31% 0.1% 0.07% 0.02% Rockfish 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.04% Sea star 0.24% 1.48% 0.08% 0.03% 0.02% urchins dollars cucumbers 0.08% 2.69% 0.00% 0.04% 0.02% Brittle star unidentified 0.98% 4.10% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% Pacific cod 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.02% Rattail Grenadier 0.01% 0.69% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% Unidentified sharks 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.01% Shallow water flatfish 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% Misc fish 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.01% 0.00% Sea anemone unidentified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Kamchatka flounder 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rex sole 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Eelpouts 0.00% 0.23% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Scypho jellies 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Common Name 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sponge unidentified 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.05% 0.00% Corals Bryozoans 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Hermit crab unidentified 0.02% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Sea pens whips 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% State-managed Rockfish 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Invertebrate unidentified 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

9 References

ADFG. (2012). State of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Associated Investigations in 2011. https://www.psmfc.org/tsc-drafts/2012/AK_TSC_2011_4_9_12v5.pdf

ADFG. (2016). Frequently used policies of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2017- 2018/common_used_policies.pdf

ADFG. (2019a) Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Groundfish Fisheries. Juneau, Alaska. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=CommercialByFisheryGroundfish.main

ADFG. (2020a). Fish and wildlife management in the United States article 3: Engate and affect change today. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=946

ADFG. (2020b). Enforcement of Alaska’s fish and wildlife laws. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=enforcement.main

ADFG. (2020c). 2020-2021 Statewide Commercial Groundfish Fishing Regulations. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/fishregulations/pdfs/commercial/2020_2021_cf_groundf ish_regs.pdf

ADFG. (nd). History of Alaska’s Fish and Game Board Process. http://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=29&docid=64284

AFSC. (2008). Alaska Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Research Implementation Plan for Alaska for FY 2007 – 2011 21 August 2006, Table 2 updated 3 July 2008. Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/HEPR/docs/UpdatedEFHResearchImplementationPlan.pdf

Agreement of the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP). (2018). https://acap.aq/en/acap- agreement

AKSCI. (2013a). Alaska Coral and Sponge Initiative – Project Update. February 213. Pp. 3. Available at: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/AKCSI_FY12summary_213.p df

AKCSI. (2013b). Alaska Coral and Sponge Initiative: A 3-year research plan. Pp. 35 Available at: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/CoralSponge3yrFY13_213.p df

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). (2018). 2019-2020 Statewide commercial groundfish fishing regulations. 180 p.

Alaska Department of Public Safety (2020). Fish and Wildlife Safeguard. https://dps.alaska.gov/awt/safeguard

Alaska State Statutes. (2020). Alaska Legal Resource Center. https://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title16/Chapter05/Section251.htm

Arata J.A., Sievert P.R., and Naughton M.B. (2009). Status assessment of Laysan and black-footed albatrosses, North Pacific Ocean, 1923–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5131. 80p.

Aydin, K., S. Gaichas, I. Ortiz, D. Kinzey, and Friday, N. (2007). A comparison of the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Aleutian Islands large marine ecosystems through food web modeling. NOAA NMFS Tech Memo. Pp. 309. Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-178.pdf

Boldt, J, S. Bartkiw, P. Livingston, J. Hoff, and G. Walters. (2008). Community size spectrum of the bottom trawl-caught community of the Eastern Bering Sea. Stock Assessment and Evaluation (SAFE) Report. Appendix A. Ecosystem Considerations. Available at: http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/reem/ecoweb/html/EcoContribution.cfm?ID=69

Ciccia-Romito, V., Criquet, G., Sinclair, A. (2014). FAO-based responsible fishery management certification 3rd surveillance report for the Alaska sablefish commercial fishery. https://www.alaskaseafood.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FAO-RFM- AK_Sablefish_3rd_Surveillance_Assessment_Report_FINAL_Dec-2014.pdf

Clark, William G. and Steven R. Hare. 2006. Assessment and management of Pacific halibut: data, methods, and policy. Scientific Report No. 83, International Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, WA.

Clausen, D. M. (2008). The giant grenadier in Alaska. In A. M. Orlov and T. Iwamoto (Editors), Grenadiers of the world oceans: biology, stock assessment, and fisheries, p. 413-450. Amer. Fish. Soc Sympos. 63. (Published by Amer. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD).

Courtney, D.L., Sigler, M.F. (2007). Trends in area-weighted CPUE of Pacific sleeper sharks Somniosus pacificus in the Northeast Pacific Ocean determined from sablefish longline surveys. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin, 12(2): 292-316.

Echave, K.B. and Hulson, P.J.F. (2018). Assessment of the Thornyhead stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/afsc/REFM/Docs/2018/GOA/GOAthorny.pdf

Eich, A.M., J. Roberts, and S.M. Fitzgerald. (2018). Seabird Bycatch Estimates for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries: 2016 through 2017. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/AKR-18, 32 p. doi:10.25923/vb9g-s503.

Gaichas, S. K, Francis R.C. (2009). Network models for ecosystem-based fishery analysis: a review of concepts and application to the Gulf of Alaska marine food web. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 65:1965-1982.

Hanson, M.B., Good, T.P. Jannot, J. E. and McVeigh, J. (2019). Estimated humpback whale bycatch in the U.S. West Coast Groundfish Fisheries 2002-2017. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/06/agenda-item-i-4-a-nmfs-report-4-humpback-whale- bycatch-in-2016-2017-in-the-u-s-west-coast-groundfish-fisheries-electronic-only.pdf/

Harvey, C., Garfield, T., Williams and G., Tolimieri, N. (2020). California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) California Current Ecosystem Status Report, 2020. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/02/g-1-a-iea-team-report-1.pdf/

Hanselman, D.H., Lunsford, C.R., Rodgveller, C.J. (2012). Chapter 3. Assessment of the sablefish stock in Alaska. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage AK, Pp. 545-654. Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/docs/2012/BSAIsablefish.pdf.

Hanselman, D.H., C.J., Rodgveller, K.H. Fenske, S. K. Shotwell, K. B. Echave, P. W. Malecha and C.R., Lunsford. 2018. Assessment of the sablefish stock in Alaska. In Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for the groundfish resources of the GOA and BS/AI. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501.

IPHC. (2019). An update on the IPHC Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process for SRB014. https://iphc.int/uploads/pdf/srb/srb014/iphc-2019-srb014-08.pdf

Jenkins LD, Garrison K. 2012. Fishing gear substitution to reduce bycatch and habitat impacts: An example of social–ecological research to inform policy. Mar. Policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.06.005

Krieger, J.R., Eich, A.M., and S.M. Fitzgerald. (2019). Seabird Bycatch Estimates for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries: 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/AKR-20, 41 p. doi:10.25923/hqft-we56.

Levin, P.S., and F.B. Schwing (eds.) (2011). Technical background for an integrated ecosystem assessment of the California Current: Groundfish, salmon, green sturgeon, and ecosystem health. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-109, 330 p. Available at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/1618_07122011_125959_CalCurrentIEATM109WebFinal.pdf

Livingston, P.A., Low, L.-L., Marasco, R.J. (1999). Eastern Bering Sea ecosystem trends. In: Sherman, K., Tang, Q. (Eds.). Large Marine Ecosystems of the Pacific Rim: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA, p.140-162.

MarineBio. (2020). Sperm whales. https://marinebio.org/species/sperm-whales/physeter- macrocephalus/

Martin, M. (2009). HAPC Biota – Gulf of Alaska. In Boldt J. and Zador, S. Eds. Ecosystem Impacts for 2010. Appendix C, 2009 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Martell, S., I. Stuart, and J. Sullivan. 2015. Implications of Bycatch, Discards, and Size 0041 Limits on Reference Points in the Pacific Halibut Fishery. In: G.H. Kruse, H.C. An, J. DiCosimo, C.A. Eischens, G.S. Gislason, D.N. McBride, C.S. Rose, and C.E. Siddon (eds.), Fisheries Bycatch: Global Issues and Creative Solutions. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks. http://doi.org/10.4027/fbgics.2015.03

McConnaughey, R. A., J. V. Olson, and M. F. Sigler. (2009). Alaska Fisheries Science Center essential fish habitat data inventory. AFSC Processed Rep. 2009-01, 40 p.

Mecklenburg, C.W., T.A. Mecklenburg and L.K. Thorsteinson. (2002). Fishes of Alaska. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.

Mueter, F., Lauth, R. (2009). Average local species richness and diversity of the groundfish community. Community size spectrum of the bottom trawl-caught community of the Eastern Bering Sea. Stock Assessment and Evaluation (SAFE) Report. Appendix A. Ecosystem Considerations. Available at: http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/reem/ecoweb/EcoChaptMainFrame.cfm?ID=57

Mueter, F. (2009). Total annual surplus production and overall exploitation rate of groundfish. In Boldt and Zador, Eds. Ecosystem Considerations for 2010. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Available at: http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/reem/ecoweb/html/EcoContribution.cfm?ID=68

NMFS 2015. California Current Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (CCIEA) State of the California Current Report. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp- content/uploads/E1b_NMFS_Rpt2_MAR2015BB.pdf NOAA (2005) Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK

NOAA. (2016a). Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Revision of Species-Wide Listing. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/08/2016-21276/endangered-and- threatened-species-identification-of-14-distinct-population-segments-of-the-humpback

NOAA. (2016b). Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow the Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Fishery; Amendment 101. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/28/2016-31057/fisheries-of-the-exclusive- economic-zone-off-alaska-allow-the-use-of-longline-pot-gear-in-the-gulf

NOAA (2014). Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segments of Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish and Bocaccio. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/11/13/2014-26558/endangered-and-threatened- species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-the-puget-soundgeorgia-basin

NOAA. (2016). Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow the Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Fishery; Amendment 101.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/28/2016-31057/fisheries-of-the-exclusive- economic-zone-off-alaska-allow-the-use-of-longline-pot-gear-in-the-gulf

NOAA, (2017). Assessment of the effects of fishing on essential fish habitat in Alaska. C6 Fishing Effects Discussion Paper. file:///C:/Users/andrew.bystrom/Downloads/C6%20Fishing%20Effects%20Discussion%20Paper%204.pd f

NOAA. (2018). 2018 North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessments. 2018 North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports for 2019 Fisheries. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/population-assessments/2018-north-pacific-groundfish-stock- assessments

NOAA. (2018b). EFH Areas Protected from Fishing in the U.S. North Pacific. https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/newInv/docs/npfmc_datasheet.pdf

NOAA. (2019). 2020 Annual deployment plan for observers and electric monitoring in the groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/2020-annual- deployment-plan-observers-groundfish-and-halibut-fisheries-alaska

NOAA. (2020). Humpback whale. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/humpback-whale

NOAA. (2020). Species directory: Pacific Spiny Dogfish. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/pacific- spiny-dogfish

NOAA. (2020). List of Fisheries for 2020. 85 FR 21079. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/16/2020-06908/list-of-fisheries-for-2020

NOAA Catch Accounting System (CAS). (2019). Alaska Catch Accounting System. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/sustainable-fisheries/alaska-catch-accounting-system

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). (2010). North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Initial Review Draft: Environmental Assessment / Regulatory Impact Review / Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for proposed amendment 86 to the Fishery Management Plan of the Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands Management area and amendment 76 to the Fishery Management Plan of the Gulf of Alaska: Restructuring program for observer procurement and deployment in the North Pacific. June 2010. Pp. 380. http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/analyses/observer/amd86_amd76_earirirfa0311.pdf

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). (2012). North Pacific Management Council. Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK. pp.85-94. Available at: https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/education/activities/PDFs/SBSS_Lesson6_BSAI_FMP.pdf

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). (2018a). Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. https://www.npfmc.org/wp- content/PDFdocuments/fmp/BSAI/BSAIfmp.pdf

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). (2018b). Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/fmp/GOA/GOAfmp.pdf

NPFMC. (2012b) Introduction to the Council process. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage AK. https://www.npfmc.org/wp content/PDFdocuments/meetings/IntrotoProcess.pdf

NPFMC. (2009). Navigating the North Pacific Council Process. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage AK. http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/help/Navigating_NPFMC.pdf

NWFSC (2020). Observer Program, NOAA Fisheries, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E, Seattle, WA 98112

Olson, A., Stahl, J., Vaughn, M., Carroll, K., Baldwin, A. (2017). Annual Management Report for the Southeast and Yakutat Commercial Groundfish Fisheries, 2017. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries. 53 p.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). (2019a). Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan: Appendix C. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/06/revised-groundfish-fmp-appendix-c-part- 1.pdf/

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). (2019b). Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery. https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2016/08/pacific-coast-groundfish-fishery-management-plan.pdf/

Pelagic Shark Research Foundation (2020). Salmon Sharks - Lamna ditropis. http://www.pelagic.org/montereybay/pelagic/salmonshark.html

Stewart, I., and Hicks, A. 2018. Assessment of the Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) stock at the end of 2018. IPHC-2019-AM095.09. 26 p.

Stewart, I., and Hicks, A. 2020. Assessment of the Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) stock at the end of 2019. IPHC-2020-SA-01. 32 p.

Stone, R.P., Malecha, P.W. and Masuda, M.M. (2017). A Five-Year, In Situ Growth Study on Shallow- Water Populations of the Gorgonian Octocoral Calcigorgia spiculifera in the Gulf of Alaska. Plos One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169470

Sullivan, J., Olson, A., Williams, B. (2018). 2018 Northern Southeast Inside Subdistrict Sablefish Fishery Stock Assessment and 2019 Management Plan. ADFG. 81 pp.

Sullivan, J., Olson, A., Williams, B. (2019). 2018 NSEI Subdistrict Sablefish Fishery Stock Assessment and 2019 Management Plan. ADFG. 89 pp.

The Alaska State Legislature. (2019). 31st Legislature(2019-2020) Alaska Admin Code 5 AAC 28.090. http://www.akleg.gov/basis/aac.asp#5.28.090

Trumble, R., S. Kaimmer, and G. Williams. 2000.Estimation of discard mortality rates for Pacific Halibut bycatch in Groundfish Longline Fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20. 931- 939. Yang, M-S., and M. W. Nelson. (2000). Food habits of the commercially important groundfishes in the Gulf of Alaska in 1990, 1993, and 1996. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-112. 174p.

Yang, M-S. K. Dodd, R. Hibpshman, and A. Whitehouse. (2006). Food habits of groundfishes in the Gulf of Alaska in 1999 and 2001. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-164. Pp. 199 Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-164.pdf

Zador S. (2014). Appendix C: Ecosystem Considerations for 2014. The Plan Teams for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Pp. 243. Available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/Docs/2014/ecosystem.pdf

10 Template information and copyright This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.1’.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release

1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org)

Senior Policy Manager Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected]