MSC ASSESSMENT Iturup Island (Russia) Pink and Chum Salmon Fisheries

fished by J.S.C. Gidrostroy

Contract Number: SCS-MFCP-F-00 Version: SCS_ Public Comment Draft Report

Date: 9 June 2009

Client: J.S.C. Gidrostroy

MSC reference standards:

MSC Accreditation Manual Issue 4, MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology (FCM) Version 5, MSC TAB Directives MSC Chain of Custody Certification Methodology (CoC CM) Version 6.

Accredited Certification Body: Scientific Certification Systems, Inc. Marine Fisheries Conservation Program 2200 Powell Street, Suite 725 Emeryville, CA 94608, United States

Assessment Team Dr. Chet Chaffee, Project Manager, SCS Mr. Ray Beamesderfer (Cramer Fish Sciences) Mr. Evgeny Matsak (formerly of TINRO)

1 Amendments Issued Since Original Draft Amd. No Date Description Of Amendment

1 22 October 2008 Draft Report for Client Review 2 10 December 2008 Draft Report for Peer Review 3 9 June 2009 Draft Report for Public Comment 4 Final Report after Public Comment Period 5 Final Report after MSC Objections Filing Period

2 Table of Contents

1 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS SUMMARY ...... 5 1.1 Evaluation Team ...... 5 2 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUED CERTIFICATION ...... 5 2.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 5 2.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS (CONDITIONS) AND ACTION PLAN ...... 6 3 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 3.1 The Fisheries Proposed for Assessment ...... 10 3.2 Key Issues for the Assessment ...... 10 4 THE ITURUP ISLAND (RUSSIA) PINK AND CHUM SALMON FISHERIES ...... 11 4.1 Unit of Certification ...... 11 4.2...... 12 4.2 Fishery Description ...... 12 4.3 Harvested Species ...... 14 4.3.1 Pink salmon ...... 14 4.3.2 Chum salmon ...... 17 4.3.3 Non-target species ...... 18 4.4 Protected, Endangered, or Threatened Species ...... 19 4.4.1 Marine Mammals ...... 19 4.4.2 Birds ...... 19 4.4.3 Sakhalin taimen ...... 19 4.5 Fishing Method ...... 23 4.6 Harvest ...... 26 4.7 Enhancement ...... 29 4.7.1 Production...... 29 4.7.2 Program Objectives ...... 30 4.7.3 Practices ...... 30 4.7.4 Wild Interactions ...... 32 4.8 Monitoring and Assessment ...... 33 5 FISHERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...... 35 5.1 Management Structure ...... 35 5.2 Gidrostroy ...... 39 5.3 Annual Total Allowable Catch ...... 40 5.4 In-season Process ...... 43 5.5 Enforcement ...... 44 5.6 Protected, Endangered, or Threatened Species ...... 45 5.7 Environmental Protection ...... 46 6 PROCESSING, TRANSSHIPMENT ...... 47 7 OTHER FISHERIES IN THE AREA ...... 47 8 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS ...... 47 9 THE MSC STANDARD AND CERTIFICATION METHODOLOGY ...... 47 9.1 7.3 MSC Principles and Criteria ...... 49 9.1.1 MSC Principle I ...... 49

3 9.1.2 MSC Principle 2 ...... 49 9.1.3 MSC Principle 3 ...... 50 9.2 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND SCORING GUIDEPOSTS ...... 52 9.2.1 Definitions ...... 52 9.2.2 MSC Principle 1 ...... 55 9.2.3 MSC Principle 2 ...... 65 9.2.4 MSC Principle 3 ...... 73 9.3 INFORMATION REVIEWED ...... 92 9.4 ASSESSMENT MEETINGS, INTERVIEWS ...... 93 10 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ...... 94 10.1 Principle 1: Status of Stocks of Target Species ...... 95 10.1.1 Summary Assessment (Score = 85) ...... 95 10.1.2 Criterion 1.1 - Maintain high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community ...... 95 10.1.3 Criterion 1.2 - Fishery allows for the recovery of depleted target stocks...... 103 10.1.4 Criterion 1.3 - Fishing does not impair reproductive capacity ...... 103 10.2 Principle 2: Ecosystem and Non-target Populations ...... 105 10.2.1 Summary Assessment (score = 81) ...... 105 10.2.2 Criterion 2.1 - Maintain natural functional relationships among species ..... 105 10.2.3 Criterion 2.2 - Fishery minimizes impacts on endangered, threatened or protected species ...... 108 10.2.4 Criterion 2.3 - Fishery allows for recovery of depleted non-target stocks. .... 109 10.3 Principle 3 Management and Operational Framework ...... 110 10.3.1 Summary Assessment (score = 89) ...... 110 10.3.2 Criterion 3.1 - Management system consistent with MSC principles and criteria 110 10.3.3 Criterion 3.2 - Framework for research pertinent to management ...... 114 10.3.4 Criterion 3.3 - Transparency in operations and consultation process ...... 117 10.3.5 Criterion 3.4 - Measure to control levels of harvest ...... 117 10.3.6 Criterion 3. 5 - Regular and timely review of management system ...... 120 10.3.7 Criterion 3.6 - Compliance with legal and administrative requirements ...... 121 10.3.8 Criterion 3.7 - Ecosystem sensitive gear and fishing practices ...... 122 11 TRACKING, TRACING FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS ...... 124 12 PEER REVIEW, PUBLIC COMMENT, AND OBJECTIONS ...... 124 13 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 124 14 MSC LOGO LICENSING RESPONSIBILITIES...... 124 15 MSC CERTIFICATE ...... 124 16 CONCLUSION ...... 125 17 REFERENCES ...... 126 APPENDIX 1 - PEER REVIEW 1...... 127 APPENDIX 2 - PEER REVIEW 2...... 132

4 1 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS SUMMARY Scientific Certification Systems, Inc. conducted a pre-assessment of the Iturup Island salmon fisheries, as required by the MSC program, prior to the full assessment. After review of the pre- assessment, the applicant (JSC Gidrostroy) for certification authorized the formal, full assessment of the fishery. All aspects of the assessment process for this assessment were carried out under the auspices of Scientific Certification Systems, Inc., an accredited MSC certification body, and in direct accordance with MSC requirements (MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology Version 5), except where the MSC approved a variance in its methodological requirements. In order to ensure a thorough and robust assessment process, and a process in which all interested stakeholders could participate, SCS took the approach of allowing additional time as needed for both industry and stakeholders to respond to requests for information and participation. To be consistent with other assessment on salmon, SCS proposed using the same sets of performance indicators and scoring guides used in BC and Alaska salmon fisheries. No comments were received to the contrary, so the same set used in Alaska was adopted formally for this assessment process.

1.1 Evaluation Team Project Manager: Dr. Chet Chaffee, SCS (USA) Team Members: MSC Principle 1: Mr. Ray Beamesderfer (Cramer Fish Sciences, Gresham, Oregon, USA) MSC Principle 2: Dr. Chet Chaffee (SCS) MSC Principle 3: Mr. Evgeny Matsak (an independent consultant, formerly with TINRO)

2 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUED CERTIFICATION To be awarded an MSC certificate for a fishery, the applicants or client must agree in written contract to develop an action plan for meeting the required 'Conditions'; a plan that must provide specific information on what actions will be taken, who will take the actions, and when the actions will be completed.. As the applicant, JSC Gidrostroy must also sign a contract with SCS that obligates the company to be both financially and technically responsible for annual surveillance visits to maintain the certificate. The contract must specify that the Client will endeavor to meet all specific “Conditions” and that evidence of not meeting the “Conditions” specified in the original assessment report is cause for the revocation of the MSC certificate.

2.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Surveillance audits will be comprised in general of (1) checking on compliance with the agreed action plan for meeting pre-specified ‘Conditions’, and (2) sets of selected questions that allow the certifier to determine whether the fishery is being maintained at a level of performance similar to or better than the performance recognized during the initial assessment. The general 'Conditions' set for the Iturup Salmon Fisheries are:

5  JSC Gidrostroy must recognize that MSC standards require regular monitoring inspections at least once a year, focusing on compliance with the 'Conditions' set forth in this report (as outlined below) and continued conformity with the standards of certification.  JSC Gidrostroy must agree by contract to be responsible financially and technically for compliance with required surveillance audits by an accredited MSC certification body, and a contract must be signed and verified by SCS prior to certification being awarded.  JSC Gidrostroy must recognize that MSC standards require a full re-evaluation for certification (as opposed to yearly monitoring for update purposes) every five years.  Prior to receiving final certification, JSC Gidrostroy shall develop an 'Action Plan for Meeting the Condition for Continued Certification' and have it approved by SCS.

2.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS (CONDITIONS) AND ACTION PLAN In addition to the general requirements outlined above, JSC Gidrostroy must also agree in a written contract with an accredited MSC certification body to meet the specific conditions as described in Section 10 and summarized below.

Specific conditions are:

1.1.1.5 Where stock units are composed of significant numbers of fish from enhancement activities, the management system provides for (1) identification of the enhanced fish (e.g., hatchery fish) and (2) their harvest in such a way that they do not adversely impact the diversity, ecological function or viability of Wild (un- enhanced) stocks. Score: 70

Condition 1. Complete implementation of hatchery marking and recapture studies to estimate proportions of hatchery-origin chum and pink in representative wild spawning rivers. Include a minimum of at least 3 brood years of marks to provide statistical replication and results representing normal temporal variation. Condition 2. Develop appropriate remedies for assuring that the presence of enhanced fish does not adversely affect the wild stock based on the results of stock composition studies. If hatchery fractions in non-hatchery rivers are low, then no further action may be needed. If hatchery fractions in non-hatchery rivers are significant, then appropriate remedies might include further research to evaluate effects or hatchery measures designed to reduce straying. Action Plan for 1.1.1.5 Conditions 1 & 2 An otolithe tagging and recapture project for Pink and Chum salmon has already been developed and is being implemented in order to better determine the contribution of hatchery to wild fish in the annual harvest, at various periods during the run and also the component of hatchery fish straying into the spawning grounds. General outline of the preliminary study objectives can be found on our website: www.Gidrostroymsc.com

As a further action on the part of Gidrostroy’s commitment to the long term health and sustainability of this resource, Gidrostroy, on its own initiative, in addition to government studies, has and continues to commission studies of the genetic populations and interactions of

6 wild vs. hatchery fish. An example would be the research documents completed by Smirnov et al 2006 and Zhivitovsky et al, 2008 referenced in the report from SCS. Results of these studies are used in preparation and guidance in the ongoing management of the fishery before, during and after the season and are posted on the above website for review.

1.1.2.1 Estimates exist of the removals for each stock unit. Score: 78 Condition 3. Estimate hatchery contribution to the total annual harvests of pink and chum salmon utilizing hatchery marks described in Condition 2. This will involve temporally-stratified random subsampling of a portion of the catch for marks during biological sampling at the processing plants. Include a minimum of at least 3 fishery years to provide statistical replication and results representing normal temporal variation. Action Plan for 1.1.2.1 Condition 3 An otolithe tagging and recapture project for Pink and Chum salmon has already been developed and is being implemented in order to better determine the contribution of hatchery to wild fish in the annual harvest, at various periods during the run and also the component of hatchery fish straying into the spawning grounds. General outline of the preliminary study objectives can be found on our website: www.Gidrostroymsc.com

As a further action on the part of Gidrostroy’s commitment to the long term health and sustainability of this resource, Gidrostroy, on its own initiative, in addition to government studies, has and continues to commission studies of the genetic populations and interactions of wild vs. hatchery fish. An example would be the research documents completed by Smirnov et al 2006 and Zhivitovsky et al, 2008 referenced in the report from SCS. Results of these studies are used in preparation and guidance in the ongoing management of the fishery before, during and after the season and are posted on the above website for review.

1.1.2.2 Estimates exist of the spawning escapement for each stock unit.

Score: 73

Condition 4. Establish appropriate fishery-independent indicators of spawning abundance for significant non-target species. See also Condition 1 which will address the need for estimates of the annual escapement and natural spawning of enhanced fish.

Action Plan for 1.1.2.2 Condition 4 The client will work with the Russian government to identify significant non-target species and to establish research needed to identify appropriate indicators of spawning abundance. For example, the work needed to identify and agree significant non-target species may include, but not be limited to, a discussion among stakeholders, J.S.C. Gidrostroy, and the government. This will be completed by the second annual surveillance in the fishery.

2.2.2 Salmon hatcheries are managed in order to minimize impacts on the genetic diversity and productivity of targeted natural salmon stocks and non-targeted salmon populations, including those listed as threatened or endangered.

7 Score: 77

Condition 5. Upon implementation of hatchery marking and recapture studies identified in Condition 1, estimate proportions of wild-origin chum and pink in the hatchery broodstock and take appropriate measures to ensure that adequate numbers of natural-origin fish are used in the broodstock each year in order to avoid potential domestication or selection. Include a minimum of at least 3 brood years of marks to provide statistical replication and results representing normal temporal variation.

Action Plan for 2.2.2 Condition 5 An otolithe tagging and recapture project for Pink and Chum salmon has already been developed and is being implemented in order to better determine the contribution of hatchery to wild fish in the annual harvest, at various periods during the run and also the component of hatchery fish straying into the spawning grounds. General outline of the preliminary study objectives can be found on our website: www.Gidrostroymsc.com

As a further action on the part of Gidrostroy’s commitment to the long term health and sustainability of this resource, Gidrostroy, on its own initiative, in addition to government studies, has and continues to commission studies of the genetic populations and interactions of wild vs. hatchery fish. An example would be the research documents completed by Smirnov et al 2006 and Zhivitovsky et al, 2008 referenced in the report from SCS. Results of these studies are used in preparation and guidance in the ongoing management of the fishery before, during and after the season and are posted on the above website for review.

3.2.1 The research plan covers the scope of the fishery, includes all target species, accounts for the non-target species captured in association with, or as a consequence of fishing for target species, and considers the impact of fishing on the ecosystem and socioeconomic factors affected by the management program.

Score: 71

Condition 6: The client must publicly provide the research plan for the pink and chum fisheries on Iturup Island each year. The plan shall detail what research, if any, may be needed to address ecosystem impacts and shall list the research to be conducted by either the government or the client to address identified ecosystem impacts.

Action Plan for 3.2.1 Condition 6 The client, J.S.C. Gidrastroy, will work with the federal government on identifying research needed to properly understand the ecosystem impacts of salmon fishing on Iturup Island, and assist in developing an implementation plan for research needs identified. Research needs may be identified in a number of ways, including but not limited to, conducting a risk assessment workshop with appropriate stakeholder participation.

3.4.2.2 The management system includes monitoring provisions.

Score: 75

8 Condition 7. Develop and implement an effective system for distribution of annual post-season monitoring reports to the certification surveillance team. Information would include: o run size forecasts and adopted total allowable catches, o numbers of fish harvested by species including target and non-target species, o escapement estimates of pink and chum salmon by population, o broodstock and juvenile production numbers by hatchery and species, o biological characteristics of the catch and escapement, o a summary of recent annual averages and trends, o a list of research activities during that year. o descriptions of any unique environmental or run conditions or activities for the year’s fishery.

Action Plan for 3.4.2.2 Condition 7 An intensive monitoring program is implemented by Government scientific organizations, employees of KNS, IRO and the fish hatcheries. Annual statistics are maintained and analyzed relative to established goals and policies. While detailed monitoring and reporting protocols are followed by all regulatory agencies and participants, there appear to be institutional constraints on the distribution of much of this information in the Russian system. While information is generally available within the management system, results are primarily published in the form of internal working documents which may not be readily available to some stakeholders. According to consultations and information received from the Director and Deputy Director of SakhNIRO, V.I. Radchenko and V.V. Lapko, annual monitoring reports containing data on salmon forecasts, harvest, escapement, production and biological characteristics are prepared based on results of scientific research conducted by "SakhNIRO" FGUP or by other similar institutes in other areas of the Far East. Monitoring and forecasting of the salmon stocks and other aquatic species, together with the collection and analysis of data on the utilization (harvest) of these stocks, their reproduction and biological characteristics are completed under the government contracts that the Fisheries Committee of Russia, as client, concludes with SakhNIRO, operating as the contractor. Under the terms of the government contract, scientific research work conducted by the institute is financed by the Government of the Russian Federation (the Fisheries Committee of Russia), and all scientific data and results of this work in the form of scientific reports belong to the client. These reports are archived in the institute's files, are not published in the open press and are not readily accessible to outside parties/organizations without direct requests. However, the reports are used by the coworkers of the client for writing articles and publications, including scientific dissertations. In this way, this data becomes available indirectly. The reports can be distributed to outsiders only with the written permission of the client, i.e., the Fisheries Committee of Russia. For persons/organizations interested in understanding the salmon fisheries, scientific works published in the open scientific and popular scientific press are available. In addition, the institute may upon individual inquiry by persons/organizations prepare paid informational and analytical references, conclusions, etc., but without presenting the data/materials collected in the course of the scientific research.

3 INTRODUCTION The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the long-term protection or “sustainability” of marine fisheries and related habitats. First started as a joint

9 initiative between Unilever and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the MSC is now a fully independent organization that is governed by an independent Board of Directors advised by a panel of scientific, economic, and fishery experts.

The MSC’s original mission statement promoted responsible, environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable fisheries practices, as well as the maintenance of biodiversity, productivity and ecological processes of the marine environment. The current MSC mission statement (redrafted in 2001) provides a slightly more focused mission and reads, “To safeguard the world’s seafood supply by promoting the best environmental choice”. Dedicated to promoting “well-managed” or “sustainable” fisheries, the MSC initiative intends to identify such fisheries through means of independent third-party assessments and certification. Once certified, fisheries will be awarded the opportunity to utilize an MSC promoted eco-label to gain economic advantages in the marketplace. Through certification and eco-labelling, the MSC intends to promote and encourage better management of world fisheries, many of which have been suggested to suffer from poor management.

The Marine Stewardship Council developed standards for sustainable fisheries management in a three-step process (May, Leadbitter, Sutton, and Weber, 2003): 1) Assemble a group of experts in Bagshot (UK) to draft an initial set of Principles and Criteria; 2) Conduct an 18-month process to review the standard in 8 major international venues; and 3) Convene a second set of experts in Warrenton, Virginia (Airlie Conference Center, USA) to revise and finalize the MSC Principles and Criteria.

The final MSC Fisheries Certification standard was issued in 1998, and has since been used as the basis by which fisheries are evaluated under the MSC program. In contrast, the MSC Certification Methodology has evolved over the past six years as has the MSC Standard and Certification Methodology for Chain of Custody. The latest documents concerning these requirements, processes, and procedures were used in this assessment.

3.1 The Fisheries Proposed for Assessment The fisheries evaluated in this report are: Species: Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Geographic Area: Iturup Island, Kuril Islands, Russia. Salmon fisheries assessed in this report occur in Kurilskiy Bay from Cape Vinogrodniy to Cape Breskens and in Prostor Bay between Cape Shpora and Cape Friza. A total of 18 significant rivers and streams with anadromous fish populations are located in or near the fishery areas Fishing Method: Fish Traps Fishery Management: Federal Government of Russia (see explanation in report for all agencies involved) with cooperation from JSC Gidrostroy. 3.2 Key Issues for the Assessment There were a number of issues for this assessment that needed special attention. Of the issues encountered, the key ones are:

10 1. Documentation to validate the management of the fisheries: The documentation for this fishery is held in two places: the offices of the federal government (Russia) and at the offices of JSC Gidrostroy. Both the management team at JSC Gidrostroy and the fishery management authorities in Russia were very helpful if guiding us to documents that we needed for this review. The documents held by JSC Gidrostroy were easily accessed as JSC Gidrostroy is the client. However, accessing documents from the federal fishery management authorities was more difficult. Since documents concerning fisheries management and fisheries sciences are considered property of the federal government, official authorization is needed to obtain documents for review by external reviewers such as the MSC assessment team. While the assessment team was never denied documents, it did take some time to receive data and summaries of scientific analyses that were used to underpin fishery management decisions.

2. Salmon Hatcheries: A number of salmon hatcheries operate throughout Russia. This is also true on Iturup Island. In the area fished by JSC Gidrostroy, there are two major hatcheries that raise and release both pink and chum salmon. These two hatcheries provide a significant component of salmon that return to the island, making them an important aspect of this MSC assessment. The MSC evaluation standard is based on the sustainability of wild stocks subject to the fishery. Assessment criteria consider the direct and indirect impacts of hatchery production on wild stocks in fisheries and on mixed hatchery and wild stocks. Both wild and hatchery fish harvested in the fishery are marketable under the MSC label as long as the certification criteria are met for the wild stocks in the harvest. This assessment identifies conditions for continuing certification to address questions regarding hatchery effects.

3. Protected, Endangered, and Threatened Species: On Iturup Island, there are reports of an endangered species of salmon that occurs in areas south of the area fished by JSC Gidrostroy. This salmon species, commonly referred to as taimen, was listed in the IUCN Redbook in 2000. Reports of Taimen were difficult to obtain. Since the protection of this species was identified as a significant concern of stakeholders, SCS put forth extra efforts to determine if there were any available documents that could verify that Taimen still occurs at Iturup Island, and if so, if there is any indication that the commercial salmon fisheries on the island could have an effect on this species.

4 THE ITURUP ISLAND (RUSSIA) PINK AND CHUM SALMON FISHERIES 4.1 Unit of Certification The certification unit includes the pink and chum salmon fish trap fisheries managed by the Russian government and the JSC Gidrostroy Company on Iturup Island in the Russian Far East. The fishery of interest occurs along Iturup’s north coast in Kurilskiy Bay from Cape Vinogrodniy to Cape Breskens and in Prostor Bay between Cape Shpora and Cape Friza. A total of 18 significant rivers and streams with anadromous fish populations are located in or near the fishery areas (Table 1). The 4 largest systems include the Kurilka River (with hatchery), Reydovaya River (with hatchery), Rybatskaya River (without hatchery), and Olya River (without hatchery). The rest of the rivers and lakes are smaller in size, with the exception of Slavnaya, Glushj, and Sopochnoye Lake. The fishery area excludes a small section of the coast near

11 Dobryninya Bay where two fish traps are operated by another company. Other smaller fisheries (not subject to certification) occur to the north and south of the Gidrostroy fishery.

Table 1. Populations of pink and chum salmon in rivers and streams contiguous with JSC Gidrostroy fisheries on Iturup Island. Area is the estimated availability of suitable spawning habitat. Length / Total O. gorbuscha O. keta Location / Протяжённость Spawning Species species Географический район Area (m2) (km) Type Area m2 Type Area m2 Kurilskiy Bay Курильский залив Rybatskaya R. 15,600 Wild / Естественное 12,000 Wild 3,600 воспроизводство Kurilka R. 22 117,250 Mixed1 97000 Mixed1 20,250 / Смешанное воспроизводство Podoshevka R. 6 5,500 Wild 5,500 Wild 0,000 Prostor Bay Залив Простор Olya R. 8 18,150 Wild 17,500 Wild 0,650 Udobnaya R. 6 1,200 Wild 1,200 -- -- Lk. Reydovoye ------Wild 7,400 Reydovaya R. 18 44,000 Mixed1 29,100 Mixed1 14,900 Beliy Cr. 6 3,000 Wild 3,000 Wild -- Lk. Sopochnoye 37,500 Wild 11,000 Wild 26,500 Senokosniy R. 3 1,100 Wild 1,100 Wild -- Skaljniy R. 9 8,000 Mixed1 8,000 Mixed1 0,000 Dobrynina Bay -- Mixed no data Wild ? Sofjya R. 5 2,000 Wild 2,000 Wild -- Chistaya R. 8 14,500 Wild 14,500 Wild 0,000 Privoljniy R. 6 No data Wild no data Wild -- Doljniy R. 7 3,500 Wild 3,500 Wild -- Slavnaya R. 23 196,000 Wild 185,000 Wild 11,000 Gushj R.. 14 no Wild - Wild -- Aktivniy R. 8 6,000 Wild 6,000 Wild -- 1 Hatchery and wild production of both O. gorbuscha and O. keta (based on target densities of 2 spawners/m² for pink salmon and 1.6 spawners/m² for chum salmon) 4.2

4.2 Fishery Description Iturup is the largest of the Kuril Islands and is located near the southern end of the Island chain (Figure 1). The Island is 203 km in length and 6 to 36 km in width with a total area is 6,725 km2. The Okhotsk sea coast of the island includes a series of bays (Lvinaya Past, Dozorny, Dobroye Nachalo, Odessky, Kuibyshevsky) and peninsulas (Chelust, Klyk, Atsonopuri, Przhevalskogo and Chirip). The Pacific side is more exposed and characterized by large and and poorly dissected coastal cliffs. The landscape includes a series of volcanoes connected with more or less wide hilly or low-laying isthmuses. Rainfall is significant and there are about 200 small rivers and streams on the island. Most of the major watersheds drain to the Okhotsk side. The human

12 population swells to about 2,000 at its seasonal peak in summer and early fall with an influx of temporary fishery workers but is less during winter. Development is concentrated in two major population areas on the island, both areas being close to the shore. The rest of the island is primarily wild, with the exception of roads to various locations used for fishing, hatchery operations, processing operations, and power generation. Wildlife is abundant and bears are jokingly said to outnumber the human inhabitants.

Cape Friza

Aktivniy R.

Glushj R. Cape Breskens Slavnaya R. Doljniy R. Privoljniy R. Cape Shpora Chistaya R. Prostor Bay Sofjya R. Dobrynina R. Skaljniy R. Senokosniy R. Sopochnoye L. Kurilskiy Bay Olya R.

Cape Vinogradniy Podoshevka R. Beliy Cr.

Reydovaya R. Udobnaya R.

Kurilka R.

Rybatskaya R. Kamchatka

Sakhalin Kuybycheyka R. Island

Syetizna R. Kuril Islands

Japan Iturup Island

Figure 1. JSC Gidrostroy fishery areas in Kurilskiy and Prostor Bays (shaded) and associated rivers on the northern coast of Iturup Island, Kuril Islands, Russia.

Salmon fisheries on Iturup Island have a long history. During the 1800s, the southern Kurils were inhabited by the Japanese who fished for salmon and built the first salmon hatcheries sometime between the late 1800s and the early 1900s. Iturup Island came under Russian Jurisdiction after the World War II, and the necessary manpower was sent to re-establish fishing and hatcheries which had fallen into disrepair on the island. JSC Gidrostroy is a private company, established in 1991, that owns and operates the fishing, processing and shipment operations for much of the salmon at Iturup Island. Gidrostroy operates two processing facilities on the Island, which directly employs almost half of the Island’s population. Wild and hatchery pink and chum salmon are caught, processed and sold into the market. Fully half of the catch is sold into the Russian market with the remainder exported into the European, Asian and North American markets. JSC Gidrostroy is also responsible for the livelihood of most of the inhabitants of Iturup Island and the infrastructure (housing, hospital, schools, roads, housing,

13 etc.) for living. The local village communities of Kurilsk and Reydova on Iturup Island depend almost exclusively on this fishing as their livelihood.

4.3 Harvested Species Target species harvested by this fishery include pink salmon and chum salmon. Non-target fish can include cherry salmon, sockeye salmon, coho salmon, dolly varden, char, and a variety of local marine species. Sakhalin Taimen, a listed species under IUCN, would also be considered to be a non-target species if any were caught. 4.3.1 PINK SALMON Pink salmon are the most abundant of the Pacific salmon and are found throughout the north Pacific. The Iturup Island pink salmon return currently averages 18 million fish per year and has varied from 6 to 32 million. Combined annual escapements of hatchery and natural origin fish are estimated to average over 1 million fish (Kaev et al. 2006). Historical escapements ranged from 845,000 to 2,467,000. Combined wild and hatchery production is estimated to average 360 million fry per year. Annual fry-adult survival of Iturup pink salmon is typically 2-10% and is among the highest in the Russian Far East (Kaev et al. 2006, Smirnov et al. 2006). Fluctuations in pink salmon abundance on southern Sakhalin and Iturup Islands are more dependent on marine survival than on the abundance of fry migrating downstream (Kaev et al. 2007). Ocean productivity and temperatures are reported to be particularly favorable for juvenile pink salmon along the Okhotsk sea side of Iturup Island due to a convergence of warm and cold currents (Kaev et al. 2006). Iturup Island’s rivers, as a rule only freeze during periods of low discharge, whereas other rivers in the region are almost completed covered with ice during the winter (Kaev et al. 2007).

Pink salmon spawn in almost all water bodies of Iturup Island, except for those with acidic water and streams ending in waterfalls. Pink salmon typically spawn in small to moderate-sized streams within a few miles of the sea or and in the intertidal zone at the mouths of streams. On Iturup Island, pink salmon enter 54 rivers (Figure 2). Of them, only three rivers are over 20 km long; six rivers are from 11 to 20 km long; and the rest are referred to as small rivers and streams. The majority (80%) of the spawning habitat (an estimated total of 600,000 m2) are concentrated in the island’s rivers on the Okhotsk Sea coast (Kaev et al. 2006). Natural production areas, hatcheries, and fisheries for pink salmon, including those of Gidrostroy, are concentrated on the Central and Northern Okhotsk Sea coasts of Iturup Island. Approximately 95% of the total pink salmon catches occur in central and northern parts of the Okhotsk Sea coast of the island, primarily in Prostor and Kurilskiy bays. Little fishing occurs on the Pacific side.

Kaev et al. (2006) reports that: “Pink salmon at Iturup Island are widely distributed over the rivers on the Okhotsk Sea coast; however, the base of their biomass in this area is formed by several stocks. One of them is a south-Kuril stock, which composes approximately 27% of Russian commercial catches of pink salmon in the Okhotsk Sea. Moreover, 90% of this stock supply is formed due to spawning and artificial propagation of pink salmon in the Iturup Island’s rivers. The first Russian data containing the timing of pink salmon prespawning migration to rivers of this island and biological indices of fish were obtained in the second half of the 1940s (Vedensky 1949). In the 1950s, the first quantitative identifications of pink salmon stock abundance were made (Pavlov 1954). In the 1960s, based on knowledge of peculiarities in migration dynamics and biological indices, it was shown that pink salmon have an intraspecific structure coherent with the ability of this species to form local populations and seasonal forms. (Ivankov 1967a,b). This researcher (Ivankov 1968) reported about the peculiarities of pink

14 salmon reproduction in the Iturup Island’s rivers. However, the routine annual studying of abundance and biological characteristics of pink salmon only started since 1967 (Chupakhin 1973a, 1975).”

The pink salmon is the smallest of the Pacific salmon. Iturup pink salmon typically average about 1.5 kg and 50 cm. Pink salmon mature at two years of age which means that odd-year and even-year populations are essentially unrelated. Frequently in a particular stream the other odd- year or even-year cycle will predominate, although in some streams both odd- and even-year pink salmon are about equally abundant. Occasionally cycle dominance will shift, and the previously weak cycle will become most abundant. On Iturup, both even and odd-year pink salmon runs are significant (Kaev et al. 2006). Prior to the 1980s, inter-annual differences were not great. In 1982-1991 odd year runs were typically double the size of the even year runs. Since the early 1990s, even year run sizes have been generally larger than the odd year runs. Odd-year returns dominate the pink return throughout most of the Sakhalin-Kuril Island area outside Iturup (Smirnov 2006).

Figure 2. School of pink salmon during spawning migration into a small Iturup Island river.

Pink salmon return to Iturup Island to spawn from July until October but returns and harvest typically peak in August (Figure 3). Early and late runs occur in all rivers but north Island tributaries (middle of Prostor Bay and north) tend to support more late-run fish. Early run fish tend to make up a higher proportion of the run in the southern portion of the Island. Run timing productivity has shifted over the last 30 years from predominately late run (75% of production during the 1970s) to predominately early run (60% of production during the 1990s). This change in productivity patterns has occurred island-wide and is not related to local hatchery effects.

Early and late runs may spawn in different portions of a river system. Significant differences in run timing are apparent for pink salmon returning to different areas of the Kurilka and Reydovaya river systems. In the Kurilka, approximately 50% of the natural production capacity occurs in the mainstem (east fork) where the hatchery is located and this portion of the run is intermediately-timed. Approximately 25% of the natural production capacity is in the middle

15 tributary (Kurilskaya) and this portion of the run is early-timed. The remaining 25% of the capacity is in a west fork tributary (Lorka) and this portion of the run is late-timed. In the Reydovaya, returns to the upper portion of the system, including the area of the hatchery, peak around August 10-15. Returns in the lower mainstem typically peak around July 20. Returns to the east fork (Udobnaya) are typically earlier timed peaking around June 20.

Figure 3. Run timing of Iturup island pink salmon based on forecast harvest patterns in 2008 near-shore fisheries (Voronova, 7/16/08).

Spawning by pink salmon is typical of Pacific salmon with the eggs deposited in redds. Shallow riffles where flowing water breaks over coarse gravel or cobble-size rock and the downstream ends of pools are favored spawning areas. Fecundity of Iturup pink salmon typically averages about 1,500 eggs per female. Fry emerge from the gravel in late winter or spring and migrate downstream into salt water, typically during hours of darkness. Following entry into salt water, the juvenile pink salmon move along the beaches in dense schools near the surface, feeding on plankton, larval fishes, and occasional insects. By fall juvenile pink salmon begin moving into the ocean feeding grounds. High seas tag-and-recapture experiments have revealed that pink salmon originating from specific coastal areas have characteristic distributions at sea which are overlapping, nonrandom, and nearly identical from year to year.

Genetic analyses of pink salmon stock structure have generally identified broad geographical patterns but little or no difference among local populations in any given region. No major differences local differences were observed among 5 loci analyzed by Glubokovskiy and Zhivotovsky (1986) or among 76 loci from broadly-distributed populations on Sakhalin analyzed by Matsak (Noll Claire et al 2001). Genetic differences appear to be less in Asian pink salmon than in North American pink salmon (Zhivotovsky, personal communication). Natural straying among local populations of pink salmon is generally assumed to be more significant than in other salmon species (Sharp et al. 1994; Zhivotovsky et al. 2008). Tagging data of pink salmon during the 1980s and 1990s showed significant numbers of Iturup Island fish being intercepted off Sakhalin Island (Lubaev 2005). The available information on Pink salmon genetic stock structure and straying patterns is not conclusive. Genetic results to date are difficult to reconcile with patterns in run timing and distribution of pink salmon population components on Iturup Island. It remains unclear where historical genetic methods found no stock structure because none existed or because the available methods lacked sufficient power to identify differences. More recent genetic analyses of pink salmon using microsatellites have been similarly inconclusive.

16 4.3.2 CHUM SALMON Chum salmon have the widest distribution of any of the Pacific salmon. They range south to the Sacramento River in California and the island of Kyushu in the Sea of Japan. In the north they range east in the Arctic Ocean to the Mackenzie River in Canada and west to the Lena River in Siberia. On Iturup Island, chum are much less abundant than pink salmon and populations are generally restricted to the larger systems. Ten chum populations are identified within the certification area.

Historical natural populations of chum salmon on Iturup Island were relatively small but numbers have been building island-wide over the last decade. This increase has been attributed to the combined effects of reduced high-seas harvest and enhancement activities. Increases are greatest in the hatchery streams. For instance, Reydovaya chum numbers averaged approximately 1,000 fish per year prior to rebuilding of the hatchery chum program but have since increased substantially. The numbers of chum salmon reaching natural spawning grounds on Iturup Island are currently estimated at about 100,000 (Voronova, 7/16/08). Recent fry-to- adult survival rates have averaged about 5-10% based on numbers from the Reydovo Hatchery.

Asian chum include summer and fall runs. Iturup chum are a fall run which return in October and November. Fall chum are native to Japan, the west coast of Sakhalin Island, the southern Kuril Islands, and the Amur River (Salo 1991). Chum runs in Iturup are very diverse with a variety of run timing as well as river and lake forms. Returns and fisheries are typically greatest in September and October (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Run timing of Iturup island chum salmon based on forecast harvest patterns in 2008 near-shore fisheries (Voronova, 7/16/08). Chum salmon typically mature at 2 to 5 years of age (primarily at 4 years of age), although there is considerable variation among regions. Chum vary in size from 4 to over 30 pounds, but generally range from 7 to 18 pounds, with females usually smaller than males.

Chum salmon generally spawn in low gradient temperate and subarctic rivers and streams, not far from the ocean. Spawning areas often include small streams, intertidal zones, and small side channels and other areas of large rivers where upwelling springs provide excellent conditions for egg survival. Fecundity typically ranges between 2,400 and 3,100 eggs. Chum fry migrate into marine waters emerge from the gravel in the spring and rear briefly in freshwater before

17 migrating to the ocean. They feed on small insects in the stream and estuary before forming into schools in salt water where their diet usually consists of zooplankton.

Detailed genetic studies have recently been completed for Iturup chum populations using microsatellite analysis (Zhivotovsky et al. 2008). Groups of chum from Kurilka and Reydovaya populations are clearly differentiated from each other and from other Iturup chum populations, confirming their individuality as populations. Differentiation was attributed a highly developed homing sense of chum. Samples from tributaries closely associated with the hatchery continue to show differentiation. This analysis also identified the need for additional research to evaluate potential hatchery effects on chum genetics.

4.3.3 NON-TARGET SPECIES Non-target fish can include sockeye salmon, masu cherry salmon, coho salmon, dolly varden, char, and a variety of local marine species. Non-target species might also include Taimen which is an endangered species that is seldom or rarely caught must be immediately be released alive.

Sockeye salmon Small numbers of sockeye are produced in several Iturup Lake systems including Krasivoye which is located on the southern part of the Island (outside the fishery area). The 2007 escapement was estimate at about 15,000. Sockeye numbers have increased in recent years due to a decrease in ocean fisheries (Borzov 2007).

Masu salmon Masu salmon populations are found on Iturup in any river where significant ground water inputs provide warm water in winter. These include the Reydovaya and Kurilka rivers (Smirnov et al. 2006; Pogodin, pers. comm., 2/26/08). Borzov (2007), reports that masu populations on Iturup are relatively small. Masu enter river mouths in May-June when there is no marine harvesting of salmon and masu salmon are not harvested at sea. Also due to a small local human population there is no mass-scale masu salmon harvesting in the rivers themselves. Because of this masu salmon populations on Iturup including those of the Reydovy and Kurilka river systems are believed to be stable and self-sustaining (Pogodin, pers. comm., 2/26/08).

The timing of masu spawning in rivers coincides with that for the first spawning of pink salmon. These two species get separated according the species-specific spawning habitats (pink spawn in the shallow water rapids with underflow and masu migrate to the groundwater and spring fed streams or brooks. Masu often enter hatchery weirs during the start-of-the-run’s pink collection for brood stock. They are caught together with pink using dip nets. Because no spawning habitat for masu salmon exists upstream from the Reydovo hatchery weir and survival after being caught in a dip net is low, their eggs are collected and reared at Reydovo hatchery. Releases have included 11,000 to 63,000 age-0 fish and 18,000 to 41,000 age-1 fish per year in 2003-2005. In light of the artificial enhancement efforts by the Reydovo Salmon Hatchery, an increase has been noted in the numbers of spawner fish in the river basin (Brozov 2007).

Char East Siberian char or Kundscha are abundant in rivers and streams of Iturup Island (Pogodin, pers. comm. 06/26/08). Char densities in the Reydovaya River System are estimated to reach 1,000 – 1,500 individuals per 100 m2 of the river area during the downward migration of salmon fry. Char densities increase and their body length decrease with the distance from the river mouth

18 area towards the spawning grounds (maximum density is at the reeds in the spawning grounds area).

4.4 Protected, Endangered, or Threatened Species

4.4.1 MARINE MAMMALS According to the company biologist, there are few protected, threatened, or endangered species in the waters around Iturup Island that interact with the fishing operations. Species found in the waters around the island include 20 kinds of Cetacea (examples include grey whale, southern whale, humpback whale, finback, killer whale, Pacific whitside dolphin, butterfly dolphin), six species of pinniped (mainly an eared seal and two forms of common seal) and one unique species of Marten family (kalan or sea-ape). Interactions of the fishery with marine mammals are negligible except for the ringed seal (Pusa hispida) which occasionally enter the trap nets to eat salmon. The seals can enter and exit the fish traps at will over the float lines.

4.4.2 BIRDS The birds on Iturup island number about 200 species, from them about 100 species build nests on the island. Some birds of concern due to their rarity include whiteback albatross, petrel, mandarin duck, golden eagle, whiteshouders and whitetail eagles, merlin, peregrine, Japanese crane and snipe, fish eagle owl. Providing protection for birds is of high priority. The government has set up a reserve "Ostrovnoy" which occupies practically the entire southern half of the island. Habitual wintering birds here are different species of ducks - mallard, whistle teal, middle and big merganser, white swans and some predatory birds such as eagles.

4.4.3 SAKHALIN TAIMEN Sakhalin taimen (Hucho perryi) are a fish species of concern. They are entered as a category 3 species in the 2000 Red Book for the Sakhalin Region of the Russian Federation. Category 3 is defined as (a local endemic species characterized by dwindling abundance and in need of protection). In 2006, the IUCN listed Sakhalin taimen as a critically endangered (Rand 2006). This designation represents the highest potential risk of global extinction to the species. The assessment indicated that the range-wide population has dropped in size to less than 5% of historic levels based on declining catches in pink salmon fishery bycatch data from Sakhalin Island (Rand 2006). Similar declines in harvest and catch rates were reported since the 1970s by Safronov and Makeev (2000). Overfishing by various sectors (commercial, recreational, and illegal take) and habitat development have been identified as significant threats to this source: Rand (2006) www.iucnredlist.org

19 species (Safronov and Makeev 2000; Rand 2006).

Taimen are a large migratory fish that can reach 2 m and 60 kg in size (Safronov and Makeev 2000). The species is known to exhibit both freshwater and anadromous life histories. They have been known to inhabit near-shore areas and freshwater systems of the northern Sea of Japan and southern Sea of Okhotsk and including in rivers of Primoriye, Sakhalin, the southern Kurils, Hokkaido, and northern Honshu. Typical habitats are near-shore marine waters, low gradient coastal rivers, estuaries, and large brackish estuarine lakes or lagoons.

Abundance of taimen on Iturup Island has not been formally evaluated but some anecdotal information on occurrence is available. On Iturup Island, Sakhalin taimen have been seen over the years in the Kuibyshevka, Reydovaya, and Kurilka rivers and the Dobroye, Kuibyshevskoye, Blagodatnoye, Osenneye, and Maloye lakes (Borzov 2006). The range is typically confined to lake-river systems and is characterized by a patchy distribution. Taimen are not abundant in the Reydovaya or Kurilka rivers, and none have been recorded there for a number of years. Taimen are also occasionally seen in the Rybatskaya and Slavnaya rivers.

Taimen spawn in the middle and lower reaches in small rivers and in the upper reaches of large rivers from late April through early June at the peak of high water (Safronov and Makeev 2000). Spawning behavior and spawning habitat are typical of salmon. Juveniles spend 2 to 7 years in freshwater and often rear year-round in lagoons with brackish water and estuarine lakes. Juveniles as large as 9-20 cm typically feed on insects but fish dominate the diet of larger taimen. Juveniles typically migrate to the sea at sizes of 10-50 cm and subsequent rearing takes place in the inshore waters. The species is iteroparous and sexual maturity is typically reached at 2 to 10 years of age at sizes of up to 90 cm and 6 kg (Safronov and Makeev 2000; Rand 2006). Males typically mature at age 7-9 years and a body weight of 1800-2100 g (Borzov 2006). Females mature later typically at the age of 9-10 years. Adults can reach ages of 16 or greater (Safronov and Makeev 2000). Taimen often enter estuaries of large rivers or lakes in late November to overwinter in deep-water river areas with an adequate flow. In spring, adults might migrate from rivers into the sea for a short period of time before migrating into rivers to spawn. Taimen do not make migrations over long distances and often enter fresh water during summer. Rivers with indigenous taimen stocks interchange with rivers with no taimen.

20

Figure 5. Educational poster on taimen catch-and-release posted in a Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk fishing tackle store.

On Iturup Island, migration and freshwater residence of taimen vary from river to river depending on the availability of overwintering space, critical summer temperatures, availability of food and other factors (Voronova, 7/16/08). The Kuibyshevka River south of the Gidrostroy fishing area has been identified from past evidence as one of the best known taimen locations on Iturup. This system includes the river proper, Maloye Lake, (connected with the river via a channel) and several small meanders in the lower reaches. River gradient is low in the lower 5 km reach of this 26 km river. Upstream portions are steeper with habitat comprised of deep (3-4 m) pools interspersed with shallow rapids. Maloye Lake is 54 hectares, shallow, and overgrown with aquatic vegetation in summer. Summer river temperatures don’t exceed 16-17ºC but water temperature in the lake can be over 20ºC as early as mid June.

Taimen adults and juveniles are thought to be present in the Kuibyshevka River year-round but abundance and distribution is seasonally variable. Adults typically overwinter from November until April in deep pools at river kilometers 4-7 and 16-18. They become sluggish, won’t react to baits and stay in holes with felled trees often together with kundscha. Fish can be readily observed during this period in the low clear water. At a body length of 80-130 см mature taimen are easily recognized due to their specific coloring and body shape. Catches of large taimen individuals in lakes of the island in winter are uncommon. Adult activity increases as stream flow increases around April with migrations downstream into the lower portion of the system and marine waters, and upstream into spawning areas in the middle and upper portion of the system. Adult abundance in fresh water peaks in the spring-summer period, from March to June. In lakes, peak numbers occur right after removal of the ice cover (early May). Spawning occurs in May and early June generally between river km 5 and 18. During summer and fall, adult

21 taimen are typically found in the lower and middle reaches where fish prey are abundant including smelt, redfin, lamprey and juvenile salmon. Taimen migration to the upper reaches in October corresponds to the spawning migration of dolly varden and char.

Juvenile taimen have been found throughout the lower and middle reaches of the Kuibyshevka River from May to October. Juveniles 25-50 cm long typically migrate around November into the lake and cut-off meanders where they overwinter until April. In May-June juvenile taimen may be found in the lakes and lower reaches of the river and also frequently enter and exit marine waters. Also, with warming of the water, the larger juveniles in the 4 to 8-year age class start to migrate to the marine environment.

Some biometric data are available from taimen collected in lakes Reydovoye, Lebedinoye and Maloye in May-June, 1995-1996 by gillnet (40-50 мм mesh size). Difficulties in obtaining sampling permits following listing of Sakhalin taimen in the Red Book for the Sakhalin Region have limited subsequent monitoring and study on Iturup Island. Growth data are available from fish 34 - 114 см long, 240 to 17000 g in body weight, and age 4 to 13 years (Table 2). The diet of taimen sampled in Reydovoye and Lebedinoye lakes was broad, including pond smelt, lamprey ammocoetes, stickleback, goby, scud and freshwater prawn.

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

Adult taimen were observed during winter – each in deep pools on the Kuibyshevka River. Normally at a distance 3-5 км upriver from the river mouth as many as two taimen individuals of approximately the same size could be observed within each still deep water area (pool) 300-350 m. long. On some days as many as 4-8 individuals had been observed within a compact deep hole with a reach of 100-150 м. The number of adults, observed in one boat trip, fluctuated from 2 to 14 individuals. Relative abundance of the taimen fry in the period May to June, 1995-1996 ( catch for unit effort ) was equal to 6.2 individuals for Lebedinoye lake, 0.06 individuals for Reydovoye lake per one net and one day of net being in operation. In 2000 the same value was 0.05 individuals for Reydovoye Lake, 0.2 individuals for Lebedinoye Lake, 2 individuals for Maloye Lake and 2.75 individuals for the Kuibyshevka river cut-off meander. Taimen catch for unit effort in Lebedinoye Lake was substantially lower in 2000 as compared to 1996. Fry abundance in the Reydovoye Lake stayed at the same depressed level. Taimen catches in Gidrostroy fisheries are reported to be very rare or nonexistent. No taimen have been observed in the bycatch at the processing plants operated by the company for more than 10 years. Adults are large and conspicuous, so identification is readily made. Spawning is completed in May and June before the beginning of the salmon fisheries in July. Taimen are required by law to be released alive and compliance is assured by the Company, and controlled by fishery observers from the governmental agencies for fishery monitoring (Sakhalinrybvod) and science (Sakniro). As a result, close to zero mortality is expected for these fish as well.

Taimen are incidentally caught by sport anglers on Iturup and are subject to illegal harvest in fresh water. Adults are easily located and caught using all types of lures in the sport fishery. Juveniles are also regularly observed in sport fishermen catches, and should be released alive upon being caught. As of May 2008 the following catches of the Sakhalin taimen were registered: May 13, Argun river, 300 m. from the river mouth, body length 40 см; May 10, Kuibyshevka river, 250 m. from the river mouth (Borzov 2007a). It appears that Sakhalin taimen

22 continue to be vulnerable to illegal harvest due to inherent biological features (long freshwater residence period, late maturation, large body size). Inclusion of Sakhalin taimen in the Red Book didn’t change this situation to the better and their abundance continues to drop markedly. A possible solution to the issue of the species’ conservation would be to set up the following measures: 1) Establishment of wildlife territories (preserves) under special protection within the species’ range; 2) Creation of reserve gene pool, and 3) active information and education aimed at conservation of the species.

The feasibility of taimen aquaculture has been periodically explored by several hatcheries in the Sakhalin region (Safronov and Makeev 2000) and experimental activities continue at several locations. Seven individual taimen were held at Reydovo Salmon Hatchery from 2000 to 2007 in order to preserve genetic material and work out holding and feeding techniques (Pogodin, pers. comm. 6/26/08). These taimen were collected with a beach seine at the mouth of the Kuibyshevka River in May 2000 and averaged 30 cm in length. In the period 1999-2000, taimen in the Kuibyshevka River System was poorly protected and subject to significant poaching pressure. Guardianship of the Kuibyshevka River has improved in the last five year period under management by the private security Company OOO Continent and the taimen population has begun to recover. Due to this reason, the taimen held at Reydovo hatchery were released into their native river in July 2007 at an average size of 80 cm.

4.5 Fishing Method Fishing by Gidrostroy currently takes place using stationary fish traps set along the coastline and in the bays near the mouths of the rivers. The fishery targets pink salmon from mid-July to September and chum salmon in September and November. This is a terminal fishery for returning adult salmon produced in nearby streams and hatcheries. The catch is delivered to local on-shore processing facilities. The historical fishery prior to 1984 included traps and small purse seines. The historical catch was landed to floating processors.

Fish caught in trap nets attached to the shoreline with net leads, which are tied to shore by leads, called central wings. These wings usually have a line length from 200-600 meters. They, together with wings joined to them funnel fish into large net pens. These traps are constructed of 30 mm web mesh size for pinks and 38 mm for chum. The wing is hung of web of a brighter color, which is a visual (not physical) barrier for the species being harvested. The mesh size is selected to avoid gilling fish that are 75 mm to 100 mm in size for both species.

Fish are collected from trap boxes by gathering the mesh to crowd fish which are then spilled into the live hold of small boats, called “kungas.” Kungas are essentially floating fish tanks with water-filled hulls. Nets are worked from small dories and kungas towed by small tugboats. Minimal fish sorting occurs at the traps when the nets are hauled and fish are poured into the kungas. Some sorting at the traps occurs when fish are moved from the traps into kungas by lifting nets by hand. The fishermen can release non-target species as they are visible in the shallows of the nets or when in the kungas. All fish retained are required to be delivered to the fish plants. Seal-killed fish and other mortalities are not retained or counted (although these typically comprise a very small portion of the total).

Fish are pumped directly from the kungas into shoreside processing facilities. Gidrostroy processors are located in Kurilsk and Reydovo. The processor location near the fishing zone permits the production of high quality fish products. Because fish are live trapped, traps can be checked and fish delivered by schedule in order to maintain a regular supply to the processing

23 facilities. At the new Reydovo facility which is capable of processing 400 tons of frozen fish per day, the whole production cycle typically requires just 3 to 9 hours from catching to packing.

Fishing areas in the region are licensed by the government to fish companies. On Iturup, the license for each trap forests an exclusive use of a fishing area. There are five fishing regions on the Island (North Iturup, Prostor, Kurilskiy, Kuibyshev, and South Iturup). Gidrostroy operates the Prostor and Kurilskiy areas which are by far the largest salmon fisheries on the island. Fishing areas target local populations and are thought to catch few fish destined for other fishing areas. Fish generally enter the Gidrostroy fishing areas from the north (although in 2007 they entered from the south).

All fisheries are concentrated on the Okhotsk Sea coast. There are a number of rivers on the southern part of Iturup Island that are not fished by JSC Gidrostroy, but are fished by a small community on the south part of the island. The southern fishermen do not fish in any areas near the fishing areas fished by JSC Gidrostroy. Coastal salmon fisheries are on the Pacific side are not significant. There are a number of rivers on Pacific side of the island, but the runs are too small and too far from the processing facilities to be useful. Some fishing for species other than salmon also occurs off the coast of the island but this fishing occurs at other periods, different from the Iturup Island commercial salmon fishery.

Traps are assigned to specific groups or brigades of fishermen based on seniority, historical precedence, and other parameters. Fishermen are hired personnel by the company. Each brigade may operate one or more traps. Each trap is licensed to the company, with the license stipulating all aspects of the trap from trap design to the specific location on the island. Trap locations are regularly monitored by enforcement officials on the island. The fishing brigades also maintain weirs on eight rivers. Weirs have been operated on several systems since the 1990s to regulate escapement. A total of 8 are currently operated on the island. Within the Gidrostroy areas there is one weir on the rivers Reydovaya, Olya, Kurilka, Rybstkaya rivers, two more are on the northern part of the Island on the stream Skaljniy and the river Tsirk and two more in the south of the island on the rivers Kuybishev and Osennyaya.

Small sport fisheries also occur on Iturup Island for dolly varden, char, surf smelt, and red fin (Borzov 2007b). River mouth fisheries also occur during the chum season in September and October. There are an estimated 300 sport anglers on the island. Approximately 150 local residents pursue ice fishing. Fisherman numbers may reach 350-400 during summer with the arrival of tourist fishermen. Local sport and subsistence fisheries occur with rods and hand lines. Licenses are required and fisheries are limited to designated areas. Sport fisheries for char and dolly varden in rivers also catch some young masu salmon (Borzov 2008). Ice fisheries for dolly varden on Sopochnoye Lake in February and March also catch some chum salmon. Sport fishery impacts on fish populations are generally not significant due to the low numbers of sport fishermen. However, fishing pressure in population areas has been reported to have reduced numbers and average size of arctic char in the Kuirlka, Redovaya, and Olya rivers (Borzov 2007b). Small levels of illegal harvest of chum and masu salmon by the local populace with nets or rod-and-reel has been reported but is not a significant impact on fish populations in the fishing area being certified (Borzov 2008). In 2008 for instance, poachers were apprehended on the Rybatskaya River on two occasions with a total of 4 masu salmon. Poaching with dip nets and trap nets in the autumn and winter in other areas of the island might be a significant negative impact on some populations (Borzov 2007b).

24

Figure 6. Commercial salmon fishery operations on Iturup Island, Kuril Islands, Russia. (Photos courtesy of JSC Gidrostroy)

25 4.6 Harvest Recent total harvest in Iturup fisheries has averaged 37,000 t of pink salmon (18 million fish) and 10,000 t of chum salmon (2.6 million fish). Annual exploitation rates in combined Iturup Island fisheries average about 90% on pink salmon (Kaev et al. 2006 Gidrostroy accounts for about two thirds of the Iturup pink harvest (Figure 7) and 90% of the chum harvest. Annual Gidrostroy catches have averaged 20,000 t of pink salmon and 3,000 t of chum salmon over the last 10 years (Table 3). Based on average weights in this harvest, this is approximately 14 million pink and 0.75 million chum per year.

Tagging data indicate that the pink salmon harvest in Iturup fisheries is comprised of local stock (Kaev et al. 2006). High straying between Sakhalin and Iturup pink salmon was reported in fin marking studies of pink salmon released from Kurilskiy Hatchery in 1976-1977 but findings have been called into question by subsequent analysis of this information (Kaev et al. 2006).

Catches of pink salmon in Iturup Island fisheries have progressively increased since the late 1960s (Figure 8) in response to improving climatic conditions for pink salmon across the North Pacific and increases in artificial production (Smirnov et al. 2006). Request to delete this and replace with below text-There was no consistent net fishery on chum prior to redevelopment of chum hatchery programs although some chum were harvested from spawning areas for local use. Production from Reydovo hatchery has increased chum harvest in Prostor Bay from about 100 t prior to 1996 to 5,000 t today (Figure 9). In Kurilskiy Bay, no traps were operated during the chum return period from 1984-2006. In 2007, following reestablishment of chum hatchery production, two traps were fished.

Edited text: Russian fishermen have operated chum fisheries in the waters of Iturup island since 1946. Annual average catch in the first decade (1046-1955) consisted of 171 mt, the second decade (1955-1965) 248mt and in the third, (1965-1975) 383mt. But in the next decade, (1976- 1985) the annual harvest of chum reached 1916 mt, which was attributed to the increase of the numbers of returning hatchery fish, as well as the increase of the fishery effort. From 1976, Purse seiners like the MRS 80 and RS-300 were utilized in Russian to catch chum and allowed these numbers.

Purse nets years were justified in the first years of its use. However, from the mid 1980’s, poor regulation of the vessel fishery began to result in over fishing. There was a progressive prognosis for a reduced stock of chums and in 1989, the catch was only 153 tons, which was further reduced in the succeeding years. As a result, a directed fishery on chums in the near coastal waters of Iturup was prohibited beginning in 1992.

From 1992-1994, chum runs were very weak with catches varying between 8 and 98 tons. However, for the period from 1995-1997, chum catches increased to 476, 1031 and 721 tons, respectively. This increase was attributed with the return of the first age group of juveniles from the Reidovo Fish Hatchery in 1991-1994. From 1998-2005, a continued development of this trend was observed. In 2002-2003, catches increased to 3030 and 4790 mt respectively, and was attributed to the return of juvenile’s releases from Reidovo (Figure 9). Increase in Chum catches was closely connected (R=0.91, R< 0.01) with the increase of juveniles. This connection and concentrated chum fishery in the area of the mouth of the Reidovo confirms the effectiveness of hatchery cultivation.

26 Similar results were achieved with the hatchery program for cultivating chums at the Kurilskiy Hatchery. During the seasons between 1984 and 2006, no net traps were utilized in Kurilskiy Bay. However, in 2007, after reestablishment of chum production at the hatchery, two traps were employed. Catch rates of 0.0 mt at the beginning of 1992 (beginning of the moratorium on chum fishing) increased to 3000 mt in 2008.

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

Prostor Bay Kuril Bay 25% 41%

Figure 7. Distribution of average annual harvest of pink salmon among Iturup fishing areas, 2001-2005 (Kaev et al. 2006).

Bycatch in the Gidrostroy salmon fishery is typically very low (Table 3). According to company biologists, “The fishing area cannot be considered to be a location where non-commercial salmon species would gather. The occasional incidence of char and sockeye is of an accidental and insignificant nature due to the later timing of runs and fisheries for humpback compared to the above-listed species.”

Table 3. Annual harvest of target and non-target species in Gidrostroy salmon fisheries. Pink Chum Sockeye Char1 Year Tons Tons Tons Tons 1998 15650,211 419,805 0,0 8,641 1999 10422,707 872,018 0,0 7,435 2000 29452,129 878,170 0,0 5,68 2001 15081,190 1369,904 3,279 11,445 2002 24180,131 3157,866 1,192 4,49 2003 10541,711 4496,341 0,741 20,524 2004 20153,99 2849,466 5,8 10,118 2005 21703,7 1157,44 0,563 8,49 2006 30699,0 2967,4 3,535 15,367 2007 24062,378 5043,787 4,363 11,306 2008 22235,128 10302,337 0,475 12.899 11-yr avg. 20380.21 3046,8 1,8135 10,5814

1 Includes dolly varden.

27 300 30 Kurilsk releases Harvest Reydovo releases

200 20

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

Figure 8. Annual pink salmon releases from the Kurilsk and Reydovo hatcheries and total harvest of in the Iturup Island area (harvest data from Smirnov et al. 2006; release data from Gidrostroy, unpublished).

60 5 Reydovo releases Kurilsk releases 50 4

40 3 Harvest 30

2 20

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

Figure 9. Annual chum salmon releases from Kurilsk and Reydovo hatcheries and total harvest of chum salmon in Iturup Island area (harvest data from Smirnov et al. 2006; release data from Gidrostroy, unpublished).

28 4.7 Enhancement Hatcheries have been operated on Iturup Island since at least the early 1900s. Prior to 1940, the Japanese operated 10 hatcheries on the island with a total capacity of over 180 million eggs (Smirnov et al. 2006). After Russia assumed control in 1946, only one hatchery was operated until 1956. A total of 6 hatcheries are currently operated (Table 4) with a seventh under construction, and an eighth in line to be built. All hatcheries are either under lease from the government or belong to private companies. The government approves production numbers make scheduled inspections, controls all release of fish releases, and also makes orders to the leasing companies for facility maintenance and repair. Table 4. Production capacity (millions) of hatcheries currently operated on Iturup Island. Hatchery Location Area Gidrostroy? Pink production Chum production Kurilsk Kurilka River Kurilskiy Bay Yes 73 20 Reydovo Reydovaya Prostor Bay Yes 42 25 Skalnyy Skalnyy Prostor Bay No 8 1 Osennyy Osennyaya No -- 6 Kuibyshevka Kuibyshevka Kuibyshev Bay No 6 7 Okeanskiy Tsirk Pacific side No -- 3 Ozero Ozero Kuibyshev Bay No -- 2 Kuibyshevskoe 131 64

4.7.1 PRODUCTION Two hatchery programs are operated by the Gidrostroy Company in the fishery in the fishery certification area: the Kurilsk Hatchery located on the Kurilka River and the Reydovo hatchery located on the Reydovaya River. The Kurilsk hatchery has been in operation since the return of the Kuril Islands to Russia after the war and release records are available since 1949. The Reydova hatchery was rebuilt and resumed operations in 1962. Hatchery operations were assumed by the company in 1999. Hatcheries are owned by the government but contracted to the company. All hatchery personnel are company employees.

Total production capacity of the Gidrostroy hatcheries is about 115 million pinks and 45 million chum (Table 4). Hatchery-reared fish are released only on the two rivers where the hatcheries are located. These production levels typically return 1,421,250 to 3,616,200 (Chupakhin 2007) hatchery-origin pink salmon and 1,114,400 to 3,104,400 hatchery origin chum salmon. Survival rates of fry released from these hatchery programs are very high under current conditions prevailing in the western North Pacific, typically averaging 6 to 10% for pink salmon and 2 to 9% for chum salmon (Chupakhin et al 2006).

Reliable estimates of pink salmon hatchery production on Iturup are available since 1947 (Smirnov et al. 2006). Pink salmon have been produced at the Kurilsk Hatchery since at least 1947. Reydovo resumed production of pink salmon in 1962. Hatchery production of pink salmon was substantially greater during the 1980s but survival was low and average size of both wild and hatchery adults were small. Production was subsequently reduced in order to improve early growth and survival (Figure 8). Pink salmon returns and harvest increased substantially following the reduction in release numbers (Smirnov et al. 2006). However, this is also connected with the improved climatic conditions in the North Pacific.

The Kurilsk hatchery produced chums from 1905 through 1980, but then production was shifted entirely to pinks. From 1984-2004, all chum were passed to escapement. Reydovo chum

29 production resumed in 1986 and was increased to current levels by 2000. Chum have been released from Redovo each year since 1991. Catches of Reydovo chum have gradually increased since 1991 to current levels of 7,500 t in 2008 (Figure 9). Kurilsk hatchery production of chums resumed with broodstock collection in 2003. This led to an increase in Kurilskiy bay chum catches from about 50 – 60 t per year to 3,000 t in 2007. An estimated 90-95% of the current chum harvest is of hatchery origin.

4.7.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Objectives of the Gidrostroy JSC salmon hatcheries are to take into account: 1. The salmon hatchery is to be viewed from the perspective of its usefulness to the river ecosystem. 2. Hatchery workers are to view their work primarily from the perspective of helping to reinforce the natural spawning grounds, rather than just in terms of the numbers of fish returned from the fish released from the salmon hatchery. 3. The salmon hatcheries must serve as a means of preserving the genetic fund of the population, conserving the environment and restoring populations that have been lost. The salmon hatchery system must be seen as one of the components of the ecosystem as a whole. Consistent with these objectives, hatcheries are operated for: a. conformity with legislation aimed at preserving the environment, b. structure of operations at the salmon hatchery based upon scientific developments, c. funds and number of personnel adequate to meet the goals set for each individual salmon hatchery. 4.7.3 PRACTICES Pink hatchery fish typically enter the rivers from mid-July through early October. Pink salmon egg take occurs from September 12-14 through October 10-14. Incubation is from November through January. Hatch is from the end of November through January. Fish are incubated with ambient river water and emergence timing is similar to that of wild fish. Post-hatch, larvae typically lay on the bottom until April or May. Natural out-migration occurs from the end of April to the end of May. Snow melt occurs around the end of April and river temperatures are typically 1.5°C at that time.

Fry are fed for 25-30 days before release between May 25 and June 25. Daily food rations are 2.2%. Daily production cohorts are ponded separately and released sequentially, although late season production groups are sometimes reared together. Fry are volitionally released from each pond in sequence on dates corresponding to egg take dates. Fish are released daily during the evening hours in lots of 1 to 3 million at a time. The beginning of pink salmon releases are timed to correspond to the beginning of the decline in natural out-migrant numbers. Because of feeding, pink fry are larger than natural fry emigrating at the same time, so the timing is offset to avoid competition to the extent possible.

The later release timing also ensures that hatchery fry will enter the ocean after under favorable seasonal temperature and feeding conditions. Research has shown that spring temperatures when fry enter the ocean are strongly correlated with subsequent return rates (Kaev et al. 2006). A significant increase in hatchery chum survival has been achieved since the institution of a program of rearing and releasing young salmon when conditions in coastal waters are optimum (Smirnov et al. 2006).

30 Chum egg take typically begins October 12-14 and ends November 10-12. Hatch occurs from the end of December to the end of January. Swim-up begins in early April and continues to early May in Reydovaya and from April 20 to May 20 in Kurilka (Reydovaya is warmer). Chum are reared using river and well water. The cooler well water is used beginning in May when the river is 3°C warmer to avoid abrupt temperature changes and influx of dirty melt water. Fish can’t be released until the ocean begins to warm. Natural and hatchery outmigration timing is similar (May 25-June 10). Hatchery chum are larger than wild chum because of feeding. The goal of feeding is to improve post-release survival. Chum releases are distributed over an extended period.

The hatchery is managed as an integrated program where hatchery fish are managed to (be the same as wild fish). The sole exception concerns feeding and release timing. This is done to reduce the potential for competition and to improve survival. There is no evidence that this activity results in any corresponding changes in life history patterns. The potential for hatchery selection effects is reduced by the relatively short duration of hatchery residence relative to other salmonids such as chinook, coho, and sockeye.

Only local broodstock were currently used for the Gidrostroy hatchery programs. Each hatchery functioning on a particular base watershed has its own local school used for purposes of artificial regeneration. Spawning fish from other waters are not used. A paper produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides a review of chum salmon throughout the Pacific. In this review, the authors’ state: “Unlike Japanese programs, Russian hatchery programs were never designed to manage rivers exclusively for hatchery fish. Russian hatcheries have generally used local chum salmon for broodstock, and no attempt has been made to block natural production.” Historical operations may have included out-of-basin transfers but in the late 1970s, on the advice of Russian geneticists, hatchery managers reduced the number of egg transfers to reduce the effects of interactions between natural and hatchery fish (Helle 1979). Current hatchery genetics policies recommend taking broodstock from the beginning, middle and end of the run. Small numbers of brood stock are taken per day in consideration of maintaining a natural genetic population structure. Target daily broodstock number is 20 males and 20 females. Early and late season sex ratios might be skewed more to males and females, respectively. Gametes from all fish are mixed. Take for broodstock is regulated by natural escapement.

31

Figure 10. Gidrostroy hatchery on Iturup Island showing raceways used to rear cohorts of fry.

4.7.4 WILD INTERACTIONS Direct estimates of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas are not available but relative total hatchery and wild run sizes have been estimated based on hatchery release numbers and wild production inferred from natural escapements and juvenile monitoring (Kaev et al. 2006). These estimates suggested that hatchery production currently accounts for about 27% of pink salmon during even years and from 37 to 70% of chum salmon in the annual average run (combined harvest and escapement). Current hatchery contributions to the pink salmon return were reduced from about 55% during 1976-1984 by a reduction in hatchery production since the 1980s (Figure 11). No correlation was observed between hatchery and wild pink salmon survival rates. Hatchery survival was highly variable and wild size-specific wild survival rates appeared to be higher than hatchery survival rates.

1.0

0.8 Hatchery Natural 0.6

0.4 Proportion 0.2

0.0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 11. Estimated annual hatchery and natural proportions in juvenile fry production of pink salmon from Iturup Island (Kaev et al. 2006).

32 Genetic characteristics of pink and chum salmon populations on Iturup have been evaluated to provide a basis for management and protection to protect natural stock structure. Hatchery and natural populations’ characteristics including run timing, age, sex ratio and size are also being monitored for potential hatchery-related changes. No hatchery-related divergence has been observed to date. Significant annual variation in age composition has been observed in the chum return but hatchery fluctuations characteristically coincide with those of naturally spawning chum. Similarly, there has been no trend towards a change in the average age of maturity, or any relationship between age of maturity and number of fish released or the size of the spawning population of chum. Sex ratio and fish size typically vary over the duration of the annual spawning return. Selective egg take from early or late portions of the run can result in corresponding changes in timing or fish size in the return but the lack of any shift among Iturup chum suggests that the current broodstock collection practice has effectively avoided a hatchery selection effect (Smirnov et al. 2006).

Hatchery stray rates into natural spawning areas have not been quantified but run timing data might provide some indication that stray rates may not be significant. Pink salmon run timing varies in different portions of both the Kurilka and Reydovaya systems. For instance, spawners in the Kurilka River mainstem where the hatchery is located, predominately return during the peak of the run. About 50% of the natural production capacity in the Kurilka comes from the mainstem. Spawners in two downstream tributaries, each comprising about 25% of the productive capacity, are earlier-timed and later-timed on average than the mainstem spawners. This difference is consistent over time which would be unlikely if hatchery stray rates among tributaries were high.

Hatchery protocols also include removal of char and dolly varden from the hatchery discharge channel at the time of hatchery releases. For instance, in May and June of 2007, 1,718 predators weighing an average of 0.35 kg were removed from the Reydovaya River (Table 15 in Mizina and Molchanov 2007). Fish are caught at night time using portable trap nets (Pogodin, email 6/30/2008). Catches in previous years ranged from zero to 1,600 fish. As many as 50-70 dolly varden per week have been caught and used to feed taimen temporarily held in captivity. As to the river proper there are only sport fisheries for char using fishing rods. Rivers with no hatcheries are characterized with only a small scale sport fisheries for char therefore their stocks are stable and very abundant.

4.8 Monitoring and Assessment The fishery and escapement into natural production areas and the hatcheries is intensively monitored and regulated to maximize harvest while also meeting wild escapement goals. Catch and escapement data are collected by government biologists working in conjunction with government enforcement officers and the company biologist. Fishery enforcement officers walk the rivers daily with government and company biologists.

Annual escapement objectives are established for each wild population harvested in the fishery. Minimum escapement is based on:

1. estimates of suitable spawning areas defined based on habitat characteristics and fish use, and

2. fish spawning densities associated with maximum production (2 spawners/m² for pinks salmon and 1.6 spawners/m² for chum salmon). The long-standing spawner density

33 requirements have been derived by the governmental science agency (Sakniro) for regional application based on a review of historical data. The suitability of these generalized spawner densities to Iturup salmon populations has been validated by long term monitoring results of spawner, fry production, and adult return data (Kaev et al. 2007). Spawner density objectives implicitly incorporate the effects of density-dependent factors after emergence from the redds as well as the relative quantity of good, moderate and marginal spawning habitat. Historic comparisons of spawner-production for Iturup streams have determined that adult production is optimized at the objective spawning densities. Informal optimum escapement goals are also defined for pink salmon at 2.2-2.6 spawners/m².

Escapement is monitored through a combination of visual ground surveys of spawners and weir counts. Escapement data is collected for 14 pink and 6 chum populations, including hatchery and wild production rivers. Escapement estimates are based on density indices (spawners/m2) in areas of suitable spawning habitat. Surveys also assess the rate of movement and distribution of the spawner fish. Counts are conducted at least 3 times per season and more frequently on major systems. Historical survey information on pinks is available island-wide. Intensive monitoring is currently concentrated on northern tributaries and adjacent watersheds where hatcheries are located including the certification unit.

Escapement is also estimated at weirs at the mouths of key rivers. Weirs have been operated since the 1990s. A total of 8 are currently operated on the island. These include Reydovaya, Olya, Kurilka, Rybstkaya, with two more on the northern part of the Island and two to the south. Weirs are opened and closed to regulate escapement in key production areas. Numbers of fish passing are counted when the weirs are opened. Spawning ground surveys estimate fish densities visually relative to escapement goals and weirs are closed when spawning grounds are filled to 70% of capacity. The weirs are maintained by the fishing brigades. Hatchery staff or are responsible for opening and closing weirs. Openings on hatchery rivers are monitored by fish inspection. Weir operations are logged and reported. Openings are typically for 1-2 day periods on the ends of the run and for a few hours during the peak.

In-season escapement data of target stocks is used to regulate the fishery. The fishery is intensively managed on a daily basis using in-season spawning ground, weir, and harvest data. Escapement monitoring is also used to determine when returns can be directed to hatcheries and when and where fishing can and cannot take place. Escapements are provided in accordance with an annual schedule that provides for escapement times, daily escapement amounts and the locations where the fish-escapement devices are to be installed. The results of monitoring are used as necessary to adjust the escapement schedules for the spawners. The numbers of fish designated for escapement include the number of spawner fish necessary for artificial reproduction in the fish hatcheries as well as the number of productive fish to be allowed to proceed to the natural spawning grounds. Local fish trap and weir operations are managed on a daily or hourly basis to ensure that escapement objectives are met for every individual population. Fish numbers, distribution, and movement patterns observed in ground survey and weir monitoring are used as necessary to adjust the escapement schedules for the spawners. Fish traps and weirs are opened and closed to ensure escapement adequate to reach but not exceed optimum spawner densities. The effectiveness of this management approach is facilitated by the close proximity of the fishery and the spawning areas.

Escapements are provided in accordance with an annual schedule that is compiled by the employees of the fish hatchery companies based on recommendations from the scientific

34 organizations (SakhNIRO), and ichthyological section of Sakhalinrybvod and is approved by the government agency responsible for control, currently, Sakhalin-Kurilskiy Territorial Management, which is under the Federal Fisheries Agency (Rosrybolovstva). Each escapement operation is documented with an escapement certificate compiled by the representatives of the fish hatchery and the controlling agency. Every week, the hatchery specialists conduct visual observation of the rivers jointly with the representatives of Central Northern Kurile ichthiological department of SakhRybvod, to monitor aquatic biological resources and their habitats by Sakhalin Rybvod to determine the rate of movement and distribution of the spawner fish. Every week, written reports are submitted to the state-owned enterprise “Sakhalinrybvod” and Sakhalin- Kurile Territorial Managment both on the numbers of productive fish allowed to pass into the rivers and those harvested in the fishing operations.

On rives with hatcheries, the data is collected by the hatchery specialists. Bio-statistical material on the other rivers is collected by the Scientific Research Institute and ichthyological service of Sakhrybvod. Control over escapement of spawners to the spawning grounds is maintained jointly by the Scientific Research Institute and the ichthyological service. Escapement for the river Olya is controlled by the specialists of the ichthyological service of Sakhalinrybvod.

Fishery catch data is recorded for every delivery, compiled daily, and reported every 5 days to the governmental monitoring agency. Weights are recorded for each delivery. In addition, each vessel captain keeps a fishing log, issued by fish inspection. Each page is stamped, so that pages cannot be removed. Net check times and deliveries are logged. At the end of the fishing season, the logbook is turned over to fish inspection. Biological data such as length, body weight and sex are collected from pooled daily deliveries to the fish processing facilities

Age, sex and size information is collected every 5-7 days at the fish processing plants, the hatcheries, the hatcheries and in major river systems. Biological data is collected from natural spawners collected by beach seine (Kaev et al. 2007). Biological data is also collected at the weirs from a sample of fish (at least 100) removed when the weir is opened for fish passage.

Monitoring activities also include juvenile sampling in selected systems to estimate migrant numbers from natural production. Sampling work for migrating salmon young in the rivers is an integral part of the annual scientific research work and is provided for in the "Plan for resource research and government monitoring of aquatic bioresources" for the current year. In order to carry out such counting work, traps and other counting devices are used, and data must be collected on the time frame of the migration, numbers of young, the size composition, biological condition, etc..

Historical monitoring activities from the 1970s until the 1990s also included near shore, marine environmental and juvenile sampling during Mary and June (until fish leave shore in late July).

5 FISHERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

5.1 Management Structure The Russian government has had sovereignty over Iturup Island, Kuril Islands since World War II. While there is some dispute over Russian control by the Japanese, the dispute does not effect the full government management and control of all activities on the island, including fishing,

35 processing, and hatchery management. The governance of the island has been and continues to be stable, with no change anticipated. The Federal Fisheries Agency is charged with managing Fisheries in the Russian Federation. Its offices are located in Moscow with branch offices in various states throughout Russia. The territorial office in charge of assisting the management of the Iturup Island salmon fisheries is located in Sakhalin, Russia. Policies and regulations are set in Moscow through a consultative process that involves the Fisheries Agency as well as other government agencies and an independent council that reviews government policies before they are finalized and implemented. In 2005 the Fishery Agency was put under the Ministry of Agriculture, but in 2008 the Federal Fisheries Agency was again reestablished directly under the Russian Government to direct and manage Fisheries throughout the Federation.

Federal Fisheries Agency - Rosrybolovstvo (Федерального Агенства по Рыболовству) The fishery is administered by the Federal Fisheries Agency, which is directly under the first Deputy Chair of the Government of the Russian Federation and interacts with the various Governmental Agencies on the Federal level as well as coordinates and supervises its territorial offices. It is responsible for the oversight of departments within its jurisdiction that determines regulations and annual total allowable catches, as well as, identification of fishing areas; communication with the foreign governmental agencies, international committees and international organizations on fisheries issues; policy and technical programs regarding the application of innovative technology in the fisheries industry complex; and prepares federal – industrial and fishery reports. The Federal Fisheries Agency oversees deputy Agencies and departments that are responsible for managing the activities of the fishing fleet, preservation, protection, rational resource utilization, production of marine resources and their habitat. Territorial (local) branches of the Federal Fisheries Agency were established in order to expedite many of the functions of Federal Fisheries Agency at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The Federal Fisheries Agency is also responsible for aquatic resource monitoring and stock, submittal of total allowable catch proposals to the State Expert Review, and oversees allocation of TAC among users. The agency also provides fishery-related social services, conducts research and engineering work, operates federal fishery vessels and marine fishing ports, and oversees artificial propagation activities.

Vniro, Tinro, SakNIRO - Federal Scientific Institutes The Federal Fisheries Agency includes a network of scientific research organizations conducting research and development of both applied, and fundamental nature in accordance with the program entitled “Scientific and engineering support of the Russia’s fisheries industry “. Federal Fisheries Agency has 15 scientific-research organizations under its direct supervision – of which 9 are marine scientific research institutes; they are assigned to appropriate regions on the legal basis and are responsible for the state level monitoring of stocks and additional resources and inclusion of the said resources in harvesting process and also responsible for rational and efficient usage of the bio-resources. The above-mentioned scientific research institutes have a legal status as federal state unitary enterprises (FSUE). Their activities are regulated by the charters approved by the State Fisheries Committee and Ministry of State Property of Russia. VNIRO of Moscow is a head institute in the field of fishery related research. Studying of the Pacific aquatic biological resources is performed by such scientific research institutes as: TINRO

36 center (Vladivostok) with branches in Khabarovsk and Anadyr; Magadan-NIRO (Magadan); KamchatNIRO (Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka) and SakhNIRO (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk). Studying of aquatic biological resources of the Arctic, northern Atlantic Ocean, Baltic sea and Atlantic Ocean and that of Black, Azov and Caspian seas and studying of aquatic biological resources of internal freshwater bodies is performed by other territorial institutions. VNIERKH of Moscow is responsible for scientific research and engineering design activities aimed at creation and development of the fishery fleet and marine safety and on-shore facilities for processing aquatic biological resources.

Figure 12. Russian Federal Fisheries Agency Structure.

Rosprirodnadzor - Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation (encompassing the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Ecology & Natural Resources Use) Rosprirodnadzor is the Federal agency responsible for enforcement and control. It also reviews and approves Pacific salmon TAC on the annual basis. Review is conducted by a Commission of Experts, made up of scientists in all fields of science from different research institutes and independent experts. The reviews considers prediction of Pacific salmon run and appropriate justifications and proposals and identifies quantities of salmon required for escapement, hatchery requirements, scientific harvesting, international harvest (per treaties signed by Russia), and commercial harvestin the inshore zone. Apart from organization of the Commission of Experts’s work, Rosprirodnadzor also responsible for State supervision of usage and protection of water bodies, wildlife and their habitats, federal level wildlife preserves, and environmental protection status.

37 Rosselkhoznadzor - Federal Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision. This is the Federal fishery enforcement and control agency for aquatic biological resources under the Russian Ministry of Agriculture. Responsibilities include accounting and analysis of violations of technical regulations and other regulatory documentation, supervision of compliance with Russian Federation laws by the state agencies, local government, and the public, supervision of marine fishery ports and vessels, and administration of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

RybVod RybVod (Federal Fish inspection office) is a Federal Governmental Institution created within the Federal Fisheries Agency. Sakhalinrybvod (Fish inspection Sakhalin office) is the regional office with authority over Sakhalin and the Southern Kurile Islands. Its function is to oversee government fish hatcheries, monitoring and managing escapement, and other fishery related issues. In 2008, with the reestablishment of the Federal Fisheries Agency as an independent Agency outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, territorial fishery monitoring was also separated from Rybvod and directly managed by the Federal Fisheries Agency as a separate entity. In Sakhalin-Kuriljsk, this is the Sakhalino-Kuriljsk Territorial Administration. It monitors the activities of fishing companies, issuance of fishing permits and compliance with fishing regulations, as well as preservation of rivers, streams and other watersheds. On Iturup, Sergei Borzov is the local fish manager. He has the authority to close any fishery on the island, deliver violators to law enforcement, destroy illegally harvested marine bio-resources and confiscate gear.

State Ecological Expert Review The State Ecological Expert Review has a permanent status and works on a regular basis. It is responsible for external expertise of Pacific salmon fishery management. Also any interested structures such as State Fisheries Committee or the RF Government may request an external expertise of fisheries management system as a whole from other governmental departments / ministries, sole consultants, experts and other specialists. Expert review of such kind can be conducted at the request of Russian parliament (Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation) or the President.

FESFC - Far East Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council FESFC is an independent council made up of representative of the Federal Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Natural Resources, scientific research institutes, non-profit commercial associations of commercial fisheries, minority peoples of the North and Russian Far East and the union of the pool of professional fishers. The personnel composition of the FESFC is approved by order of the Russian State Fisheries Committee based on the recommendations of the Russian Federation territorial subject. However, half of its members must be either from scientific or similar agencies on the preservation of fish or natural resources. The council has the authority to engage other competent authorities, interested parties (or stakeholders) as needed, upon approval of a vote of its members. Meetings are held in Vladivostok at least twice a year. At the FESFC meetings, any interested parties may attend, express their opinions and participate in the discussions.

38 Central to the responsibilities of the FESFC is the compilation of scientific information concerning the management of marine bio-resources in the Russian Far East for submission to the Federal Fisheries agency for final approval. In addition, it reviews and submits its recommendations on fisheries regulations, construction of fish hatcheries and the recommendations for the distribution of quota among its subjects.

A re-organization took place in the autumn of 2007 as a result of which Federal Fisheries Agency was withdrawn from the structure of the Ministry of Agriculture and a State Fisheries Committee, controlled directly by the Government of the Russian Federation, was established. However as early as May of 2008, the President issued a decree to make changes in the structure and reinstate the Federal Fisheries Agency as an Agency. But in order to have a fishing season in 2008 without problems, the decision was made to postpone reorganization of the State Fisheries Committee until the beginning of the next year (2009) at the request of fishermen and associations. Preparations for the 2008 fishing season and fishing season related operations are underway in accordance with descriptions given below and in accordance with effective regulations, governmental decrees and State Fisheries Committee orders.

5.2 Gidrostroy Salmon fishing and processing in Iturup’s Kurilskiy and Prostor bays fishery areas is managed by the Russian Government with cooperation from JSC Gidrostory. JSC Gidrostroy is a private company located in Sakhalin with operations on Iturup Island. Gidrostroy owns and operates the fishing, processing and shipment operations for much of the salmon at Iturup Island. J.S.C. Gidrostroy has been active on the island for since 1991. The local village communities of Kuril’sk and Reydova on Iturup Island were established near the fishing and processing activities of Gidrostroy.

Fishermen are organized into fishing brigades which are hired personnel for Gidrostroy. Three brigades are employed by Gidrostroy. Fishing agreements define areas where each brigade can fish. Each brigade has multiple agreements. Each brigade fishes one or more traps with catches authorized as per permits.

The company employs a biologist that is stationed on the island throughout salmon season. Their responsibilities include production monitoring, monitoring population dynamics and escapements relative to the goals, coordinating hatchery activities, providing information to controlling agencies, organizing work with the scientific organization, and providing training for hatchery staff. The company biologist is responsible for assisting the government collect escapement data and catch data, as well as data on size, sex, and age. In addition, the company biologist assists the hatchery programs keep track of hatchery releases and returns. Hatcheries are located on two of the rivers on Iturup Island, with several rivers remaining wild. JSC Gidrostroy has been active on the island since 1991 with no anticipated change to its operations. The company maintains the complete infrastructure for both living and fishing on the island. Through effective management, JSC Gidrostroy has successfully built and supported and entire community on Iturup Island that is largely dependent on fishing for its well-being.

Scientific support of fishery industry activities is an inherent part of the state system of management of aquatic biological resources as a whole and Pacific salmon in particular. However, due to under-financing of fishery related science by the state, JSC Gidrostroy invests money into scientific research of resources aimed at verification of the validity of the fishery management by the Company and the government in accordance with MSC principles - namely:

39 genetic studies of the chum population (since 2007), studies of the pink population (tagging – preparations started in 2007) and others.

Management Process

The fisheries process for aquatic bio-resources is controlled by the Fisheries Regulations, under which A permit to conduct fishing operations must be obtained that stipulates the following: target species, fisheries time, type of fishing gear allowed, number and place of installation of the fishing gear (fisheries section), and the volume of aquatic bio-resources allowed for harvest. Permits describe nets, rights and conditions of the certificate holders. Each fishing area has one agreement but may include several permits. Different permits are issued for each species. Fishery permit conditions require that the fishing area be kept in order which includes providing for adequate escapement. If fishery observers find escapement is inadequate, then the permit may be revoked. Permit stipulations require the fishers to finance their own science and to maintain their fishing grounds.

Special fishing areas have been set aside for the erection of trap nets. These fishing areas have been established and the trap nets are erected with the goal of allowing the populations to be able to enter the rivers to spawn. This goal is established in the “Fishing Regulations” that have been established and are mandatory for all fishing companies.

The numbers of harvested fish are determined in accordance with the recommendations made by scientists: harvest quotas are set and allocated by fishing area, as well as based on fisheries management data and monitoring carried out by the company, which in addition to the existing recommendations allow any necessary changes to be made to the fishery during the salmon run.

Every Branch of Tinro creates an annual research plan for submission to Vniro. The plan is prepared in conjunction with the forecast. Research funding is based on the plan. Every branch of the Dept. of Fisheries reports annually and at 6 month intervals to the representative of the governor and to Moscow. The Department of Fisheries has developed a fish protection and production plan based on an inventory of all streams in the Sakhalin region. The plan identifies habitat restoration opportunities, appropriate hatchery sites and protected areas. A fishery management plan has been developed by the Federal administration and is used to guide management. This is an internal document.

5.3 Annual Total Allowable Catch Management of the salmon fisheries is accomplished by setting a TAC each year that limits the commercial catch for salmon throughout Russia. The TAC is set using pre-season forecasts and data on past catch and escapement. In addition, escapement goals are set and adhered to through daily monitoring in-river. Meeting escapement goals takes precedent over the TAC.

Annual fish run forecasts are generated by the scientific staff and used to establish the total allowed catch. These are submitted to Vladivostok and then forwarded on to Moscow. Forecast and actual catches are often within 20% on Iturup. (This contrasts with Sakhalin where catch is significantly under-reported to allow continued fishing and to avoid taxes. Poaching is a significant problem on Sakhalin, particularly for chum caviar.)

The size of the TAC for salmon and the volumes of each type of quota are approved annually by order of the Russian State Fisheries Committee are available on its site at www.fishcom.ru in the

40 section «приказы и нормативная база» [Orders and Standards]. In addition, Russia annually presents data on the harvest of salmon, escapement to the spawning grounds, reproduction, biological characteristics, etc., to the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), and this information is available on the site of this organization at www.npafc.org. Annual TAC recommendations are developed by the Dept. of fisheries working with Sakniro. Scientists generate the forecast and forward to the Dept. of Fisheries. Open meetings are held for public input on the TAC. Meetings are announced in the press and no limits are placed on who can attend. Meeting minutes are recorded by protocol and are available for inspection at the Dept. of Fisheries.

The Dept. of Fisheries forwards all material to TINRO in Vladivostok (who also collects forecasts from all the regional districts). Forecasts are submitted to VNIRO in Moscow. Forecasts are reviewed in Moscow by the Dept. of Natural Resources which is an independent environmental agency. The DNR will decide whether the TAC needs to be reduced to address environmental issues. The DNR can request additional information but must make an immediate decision. The allowable TAC is referred by the DNR back to VNIRO.

VNIRO produces an order which then goes to the Committee of Fisheries (used to go to the Ministry of Fisheries but this has been changed). This committee makes allocation decisions among the commercial, sport and scientific users. Decisions are final. This direction is subsequently returned to the local Dept. of Fisheries. Every organization sends requests to the Committee of Fisheries for their desired share. Native people have a municipal administrative unit (a fishery association). Sport requests are based on historical data and forwarded by the Department of Fisheries. Before 2008, commercial fishery requests were forwarded by fishing companies. Now these are sent to the local commission of fisheries (specific allocations have been delegated from central to local bodies).

For the purpose of organization of Pacific salmon fisheries the “Provision for organization of Pacific salmon fishery was adopted and approved by the Russian Federation Government. The Provision stipulates: 1. A procedure and timing for estimation and approval of the TAC for Pacific salmon harvesting and a procedure for making changes in the TAC. 2. Distribution of TAC for Pacific salmon with respect to types of quotas for their harvesting (fishing). 3. Distribution of the quotas for inshore harvesting of Pacific salmon between coastal constituent entities of the Russian Federation in domestic waters of the Russian Federation including internal marine waters of the Russian Federation and territorial sea of the Russian Federation. 4. Distribution of scientific quotas; Pacific salmon harvesting quotas for the purpose of hatching, reproduction and acclimatization of Pacific salmon and also quotas for harvesting in educational purposes between the users. Stage 1. Preparation of materials justifying TACs for Pacific salmon is conducted by scientific organizations under the supervision of the Federal Fisheries Agency. Stage 2. Every year, but no later than January 15, Federal Fisheries Agency shall submit materials, justifying TACs for Pacific salmon harvesting (including materials provided by scientific research institutes) for the current year to the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Natural Resource Use for the purpose of State Expert Review. Upon completion of the

41 Expert Review process, the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Natural Resource Use shall forward appropriate findings to the Federal Fisheries Agency. Stage 3. Every year, but no later than March 15, Federal Fisheries Agency shall submit the draft TAC for Pacific salmon for the current year, prepared based on the Expert Review findings to the Russian Federation Government for approval. Following that, the State (Fisheries) Committee of the Russian Federation shall, no later than March 22, approve TAC for Pacific salmon. The TAC for harvesting Pacific salmon in 2008, were approved by the State Fisheries Committee Order № 280-ДСП of April 1, 2008. Distribution of Pacific salmon TAC over fishery areas (grounds) and constituent entities of the Russian Federation with respect to types of quota ( for inshore fisheries, to support livelihood of the local national minorities; for enhancement purposes, for recreational and sport fisheries and scientific / monitoring purposes) was approved by the State Fisheries Committee Order № 375 of April 30, 2008. (the copy of the Order was handed over for execution). Entering of any changes in previously approved Pacific salmon TAC (at the proposal of the Federal Fisheries Agency) shall follow the above-mentioned procedure and should be based on appropriate State Expert Review findings, justifying the changes. Pacific salmon inshore harvesting quotas, granted to the coastal regions or constituent entities of the Russian Federation, are distributed between users (Companies, entrepreneurs) by the Federal Fisheries Agency in accordance with proposals of the appropriate Committee of Russian Federation constituent entities, headed by the Governors. Quotas for harvesting Pacific salmon for the purpose of hatching, reproduction and acclimatization are distributed between such sole entrepreneurs and legal entities which: 1. Are engaged in artificial propagation of Pacific salmon, based on hatcheries’ capacity and enhancement assignments, approved by the Federal Fisheries Agency. 2. Carry out Federal Fisheries Agency approved work on acclimatization of Pacific salmon in fishery related water bodies. Scientific quotas are distributed between the scientific research organizations - subordinates of Federal Fisheries Agency - based on annually made plans for resource studies and availability of scientific programs prepared by the said organizations and approved by the Agency. Executive power bodies and the region’s (constituent entity’s) Governor headed Committee shall, no later than April 20, submit their draft proposals on distribution of the Pacific salmon inshore harvesting quotas between users, to the Federal Fisheries Agency and then shall allocate quotas with respect to the following needs: 1. Allocate Pacific salmon quotas to support traditional livelihood and economic activities of indigenous national minorities of the North, Siberia AND THE Far-East of RF. 2. Allocate Pacific salmon quotas to support recreational and sport fisheries. A series of check and balances exist in the management system including the science body, the management body, and the ecological committee overseen by the Ministry of Nature. Ecological Committee meetings are open to public participation. The committee does not have the authority in increase quotas, only to reduce. The committee has used export data to verify quota compliance. Quotas have been reduced in cases where export exceeds the quota (taken to be indicative of illegal harvest).

42 The decision-making process has been recently changed. A local commission on anadromous species was established headed by the regional governor and including fish inspection, science, and administration. The change to a fishery commission was initially promising to allow for more local control and get past the previous one size fits all approach to all fisheries. The intent was to transfer authority to local management organizations. However, it has resulted in a lot of confusion over conflicting changes in laws and regulations. The Ministry of Agriculture previously provided direction. A committee of fisheries has now been established but in 9 months, this committee has made little progress. It was subsequently established as an agency under the Ministry of Agriculture. Because things are going back to the way they were, people are hopeful for resolution of the confusion caused by reorganization and turnover in the last few years. This is expected to be resolved by the end of this year. In the meantime, temporary measures will be developed for this year’s fisheries.

Only fishing companies with a designated fishing area can receive an allocation. Fishing agreements are assigned accordingly. Effective in 2008, if you have an area, you will receive a quota. There is a separate process for assigning fishing areas. The responsible agency is “Goskomribolovsto”. These are assigned at the brigade level. Previously fishing areas were assigned for perpetuity but effective 2008 these assignments are for 20 year periods. When a fishing area becomes open, it is awarded competitively based on a series of criteria including capacity, employees, etc. Policies were designed to foster growth of fishing companies. The intent was to produce fewer, bigger, better-managed companies as some drop out.

This system applies to near-coastal fisheries (within 3 km of shore). Interception fisheries can be closed by the Dept. of Fisheries if recommended by the scientific agency. There was a case where a Sakhalin area was closed.

5.4 In-season Process Government biologists and enforcement officers are stationed on Iturup Island and monitor the escapements and catches throughout the season. The primary objective is to fill the spawning grounds. If that is not happening, then decisions are made at the regional level in the form of a recommendation. If in-season adjustments are needed, Chupakhin and Borzov confer and then telegram fish inspection or Sakniro. Authority for changes up to a certain level is allowed at the local level (Sakhalin offices). Larger changes need to be forwarded up the chain. There have been years when changes had to go to Moscow. During the last 10 years, there have been 5 or 6 years when the TAC needed to be increased in response to larger-than expected runs. Thus the fishery is managed during the season based on a real-time catch and escapement basis. The TAC is essentially a tool for the pre-season planning and allocation process and does not preclude the authority of the local managers to regulate fishing as needed to meet escapement requirements.

If escapement to the weirs is not adequate to meet escapement goals, SakRybVod and Sakniro can initiate processes to restrict the fishery. Enforcement officers close fishing by selecting which traps can and cannot fish. Once escapement is on track, all traps are allowed to fish up to the allocated TAC. Weir opening decisions are made by Chupakhin or Borzov. It is a rare case when escapement needs cannot be met with the fish on hand at the weirs. It might possibly have happened in 1982.

Hatchery personnel monitor the hatchery rivers and submit data to Sakniro and fish inspection every 3-4 days. If everything is fine, then no further actions are needed. If fish numbers are

43 above or below objectives, then fish inspection and Sakniro take local action or forward as appropriate.)

In-season fishery changes in the TAC are under the auspices of the fishery commission. The primary objective is to fill the spawning grounds and the hatchery. It run is less than expected then quotas are simply not filled. If run is greater than expected, then fishery observers from fish inspection and Sakniro can request an increase in the quota. The formal approval process requires approximately two weeks but in the interim the Sakhalin administrator (governor) typically takes responsibility for an uninterrupted fishery. This is why the fishery commission was established. There has never been a case in recent recollection where fishing had to be stopped by Moscow. In the chum decline years, decisions to close fisheries had to be made at a more local level.

Figure 12. Schematic on flow of in-season information on fish density in the rivers and harvest.

5.5 Enforcement The government restricts access to the island and monitors all incoming and outgoing visitors and inhabitants. That limits human interactions on the island and prevents illegal fishing both nearshore and up-river. Fishery enforcement is conducted by fish inspection. Approximately 8 patrol officers staff the Iturup office. Enforcement on the water is carried out using patrol boats, and on land using enforcement officers that walk the rivers in-season using a pattern of patrols that encompass all times of day and night.

Gidrostroy also employs their own security division whose primary responsibility includes prevention of illegal fishing in spawning streams and bear protection. (Tiger agency). Fishery permit conditions require that the fishing area be kept in order which includes protection against illegal harvest

44 5.6 Protected, Endangered, or Threatened Species The Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for managing sensitive species. Oversight is provided by various commissions which also collect scientific data. The nexus for implementation is the review of the TAC. Guidance is provided in the form of recommendations. (Listing Authority: Ministry of Nature of Russia, Commission for Rare and Endangered Animals, Plants, and Fungi).

From USSR Red Book

A Red Book of the International Union for Protection of Nature and Natural Resources, where for the first time in history information on rear fauna species to be protected by the whole mankind was generalized and systemized, was published in 1966. In 1978 A Red Book of the USSR was also published. Reprinted and amended in 1984, this Book, apart from the species entered into the International Red Book, included rare fauna species unique to the USSR alone. The Red Book of the Russian Federation, issued in 1983, was the first Red Book of the regional character ; entered into it were fauna species rare for the RF territory proper, apart from species from the Red Books of the higher status. Creation of natural conservation legislation was taking place in 1980s-1990s. Adopted at that time period were laws such as: Law on protection of natural environment; law on fauna; law on natural (wildlife) areas under special protection; law on ecological expertise along with a number of various decrees by the Russian Federation Government; they stated out conservation priorities for the Red Book’s rare fauna and flora species and liabilities for damage inflicted to the species and their habitats. According to the Article # 65 of the “ Law on protection of natural environment “ flora and fauna species, entered into the Red Book, shall be withdrawn from economic activities. Activities leading to abundance drop of such flora and fauna species and to deterioration of their habitats are prohibited.

Article 24 of the Federal Law on fauna reads as follows: “ Activities, which can lead to death, abundance reduction or deterioration of habitats of the Red Books’ fauna species, are not allowed ‘.

In pursuance of the Russian Federation Government’s Decree of February 19, 1996, “ On the Red Book of the Russian Federation “, the list of fauna species to be entered into the Red Book of the Russian Federation was established by the special ordinance # 569 of December 19, 1997 issued by the Russian Federation Committee on Environmental Protection. Upon the recommendation of the Commission on rear and endangered animals, plants and mushrooms, as many as 415 fauna species, needing special protection, were entered into the list.

Simultaneously with the development of legislative base and formation of the Russian Federation Red Book, a process of creation of regional Red Books was underway. On March 16, 1999, a Sakhalin Region law “On Red Books of the Sakhalin Region“ came into effect. To this end, a Commission on protection of the rare and endangered animals, plants and mushroom species was founded incorporating research scientists and specialists from the state environmental agencies. Upon the recommendation of the Commission, the State Ecological Committee of the Sakhalin Region prepared the list of fauna species to be entered into the Red Book of the Sakhalin Region, which was approved by the Regional’s Governor Ordinance # 230 of May 29, 2000.

45 As many as 18 mammal species, 105 bird species, 4 reptilian species, 7 fish species, 10 insect species,18 mollusk species and 6 crustacean species are entered into the Red Book of Sakhalin Region. These numbers include all the fauna species entered into the International Red Book, Red Book of the Russian Federation, the species found on the territory of the Sakhalin Region, the species rare for the far-Eastern Area, and also newly identified species the range and abundance of which are not known.

5.7 Environmental Protection Protection of the salmon habitat is achieved through observance of the current laws of the Russian Federation. Any type of utilization either of natural resources directly or that impacts them indirectly, including fisheries, water and timber utilization, construction, etc., must be evaluated as to the extent of impact on the environment. The evaluation itself is performed by an expert commission having state ecological expertise, and the main federal agency responsible for conducting the state ecological expert review is the Ministry for Natural Resources of the Russian Federation. In addition, activity related to natural utilization that has already been permitted is regulated to the extent to which it impacts the environment by a series of standards documents at the federal, departmental and local levels.

For the protection of fish habitat within the area of its competence, responsibility is borne by the Federal Natural Utilization Oversight Service (RosPrirodNadzor), the Federal Ecological, Technological and Atomic Oversight Service (RosTekhNadzor), the Russian State Fisheries Committee, and local governments of the territorial subjects of the Russian Federation. The Natural Protection Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation is responsible for enforcing laws relating to natural utilization.

As of the current year 2008, the government agency responsible for controlling the management of salmon fisheries is the Russian State Fisheries Committee in the office of the Commission for Regulating the Harvest (Catch) of Anadromous Fish Species. This commission is appointed by order of the Russian State Fisheries Committee for each Far East region. The governor of the respective area is appointed as chairperson of the commission. As members of the commission are included representatives of the federal executive agencies, enforcement structures, etc... Decisions of the Commission, including those relating to salmon habitat, are mandatory for compliance following their approval by the Russian State Fisheries Committee.

The Commission does not have authority over permits that are granted for construction, agriculture, or other activities outside of salmon that may still affect salmon habitat, since it is an agency of operational management of the salmon fisheries during the period of the current salmon season. Rather, building/construction projects are regulated by a governmental agency (Rospotrebnadzor Sanitation Service) which requires completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prior to approval of a project permit. Projects are monitored and can be delayed by the service if the builder does not fulfill the requirements. Assessments address discharges, disposal, drainage, soil pollution, the burial of wastes in the environment, accidents and catastrophes. The EIS includes a project description, descriptions of the environments subject to impact, and a characterization of the extent of the impact (based on a worst case maximum), including a determination of the subsequent value of the losses, the form of compensation both in kind and in monetary terms, and development of the engineering for loss compensation. Also included are descriptions of the extent to which the conditions for land use and the requirements issued by the respective government agencies of supervision and control have been followed, a study of the risks associated with possible accidents, as well as the adequacy of the anticipated

46 material resources and financial reserves to localize and eliminate the effects of accidents, and a study of the fullness and effectiveness of the anticipated measures for protecting the health of the population living in the surroundings of the environmental area. Decisions adopted must conform to the laws and standards of the Russian Federation and the Sakhalin Oblast (see 7/10/2008 client email for detailed list). The main indicator of success with respect to actions aimed at protecting fish (salmon) habitat is the record size of the harvests of pacific salmon in the Sakhalin Oblast over the past 3-5 years.

6 PROCESSING, TRANSSHIPMENT For the Iturup salmon fisheries, all landings are recorded and reported through documented tallies that occur at the point of landing, when fished are transferred to the processing plants immediately adjacent to the fishing areas.. Processing occurs predominately at shore-side plants where landings are monitored by fishery enforcement officers and recorder by each licensed processing facility. Some processing occurs on floating processing platforms, but the same procedures are in place for delivery of fish from the fishing grounds and recording of data at the point of landing. Landings at a few more distant fishing locations to the north occur at tenders and ar thene transported to processing facilities. Each processor controls the transport of its product from landing locations to processing facilities. Transshipments at sea are the exception, not the rule.

This report acknowledges that sufficient monitoring takes place to identify the fishery of origin for all landed Iturup Island salmon. 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 being undertaken and issued as part this project.

7 OTHER FISHERIES IN THE AREA There are numerous fisheries that operate wholly or partially within the boundaries of the waters around the Kuril Islands. For the purposes of this report, the number and types of fisheries are too numerous to list. In general there are fisheries on a number of finfish, some invertebrate species, and on other runs of pink and chum salmon to the south and north of the areas fished by JSC Gidrostroy. None of the other fisheries in the nearshore areas, or in the greater sea of Okhotsk have been certified, though there are reports of several other fisheries beginning to participate in MSC processes (i.e. Pollock, Sakhalin salmon fisheries, and mainland salmon fisheries).

8 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS No previous certifications have been undertaken in Russia, or in this specific set of salmon fisheries.

9 The MSC Standard and Certification Methodology The Marine Stewardship Council standards for sustainable fisheries management were developed through an 18-month process (May, Leadbitter, Sutton, and Weber, 2003). An original draft was developed by an expert working group, which met in Bagshot, UK in 1996. The draft standard was then presented through a series of 8 workshops that lasted 3 days each. Comments from each

47 of the workshops and from written submissions to the MSC were compiled and made available to a second expert working group at Airlie House in Virginia, USA. The final MSC standard (see below) was issued in 1998, and has since been used as the basis by which fisheries are evaluated under the MSC program. The scope of the MSC Principles and Criteria relates to marine fisheries activities up to but not beyond the point at which the fish are landed. The MSC Principles and Criteria apply at this stage only to marine fishes, fresh water fishes, and invertebrates (including, but not limited to shellfish, crustaceans and cephalopods). Aquaculture and the harvest of other species are not currently included. Issues involving allocation of quotas and access to marine resources are considered to be beyond the scope of these Principles and Criteria. Sustainable fishing Principles and Criteria have been identified by the MSC to recognize the diversity of fisheries across the world. The MSC derived an evaluation methodology that would maintain the intent and rigor of its Principles and Criteria but allow enough flexibility in the application of the standard to permit scientists to make sound judgments about the sustainability of any given fishery regardless of differences in species composition, geographic location, oceanographic conditions, or fishing methods. The flexibility in the MSC evaluation methodology is achieved in two ways: first, the scientists conducting an evaluation translate the MSC Principles and Criteria into a set of sub-criteria and performance indicators to provide appropriate and specific measures of performance for the fishery or fisheries being assessed. In addition, a set of "scoring guideposts" is provided to describe the basis by which fisheries will be measured against the indicators. Once the sub- criteria, indicators, and scoring guideposts are finalized, the evaluation team of scientists prioritizes and weights the sub-criteria and indicators to indicate the importance of each of the factors to the overall sustainability of the fishery or fisheries. Section 7.4 contains the set of sub-criteria, indicators, and scoring guideposts used in the assessment of Iturup Island salmon fisheries. This set wass proposed for use in assessing the Russian salmon fisheries as it is the same as the set of performance indicators and scoring guideposts in use for assessing salmon fisheries in British Columbia (Canada) and Alaska (US). Under the MSC assessment protocols, each indicator must receive a score between 0 and 100. Therefore, scoring guideposts are provided to illustrate what the assessment team will be looking for in assigning scores to an indicator. Scoring guideposts labeled as '100' indicate the best performance achievable for an indicator. This is the highest mark any fishery could be expected to receive. The '80' scoring guidepost references the level of acceptable performance for an indicator; whereas, the '60' scoring guidepost indicates the minimal threshold allowable in an MSC evaluation. Indicator scores between 80 and 100 do not require any further action. A score between 60 and 80 for an indicator, points out that the evaluating scientists identified a minor deficiency that needs corrective action. An indicator score of 60 or lower indicates a major deficiency in the fishery that needs corrective action. The scoring guideposts used to rate an indicator are meant to be hierarchical in that to meet a particular score, the scoring guideposts of all lower scores should also have been met. A fishery is considered to pass the MSC evaluation process and recommended for certification when it receives a weighted score of 80 or above on each of the three MSC Principles. For fisheries where the weighted score of each MSC Principle is 80 or above, but specific indicators achieve a score between 60 and 80, the fishery is considered to have passed the MSC evaluation process but certification can only be awarded if the applicant fishery agrees in writing to correct

48 the identified deficiencies specified by the evaluation team. In fisheries where given indicators score 60 or below, a fishery cannot pass the evaluation process and cannot be awarded certification until the major deficiency is corrected to the satisfaction of the evaluation team. All sub-criteria and indicators are also weighted indicating their relative importance in setting the overall scores for the fishery. The weighting process will proceed after the evaluation team has received public comments on this draft and been able to incorporate the comments to create a final set of sub-criteria, indicators, and scoring guideposts for use in the evaluation process. 9.1 7.3 MSC Principles and Criteria

9.1.1 MSC Principle I A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

Intent: to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favor of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

Principle 1 focuses on the target population, defined as target species or target stocks. Under this principle the fundamental building blocks for sound fisheries management are considered: 1. The definition of the target stocks; 2. The quality of monitoring and stock assessment programs; 3. The specific management goals for target stocks; 4. The procedures to facilitate the recovery of target stocks that are depleted; and 5. The fisheries are conducted in a manner that will not compromise the age, size and genetic structure of the target stocks.

Criteria 1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. 3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

9.1.2 MSC PRINCIPLE 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and

49 ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Intent: to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Principle 2 focuses on the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem and non-target populations. Here we are assessing how the fishery management operations deal with: 1. The importance of maintaining a productive, functional and diverse ecosystem; 2. Provisions to minimize the fishery impacts on endangered, threatened, protected or icon species; and 3. Procedures for the recovery of depleted non-target stocks.

Criteria: 1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes. 2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimizes mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

9.1.3 MSC Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Intent: to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

Principle 3 focuses on the management and operational framework that has been put in place to achieve the management goals. Some indicators under Principle 3 appear to overlap with indicators under Principles 1 and 2, however, the Principles 1 and 2 are concerned with the outcomes of a management system respecting the fact that the resources are maintained at the desired levels of abundance, while Principle 3 is concerned with evaluating whether all of the processes for reaching management objectives are in place. Components unique to Principle 3 include: 1. The evaluation of the consultation process; 2. The procedures used to control fisheries; 3. The extent of internal and external review of the management system; 4. The compliance with legal and administrative requirements; and 5. The implementation of responsible fishing practices.

50 The management of salmon fisheries has often been divided into five major components: 1. Resource inventory; 2. Pre-season planning; 3. In-season management (i.e. conducting the fisheries); 4. Post-season evaluations; and 5. Research and stock assessment. Each of these components is covered by the proposed evaluation criteria. Criteria under Principles 1 and 2 address most of the issues associated with resource inventory and pre-season planning while Principle 3 criteria address in-season management and post-season evaluations. Issues associated with research and stock assessment are included under each of the three MSC Principles as they apply to target stocks, non-target stocks and the management of fisheries.

Criteria: A. Management System: 1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

The management system shall: 2. demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisinal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process; 3. be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings; 4. observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability; 5. incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system; 6. provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing; 7. act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty; 8. incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion; 9. require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted; 10. specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to:

51 a. setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species; b. identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimize adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas; c. providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames; d. mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached; e. establishing no-take zones where appropriate; 11. contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are. B. MSC Operational Criteria: Fishing operations shall: 12. make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimize mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive; 13. implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimize adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas; 14. not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives; 15. minimize operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch, etc.; 16. be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements; and 17. assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.

9.2 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND SCORING GUIDEPOSTS This section contains the set of sub-criteria, indicators, and scoring guideposts used in evaluating Iturup Island salmon fisheries. To facilitate the correct interpretation of the evaluation components drafted, we have also provided definitions (see Definitions section below) for most of the important terms commonly associated with the management of salmon fisheries. These terms are used to define the fisheries being evaluated, the evaluation sub-criteria and indicators, and the scoring guideposts. These definitions are again the same as those used in the evaluation of Alaska and British Columbia salmon fisheries.

9.2.1 DEFINITIONS Managers and biologist use a wide variety of terms to describe the groups of fish they manage for specific fisheries. For the purpose of this evaluation we will use the following terms and definitions: Bycatch – the harvest of non-target species or non-target stocks.

52 Enhanced stocks - stocks of salmon that have been directly augmented using artificial propagation techniques (e.g. hatcheries, in-stream incubators, spawning channels, hatchery out- planting) Escapement – those mature salmon that are not harvested and thus may contribute to the spawning component of the stock. Fisheries scientists outside the management system – this includes fisheries scientists that are not full-time employees of the Russian Government Agencies but have demonstrated expertise related to the fisheries management or stock assessment issues in question. These could include professional scientists employed in the private sector, universities or other non-governmental organizations. Harvest – those fish or other species that are caught and killed during a fishery or die as a direct result of fishing activity. Indicator stock – a salmon stock for which detailed information is collected and used to manage a larger group of salmon stocks or stock management unit. Limit Reference Point (LRP) - indicates the state of a fishery and/or a resource, which is not considered desirable. Fishery harvests should be stopped before reaching it. If a LRP is inadvertently reached, management action should severely curtail or stop fishery development, as appropriate, and corrective action should be taken. Stock rehabilitation programs should consider an LRP as a very minimum rebuilding target to be reached before the rebuilding measures are relaxed or the fishery is re-opened. Majority – this could be a simple majority (e.g. >50% of the stocks in a stock management unit) or a numerical majority (e.g. >50% of the fish in a stock management unit or scientists in a region), where the management system has provided acceptable rationale for the definition used in their submission for each indicator. Natural salmon stock – a naturally-spawning stock that includes spawners produced by hatcheries. This terminology is used to distinguish it from a “wild” or native stock that has not been influenced by artificial propagation. Non-target species – species that are not the focus of the fishery but are caught in a fishery that is attempting to harvest other species. Non-target stock – a stock of salmon that is not the focus of the fishery but is caught in a fishery that is attempting to harvest other salmon stocks. Precautionary approach - A set of measures and actions, including future courses of action, which ensures prudent foresight, reduces or avoids risk to the resources, the environment, and the people, to the extent possible, taking explicitly into account existing uncertainties and the potential consequences of being wrong. Productivity, related to ecological community or the ecosystem – the rate of biomass production per unit area per unit time. Productivity, related to salmon – the number of salmon per spawner per unit of time (usually per year). A common measure of productivity for salmon is the number of recruits per spawner, where a fish is classified as a recruit if it survives to be harvested or escapes to a spawning area. Reference points - A (management) reference point is an estimated value derived from an agreed scientific procedure and an agreed model to which corresponds a state of the resource and of the fishery and which can be used as a guide for fisheries management.

53 Risk - the possibility of suffering harm or loss; danger; a factor, thing, element, or course involving uncertain danger, a hazard. In decision theory “the degree of probability of loss. A statistical measure representing an average amount of opportunity loss.” This terminology is used “when large amounts of information are available on which to base estimates of likelihood, so that accurate statistical probabilities can be formulated” Risk analysis - Any analysis of unknown chance events for purposes of effecting or evaluating decisions in terms of possible penalties and benefits attending these events. A method for generating different probability distributions with accompanying cost and benefits that may attend different courses of action. Stock – meaning a group of salmon defined by its species, spawning location or spawning region, and in some cases run timing. Stock management unit – meaning the stock or group of salmon stocks that are treated as a single unit when setting management goals or making fisheries management decisions. Target Reference Point (TRP) - corresponds to the state of a fishery and/or a resource, which is considered desirable. Management action, whether during a fishery development or stock rebuilding process, should aim at maintaining the fishery system at its level. Target species – the species of salmon that a specific fishery is attempting to harvest. Target stocks – specific salmon stock or stock management unit that a specific fishery is attempting to harvest. Uncertainty - The condition of being uncertain. Doubt. Something uncertain. In statistics, the estimated amount or percentage by which an observed or calculated value may differ from the true value. The incompleteness of knowledge about the states or processes in nature. Wild stocks – stocks of salmon that have not been augmented through artificial propagation techniques (e.g. hatcheries, in-stream incubators, spawning channels, hatchery out-planting). (Adapted from FAO, 1995 The Precautionary Approach To Fisheries and its Implications for Fishery Research, Technology and Management: an updated review by S.M. Garcia, Fishery Resources Division, FAO Fisheries Department.)

54 9.2.2 MSC PRINCIPLE 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

Intent: to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favor of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

MSC Criterion 1.1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. The performance indicators listed under Criterion 1 focused on the adequacy of the information used to manage the fisheries and stocks. For our assessment, we have organized the performance indicators into the three sub-criteria: 1) the definition of the stock units for each fishery; 2 the information available on the harvests, escapement, biological characteristic, and productivity; and 3) the management goals for each stock unit. As in the evaluations of other fisheries, the effect of the fishery on the associated ecological community will be primarily dealt with under Principle 2. However, the 100% level for indicators related to management goals under Principle 1 cannot be achieved unless information is collected on the associated ecological community and used in setting management goals. Subcriterion 1.1.1. Scientifically defensible stock units have been defined and the geographic distributions of these stocks are known. The intent of this sub-criterion is to evaluate whether the definition of the stock units are clear and appropriate for each species harvested in the fishery.

Indicator 1.1.1.1. The stock units are well defined for the purposes of conservation, fisheries management and stock assessment. 100 Scoring Guidepost  There is an unambiguous description of each stock unit, including: its geographic location, run timing, details on all the component stocks, and rationale for its definition.  The rationale for each stock unit is clear with regard to conservation, fisheries management and stock assessment requirements. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The stock units are well defined and include details on the major component stocks.  The rationale for each stock unit for the target species is clear with regard to conservation, fisheries management and stock assessment requirements. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The majority of stock units are defined.

55  The rationale for the majority of stock units for the target species is clear with regard to conservation, fisheries management and stock assessment requirements.

Indicator 1.1.1.2: There is general scientific agreement that the stock units are appropriate. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The stock units for target species have been reviewed and found to be scientifically defensible and appropriate by management authorities.  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist outside the management system that the stock units are appropriate.  There is general scientific agreement regarding the stock units for non-target species. 80 Scoring Guidepost  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist within the management system that the stock units are appropriate for target species.  There is no significant scientific disagreement regarding the stock units used by the management system to formulate management decision for the fishery. 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist within the management system that the majority of stock units are appropriate for target species.

Indicator 1.1.1.3: The geographic range for harvest of each stock unit in the fishery is known. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The geographic range for harvests of each stock unit in the fishery is estimated and documented each year.  The information on the geographic range of harvests is monitored during the fishing season and used when making in-season management decisions. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The geographic range for harvests of target stocks is defined.  The information on the geographic range of the harvests of target stocks is monitored during the fishing season and is sufficient to prevent the over harvesting of these stocks.  The information available on the geographic range for harvest of non-target stocks is sufficient to prevent the over harvesting of these stocks. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The information available on the geographic range for harvests of target or non-target stocks is sufficient to prevent the over harvesting for the majority of the stocks within each stock unit.

Indicator 1.1.1.4: Where indicator stocks are used as the primary source of information for making management decisions on a larger group of stocks in a region, the

56 status of the indicator stocks reflects the status of other stocks within the management unit. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The status of the indicator stocks is well correlated with the stocks that are most at risk from a conservation point of view, not just correlated with the most productive stocks in the region.  The indicator stocks used have been reviewed and found to be scientifically defensible and appropriate by management authorities.  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientists outside the management system that the indicator stocks are appropriate.  The relationships between indicator stocks and stocks of interest are assessed every three to five years. 80 Scoring Guidepost  There is some evidence of coherence between the status of indicator stocks and the status of other stocks they represent within the management unit.  There is no significant scientific disagreement regarding the indicator stocks used by the management system to formulate management decisions for the fishery. 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is some scientific basis for the indicator stocks used in the management of the fishery.

Indicator 1.1.1.5: Where stock units are composed of significant numbers of fish from enhancement activities, the management system provides for (1) identification of the enhanced fish (e.g., hatchery fish) and (2) their harvest in such a way that they do not adversely impact the diversity, ecological function or viability of Wild (un-enhanced) stocks. 100 Scoring Guidepost  Fisheries targeting enhanced stocks are geographically removed from wild (un- enhanced) stocks and separate terminal harvest areas are established for these fisheries.  Times and areas have been identified where the majority of enhanced fish migrate through the general fishery.  There is real time mark recovery program during the prosecution of the fishery that allows determination of harvest rates of the targets and naturally enhanced component of the run and these data are used in regulation of the fishery. 80 Scoring Guidepost  In fisheries where both enhanced and wild (un-enhanced) stocks are harvested at the same time, the harvest guidelines are based on the goals and objectives established for the wild (un-enhanced) stocks, and there is sufficient information on stock composition (i.e. hatchery and natural fish) to determine whether those goals are met.  There are adequate data and analyses to determine that the presence of enhanced fish in the management units does not adversely impact the wild (un-enhanced) fish stocks

57 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is general scientific agreement within the management system regarding the impacts of enhanced fish on the resultant harvest rates or escapements of wild (un- enhanced) fish stocks  Managers have some scientific basis for assuring that harvest rates for enhanced stocks are not adversely affecting the majority of wild (un-enhanced) stocks within each stock unit. Subcriterion 1.1.2. The monitoring and assessment of fisheries and stocks is adequate for fisheries managers to maintain the high productivity of the target stocks and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. The foundation for the management of most salmon fisheries is information on fishery harvest and escapements. Long-term (>10 yrs) monitoring of specific stocks is generally required to compute estimates of productivity. For some target species, additional information on fish size and age is required. The relative importance of each type of information will vary across fisheries and the species harvested.

Indicator 1.1.2.1: Estimates exist of the removals for each stock unit. 100 Scoring Guidepost  Catch estimates are available for all fisheries in Russian waters that harvest the target and non-target stocks harvested in the fishery being evaluated.  Mortality rates are available for the fish released or discarded during the fishery.  Catch estimates are available for fisheries outside Russian waters that harvest the stocks that are the target of the fishery being evaluated.  Catch estimates are available for enhanced (e.g., hatchery) fish. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Catch estimates are available for all target stocks harvested in the fishery.  Catch estimates are available for non-target stocks where the catch of the non-target stock may represent a significant component of the harvest of that stock.  Mechanisms exist to ensure accurate catch reporting and these mechanisms are evaluated at least once every 5 years.  Catch estimates are available for enhanced (e.g., hatchery) fish, where the catch of enhanced fish may affect sustainable management of wild stocks. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Catch estimates for the majority of target stocks are available.  Catch estimates are available for non-target stocks where the catch of the non-target stocks may represent a significant component of that stock.  Mechanisms exist to ensure accurate catch reporting and these mechanisms are evaluated at least once every 10 years.

58 Indicator 1.1.2.2: Estimates exist of the spawning escapement for each stock unit. 100 Scoring Guidepost  Estimates are available for the annual escapement for each stock unit harvested in the fishery.  In-season escapement data are collected for all stock units and used to regulate the fishery.  Estimates are available for the annual escapement and natural spawning of all enhanced (e.g., hatchery) fish. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Estimates are available for the annual escapement of each target stock harvested in the fishery.  Fishery independent indicators of spawning abundance are available for the non-target species harvested in the fishery.  In-season escapement data are collected for the target stocks and used to regulate the fishery.  Estimates are available for the annual escapement and natural spawning of enhanced (e.g., hatchery) fish, where enhanced fish are a significant component of the fishery, and where the release locations can have a reasonable probability of affecting the management of natural populations. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Escapement estimates for target stocks are available, where escapement estimates are necessary to protect the target stock from overexploitation.  Fishery independent indicators of abundance are available for non-target stocks where the fishery harvests may represent a significant component of the harvest of that stock.  Capabilities exist to make estimates of the escapement and natural spawning of enhanced (e.g., marked hatchery) fish.

Indicator 1.1.2.3: The age and size of catch and escapement have been considered, especially for the target stocks. 100 Scoring Guidepost  Annual monitoring programs collect data on the age and size of the catch and escapement for target and non-target stocks where there is a clear scientific basis for collecting these data. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Periodic monitoring programs collect data on the age and size of the catch and escapement for target stocks, and for non-target stocks where the fishery harvests may represent a significant component of the harvest of those non-target stocks.  There is a scientific basis for the frequency of the sampling program to collect age and size data where there is a clear scientific basis for collecting these data.

59 60 Scoring Guidepost  The information on age and size of catch and escapement is adequate, where there is general scientific agreement that these data are important to assess the status of the stocks or adjust fisheries management decisions For example: information on the age distribution of coho salmon harvests would not be considered important for stock assessment or fisheries management decisions whereas age information would be important for the assessment and management related to most chinook fisheries. Monitoring programs should be in place to detect changes in the size of the fish harvested for each salmon species.

Indicator 1.1.2.4: The information collected from catch monitoring and stock assessment programs is used to compute productivity estimates for the target stocks and management guidelines for both target and non-target stocks. 100 Scoring Guidepost  Scientifically defensible productivity estimates (e.g. stock/recruitment relationships) have been derived for all target stocks and the relative productivity of non-target stocks is known.  Risk assessment has been conducted to determine the impact of alternative harvest strategies on non-target stocks. The risk assessment should include an assessment of the uncertainties with estimates of stock productivity for the target stocks. 80 Scoring Guidepost  There is adequate information to identify the harvest and production strategies required to maintain the high productivity of the target stocks.  There is adequate information to estimate the relative productivity of the non-target stocks where the fishery harvests may represent a significant component of those non- target stocks.  The harvest limitations for target stocks take into consideration the impacts on non- target stocks and the uncertainty of the productivity for these stocks. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The available information and analyses are adequate to identify the harvest limitations and production strategies required to maintain the productivity of the majority of target stocks.  The relative productivity of the non-target stocks is considered in the management strategy, where the fishery harvests may represent a significant component of those non- target stocks.

60 Subcriterion 1.1.3 Management goals have been set and are appropriate to protect the stocks from decline to their Limit Reference Point or operationally equivalent undesirable low level of abundance.

Indicator 1.1.3.1: Limit Reference Points or operational equivalents have been set and are appropriate to protect the stocks harvested in the fishery. The Limit Reference Point (LRP) or operational equivalent set by the management system has been defined above as “the state of a fishery and/or a resource, which is not considered desirable. Fishery harvests should be stopped before reaching it. If a LRP is inadvertently reached, management action should severely curtail or stop the fishery, as appropriate, and corrective action should be taken. Stock rehabilitation programs should consider an LRP as a very minimum rebuilding target to be reached before the rebuilding measures are relaxed or the fishery is re- opened.”

100 Scoring Guidepost  The Limit Reference Point for target species have been reviewed and found to be scientifically defensible and appropriate by management authorities.  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist outside the management system that the LRP’s are appropriate.  There is general scientific agreement regarding the LRP’s for non-target species. 80 Scoring Guidepost  There is some scientific basis for the LRP’s for target stocks and these LRP’s are defined to protect the stocks harvested by the fisheries.  There is no significant scientific disagreement regarding the LRP’s used by the management system to formulate management decision for the fishery. 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist within the management system that the LRP’s or equivalent are appropriate to achieve the management goals for target stocks.

61 Indicator 1.1.3.2: Target Reference Points or operational equivalents have been set. The Target Reference Point (TRP) or operational equivalents set by the management system has been defined above as “the state of a fishery and/or a resource, which is considered desirable. Management action, whether during a fishery development or stock rebuilding process, should aim at maintaining the fishery system at its level.”

100 Scoring Guidepost  The Target Reference Point (TRP) or operational equivalents for target species have been reviewed and found to be scientifically defensible and appropriate by management authorities.  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist outside the management system that the TRP’s or operational equivalents are appropriate.  The TRP’s or operational equivalents for the target stocks take into account variability in the productivity of each component of the target stock and productivity of non-target stocks. 80 Scoring Guidepost  There is no significant scientific disagreement regarding the TRP’s or operational equivalents used by the management system to formulate management decision for the fishery.  The TRP’s or operational equivalents for the target stocks take into account variability in the productivity of each component of the target stock and the productivity of non- target stocks. 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is general agreement among fisheries scientist within the management system that the TRP’s or operational equivalents are appropriate for the target stocks.  Target reference points have been defined for the majority of target stocks harvested in the fishery and these target reference points are not scientifically disputed.  The management system has taken into account the relative productivity of non-target stocks when setting the TRP’s or operational equivalents for the majority of target stocks.

MSC Criterion 1.2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. Our interpretation of MSC Criterion 1.2: This criterion refers to “populations” where our indicators and evaluation criteria refer to stocks or stock units of natural origin. The evaluation under this criterion will assess the degree to which the management strategy is designed to keep targeted stocks from becoming depleted, and to promote recovery if they become depleted. Note that this has already been partially assessed under Subcriterion 1.1.3.

62 Indicator 1.2.1: There is a well-defined and effective strategy, and a specific recovery plan in place, to promote recovery of depleted target stock within reasonable time frames. 100 Scoring Guidepost  There are comprehensive and pre-agreed responses to low stock size that utilize a range of management measures to ensure rapid recovery.  Stocks are allowed to recover to the TRP before commercial fisheries are permitted that target these stocks.  The management system does not use artificial propagation as a substitute for maintaining or recovering wild stocks. 80 Scoring Guidepost  In the event of severe depletion, recovery plans are developed and implemented to facilitate the recovery of the depleted stocks within 3 reproductive cycles.  Stocks are allowed to recover to more than 150% of the LRP for abundance before any fisheries are permitted that target these stocks. 60 Scoring Guidepost  In the event of severe depletion, recovery plans are developed and implemented to facilitate the recovery of the depleted stocks within 5 reproductive cycles  Stocks are allowed to recover to more than 125% of the LRP for abundance before any fisheries are permitted that target these stocks.

Indicator 1.2.2: Target stocks (of natural origin) are not depleted and recent stock sizes are assessed to be above appropriate limit reference points for the target stocks. In contrast to Indicator 1.2.1, which evaluates the strategy for stock recovery, this indicator evaluates the current status of the target species or stocks, and the basis for being reasonably certain about their status. The Scoring Guideposts are arranged hierarchically, so that evaluation of the current status depends on the assessment, which in turn depends on data and knowledge about the stocks and the fishery

100 Scoring Guidepost  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist outside the management system that the methods of estimating escapements and exploitation rates for the target stocks are scientifically defensible.  Management actions have reduced fishing as the target stocks approach the LRP and fisheries have only resulted in escapements that approach or are below the LRP escapement goal in one year in a period of the most recent 10 consecutive years, for any of the target stocks.

63 80 Scoring Guidepost  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist inside the management system that the methods of estimating escapements and exploitation rates for the target stocks are scientifically defensible.  Management actions have reduced fishing as the target stocks approach the LRP and fisheries have only resulted in escapements that approach or are below the LRP escapement goal in one year in a period of the most recent 5 consecutive years, for any of the target stocks. 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist inside the management system that the methods of estimating escapements and exploitation rates for the majority of target stocks are scientifically defensible.  Management actions have reduced fishing as the target stocks approach the LRP and fisheries have only resulted in escapements that approach or are below the LRP escapement goal in no more than two years in a period of the most recent 5 consecutive years, for the majority of the target stocks.

MSC Criterion 1.3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity. The effects of fishing on the “reproductive capacity” of the target stocks have already been partially assessed under criterion 1.1 and 1.2. Criterion 1.3 considers specific concerns about impacts of fishing on age, size, sex and genetic structure of stocks. Because genetic structure is very difficult to determine in most exploited fish stocks, impacts on component stocks (i.e. the stocks that comprise a stock unit) are used as a proxy at the 80 scoring level. Also included in this indicator is an assessment of the management system’s ability to identify and manage the potential impact of enhanced stocks on wild (un-enhanced) stocks.

Indicator 1.3.1: Information on biological characteristics such as the age, size, sex and genetic structure of the target stocks is considered prior to making management decisions and management actions are consistent with maintaining healthy age, size, sex and genetic structure of the target stocks. 100 Scoring Guidepost  There is comprehensive knowledge of the effect of fishing on biological characteristics such as the age, size, sex and genetic structure of the target stocks and the impact of changes in these factors on the reproductive capacity of the target stocks.  Management actions are consistent with maintaining healthy target stocks relative to biological characteristics such as age, size, sex and genetic structure of all target stocks.  Enhanced fish are identified and managed as separate target stocks.

64 80 Scoring Guidepost  The knowledge of the effect of fishing on biological characteristics such as the age, size, sex and component stocks is adequate to detect threats to the reproductive capacity of the target stocks.  Management actions are consistent with maintaining healthy target stocks relative to biological characteristics such as age, size, sex and genetic structure of all target stocks.  The management system includes provisions to minimize any adverse impacts to the genetic structure of wild (un-enhanced) stocks that may be due to the enhancement of other stocks. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The knowledge of the effect of fishing on the biological characteristics such as age, size, sex and component stocks is adequate to detect threats to the reproductive capacity of the majority of target stocks.  Management actions are consistent with maintaining healthy target stocks relative to biological characteristics such as age, size, sex or genetic structure for the majority of target stocks.  The management system includes provisions to minimize the major adverse impacts for the majority of wild (un-enhanced) stocks that may be due to the enhancement of other stocks.

9.2.3 MSC PRINCIPLE 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Intent: to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

MSC Criterion 2.1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes. Assessment of this criterion is based on indicators of impacts on marine systems (bycatch and biomass removal) and freshwater systems (adequacy of escapements in maintaining the ecosystem and integrity of watersheds). These indicators involve: 1) adequacy of management plans, data collection and monitoring of by-catch in marine fisheries and evaluation of potential fishing effects on the marine ecosystem; and 2) adequacy of escapement objectives to address the freshwater ecosystem concerns. The degree to which the information is collected in the management of the fisheries under Principle 1 will apply for determining if this criterion is adequately addressed and will influence the evaluation scores.

65 Indicator 2.1.1: The management plan for prosecuting fisheries provides high confidence that direct impacts on non-target species are identified. The intent of this measure is to ensure that the management plans for the fisheries require collection of adequate data to address direct impacts of fishing on non-target species, including birds and marine mammals.

100 Scoring Guidepost  A monitoring program exists that provides estimates of bycatch that meet statistical criteria acceptable to external reviewers.  All historic monitoring data is readily available to stakeholder groups and external reviewers.  Quantities of gear lost are recorded, and the impacts of lost gear on target and non-target species have been researched and accurate projections of impacts have been completed.  A program has been implemented to search for and remove derelict fishing gear. 80 Scoring Guidepost  A monitoring program exists that provides estimates of bycatch.  In known problem areas of high bycatch, there is an ongoing monitoring program.  A program has been implemented to remove lost fishing gear. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Data on bycatch in the majority of the fisheries are available to determine impacts on non-target species.

Indicator 2.1.2 The management system includes measures to reduce marine ecosystem impacts. For salmon fisheries, the primary concerns related to marine ecosystem impacts are related to the bycatch of non-salmon species and the ecosystem impacts of removing of large numbers of the target salmon species.

100 Scoring Guidepost  A risk assessment of bycatch concerns has been conducted as part of developing the management plan.  The effect of the fishery on the marine ecosystem has been explicitly considered in the management plan.  Research has been conducted on marine piscivores that utilize the target species to ensure that commercial harvests do not present significant risks to the populations of these piscivores.  Where conflicts exist between the harvest of fish and ecosystem concerns stemming from salmon removal, the balance achieved has been the subject of an open review by stakeholders.  This information is presented in documents that are made available to stakeholders.

66 80 Scoring Guidepost  The effect of the fishery on the marine ecosystem has been addressed by the management system.  Where problems are identified, fisheries managers make adjustments to reduce impacts on non-target species.  Where conflicts exist between the harvest of fish and ecosystem concerns stemming from salmon removal, the balance achieved has been made known to stakeholders through publicly available information sources. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system does include measures to reduce marine ecosystem impacts to achieve management objectives.  The management system has a history of responding to bycatch mortality problems and has procedures that are followed to limit bycatch.

Indicator 2.1.3 Research efforts are ongoing to identify and evaluate the magnitude of ecosystem problems, and fisheries managers have a process to incorporate this understanding into their management decisions. The intent of this measure is to ensure that a research program has been established to evaluate historic and new data to identify future and ongoing problems. It is also necessary to have an established management process that will ensure research conclusions can quickly be transparently incorporated into future management activities associated with prosecuting the fishery.

100 Scoring Guidepost  There is detailed knowledge of the relationship between the fishery and impacts to the marine ecosystem or ongoing research is attempting to identify if such problems exist.  There is detailed knowledge of the relationship between salmon production and climate trends and such information is rapidly and effectively incorporated into harvest management plans so that stocks are not over harvested.  The management system has a proven history of incorporating new research findings into management plans.  The management system has a proven history of closing fisheries when bycatch mortality problems arise.  The management system has supported the development of more selective fishing practices. 80 Scoring Guidepost  There is ongoing research of previously identified problem areas to determine if bycatch reduction measures or other measures are effective.  The management system recognizes effects of climate change on salmon production and has a documented record of incorporating such information when developing harvest plans so that stocks are not over harvested.

67  When new problems are identified, the management plans require a new monitoring program be instituted to determine the effectiveness of new measures.  The management plan allows for between season assessment and institution of new controls on the fishery or stakeholder consultation following the identification of bycatch problems or ecosystem related impacts.  The management system has a proven history of successfully arbitrating stakeholder concerns when balance between fish harvests and ecosystem concerns have arisen. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system collects or plans to collect data on bycatch problems or ecosystem concerns.  The management system recognizes effects of climate change on salmon production and has attempted to incorporate new information when developing harvest plans.  There are procedures established to incorporate any knowledge obtained about bycatch problems into management actions.  The management system responds to data provided on bycatch problems by entities outside of their agency.

Indicator 2.1.4 The management system supports research efforts to understand the adequacy of existing escapement goals for meeting freshwater ecosystem needs. The intent of this indicator is to encourage the collection of information and data that can be used to address freshwater ecosystem concerns. It is our intent that future reviews of Salmon certification demonstrate that the information developed from these research programs on ecosystem requirements, such as aquatic system nutrient requirements and piscivore food requirements are incorporated into the management system.

100 Scoring Guidepost  There is research to determine tradeoffs of salmon harvests with ecosystem concerns, i.e., effects of removing salmon carcasses on the aquatic community including mammals, birds, and other fishes.  Results and conclusions from research are made available to stakeholders. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Ongoing research is supported to determine the impacts of salmon carcasses on freshwater ecosystem processes and to identify tradeoffs between harvests and freshwater ecosystem concerns.  The management system provides for the communication of research results to managers so that the results can be used in the development of escapement goals for meeting freshwater ecosystem needs. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system supports research efforts to understand the adequacy of existing escapement goals for meeting freshwater ecosystem needs.

68 Indicator 2.1.5 The management system supports research efforts to understand impacts of habitat degradation caused by non-fishing activities (e.g., water removal, water quality, timber harvests, agriculture, etc.) on salmon production and incorporates this information into harvest management plans and escapement goals. The intent of this indicator is to encourage the collection of data in freshwater and estuarine habitats that can be used to evaluate changes in salmon survival and the capacity of the habitat to support salmon so that changes in harvests or escapement goals can be made, if necessary, to sustain natural populations.

100 Scoring Guidepost  Management has research program to evaluate effects of habitat degradation, including cumulative effects of smaller impacts, on natural salmon productivity and capacity.  Management has a track record for implementing research findings to minimize or mitigate impacts of habitat degradation.  Results and conclusions from research are made available to stakeholders and findings of lost production are used to re-evaluate harvest plans and escapement goals, if necessary. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Management has some research to evaluate effects of major habitat degradation on natural salmon productivity and capacity, though quantitative estimates not always available.  Management has track record for attempting to minimize or mitigate impacts of habitat degradation.  Results and conclusions from research are made available to stakeholders and there are on-going efforts to incorporate this information when developing harvest plans and escapement goals, if necessary. 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is some information on the effects of habitat degradation on natural salmon productivity and capacity and the general magnitude of impacts is known.  Management attempts to minimize or mitigate impacts of some habitat degradation.  Habitat degradation is considered when developing harvest plans and escapement goals, if necessary.

MSC Criterion 2.2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimizes mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. This criterion focuses on direct mortality of the prosecuted fisheries on non-target species and the adequacy of the management units of the target species to ensure significant sub-components of the target species are adequately protected to provide for a reasonable expectation of sustainability of these components and their contribution to the genetic diversity of the target population. The impacted species of concern include protected species and icon species, such as

69 marine mammals, bears, coastal wolves, and eagles, are adequately protected from direct or indirect impacts of the fisheries (we define icon species as any species of particular public interest that does not qualify under the terms ‘endangered, threatened, or protected’). These impacts may be identified at the population and community level. We also address the issue of harvests of salmon stocks that have been created or enhanced through fisheries enhancement activities, such as salmon hatcheries and spawning channels. The goal is to ensure that the production or harvest of enhanced stocks does not affect the sustainability of natural spawning stocks by adversely impacting the genetic structure or productivity of the natural salmon. The enhanced component of salmon stocks are assumed to be addressed as separate stocks using the indicators and guidelines listed.

Indicator 2.2.1 The management system of the fishery includes provisions for integrating and synthesizing scientific information on biological diversity at the genetic, species or population level of all species harvested in the fishery and evaluating impacts on endangered, threatened, protected or icon species. The intent of this measure is to ensure that the management system incorporates available knowledge and considers the impacts of the fishery on biodiversity issues. This indicator includes the impacts of enhanced fishery harvests on these issues.

100 Scoring Guidepost  A risk assessment has been conducted, based on current knowledge of direct and incidental mortalities from the fishery, to ensure the fishery does not pose a significant threat to the biodiversity of the target or non-target species.  Stock composition of harvests is known and the likelihood of harvest of endangered, threatened, protected, or icon species has been estimated.  Time and area of migrations of weak year classes, sub-stock or population components are known.  The management system contains provisions to reduce harvests based on biodiversity concerns of affected endangered, threatened, protected or icon species, or weak year classes of targeted stocks. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The fishery has been monitored and the removals are assessed with a special effort to determine presence of rare, endangered, protected, or icon species.  The management system has a history of incorporating new research into management as new research data on impacts of fisheries on biodiversity become available.  The fisheries management system includes provisions for harvest reduction when biodiversity concerns are identified for target or non-target species. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Efforts are being made to assess the impacts of the fishery on the biodiversity of the endangered, threatened, and protected or icon species.  The impact of the fishery on endangered, threatened, and protected or icon species is identified and is considered in the management of fisheries.

70  There are provisions in the management system to reduce the impacts of the fishery on the biodiversity of the endangered, threatened, and protected or icon species.

Indicator 2.2.2 Salmon hatcheries are managed in order to minimize impacts on the genetic diversity and productivity of targeted natural salmon stocks and non-targeted salmon populations, including those listed as threatened or endangered. The intent of this measure is to ensure that hatchery practices are adequate to maintain genetic diversity and productivity of natural spawning populations of salmon.

100 Scoring Guidepost  Hatchery programs (state, federal, tribal, local) have undergone a formal peer review process that evaluated hatchery practices for their ability to minimize hatchery effects on natural spawning salmon populations caused by interbreeding between hatchery and natural salmon, competition for food and space (juveniles and adults), and predation by juvenile hatchery salmon on natural salmon fry.  Effects of hatchery interactions with natural salmon have been investigated and documented in the watersheds. Stocks outside the watershed are not utilized in the hatcheries.  Recommendations of the peer review process have been implemented by the hatcheries and interactions are minimal. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Hatchery programs (state, federal, tribal, local) have undergone an internal review process that evaluated hatchery practices for their ability to minimize hatchery effects on natural spawning salmon populations caused by interbreeding between hatchery and natural salmon, competition for food and space (juveniles and adults), and predation by juvenile hatchery salmon on natural salmon fry.  Effects of hatchery interactions with natural salmon have been investigated and documented in most watersheds. Stocks outside the watershed are not utilized in the hatcheries.  Recommendations of the review have been implemented by the hatcheries and interactions are mostly minimal. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Hatchery programs (state, federal, tribal, local) follow general guidelines to minimize effects on natural spawning salmon populations caused by interbreeding between hatchery and natural salmon, competition for food and space (juveniles and adults), and predation by juvenile hatchery salmon on natural salmon fry.  Effects of hatchery interactions with natural salmon are generally known in most watersheds. Stocks outside the watershed are not utilized in the hatcheries.  Attempts have been made to minimize adverse interactions between hatchery and natural salmon.

71 MSC Criterion 2.3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields. Are reductions in fish abundance caused by human activity, unrelated to the directed harvest, considered in the management plan and in the establishment of escapement goals? If so, is the management system sufficiently robust to accommodate the long term recovery of depleted populations and ensure that directed or by-catch harvests, including harvests of hatchery salmon, do not present significant risks to the long term sustainability of naturally-produced salmon populations?

Indicator 2.3.1 Management strategies include provision for restrictions to the fishery to enable recovery of non-target stocks to levels substantially above established LRPs (Limit Reference Points) 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management plans and escapement goals have been shown to have a high (>80%) probability of achieving a long-term recovery of depleted non-target stocks using risk analysis.  Historic data have been thoroughly examined to ensure fisheries restoration objectives are based on the likely habitat capacity, rather than on trends that cover only the most recent decades, thus avoiding the “moving baseline” syndrome.  Monitoring and assessment programs are established to determine with a high degree of confidence and in a timely manner that recovery is occurring.  Proposed management strategies have been reviewed and found to be scientifically defensible and appropriate by management authorities.  The management system supports the collection of data on non-fishing related human activity in the development of recovery plans for non-target stocks. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system includes assessment of plans for the recovery of non-target stocks to levels substantially above established LRPs.  Objectives for recovery have at least some consideration of historic documents on stock abundance.  The management system has a reasonable (>60%) probability of achieving long-term recovery of depleted non-target stocks.  Monitoring and assessment programs are established to determine with a high degree of confidence and in a timely manner that recovery is occurring.  Escapement goals will be revised periodically to accommodate new data indicating success or failure of existing recovery plans.  The management system considers the impact of non-fishing related human activity in the development of recovery plans for non-target stocks

72 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system attempts to prevent extirpation of non-target stocks and does have rebuilding strategies for the majority of the stocks.  The management system has at least a 50% probability of achieving long-term recovery of depleted non-target stocks.  The management system has a strategy for periodic revisiting escapement goals to respond to new data on recovery success or failure for the majority of the stocks.

9.2.4 MSC PRINCIPLE 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Intent: to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

For the purposes of this section, the management system is defined to mean all public sector entities with responsibility for managing salmon in Russia.

Some indicators under Principle 3 appear to overlap with indicators under Principles 1 and 2, however, Principles 1 and 2 are concerned with the outcomes of a management system respecting the fact that the resources are maintained at the desired levels of abundance, while Principle 3 is concerned with evaluating whether all of the processes for reaching management objectives are in place.

Management System Criteria

MSC Criterion 3.1. The management system has a strategy for management that clearly defines long-term objectives for managing the impact of fishing on target species, non-target species and the ecosystem; the objectives are consistent with a well- managed fishery and MSC principles and criteria; and the management strategy includes provision for the effective implementation of measures to attain these objectives. The objective regarding this criterion dealing with Management Systems is to compare the management as implemented by the Russian government with the standards for a well-managed fishery as defined in the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. Particularly important is whether the management system has clearly defined objectives and goals that incorporate currently evolving standards for responsible fisheries management with respect to conservation of the species, regard for the ecosystem to which they belong, transparency of the management process and recognition of the impact of the fishery on social, cultural and economic issues. Throughout this section the term “impact on the ecosystem” is taken to mean the degree to which fishing alters the ecosystem relative to its non-fished state.

Indicator 3.1.1: The management system has a clear and defensible set of objectives for the harvest and escapement for target species and accounts for the non-

73 target species captured in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species. 100 Scoring Guidepost  Management objectives are clearly defined for all of the target stocks and are consistent with the MSC criteria for a well-managed fishery.  Harvest rates and escapement goals are precisely set for each target stock unit in the fishery, as qualified by relevant environmental factors.  Target Reference Points and Limit Reference Points for the natural stock are clearly defined and documented for each target stock unit in the fishery.  Harvest controls are effective with respect to the attainment of management objectives for each target stock unit in the fishery.  The management system provides estimates for all catches, landings and bycatch in a timely manner. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Management objectives are clearly defined for most of the target stocks and are consistent with the MSC criteria for a well-managed fishery.  Target Reference Points and Limit Reference Points for the natural stock are clearly defined and documented for each target stock unit in the fishery.  Harvest rates and escapement goals are set for target stocks or target species in the fishery, as qualified by relevant environmental factors.  Harvest controls are precise and effective for major target stocks or target species in the fishery.  The management system provides estimates for all major catches, landings, and bycatch in a timely manner 60 Scoring Guidepost  Management objectives are clearly defined and consistent with MSC criteria for a well- managed fishery for the majority of target stocks.  Harvest controls are effective for the majority of the fisheries on target stocks.  The management system provides for the estimation of catch, landing, and bycatch for the majority of the fisheries.

Indicator 3.1.2: The management system provides for periodic assessment of the biological status of the target species and the impact of fishing. 100 Scoring Guidepost  There is an annual assessment or update of the status of stocks for each major target stock unit in the fishery.  When results of the assessments or updates indicate that there has been a substantial change in the status of the stocks, this new information is made available to stakeholders in conjunction with the implementation of changes to management measures.

74  Reports on the methodologies used for the assessments are published on a regular basis in peer-reviewed journals and/or reviewed by authorities outside those responsible for Russian salmon. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Assessments or updates of the status of the stocks for the major target stock units are made on a periodic basis, dependent upon the level of exploitation.  Results of assessment and updates of the status of the stocks are made available to stakeholders in a timely fashion.  Reports on the methodologies used for the assessments are published in non-peer reviewed reports, and reviewed by the management authorities. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Assessments or updates of the status of the stocks for the majority of the target species are made for major fishing regions within the fishery.  Results of assessment or updates of the status of the stocks are made available to stakeholders.  Technical analysis and methodologies used for the assessments are published or distributed to stakeholders. .

Indicator 3.1.3: The management system includes a mechanism to identify and manage the impact of fishing on the ecosystem. 100 Scoring Guidepost  Monitoring systems are in place to detect the impact of fishing on the ecosystem  Where potential impacts of fishing on the ecosystem have been identified, the management system has clear and well-defined objectives for evaluating and managing the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem.  Control mechanisms are used to minimize impacts of fishing on the ecosystem.  There is sufficient evidence to indicate that when used, control mechanisms are adequate for meeting the management objectives. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system includes mechanisms to identify and evaluate the impact of fishing on the ecosystem.  Control mechanisms are used to minimize impacts of fishing on the ecosystem. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system takes measures to control the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem in the majority of cases where impacts have been verified.

Indicator 3.1.4: When dealing with uncertainty, the management system provides for utilizing the best scientific information available to manage the fishery, while employing a precautionary approach. Uncertainty always exists in estimates of the status of a stock, and technically it is not generally possible to determine the accuracy of the assessments. This uncertainty results from sampling

75 and measurement error, limited understanding of the biology of the fish being modeled, error in model assumptions, and an inability to model all of the important processes that affect the dynamics of the stock. It can also arise as a result of changing fishing technology. However, some idea of the uncertainty can be detected or measured through sampling theory, by lack of fit of the model being used, or by sensitivity analysis.

100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for the routine assessment of the level of uncertainty in the information collected for management and establishes management controls to address these uncertainties using the best available scientific information and a precautionary approach. .  The management system implements research efforts to address data gaps  For newly developing fisheries for which there is very limited data and information, the management system implements controls on the development of the fishery that are precautionary in nature.  The management system always quantitatively evaluates the effect of implementation uncertainty (the tendency for actual harvest rates or escapements to differ from those intended by the management regulations) on the effectiveness of the proposed management actions. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for some assessment of the level of uncertainty in the information collected for management and establishes management controls which take into account these uncertainties, using the best available scientific information and a precautionary approach.  In situations when precautionary measures are necessary to manage the fishery, the management system calls for increasing research efforts in order to fill data and information gaps.  In most cases where there are newly developing fisheries, the management system implements controls on the development of the fishery that are precautionary in nature.  The management system considers the effect of implementation uncertainty on the effectiveness of most of the proposed management actions. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system for the majority of newly developing fisheries is consistent with a precautionary approach.  The management system considers the effect of implementation uncertainty on the effectiveness of the majority of the proposed management actions.

Indicator 3.1.5: Management response to new information on the fishery and the fish populations is timely and adaptive. Intent: The management system should be timely and adaptive i.e., new information used by the management system to initiate new management measures or to update and/or improve current management measures in a timely fashion, because characteristics of the fishery can change and/or the natural system can show reduced or increased productivity over time.

76 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides a mechanism for rapid adjustments to be made to its management programs.  When new information or findings support altering the management and conservation programs (such as stock recovery plans), there is evidence to demonstrate that such adjustments are made within 6 months of obtaining the new information. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides a mechanism for responding to unexpected changes in the fishery.  When new information or findings support altering the management and conservation programs, adjustments are made within 12 months of obtaining the new information. 60 Scoring Guidepost  For the majority of cases there are provisions for making timely adjustments to the management program, and when they are made the lag time is not so great as to result in the adjustments being ineffectual.

Indicator 3.1.6: The management system provides a process for considering the social and economic impacts of the fishery. 100 Scoring Guidepost  There exists a formal and well-defined process to consider, over the short and long term, the views, customs, and interests of indigenous peoples who depend on fishing for their food or livelihood.  There is a formal and well-defined process to consider, over the short and long term, the impact of the fishery on coastal communities that are closely tied to the fishery.  There are no direct subsidies to the fishing industry.  The management system regularly seeks and considers input from stakeholders in an effort to understand and address socioeconomic issues related to the fishery. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system regularly undertakes to consider the views, customs and interests of indigenous peoples whose livelihood or food are dependent on the fishery.  The management system regularly takes into consideration the impact of the fishery on coastal communities that are closely tied to the fishery.  There are no subsidies to the fishing industry that would lead to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation.  The management system regularly undertakes measures to understand the socioeconomic impacts resulting from the management of the fishery. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system more often than not considers the views, customs, and interests of indigenous peoples who depend on fishing for a livelihood or food.

77  More often than not the management system considers the impact of the fishery on coastal communities that are closely tied to the fishery.  For the majority of the fisheries there are no subsidies that threaten sustainable fishing.  More often than not, the input of stakeholders is sought by the management system.

Indicator 3.1.7: The management system provides decision makers with useful and relevant information and advice for managing the fishery. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides decision makers with a range of alternatives for achieving the objectives of management, including risk assessments for each alternative.  All management decisions are based on useful and relevant information and advice that is provided through the management system.  The management system, whenever possible, provides information to decision makers within a time frame that permits management controls to be determined before they need to be taken. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides managers with a range of alternatives for management.  Management decisions consistently rely on useful and relevant information provided within the system and there is not a record of decisions going against the information provided. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The majority of management decisions rely on data, useful and relevant information, or advice provided through the management system.  Risk assessments are considered in formulating important management decisions.

Indicator 3.1.8: The management system provides for socioeconomic incentives for sustainable fishing. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system has formal procedure for providing social and economic incentives to stakeholders in the fishery to develop and utilize sustainable fishing practices, particularly the development of selective fishing gear and practices that lead to improved conservation.  The management system creates strong incentives for harvesters to not exceed target catches or exploitation rates  The stakeholders in the fishery regularly avail themselves of the opportunity to utilize these incentives.  Evidence provided by the management system demonstrates that such incentives have contributed to improved conservation.

78  The management system continually attempts to understand the impact of their decisions on social and economic factors affecting the stakeholders in the fishery and regularly takes action to mitigate the impacts on stakeholders. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system regularly considers the use of social and economic incentives to the stakeholders in the fishery, which are designed to facilitate the development of fishing gear and practices that can lead to sustainable fishing.  The management system includes a program to create incentives for harvesters to not exceed target catches or exploitation rates.  Evidence demonstrates that the stakeholders in the fishery have used such incentives.  The management system attempts to understand the impact of their management decisions on social and economic factors affecting the major stakeholders in the fishery and takes action to lessen the major impacts on stakeholders. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for the use of social or economic incentives to ensure sustainable fishing.  The management system attempts to understand the impact of its decisions on social and economic factors affecting the stakeholders in the fishery and is responsive to requests to reduce these impacts.

Indicator 3.1.9 The management system has taken significant steps to protect salmon habitat including water diversion and agricultural practices. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management agencies have regulatory authority for protection of fish habitat  The management agencies have a proven track record for protection of fish habitat. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management agencies participate in all regulatory decisions that may affect fish habitat and have a proven track record for protection of fish habitat. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management agencies provide information on all activities that may affect fish habitat and can demonstrate that this information has proved successful in protecting fish habitat.

Indicator 3.1.10 The hatcheries use management practices and protocols that sustain the genetic structure and productivity of the natural spawning population and there is coordination between hatchery programs from different agencies/operators. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management agencies have a peer reviewed written plan that establishes protocol for all hatchery programs with respect to practices that sustain the genetic structure and productivity of the natural stocks.

79  The hatcheries mark all production with coded-wire-tags (CWTs) or other suitable marks such that reliable and meaningful estimates of hatchery composition of the catch and escapement can be computed. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management agencies have an agreement that establishes protocol for all hatchery programs with respect to practices that sustain the genetic structure and productivity of the natural stocks.  The hatcheries mark all production with coded-wire-tags (CWTs) or other suitable marks such that reliable and meaningful estimates of hatchery composition of the catch and escapement can be computed. 60 Scoring Guidepost  All hatchery programs employ practices that do not negatively affect the genetic structure and productivity of the natural stocks.  The hatcheries mark the majority of production with coded-wire-tags (CWTs) or other suitable marks such that the presence and/or absence of hatchery produced fish can be detected in the catch and escapement.

MSC Criterion 3.2. The management system allows for incorporation of relevant research findings. Under this criterion we are interested in evaluating whether there is a research component to the management system that is sufficiently broad in scope to include all target species and other components of the ecosystem that may be impacted by fishing, and which provides for the acquisition of information and data to support scientifically- sound management actions, and whether the research is timely, open to review by peers and stakeholders in general, and is adequately funded.

Indicator 3.2.1: The research plan covers the scope of the fishery, includes all target species, accounts for the non-target species captured in association with, or as a consequence of fishing for target species, and considers the impact of fishing on the ecosystem and socioeconomic factors affected by the management program. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system incorporates a research component that considers relevant data and information needs for formulating management strategies for all target species, and also information leading to an understanding of the dynamics of the ecosystem including data on the catch, landings and discards of non-target species.  The framework for research includes investigations dealing with socioeconomic impacts of the fishery.  The research plan responds in a timely fashion to unexpected changes in the fishery.  Funding is secure and sufficient to meet long-term research needs.  There is significant continuing progress in understanding the impact of the fishery on target and non-target species, and the ecosystem in general.  Research results form the basis for formulating management strategies and decisions

80  Research is regularly published in peer review journals and/or is reviewed by the management authorities. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system incorporates a research component that provides for the collection and analysis of information necessary for formulating management strategies and decisions for both target and non-target species.  The research plan addresses concerns related to the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem.  The research plan addresses socioeconomic issues that result from the implementation of management.  The research plan is responsive to changes in the fishery.  Funding is adequate to support short-term research needs.  There is progress in understanding the impact of the fishery on target and non-target species.  Research results are utilized in forming management strategies.  Research is reviewed by the management authorities or other appropriate and technically qualified entities. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Research provides for the collection of catch statistical and biological data for the target species.  There has been useful research on the impact of fishing on target and non-target species taken in the fishery, and on the ecosystem in general.

Indicator 3.2.2: Research results are available in a timely fashion to interested parties, and there is a mechanism for periodic review of the content, scope and results of the research plan. 100 Scoring Guidepost  There is a formal and codified arrangement for annual stakeholder review of the content and scope of research plans and results, including matters related to its funding, which is open and transparent.  There is a formal and codified arrangement for peer review of ongoing research  The management system regularly incorporates into the research plan recommendations emanating from these reviews.  Research results are made available to all interested stakeholders on a regular basis and in a timely manner. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for periodic reviews by stakeholders in the fishery, of the content and scope of research, including funding requirements.  There are periodic peer reviews of ongoing research.  Inputs from these reviews are used by the management system to modify research plans.

81  Research results are available to interested parties on a regular basis. 60 Scoring Guidepost  While there are no formal arrangements for stakeholder research review, such reviews are held on a periodic basis for the majority of the research plans and/or results.  While there are no formal arrangements for peer review of ongoing research, such reviews are periodically conducted for the majority of ongoing research plans and/or results.  The majority of research results are available to interested parties.

MSC Criterion 3.3. The management system allows for transparency with respect to its operational details, including a consultative process that provides for the incorporation of information and data from stakeholders in the fishery related to matters of a social, cultural, economic and scientific nature. The objective here is to evaluate whether the management system is open and transparent with respect to all interested parties and whether the views of stakeholders are considered in formulating management strategies.

Indicator 3.3.1: Provides for a consultative process that is open to all interested and affected stakeholders, which allows for their input on a regular basis into the management process. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides a formal arrangement for the direct participation of all interested and affected stakeholders from both the public and private sectors, on matters of a social, cultural, economic and scientific nature.  The management system provides timely, advanced notice of meetings at which there can be stakeholder participation.  The management system does not exclude any interested and affected stakeholder from the consultative process.  The management system addresses the interests of all interested and affected stakeholders. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for the regular participation of most interested and affected stakeholders on matters of a social, cultural, economic and scientific nature.  The management system generally provides notice of meetings at which there can be stakeholder participation.  The management system does not usually exclude involvement of any interested and affected stakeholder.  The views of most interested and affected stakeholders are regularly considered in the formulation of management strategies.

82 60 Scoring Guidepost  The majority of interested and affected stakeholders are provided with a forum for input into the formulation of management plans and measures.

MSC Criterion 3.4. The management system implements measures to control levels of exploitation in the fishery.

Sub-Criterion 3.4.1: The management system has provisions for controlling levels of exploitation to achieve the escapement and/or harvest rate goals for target stocks, and for setting harvest limits for non-target species, when there is information indicating such limits are necessary. Under this sub-criterion the management system is evaluated to determine whether it provides for mechanisms to ensure that objectives related to exploitation levels and escapement are achieved. These mechanisms for controlling fisheries include closed areas, no take zones, and closed dates and times.

Indicator 3.4.1.1: Utilizes methods to limit or close fisheries in order to achieve harvest and/or escapement goals, including the establishment of closed areas, no- take zones, and closed dates and times when appropriate. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides a formal and codified system to achieve harvest and/or escapement goals for target stock units and, as appropriate, non-target species of fish.  The management system provides a formal and codified mechanism for establishing closed areas, no-take zones, and closed dates and times for any areas of the fishery.  Management sets exploitation and escapement levels designed to maintain the target stock units at levels of abundance that can sustain high productivity.  There is no evidence provided by the management system to indicate that, as a result of fishing, target stock units are in serious decline or degradation of the ecosystem is occurring.  Measures are currently implemented to achieve these objectives. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Harvest rates and/or escapement levels designed to achieve target goals are regularly implemented.  The management system provides for the establishment of closed areas, no-take zones and closed dates and times.  Controls are set to maintain or restore target species to high productivity levels, and in a manner that does not contribute significantly to ecosystem degradation.  Measures that limit harvest rates and set escapement goals are implemented when necessary.

83 60 Scoring Guidepost  Harvest rates and/or escapement goals for the majority of the target stocks are effective in halting declines in stock abundance caused by the fishery.  Established harvest and/or escapement goals for target stocks consider the impact of the fishery on the majority of the non-target species, and on the ecosystem generally.

Indicator 3.4.1.2: Provides for restoring depleted target species to specified levels within specified time frames. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system has a formal and codified mechanism, which is adequate for restoring depleted target stocks to the TRP or equivalent high level of abundance, as qualified by relevant environmental factors.  The mechanism includes strict guidelines for restoring these depleted populations within a certain time frame are formalized by the management system. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system includes measures, which are adequate to restore depleted populations of target stock to the TRP or equivalent high level of abundance as qualified by relevant environmental factors.  A time schedule for restoration, which considers environmental variability, is determined by the management system. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system includes measures for restoring the majority of depleted populations of target stock to the TRP or equivalent high level of abundance. Sub-Criterion 3.4.2: The management system incorporates measures to ensure that its objectives regarding the conservation of the stocks under its purview and the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem are carried out. Two major issues are dealt with under this topic. One examines whether the management system includes provisions to determine whether there is adequate enforcement of the measures established for achieving the objectives of management. In these evaluations, compliance is considered to be the result of adequate enforcement mechanisms by the management system and education with respect to providing clear and timely information to the fishing industry regarding such measures. The other examines whether the management system includes adequate monitoring of the fishery so as to evaluate the performance of the fishery with regard to the policies and objectives of management.

Indicator 3.4.2.1: The management system includes compliance provisions. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for a formal arrangement, such as a compliance committee or a staff review team on compliance, to review the effectiveness of enforcement.

84  Education and enforcement procedures are implemented and applicable rules are consistently applied.  Enforcement actions are effective in achieving the objectives of management.  There are no infractions being consistently committed in the fishery.

80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system includes compliance provisions that are effective for the fisheries.  Infractions, which result in adverse impacts on the status of the stocks or on the ecosystem, are rare. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system includes compliance provisions that are effective for the majority of the fisheries.

Indicator 3.4.2.2 The management system includes monitoring provisions. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system incorporates a formal, effective program for monitoring the fishery, which fully evaluates the performance in terms of whether the regulations are resulting in the intended harvest rates and/or escapements, and achievement of objectives regarding impacts on the ecosystem caused by the fishery.  Monitoring is comprehensive, and includes all relevant components of the fishery  Results are reported widely on a regular and timely basis. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system incorporates an effective monitoring program, which evaluates the performance of the fishery relative to management goals and policies.  Monitoring is broad in scope, and results are available to the majority of the stakeholders. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system includes provisions for a monitoring program to evaluate the performance of the majority of the fisheries against its policies and objectives.

MSC Criterion 3.5. The management system provides for regular and timely review and evaluation of its performance, and for appropriate adjustments based on the findings of these reviews and evaluations that are consistent with the objectives of the program. The objective under this criterion is to evaluate whether the management system has an effective mechanism for reviewing performance vis-à-vis the objectives and policies of the management programs. An effective mechanism would include both internal and external reviews, and, when appropriate, the recommendations from the reviews would be incorporated into the management of the fishery. Also, the issue of whether the management system provides a mechanism for resolving disputes emanating from such reviews, or any other sources, is evaluated.

85 Indicator 3.5.1: There is an effective and timely system for internal review of the management system. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for continuing internal review that is broad in scope, effective, and timely.  The review process and results are made available to all stakeholders. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system includes provision for an internal review that is conducted periodically as the need arises.  The results of the review are made available to interested stakeholders. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for internal review of its performance, and when available, review results are made available to the majority of interested stakeholders.

Indicator 3.5.2: There is an effective and timely system for external review of the management system. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for one or more independent experts to review at least bi-annually all of the important components of management performance.  The format and standards of the review are established with input from outside the management system.  Provision is made for making public the review results. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system provides for a review of management performance by one or more independent experts at least once every five years.  The format and standards of the review are established within the management system.  Review results are made available to the public. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system is open to external review at least once every 10 years.

Indicator 3.5.3: There is a mechanism for incorporating into the management system recommendations resulting from the review process. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The recommendations from internal and external reviews are always acted upon and, where appropriate, incorporated into the management system.  The management system provides for a report to all interested stakeholders describing how it acted on the recommendations of these reviews.

86 80 Scoring Guidepost  The recommendations from internal and external reviews are usually, but not always, used to make changes to the management system. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Recommendations from internal and external reviews are considered by the management system and an explanation is provided for the actions or lack of action associated with the majority of these recommendations.

Indicator 3.5.4: There is an appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system has formal and codified mechanisms for resolution of disputes arising as a result of the fishery.  Affected parties routinely use the dispute resolution mechanism.  The dispute resolution mechanism is unbiased and fair respecting all disputing parties. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system has a dispute-resolution process for resolving significant disputes.  The dispute resolution mechanism is available for use by affected parties, but is not routinely used.  The dispute resolution mechanism does not discriminate against any disputing party. 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is a mechanism for resolving disputes that is provided for by the management system.

MSC Criterion 3.6. The management system provides for the operation of the fishery to be in compliance with all relevant legal and administrative requirements. In this section we attempt to evaluate the management system with regard to whether it manages the fishery in a manner that is consistent with commitments under relevant international treaties and agreements, and with domestic laws and regulations that pertain to the fishery. In this context we also evaluate whether the management system is in conformity with the legal and customary Tribal rights as established by treaties and other applicable instruments.

Indicator 3.6.1: The fishery is not operated in a unilateral manner in contravention to international agreements. For the purposes of this Indicator, only treaties and conventions which the government has signed, ratified or otherwise is a High Contracting Party to, shall apply.

87 100 Scoring Guidepost  When the stocks of fish under the authority of the management system are also under the authority of an international treaty, the obligations are respected, and actions by the management system are coordinated with the recommendations of the treaty organization.  All measures taken within the management system are in compliance with relevant international treaty obligations.  The management system does not undertake unilateral exemption from any treaty obligation pertaining to the fishery. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system does not willingly act in contravention to any international treaty obligations pertaining to the fishery.  The management system does not knowingly undertake unilateral exemption from any treaty obligation pertaining to the fishery.  Evidence indicates any inadvertent action with regard to the contravention of any international treaty obligations by the management system is rare. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system is in compliance with the majority of international treaty recommendations dealing with the fishery.

Indicator 3.6.2: The fishery is carried out in a manner consistent with all relevant domestic laws and regulations relevant to the fishery. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system conducts annual assessments of the fisheries compliance with relevant domestic laws and regulations, and these assessments have confirmed full compliance with these laws and regulations. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system conducts at least bi-annual assessments of the fisheries compliance with relevant domestic laws and regulations, and these assessments have confirmed that none of the violations that have occurred would result in failure to achieve the objectives of the management plan. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system conducts periodic assessments of the fisheries compliance with relevant domestic laws and regulations, and these assessments have not identified any violations that would result in failure to achieve the objectives of the management plan.

88 Indicator 3.6.3: The management system provides for the observation of legal and customary Tribal rights. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system is in compliance with all major legal and customary Tribal rights that are impacted by the fishery.  The management system includes processes for Tribal consultation on the impact of the commercial fishery on their food, social and ceremonial fisheries. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system is found to be in compliance with all legal and most of the customary Tribal rights that are impacted by the fishery.  The management system includes processes for providing information to Tribes on the major impacts of the commercial fishery on their food, social and ceremonial fisheries. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system is in compliance with Tribal legal rights that are impacted by the fishery.

Fishery Operations Criteria

MSC Criterion 3.7. Fishing operations make use of gear and fishing practices that limit ecosystem impacts. The intention regarding this criterion relating to fishery operations is to evaluate the degree to which the management system is capable of implementing responsible fishing practices. The understanding here regarding responsible fishing practices refers to the criteria defined in the MSC, Principle 3.B., Operational Criteria 12-17, and with those sections of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible fishing dealing with the conduct of fishing practices by the fishing industry.

Indicator 3.7.1: Utilization of gear and fishing practices that minimize both the catch of non-target species, and the mortality of this catch. 100 Scoring Guidepost  There are requirements in the management system to reduce the capture of non-target species, which include: o Controlling the use of gear types and fishing practices that result in significant catches of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species, and/or o Implementing closed seasons and no-fishing zones during times and in areas where the probability of making significant catches of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species is high, and o Holding education programs for the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders to make them aware of the benefits of using fishing techniques and gear that minimize the catch of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species.

89  Taking into consideration natural variability in population abundance and the possibility of declining abundance resulting from heavy exploitation, the management system can demonstrate the effective use of these methods by fishers by the existence of downward trends in the catches of non-target species.  The management system creates incentives to decrease the catch of non-target species (e.g. by providing more fishing time for vessels achieving certain standards for reducing such catches). 80 Scoring Guidepost  Through educational programs for members of the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders, the management system discourages the use of gear types and fishing practices that result in high catches of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species, and encourages them to avoid fishing in areas identified to have high concentrations of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species.  Taking into consideration natural variability in population abundance, there is evidence that the capture and discard of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species is trending downward, or is at a level of exploitation that has been determined by management to be acceptable.  Fishers generally conduct their fishing activity in a manner that is consistent with the goal of reducing the catch of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The majority of fisheries are conducted in a manner that is consistent with the goal of reducing the catch of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species.

Indicator 3.7.2: Prohibits the use destructive fishing practices, such as poisons and explosives. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system prohibits fishing practices that utilize poisons or explosives, or other such devices that damage or destroy physical, chemical, and/or biological features or characteristics of the areas where such practices are prosecuted.  Evidence can be provided by the management system that such destructive practices are not currently being employed in the fishery. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system can demonstrate that destructive fishing practices, such as poisons or explosives, are not currently being used in the fishery. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system prohibits or discourages the use of destructive fishing practices.

90 Indicator 3.7.3: Minimizes operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch, etc. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system has a formal program to reduce operational waste in the fishery, with the long-term goal of eliminating such waste.  The program is effective, as reflected by reduced incidents of operational waste.  The management system has a formal program in which they work with the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders to promote the proper handling of catch. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system has a program that sets guidelines for reducing operational waste.  The management system encourages the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders to promote programs for the proper handling of catch. 60 Scoring Guidepost  There is a program to reduce operational waste.

Indicator 3.7.4: The management system solicits the cooperation of the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders in the collection of data on the catch and discard of non-target species and undersized individuals of target species. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The majority of fish harvesters and processors are in compliance with management requests for the collection of data on catches and discards of non-target species and undersized individuals of target species.  Continued improvement in the quality and quantity of catch and discard data is evident. 80 Scoring Guidepost  Sufficient numbers of fish harvesters and processors comply with requests for data on catches and discards of non-target species and undersized individuals of target species to ensure that reliable estimates of total catches and discards for the fishery can be obtained. 60 Scoring Guidepost  Catch and discard data provided by the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders are sufficient to manage the harvests from the majority of the non-target species and undersized individuals from the majority of the target species.

Indicator 3.7.5: Implements fishing methods that minimize adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical zones. 100 Scoring Guidepost  The management system has a formal program to identify and document the impact of the fishery on habitat, and implements measures to restrict gear and fishing practices that have been shown to adversely affect habitat.

91  The crews of fishing vessels comply with such measures and thereby avoid damaging the habitat.  There is no evidence of continued impacts of fishing on habitat. 80 Scoring Guidepost  The management system undertakes measures to identify and document the impact of the fishery on habitat and to set guidelines for reducing habitat impacts.  Fish harvesters are encouraged to follow the guidelines for reducing habitat impacts. 60 Scoring Guidepost  The management system has a program for assessing the impact of the fishery on habitat, and for making fishers aware of suitable fishing gear and practices that are known to reduce adverse impacts on habitat.

9.3 INFORMATION REVIEWED One of the most significant, and difficult, 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, this is no easy task as the assessment team typically needs information that is fully supported by 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 to prove 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.

In the Iturup Island salmon fisheries the applicant (JSC Gidrostroy) provided a critical role in gathering information for use by the assessment team. First, not all documents/reports/memos/scientific analyses are readily available to the public in Russia. While most documents can be requested, and eventually obtained, it is a time consuming and often lengthy process. JSC Gidrostroy facilitated the gathering of documents from internal and external sources, and did a remarkable job, including getting the government to provide documents on short notice. Secondly, JSC Gidrostroy provided necessary translation services, both in terms of documents and in terms of meetings with Russian scientists, managers, and fishers. JSC Gidrostroy staff compiled the information into useable forms by the assessment team. In addition, the company made sure that all documents provided to the assessment team were also made available on the web for stakeholders to review.

In contrast to the applicant’s role in MSC assessments, the stakeholders in the fishery are under no specific obligation, other than personal preference, to provide the assessment team with information. Therefore, a significant effort was made to contact and solicit comments from stakeholders to ensure the assessment team understood their concerns.

92 9.4 ASSESSMENT MEETINGS, INTERVIEWS The sites and people chosen for visits and interviews were based on the assessment team's need to acquire information about the management operations of the fisheries under evaluation. Agencies and their respective personnel responsible for fishery management, fisheries research, fisheries compliance, and habitat protection were identified and contacted with the assistance of the client. The assessment team met with managers and scientists for a week at the outset of the evaluation process. At these meetings, JSC Gidrostroy personnel provided SCS evaluation team members with written materials in Russian and English. As with all assessments, there are always a number of issues that come to light when reviewing all the information with critical management and scientific personnel. Questions that arose after the initial meetings were handled through email and phone calls with the client and any other necessary entities. Table 5 provides a general list of the people and organizations either met or talked to (by email or phone) during the assessment process. During this fishery assessment, numerous attempts were made to gather direct information and/or opinions from a variety of stakeholders. Few, if any, comments were received about the proposed units of certification. This was expected since the same set of indicators and scoring guides were used and these had already been thoroughly reviewed in Alaska and British Columbia (Canada). No substantive submissions were received regarding the management of the fisheries with one exception. State of the Salmon and Ecotrust in Portland Oregon had several discussions with SCS and the assessment team, both face to face and remotely through phone and email. Only two significant issues were raised by EcoTrust. The first was the effects of hatcheries on the overall management of wild salmon populations. The second issue was concern about the appropriate protection for the endangered salmon species – Taimen. EcoTrust identified the fact that there is general concern about protecting Taimen, but also acknowledged they had no specific knowledge about possible impacts on the species at Iturup Island.

Table 5. Organizations and People Interviewed as part of the Assessment Process. Full . Management Miscellaneous Dates (July 2005 – November 2006) Assessment JSC Gidrostroy: . Ecosystem Ludmilla Alekseyevna . Stock Assessment Ludmilla Federovna and Stock Status Ludmilla Varonova Mr. Alexander Verhovski Ms. Donna Hartshorn Mr. Yuri Svetlikov Russian Government Authorities Sergei Borzov Pavel Kolotushkin, Department on Fishery Stakeholders Brian Caouette, (others). Ecotrust (Portland, Oregon)

93 State of the Salmon Various Dates Didenko Dimitry, Sakhalin Salmon Initiative WWF Russia

10 ASSESSMENT RESULTS After completing all the reviews and interviews, the assessment team is tasked with utilizing the information it has received to assess the performance of the fishery. Under the MSC program, the process for assessing the fishery is performed by prioritizing and weighting the indicators relative to one another at each level of the performance hierarchy established when the assessment team developed the set of performance indicators and scoring guideposts for the fishery. The weightings in this assessment are shown in the tables provided for each fishery. Subsequent to this, the assessment team assigns numerical scores between 0 and 100 to each of the performance indicators. All of this is accomplished using decision support software known as Expert Choice, which utilizes a technique known as AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process). A full description of the AHP process can be found on the MSC web site (www.msc.org). In essence, the process requires that all team members work together to discuss and evaluate the information they have received for a given performance indicator and come to a consensus decision on weights and scores. Scores and weights are then combined to get overall scores for each of the three MSC Principles. A fishery must have normalized scores of 80 or above on each of the three MSC Principles to be recommended for certification. Should an individual indicator receive a score of less than 80, a ‘Condition’ is established that when met, would bring the fishery’s performance for that indicator up to the 80 level score representing a well-managed fishery.

The scoring for the large set of certification units (16), as well as the large number of fisheries (>400) was a difficult process for the assessment team. The team met on 2 occasions to get through the scoring on each of the certification units. The rescoring was driven by the submission of new information by the client over a period of several months. The need for new information was driven by the fact that the assessment team was continually looking for enough information to properly answer the questions posed by the performance indicators.

Below is a written explanation of the assessment team’s evaluation of the information it received and the team’s interpretation of the information as it pertains to the fishery’s compliance with the MSC Principles and Criteria. In the beginning of each written evaluation, a summary table showing all scores and weights for the unit of certification is provided. Each row in the table is for either an MSC Criterion, a subcriterion, or a performance indicator. Each indicator is assigned a score between 0 – 100. The columns are divided into four sections. The last column shows the weights assigned to each indicator, subcriterioa, and criteria. The next three sections are the three levels of scoring guideposts: 60, 80, and 100. Under each section, there are a number of columns that allow for a number of bullet points under each scoring guidepost. So for Scoring Guidepost 60, there are 5 columns, under the 80 Scoring Guidepost there are 8 columns, and under the 100 Scoring Guidepost there are 7 columns. The number of bullet points under each scoring guidepost and for each row that are actually used are highlighted in either green, orange, or red. Grey cells represent no scores as there are no additional bullet points. For example, under indicator 1.1.1.1 you will find a row of cells. Under Scoring Guidepost 60, there are 2 colored cells that are colored and contain numbers. These represent the 2 bullet points under indicator 1.1.1.1 and Scoring Guidepost 60. Under Scoring Guidepost 80 there are 2 colored cells, and under Scoring

94 Guidepost 100 there are 2 colored cells. This format was chosen so the reader can easily see where a unit of certification has passed and where it has deficiencies. Under certain Performance Indicators, some bullet points under a Scoring Guidepost may not be relevant. These are marked as NA or not applicable. The scores are therefore a direct mathematical result of taking the total numerical score possible between scoring guideposts (20 units between guideposts) and dividing by the number of scored cells under a scoring guidepost. So, for 2 bullet points under 80, each could receive a total of 10 points (20 total under the Scoring Guidepost). If the assessment team scored a cell a 1 or green, it receives all ten points. If it is scored an orange or 0.5, it receives half the available points. If it scores a red or 0, it receives no points. Therefore, if both cells under 80 Scoring Guidepost are green (getting all 20 points available) and the 2 cells under the 100 Scoring Guidepost are orange (getting half the total points available or 10 out of 20), the indicator would get a score of 90.

10.1 Principle 1: Status of Stocks of Target Species

10.1.1 SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (SCORE = 85) The fishery passes Principle I criteria based on a weighted average score greater than 80 and all indicators scoring at least 60. Scores for several indicators fell between 60 an 80 which resulted in the identification of three conditions for continuing certification.

Criteria @ 100 Criteria @ 80 Criteria @ 60 Score Weight 123456712345678123450-100 PRINCIPLE 1 - Fishery Management for Target Populations Criterion 1.1 - Maintain high productivity of target population & associated ecological community 0.8 Subcriterion 1.1.1 - Stock units 0.4 Indicator 1.1.1.1 Stock management units defined 11 11 11 100 0.317 Indicator 1.1.1.2 Scientific agreement on units 110.5 11 1 97 0.194 Indicator 1.1.1.3 Geographic distribution known 00.5 1 1 1 1 85 0.108 Indicator 1.1.1.4 Indicator Stocks na na na na na na na na na 0.064 Indicator 1.1.1.5 Enhanced Stocks 0.5 0.5 1 1 70 0.317 Subcriterion 1.1.2 - Monitoring and assessment 0.4 Indicator 1.1.2.1 Reliable estimates of removals 1110.5 111 78 0.274 Indicator 1.1.2.2 Reliable estimates of escapement 10.510 111 73 0.369 Indicator 1.1.2.3 Information on fish age and size 0.5 1 1 1 90 0.112 Indicator 1.1.2.4 Productivity estimates 0.5 0 1 na na 1 1 85 0.246 Subcriterion 1.1.3 - Management goals 0.2 Indicator 1.1.3.1 Limit reference points 100 11 1 87 0.667 Indicator 1.1.3.2 Target reference points 0.500.5 11 111 87 0.333 Criterion 1.2 - Fishery allows for the recovery of depleted stocks (Target Stocks) 0.136 Indicator 1.2.1 Well-defined and effective strategy na na na na na na na na 0.5 Indicator 1.2.2 Stocks not depleted and harvest rates are sustainable 01 11 11 90 0.5 Criterion 1.3 - Fishing does not impair reproductive capacity 0.07 Indicator 1.3.1 Age, sex and genetic structure are monitored 0.510 111 111 90 1

10.1.2 CRITERION 1.1 - MAINTAIN HIGH PRODUCTIVITY OF THE TARGET POPULATION(S) AND ASSOCIATED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY Subcriterion 1.1.1 Stock units

Indicator 1.1.1.1 - Stock units defined (score = 100) Stock units are clearly defined for these terminal fish trap fisheries. There is an unambiguous description of each stock unit, including its geographic location, run timing, and rationale for its definition. Fisheries occur in two large bays (Prostor and Kurilskiy). Fisheries in each bay harvest mixed population groups from rivers and streams entering each bay. All significant spawning populations of pink and chum have been identified in each fishing area. Affected populations are a subset of the larger Iturup-origin stocks of pinks and chum salmon. Pink

95 salmon originating from tributary systems of the two bays are considered to be a single diverse stock based on genetic analyses (Zhivitovsky 2007). The pink salmon stock includes populations returning to 18 significant systems throughout the area as well as different run-timed components returning to different streams and portions of streams. Chum salmon returning to each system are managed as separate populations based on genetic analyses (Zhivitovsky 2007). Ten chum populations have been identified. Run timing of all populations is assessed annually. Rationales for each stock unit are clear with regard to conservation, fisheries management and stock assessment requirements. The sub-stock composition of the harvest in any given fishing subarea or fish trap is generally understood from proximity to spawning areas and the fishery is intensively managed by time and area to ensure adequate representation of all populations and population components into the escapement.

Indicator 1.1.1.2 - Scientific agreement that on units (score = 97) The stock units for target species have been reviewed and found to be scientifically defensible and appropriate by government management authorities including the Department of Fisheries of the Sakhalin Oblast), Federal Fisheries Agency (Rosrybolovstvo) and Federal Scientific Institute (SakhNIRO) There is no significant scientific disagreement regarding the stock units used by the management system to formulate management decision for the fishery. The target stocks are currently managed on a population by population basis which is at a finer scale than a stock. There is general scientific agreement within the management system that non-target species including are primarily of local origin, but information on the overarching stock structure and management units for non-target stocks is incomplete.

Indicator 1.1.1.3 - Geographic distribution known (score = 85) The geographic range for harvests of target stocks is defined but the geographic range for harvests of each stock unit is not estimated and documented each year. Company fisheries harvest most but not all of the target stocks. The company fishery occurs at shore-based fish traps in close proximity to spawning rivers. However, some Kurilskiy and Prostor bay-origin pink and chum are likely harvested in other Iturup Island fisheries to the north and south. These fisheries are relatively small in comparison but their contribution to the total harvest of fish from the certification unit is not documented or available. High seas Russian and Japanese drift net fisheries for mixed stocks also harvest some Iturup salmon, primarily chum. Harvest rates and stock source of Iturup salmon in high seas fisheries are not estimated but are currently low in comparison with local harvest rates based on very high fry to adult survival rates estimated for Iturup production. The information on the geographic range of harvests of target stocks in company fisheries is monitored during the fishing season based on trap net catches in close proximity to spawning streams. Consistent achievement of population escapement goals indicates that this information is sufficient to prevent the overharvesting of these stocks. The company has government permits for exclusive use of the fishing areas and catch processing is conducted in the company’s shore plants which allows for close operational accounting and management among all of the company’s branches and activities including hatchery, catchers, and processors. Information on the harvest area is monitored daily during the entire fishing period and is adequate for efficient utilization while making decisions during the season relating to fisheries management. However,

96 information on the geographic range of all harvest of unit target species is not estimated or monitored in-season in every year.

Indicator 1.1.1.4 - Indicator stocks (score = na) Indicators stocks are not utilized in the management of company salmon fisheries on Iturup. Management is based on population-specific objectives and escapement information. Included are both enhanced and un-enhanced populations and significant rivers and streams distributed throughout the fishery area.

Indicator 1.1.1.5 - Enhanced stocks (score = 70) There is general scientific agreement within the management system that impacts of enhanced fish on the resultant harvest rates or escapements of wild (un-enhanced) fish stocks do not significantly affect the sustainability of the wild populations. High harvest rates on the aggregate wild and hatchery stock are supported by the combination of high natural productivity on Iturup Island and an integrated hatchery program designed so that the natural environment drives the adaptation and fitness of a composite population of fish that spawns both in a hatchery and in the wild. There is some scientific basis for assuring that harvest rates for enhanced stocks are not adversely affecting the majority of wild populations. Hatchery releases are limited to two rivers and the majority of systems are managed solely for wild production. Fisheries are managed to that ensure natural spawning areas in all rivers are seeded to capacity. Hatcheries are operated to avoid significant changes in stock characteristics or competition between wild and hatchery fish. Broodstock numbers and mating protocols are designed to avoid potential selection and founder effects. Egg take is distributed throughout the duration of the run. No directed selection or grading occurs in the hatchery during incubation and rearing. Total hatchery releases have been limited to avoid exceeding the capacity of the nearshore rearing habitat for juveniles based on historical production data. Releases are distributed over several weeks and postponed until after the peak of natural fry outmigration to reduce the potential for negative interactions. Maximum opportunities for local imprinting are provided by rearing on river water prior to release and volitional releases protocols. Relative contributions of hatchery and natural-origin fish have been estimated based on hatchery release numbers and wild production inferred from natural escapements. These estimates suggested that hatchery production currently accounts for about 19 to 43% of pink salmon and 37 to 70% of chum salmon in the annual average run (combined harvest and escapement). Genetic characteristics of pink and chum salmon populations on Iturup have been evaluated to provide a basis for management and protection to protect natural stock structure. Hatchery and natural populations’ characteristics including run timing, age, sex ratio and size are also being monitored for potential hatchery-related changes. No hatchery-related divergence has been observed to date (Smirnov et al. 2006). Microsatellite markers show that Prostor Bay’s wild stock of chum salmon at Sopochnoye Lake differentiates from the Reydovaya stock, and the Kurilsky Bay’s wild stock of Rybatskaya River does from the Kurilka stock as well (Zhivotovsky et al. 2008). This genetic differentiation indicates low gene flow from the hatchery stock into the wild population within each of the two bays, and thus little impact of the enhanced populations on wild stocks. Hatchery stray rates into natural spawning areas have not been quantified but run timing data might provide some indication that stray rates may not be significant. Pink salmon run timing varies in different portions of both the Kurilka and Reydovaya systems. For instance, spawners in the Kurilka River mainstem where the hatchery is located, predominately return during the

97 peak of the run. About 50% of the natural production capacity in the Kurilka comes from the mainstem. Spawners in two downstream tributaries, each comprising about 25% of the productive capacity, are earlier-timed and later-timed on average than the mainstem spawners. This difference is consistent over time which would be unlikely if hatchery stray rates among tributaries were high. While the 60 scoring guideposts are met for this indicator, the 80 scoring guideposts are only partially met by the existing program. Both enhanced and wild (un-enhanced) stocks are harvested at the same time and harvest is regulated to meet escapement objectives established for the wild production areas, but information on stock composition (i.e. hatchery and natural fish) in the spawning escapement of wild production areas is insufficient to determine whether those goals are met with naturally-produced fish. The extent and significance of hatchery straying is unclear; hence, it is difficult to confirm other information that indicates the presence of enhanced fish in the management units does not adversely impact the wild (un-enhanced) fish stocks. Estimates of relative production of hatchery and wild fish are available at the juvenile stage but comparable estimates for spawners would require marking of hatchery-origin fish. In 2006, the company initiated development of a program to identify hatchery fish, including development of a pre-tagging baseline, unique marking of hatchery-reared fish, and accounting of the marked fish in the catches and in the spawning areas of the Rybatskaya, Kurilka, Olya and Reydovaya rivers. This will be a cooperative program involving the regional scientific (VNIRO, SakhNIRO) and management agencies (Sakhalin Rybvod). Mark-recapture studies will provide a scientific basis for direct estimation of the potential for hatchery impacts on the diversity of the wild populations and to estimate the reproductive effectiveness of the wild populations.

Condition 8. Complete implementation of hatchery marking and recapture studies to estimate proportions of hatchery-origin chum and pink in representative wild spawning rivers. Include a minimum of at least 3 brood years of marks to provide statistical replication and results representing normal temporal variation. Condition 9. Develop appropriate remedies for assuring that the presence of enhanced fish does not adversely affect the wild stock based on the results of stock composition studies. If hatchery fractions in non-hatchery rivers are low, then no further action may be needed. If hatchery fractions in non-hatchery rivers are significant, then appropriate remedies might include further research to evaluate effects or hatchery measures designed to reduce straying.

Subcriterion 1.1.2 Monitoring and assessment

Indicator 1.1.2.1 – Reliable estimates of removals (score = 78) Catch estimates are available for all target and non-target stocks harvested in the fishery. All commercial fishery catch is delivered directly to one of two local processing plants. Each delivery is weighed and fish delivery tickets are provided to the fishermen. Catches are entered in log books issued by fish inspection and maintained by each fishing boat. Deliveries are also logged by the plant. Minimal sorting of fish occurs at the fish traps prior to delivery as the catch is brailed alive from the trap into the live fish holds of the fishing boats. Obvious trap or predation mortalities may be discarded but these numbers are very low. Daily catches are sampled for biological characteristics and total daily catches of each species are logged. Catch totals are reported every 5 days by the company to the management authorities and written reports are also submitted twice per month. Fishermen log books are turned into the management

98 authority at the end of the fishing season. Additional information on total processed harvest is also available from plant fish production information. The management of the fishery, organization of processing and existing exchange of information between these two management agencies and the company provide exact information to estimate the catches of the non-target species, whether the non-target species is a significant component of the catch or is caught in insignificant amounts. Non-target species are by regulation permitted to be no more than 2 % of the total catch per unit of fishing effort but are typically much less. Mechanisms exist to ensure accurate catch reporting and these mechanisms are under regular evaluation by the management authorities. Fishery permits include extensive logging and reporting requirements which provide a basis for checking and cross checking information. Management authorities conduct regular inspections of the fishery and processors. Approximate annual catch estimates of enhanced (e.g., hatchery) fish are available post season from reconstructed hatchery and wild production data but recent estimates have not verified with empirical data on hatchery fractions in the catch. Direct estimates of hatchery numbers in the catch are not calculated. Thus some information exists on the catch of enhanced fish but the information does not entirely satisfy the 80 scoring guidepost standard.

Condition 10. Estimate hatchery contribution to the total annual harvests of pink and chum salmon utilizing hatchery marks described in Condition 2. This will involve temporally- stratified random subsampling of a portion of the catch for marks during biological sampling at the processing plants. Include a minimum of at least 3 fishery years to provide statistical replication and results representing normal temporal variation.

Indicator 1.1.2.2 – Reliable estimates of escapement (score = 73)) Estimates are available for the annual escapement of each target stock harvested in the fishery. In fact, estimates are available for every significant population of each target stock. Escapement data is collected for 14 pink and 6 chum populations, including the hatchery rivers. Annual escapements of pink and chum populations are estimated based on visual counts of fish during ground surveys. Escapement estimates are based on density indices (spawners/m2) in areas of suitable spawning habitat. Surveys also assess the rate of movement and distribution of the spawner fish. Counts are conducted at least 3 times per season and more frequently on major systems. Annual escapements are also estimated at weirs at the mouths of Reydovaya, Olya, Kurilka, and Rybatskaya rivers through direct counts by government and company representatives. Fishery independent indicators of spawning abundance are available for some non-target species (Iturup sockeye) but limited information is available for some species such as cherry salmon. Significant numbers of non-target species are not harvested in this fishery. Non-target species are required by law to comprise less than 2% of the total harvest and are typically much lower. This implies that any associated harvest rates are very low. In-season escapement data are collected for the target stocks and used to regulate the fishery. The fishery is intensively managed on a daily basis using in-season spawning ground, weir, and harvest data. Annual escapement objectives are established for each wild population harvested in the fishery. Escapements are provided in accordance with an annual schedule that provides for escapement times, daily escapement amounts and the locations where the fish-escapement devices are to be installed. The numbers of fish designated for escapement include the number of

99 spawner fish necessary for artificial reproduction in the fish hatcheries as well as the number of productive fish to be allowed to proceed to the natural spawning grounds. Local fish trap and weir operations are managed on a daily or hourly basis to ensure that escapement objectives are met for every individual population. Fish numbers, distribution, and movement patterns observed in ground survey and weir monitoring are used as necessary to adjust the escapement schedules for the spawners. Fish traps and weirs are opened and closed to ensure escapement adequate to reach but not exceed optimum spawner densities. The effectiveness of this management approach is facilitated by the close proximity of the fishery and the spawning areas. Enhanced fish are a significant component of the fishery and release locations can have a reasonable probability of affecting the management of some natural populations but information on the annual escapement and natural spawning of enhanced fish is incomplete. Approximate annual estimates of total hatchery and wild returns are available post-season from reconstructed hatchery and wild production data but estimates of the numbers and distribution of enhanced fish in natural production areas of hatchery and non-hatchery systems are not available. Estimates of the escapement and natural spawning of enhanced fish are made based on relative wild and hatchery production in each river and the proximity of hatchery release and natural production areas. This information does not provide the same site-specific detail on hatchery/wild ratios that might be obtained from recapture of marked hatchery fish but does provide the capability of estimating the escapement and natural spawning of enhanced fish sufficient to meet the corresponding 60 scoring guidepost.

Condition 11. Establish appropriate fishery-independent indicators of spawning abundance for significant non-target species. See also Condition 1 which will address the need for estimates of the annual escapement and natural spawning of enhanced fish.

Indicator 1.1.2.3 - Information on fish age and size (score = 90) Annual monitoring programs collect extensive data on the age and size of the catch and escapement for pink and chum target stocks. A systematic biological sub-sampling program of the catch is conducted at both processing plants. Average weight and sex data are collected frequently throughout the fish seasons. Age samples are collected from chum salmon. (Pink salmon ages are uniformly two years old so aging is unnecessary). Extensive annual biological sampling programs including sex, weight, length, (chum) age, and fecundity are conducted for salmon returning to the Kurilskiy and Reydovo hatcheries (Smirnov et al. 2007). Annual biological samples including length, weight, sex, and fecundity are collected from pink and chum (and age) salmon escapements in major systems (Kurilka, Rybatskaya, Reydovaya, and Olya) from study of the freshly harvested fish at the weirs, at the hatcheries (where roe is taken) and directly from the rivers and streams. Annual sampling programs are supplemented with more comprehensive research sampling programs. For instance, an extensive chum salmon research project was completed in 2006 which included daily population monitoring of the spawning stock, age structure, and biological sampling in the base rivers of the Kuriljskiy and Reydova Fish Hatcheries. Some information on age and size of non-target stocks is collected but the scientific basis for the scope of this sampling is unclear. Some non-target species, such as Sakhalin taimen, are so rare in Iturup Island, and particularly in the catches by Gidrostroy, that even if one or two specimen are caught, these very few fishes cannot provide any reliable statistical estimate of desirable

100 biological parameters (age distribution, average weight, average length, variation, etc.). The same is true for cherry salmon. Sockeye salmon are periodically represented in sufficient numbers to provide statistical estimates of biological parameters.

Indicator 1.1.2.4 - Productivity estimates (score = 85) Scientifically-defensible productivity estimates (e.g. stock/recruitment or production/survival relationships) have been derived for all target stocks. Production of juvenile and adult pink and chum salmon in the aggregate wild return is estimated from escapement and harvest data. Juvenile production of pink salmon at downstream migration is also monitored at control points in the Olya and Rybatskaya Rivers (there is no artificial enhancement in these rivers). Chum production estimates also involve brood year reconstructions based on age data. Production estimates consider the relative contributions of hatchery and wild fish based on relative hatchery and wild production levels. Productivity of pink salmon has been estimated for 1986 to present in hatchery and natural production areas (Chupakin 2007). Fluctuations in abundance of pink salmon have been found to be more dependent on marine survival than on the abundance of fry migrating downstream (Kaev et al. 2007). Productivity of chum salmon has been estimated in the Reydovaya River for 1993 to present and in the Kurilka River from 2002 to present. Outmigration of wild juveniles on the Kurilka and Reidovo rivers is not completed annually, and was not done in the last five years. The number of juveniles is determined by a counting method, from the data on escapement, concentration in the spawning grounds and survivability rates in similar rivers (Rybatskaya and Olya). Estimates of juvenile to adult survival rates are well above normal values for both pink and chum salmon which have raised questions among reviewers as to potential biases due to stock assessment errors, contributions of non-local stocks to the harvest, or biases due to large numbers of hatchery-origin fish. Evaluation of potential biases in current assessments will be facilitated by the marking of hatchery production identified in Condition 1. Current information is generally adequate to identify the harvest and production strategies required to maintain the high productivity of the target stocks. Trends in wild smolt-to-adult survival rates are monitored and evaluated relative to escapement and environmental conditions during outmigration. Spawner-smolt data have been used to corroborate stream-specific spawner density goals used to regulate escapement. Detailed spawner-recruit analyses have also been completed for pink salmon. Results indicate that that escapement objectives and escapement levels provided by current harvest limits and production strategies are consistent with high levels of wild production and yield. Risk assessments have not been conducted to determine the impact of alternative harvest strategies on non-target stocks. Fishery harvests of non-target stocks do not represent a significant component of those stocks and fishery impacts on target stocks are very low. The relative productivity of non-target stocks is unknown but the marginal incidental impacts of the fishery are consistent with no significant effect on net stock productivity. Fishery harvest limitations have been adopted to protect non-target stocks consistent with a precautionary approach in the face of limited data on their productivity. Restrictions on the harvest by-catch of non-target species established by the fishing regulations as a guide in managing the fishery allow no more than 2 % by weight of fishing effort of the total harvest of permitted species (except mammals, crabs and shrimp). These restrictions were based on a qualitative assessment by the management authorities. Subcriterion 1.1.3 Management goals

101 Indicator 1.1.3.1 - Limit Reference Points (score = 87) Operational Limit Reference Points for pink and chum salmon have been established by the regional management authorities based on minimum escapement requirements. Fisheries are managed to ensure that minimum requirements are met for each population. The fishery is regulated or closed accordingly. LRP’s are defined to protect the stocks harvested by the fisheries by ensuring that the available spawning areas are seeded to near capacity (equivalent to approximately 80% of maximum production). The extent of review of regulatory limits by scientists outside the management system is unclear. The scientific basis for the minimum escapement requirements includes: 1) estimates of suitable spawning areas defined based on habitat characteristics and fish use, and 2) fish spawning densities associated with maximum production (2 spawners/m² for pinks salmon and 1.6 spawners/m² for chum salmon). The long-standing spawner density requirements have been derived by the governmental science agency (Sakniro) for regional application based on a review of historical data. The suitability of these generalized spawner densities to Iturup salmon populations have been validated by long term monitoring results. Spawner requirements are used to compile a schedule of escapement to the natural spawning grounds over the duration of the run. Schedule implementation is coordinated with the governmental fishery monitoring agency (Sakhalinrybvod). Changes in the Limit Reference Point may be made only under two circumstances: if the area of the spawning grounds has been re-evaluated or if the standard density of spawners has been re-evaluated. No changes are accepted in-season. Limit Reference Points for fishery harvest of non-target stocks are based on regulatory allowances of not more than 2% by weight of fishing effort of the total harvest of permitted species (except mammals, crabs and shrimp). This limit was established by the management system to limit impacts to non-target species to sustainable levels. However, the corresponding exploitation rates on non-target species are not estimated and the efficacy of the 2% limit on local populations on non-target species is difficult to ascertain.

Indicator 1.1.3.2 - Target reference points (score = 87) Operational Target Reference Points for pink salmon are based on optimum population-specific escapement requirements. As with LRPs, the scientific basis for optimum pink escapement objectives includes: 1. Estimates of suitable spawning areas defined based on habitat characteristics and fish use. 2. Fish spawning densities associated with maximum production (2.2-2.6 spawners/m² for pinks salmon). The long-standing spawner density objectives have been derived by the governmental science agency (Sakniro) for regional application based on a review of historical data. The suitability of these generalized spawner densities to Iturup salmon populations have been validated by long term monitoring results. Pink salmon objectives appear to be informal objectives utilized by the local managers and are defined to achieve maximum production of the freshwater spawning habitat. Optimum pink salmon escapement objectives take into account variability in the productivity of each pink salmon population. Pink salmon objectives have been identified by the regional scientific authorities but the extent of review by scientists outside the management system is unclear. Chum salmon escapement goals are based on the limit reference point criteria (minimum of 1.6 spawners/m2). We are unaware of additional target reference points for chum salmon comparable to those used for pink salmon.

102 Target reference points have not been established for non-target species. Harvest of non-target species is regulated by Limit Reference Points (non-target species may comprise not more than 2% by weight of total harvest of permitted species).

10.1.3 CRITERION 1.2 - FISHERY ALLOWS FOR THE RECOVERY OF DEPLETED TARGET STOCKS.

Indicator 1.2.1 - Well-defined and effective strategy (score = na) No depleted target stocks have been identified.

Indicator 1.2.2 - Stocks not depleted and harvest rates are sustainable (score = 90) There is general agreement among regional fisheries scientist inside the management system that the methods of estimating escapements and exploitation rates for the target stocks are scientifically defensible. The degree of review of methods of estimating escapements and exploitation rates for the target stocks among regional fisheries scientist outside the management system is unclear. Management actions have reduced fishing as the target stocks approach the LRP and fisheries have only resulted in escapements that approach or are below the LRP escapement goal in no more than one year in a period of the most recent 10 consecutive years, for any of the target stocks. Chupakhin has catch data for pink from 1985 to present. 1993 represents the lowest catch year in that span with a take of 7210 mt, still much higher than LRP. There was no commercial harvest of chum in Kurilskiy Bay from 1985 through 2006 due to very low numbers. The 1984 chum catch was 99.3 mt and since resumption of commercial chum fishing in Kurilskiy Bay numbers have been well above control points, utilizing the 1.6 spawners/m2 formula.

10.1.4 CRITERION 1.3 - FISHING DOES NOT IMPAIR REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY

Indicator 1.3.1 - Age, sex, and genetic structure monitored (score = 90) The knowledge of the effect of fishing on biological characteristics such as the age, size, sex and component stocks is adequate to detect threats to the reproductive capacity of the target stocks. Extensive data are collected on the biological characteristics of the catch and escapement and evaluated for inter-annual trends. No effects or trends attributable to fishery selection are apparent. Management actions are consistent with maintaining healthy target stocks relative to biological characteristics such as age, size, sex and genetic structure of all target stocks. The fish trap used in this fishery is not inherently selective for different sizes, ages, or sexes of fish. Fishery exploitation rates are high and the fishery occurs in near-shore marine waters directly adjacent to spawning streams where selectivity could potentially result from differential exploitation of different portions of the run timing across which biological characteristics vary. However, fishery management structures have been designed and implemented to ensure that harvest and escapement is distributed across the breadth of the run. While there is no basis for suspecting significant fishery selection, knowledge of the effect of fishing on all biological characteristics cannot be considered comprehensive. Examples of comprehensive analyses would include comparisons of biological characteristics between the catch and escapement, and monitoring of the genetic structure of the target stocks consistently relative to exploitation. Comprehensive analysis of this nature would be more appropriate in fisheries where methods provided a high potential for selection, which is not the case on Iturup.

103 The management system includes provisions to minimize any adverse impacts to the genetic structure of wild (un-enhanced) stocks that may be due to the enhancement of other stocks. However, enhanced fish are not identified and managed as separate target stocks. Iturup pink and chum hatcheries are managed as an integrated, benign component of a composite hatchery- natural population returning to the Kurilka and Reydovaya rivers. Hatchery broodstock, rearing, and release practices are designed to avoid domestication or selection effects on genetics and to minimize ecological interactions with wild fish. Only local broodstock are utilized and broodstock include hatchery and natural-origin fish returning to the hatchery rivers. Hatchery releases occur only in two rivers and the majority of the rivers and available spawning habitat are reserved as natural production areas. Fisheries are implemented to ensure that wild escapements objectives are met and to selective harvest.

104 10.2 Principle 2: Ecosystem and Non-target Populations

10.2.1 SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (SCORE = 81) The fishery passes Principle 2 criteria based on a weighted average score greater than 80 and all indicators scoring at least 60. Scores for one indicator fell between 60 an 80 – this issue is addressed by condition 1 identified for Principle 1.

Criteria @ 100 Criteria @ 80 Criteria @ 60 Score Weight 1234567 12345678 12345 0-100 PRINCIPLE 2 - Ecosystem and Non-Target Populations 0.33 Criterion 2.1 - Maintain natural functional relationships among species 0.50 Indicator 2.1.1 Impacts on non-target species identified 0.5 0 na na 1 1 1 1 85 0.25 Indicator 2.1.2 Provisions to reduce ecosystem impacts 0 0 0 na na 1 na na 1 1 80 0.25 Indicator 2.1.3 Sufficient research on ecosystem impacts 00.5101 na111na 1111 90 0.10 Indicator 2.1.4 Escapement goals address ecosystem needs 00 11 1 80 0.15 Indicator 2.1.5 Non-fishing impacts on habitat degradation 000 11na 111 80 0.25 Criterion 2.2 - Fishery minimizes impacts on endangered, threatened or protected species 0.25 Indicator 2.2.1 Information on biological diversity acquired and used by managers 0000 111 111 80 0.50 Indicator 2.2.2 Hatchery management avoids impacts on genetics and reproduction 10.51 1 1 1 77 0.50 Criterion 2.3 - Fishery allows for the recovery of depleted stocks (Non-target Stocks) 0.25 Indicator 2.3.1 Provide for recovery of non-target stocks na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na 1.00

10.2.2 CRITERION 2.1 - MAINTAIN NATURAL FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SPECIES

Indicator 2.1.1 - Impacts on non-target species identified (score = 85) A monitoring program exists that provides estimates of fish bycatch that meet statistical criteria acceptable to external reviewers and historic monitoring data is readily available to stakeholder groups and external reviewers. Estimation of the by-catch using approved statistical criteria is mandatory for the company and is required by external control inspectors. All commercial fishery catch is delivered directly to one of two local processing plants. Each delivery is weighed and fish delivery tickets are provided to the fishermen. The existing monitoring program allows the volumes and species of fish caught to be entered into the Fishing Log after each fishing operation and delivery of catch for processing. Deliveries are also logged by the plant. Catch totals are reported every 5 days by the company to the management authorities and written reports are also submitted twice per month. Fishermen log books are turned into the management authority at the end of the fishing season. No bycatch of marine mammals or birds has been reported. Small numbers of obvious trap or predation mortalities may be discarded at the fish traps and any taimen caught are required to be immediately released. Discards and mortality are relatively low in this fishery. Fish in fish traps are live. They are transferred to boats by lifting the nets and spilling the fish into the holds of small boats filled with seawater. The fish are transported live to the processing facilities either directly by the small fishing boats or through a second transfer to a larger transport vessel, as in the case of the more remote rivers North of the processing plants. Some fish are found dead in the nets and are removed by the fishermen. These do not appear to be recorded. Causes of mortality appear to be two; one due to overcrowding in the nets, and the second due to predation by a local marine mammal that swims into the traps and preys on the fish. While extensive historical monitoring data are maintained by the management agencies, this data is not readily available to stakeholder groups and external reviewers. Information can be provided upon request by specific parties but is not otherwise routinely reported in annual post-

105 season reports that are normally distributed in paper or electronic form beyond the immediate management authorities. Loss or dereliction of gear is rare or nonexistent in this fishery. Trap nets are heavily anchored and also attached to the shore. Traps damaged by storms typically are deposited on the beaches. Fishing brigades are required by permit condition to maintain gear and to remove it after the fishery. The cost of net replacement in this remote area also provides significant incentive for avoiding lost or damaged gear. Net mesh is small, twine is heavy and significant numbers of fish are not gilled even if nets become tangled.

Indicator 2.1.2 – Provisions to reduce ecosystem impacts (score = 80) The fishery is implemented and directed by the management system in a manner that minimizes effects on the marine ecosystem. Ecosystem impacts are not explicitly considered by the management system but are implicitly addressed by spawner density targets (difference between weir and spawning ground numbers are the ecosystem contribution). Hatchery production levels have also been reduced from historical peaks in order to avoid density-dependent reductions in survival of juveniles due to competition in marine near-shore areas (historical goals were much higher in the past when hatchery performance was evaluated based on juveniles produced rather than adult returns). The fishery is concentrated on target species in terminal areas near spawning grounds and effects on other species are negligible. Impacts on non-target species are very low and restricted by regulation to less than 2% of the total catch. In the event that problems are identified, fisheries managers require adjustments to reduce impacts on non-target species. No conflicts have been identified between the harvest of fish and ecosystem concerns stemming from salmon removal. No ecosystem problems have been identified. The management system has not identified significant bycatch concerns and as a result has not incorporated a formal risk assessment for impacts. Nor have the effects of the fishery on the marine ecosystem has been explicitly evaluated to the best of our knowledge. Research is available on marine piscivores that utilize the target species but it unclear whether research has explicitly considered the effects of the subject fishery on populations of these piscivores.

Indicator 2.1.3 - Sufficient research to manage ecosystem impacts (score = 90) The management system has effectively implemented a very selective fishery for Iturup pink and chum salmon. Bycatch is minimal, no problem areas have been identified, and consequently research to reduce or identify problems is not ongoing. The management system recognizes effects of climate change on salmon production and has a record of incorporating such information when developing harvest plans so that stocks are not over harvested although detailed knowledge of the relationship between salmon production and climate trends is incomplete. Prevailing climate patterns over the last twenty years have been very favorable for pink and chum salmon production throughout the western North Pacific. Annual survival patterns of Iturup pink and chum are being monitored and the regional management system is also conducting research of climate patterns, trends, and their effects on fish productivity. Recent evaluations have led to a conclusion that conditions for pink and chum survival are likely to be favorable over the next 10 to 12 years, followed by a possible worsening after that. Annual variability in productivity patterns are effectively addressed by the current management practice of ensuring adequate spawning escapements as a first priority. It remains to be seen whether the management system can rapidly and effectively respond to any potential

106 future systemic downturn in ocean production due to a climate regime shift to ensure that stocks are not overharvested. When new problems are identified, the management plans require a new monitoring program be instituted to determine the effectiveness of new measures and the management system has a proven history of incorporating new research findings into management plans. Significant research is implemented by the governmental scientific agency and company. Appropriate research is required of the company as a condition of their fishing permit. Annual research plans are prepared and implemented by the governmental scientific agency to address critical problems and uncertainties as identified. The management plan allows for between-season assessment and institution of new controls on the fishery or stakeholder consultation following the identification of bycatch problems or ecosystem related impacts. Current regulations mandate the implementation of controls if bycatch exceeds 2% of the total harvest or if protection measures for sensitive species are violated. We are unaware of any problems that have caused the management system was required to closing fisheries due to bycatch mortality. Nor are we aware of any cases where stakeholder concerns regarding the balance between Iturup fish harvests and ecosystem concerns that have the management system have failed to address.

Indicator 2.1.4 – Monitoring and research related to escapement goals (score = 80) Current scientific information is adequate to ensure that salmon escapements and carcasses are adequate to sustain functional freshwater ecosystem processes and to identify tradeoffs between harvests and freshwater ecosystem concerns. The management system provides for effective communication of scientific information among the fishery managers and fish scientists employed by the company so that the results can be used to ensure escapements are adequate for meeting freshwater ecosystem needs. The current management system provides escapements that consistently seed the available spawning areas to the productive capacity of each system. Habitats across the sparsely-populated island are in excellent conditions and support a diverse and productive native ecosystem including large numbers of bears, birds, marine mammals, and resident fish species that benefit from consistent large returns of salmon. In fact, careful regulation of fisheries and escapements helps avoid excessive escapements which can result in depensatory production, water quality and disease issues due to excessive escapements and periodic large die-offs of spawners in these small systems. The company conducts continual monitoring of the hydrochemical composition of the water in all sources of water used for salmon reproduction; monitoring of the condition of the pre-coastal sea water based on chemical and bacteriological indicators. While information and practices are effective to sustain robust ecosystem function, there appears to have been limited direct research of tradeoffs between salmon harvests with ecosystem concerns. Research results in this system are often used primarily for internal purposes and results and conclusions may not always be readily available to outside stakeholders.

Indicator 2.1.5 - Research on habitat degradation from non-fishing activities (score = 80) Iturup Island is a largely-undeveloped location that completely lacks any heavy or light industry. Fishing is the only industry related to harvest and processing. Agriculture is represented only in the form of personal plots. There is no logging or agriculture conducted in the headlands or the spawning areas. For these reasons, no problems with habitat degradation have been identified for

107 any local salmon populations on the portion of Iturup Island associated with the fishery of concern. Research is conducted by the governmental management agencies in other more-developed parts of the region including evaluations of the effects of major habitat degradation on natural salmon productivity and capacity, though quantitative estimates not always available and it is unclear how cumulative effects are considered. Management has track record for attempting to minimize or mitigate impacts of habitat degradation and all developmental and resource extraction activities are subject to extensive regulatory processes.

10.2.3 CRITERION 2.2 - FISHERY MINIMIZES IMPACTS ON ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR PROTECTED SPECIES

Indicator 2.2.1 - Information on biological diversity acquired and used by managers (score = 80) The fishery has been monitored and the removals are assessed with a special effort to determine presence of rare, endangered, protected, or icon species. Stock composition of harvests is known and the likelihood of harvest of endangered, threatened, protected, or icon species has been estimated although formal risk assessments have not been warranted by the observed levels of non-target species. All fishing operations are subject to monitoring and all catch results are evaluated upon harvest and entered into the Fishing Logs. In addition, a more careful sorting and identification of the harvested species is conducted at the processing facility, the results of which are reported to the fishing teams to adjust catches on a rapid basis. Sorting at the processing facility permits accuracy to the individual fish and to the kilogram in determining rare species (such as coho and sockeye) and species that are protected by law (taimen). This data indicates that rare species are encountered either very infrequently (sockeye) or never (coho, taimen). The fishery managers and local enforcement authorities monitor fishery practices and catch accounting. Catch accounting and monitoring occurs primarily in the processing plans after offloading from the tender boats. The management system has a history of incorporating new research into management as new research data on impacts of fisheries on biodiversity become available and also includes provisions for harvest reduction when biodiversity concerns are identified for target or non-target species.

Indicator 2.2.2 - Hatchery management minimizes impacts on natural salmon (score = 77) Hatchery programs are subject to extensive guidelines and a rigorous review process by the governmental management authorities that evaluated hatchery practices for their ability to minimize hatchery effects on natural spawning salmon populations caused by interbreeding between hatchery and natural salmon, competition for food and space (juveniles and adults), and predation by juvenile hatchery salmon on natural salmon fry. Hatchery activities are strictly monitored and controlled the government agencies Rosrybolovstvo, Rosprirodnadzor, etc. Recommendations of the review have been implemented by the hatcheries and the available information indicates that interactions are mostly minimal. Key measures use of local broodstock, strict broodstock number and mating protocols, avoidance of hatchery selectivity in broodstock selection or rearing practices, release timing designed to avoid competition with wild fish, and release numbers based on observed capacity of nearshore rearing habitats for wild and hatchery fish. Effects of hatchery interactions with natural salmon have been investigated and documented in most watersheds although evaluations of hatchery interactions are constrained by the lack of

108 current data on the proportion of hatchery-origin pink and chum salmon in natural spawning areas. The hatchery system is essentially being managed as an “integrated” program where potentially detrimental effects of hatchery selection and domestication on wild stock genetics and production are avoided by regular incorporation of wild fish into the hatchery broodstock. For this approach to be effective, it is important to ensure that the hatchery/natural origin ratio is comparable on the spawning grounds and in the hatchery brood stock.

Condition 12. Upon implementation of hatchery marking and recapture studies identified in Condition 1, estimate proportions of wild-origin chum and pink in the hatchery broodstock and take appropriate measures to ensure that adequate numbers of natural-origin fish are used in the broodstock each year in order to avoid potential domestication or selection. Include a minimum of at least 3 brood years of marks to provide statistical replication and results representing normal temporal variation.

10.2.4 CRITERION 2.3 - FISHERY ALLOWS FOR RECOVERY OF DEPLETED NON-TARGET STOCKS.

Indicator 2.3.1 – Recovery of non-target stocks (score = na) No depleted non-target stocks are significant in this fishery. Sakhalin taimen is one sensitive species endemic to the region including areas other areas of Iturup Island but is rarely or never encountered by the fishery. Current regulations require immediate live release if any taimen are taken in the fish traps.

109 10.3 Principle 3 Management and Operational Framework

10.3.1 SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (SCORE = 89) The fishery passes Principle 3 criteria based on a weighted average score greater than 80 and all indicators scoring at least 60. Scores for two indicators fell between 60 an 80. One issue is addressed by condition 1 identified for Principle 1. An additional condition (#4) was identified to address the second issue.

Criteria @ 100 Criteria @ 80 Criteria @ 60 Score Weight 1234567 12345678 12345 0-100 INCIPLE 3 - Management and Operational Framework Management Framework 0.333 Criterion 3.1 - Management system consistent with MSC principles and criteria 0.327 Indicator 3.1.1 Clear and defensible set of objectives 110.511 11111 111 98 0.150 Indicator 3.1.2 Periodic assessment of biological status 110 111 111 93 0.050 Indicator 3.1.3 Identify the impact of fishing on the ecosystem 0.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 90 0.050 Indicator 3.1.4 Uses best information and precautionary approach 0.5 1 na 0.5 1 1 na 1 na 1 93 0.100 Indicator 3.1.5 Responses to new information are timely and adaptive 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 90 0.050 Indicator 3.1.6 Responsive to social and economic impact of fishery 1111 na111 1111 100 0.050 Indicator 3.1.7 Useful and relevant information to decision makers 011 11 11 93 0.150 Indicator 3.1.8 Socioeconomic incentives for sustainable fishing 1110.51 1111 11 98 0.100 Indicator 3.1.9 Mngmnt protects habitat ?? 1 1 80 0.150 Indicator 3.1.10 Hatchery mngmnt protects genetics and reproduction 10 11 70 0.150 Criterion 3.2 - Framework for research pertinent to management 0.1 Indicator 3.2.1 Research plan for target and non-target species 10000.5111 11 71 0.667 Indicator 3.2.2 Research is timely, available and reviewed 0000.5 1111 111 83 0.333 Criterion 3.3 - Transparency in operations and consultation process 0.041 Indicator 3.3.1 Open consultations process 1110.5 1111 1 98 1 Criterion 3.4 - Measure to control levels of harvest 0.179 Subcriterion 3.4.1 - Catch and exploitation levels 0.5 Indicator 3.4.1.1 Fishery control systems including no-take zones 11111 1111 11 100 0.5 Indicator 3.4.1.2 Measures to restore depleted fish populations 00 11 1 80 0.5 Subcriterion 3.4.2 - Ensure that conservation objectives are met. 0.5 Indicator 3.4.2.1 Compliance provisions (effective enforcement) 0111 11 1 95 0.5 Indicator 3.4.2.2 Monitoring provisions 10.5 1 75 0.5 Criterion 3. 5 - Regular and timely review of management system 0.152 Indicator 3.5.1 Internal review 00 11 1 80 0.316 Indicator 3.5.2 External review 011 111 1 93 0.258 Indicator 3.5.3 Recommendations from reviews incorporated 00 1 1 80 0.284 Indicator 3.5.4 Mechanism for resolving disputes 000 111 1 80 0.142 Criterion 3.6 - Compliance with legal and administrative requirements 0.124 Indicator 3.6.1 Compliance with international agreements 111 111 1 100 0.25 Indicator 3.6.2 Compliance with domestic laws and regulations 11 1100 0.375 Indicator 3.6.3 Observes legal and customary (First Nation) rights na na na na na na 0.375 Fisheries Operational Famework Criterion 3.7 - Ecosystem sensitive gear and fishing practices 0.077 Indicator 3.7.1 Minimal non-target catch and mortality 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 90 0.277 Indicator 3.7.2 No destructive fishing practices 11 1 1 100 0.139 Indicator 3.7.3 Minimize operational waste 111 11 1 100 0.128 Indicator 3.7.4 Cooperation of fishers 0.5 1 1 1 95 0.328 Indicator 3.7.5 Fishing methods minimize impacts on habitat 111 11 1 100 0.128

10.3.2 CRITERION 3.1 - MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONSISTENT WITH MSC PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA

Indicator 3.1.1 - Clear and defensible set of objectives (score = 98) Management objectives are clearly defined for all of the target stocks and are consistent with the MSC criteria for a well-managed fishery. Objectives are defined in the fishing permits for each area. Permits establish minimum escapement goals, a priority to meet escapement goals, and also include a requirement to maintain the fishing grounds. Harvest rates and escapement goals are precisely set for each target stock unit in the fishery, as qualified by relevant environmental factors. Total allowable catches are established annually for target stocks by the management system based on forecast returns and escapement objectives.

110 Target Reference Points and Limit Reference Points for the natural stock are clearly defined and documented for each target stock unit in the fishery. Limit reference points are established by regulation of the management system for pink and chum escapements of all significant populations in the form of spawner densities in suitable habitat and escapement schedules. Target reference points are informally established by the management system and used to regulate escapements of pink salmon. Limit reference points serve some of this same purpose for chum salmon. Harvest controls are effective with respect to the attainment of management objectives for each target stock unit in the fishery. Escapement and fishery harvest are intensively monitored and managed in-season to ensure that escapement goals are achieved. The system also includes provisions for in-season adjustments by local managers of fisheries and catch allowances which adjust for forecast errors due to normal environmental variation. The management system provides estimates for all catches, landings and bycatch in a timely manner. Fishery catch data is recorded for every delivery, compiled daily, and reported every 5 days to the governmental monitoring agency. Daily information is available upon request or upon periodic inspection of the processing plant by the monitoring agency.

Indicator 3.1.2 - Periodic assessment of biological status of target species (score = 93) There is an annual assessment or update of the status of stocks for each major target stock unit in the fishery. Data on the condition of target species populations are reviewed annually by the local and regional offices of the scientific agency (SakhNIRO and VNIRO). Based on this, their TAC is calculated and approved. When results of the assessments or updates indicate that there has been a substantial change in the status of the stocks, this new information is made available to stakeholders in conjunction with the implementation of changes to management measures. Calculation of the TAC takes all of the available information into consideration. If there are data on changes in the condition of the populations (whether this is an increase or a decrease in numbers), recommendations are developed for increasing or decreasing the TAC, or there might be recommendations to close certain fishing areas to fishing, or to the contrary, recommend that fishing be started in new areas. Schedules and information flow about forecasts, when information is submitted to the Department of Fisheries of the Sakhalin Oblast, must be coordinated with SakhNIRO. Reports on the methodologies used for the assessments are published in non-peer reviewed reports, and reviewed by the management authorities. Each year, TINRO-Central (Vladivostok) issues a collection named “Fish Run Forecast for the Year ……” where forecasts are published on the numbers and harvests of target populations of Russian Federation Far East salmon. Publication of fishery management methodologies in peer-reviewed journals is infrequent and the degree of review by authorities outside of the management system is unclear.

Indicator 3.1.3 – Identify impact of fishing on the ecosystem (score = 90) The management system includes mechanisms to identify and evaluate the impact of fishing on the ecosystem. These include an intensive local monitoring program including management authorities from fish inspection, the governmental scientific agency, and scientific staff employed by the company. The current monitoring systems provide observational and indicator- level information on the potential impact of fishing on the ecosystem including bycatch of target species and escapement goals which provide for high levels of fish production for harvest and ecosystem benefits (nutrients, bears, etc.). The management system has clear and well-defined

111 objectives for managing and evaluating the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem. These include limits of bycatch (2% of the total harvest) and requirements for live release of taimen. Control mechanisms are used by the management system to minimize impacts of fishing on the ecosystem. Native Iturup ecosystems are essentially intact but it is unclear whether the management system has clear and well-defined objectives for evaluating and managing the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem in the event that ecosystem impacts on the ecosystem are identified. The adequacy of control mechanisms for meeting ecosystem management objectives has not been tested by the occurrence of significant problems. Evidence for the adequacy of current ecosystem-related objectives (the 2% bycatch cap and taimen release requirements).

Indicator 3.1.4 – Uses best information and precautionary approach (score = 93) The management system provides for consistent although not necessarily routine assessment of the level of uncertainty in the information collected for management. Management controls take into account these uncertainties, using the best available scientific information and a precautionary approach. Controls include intensive in-season management of the fishery to provide for adequate escapements while making real time adjustments for run size forecast errors and variance in run timing. The effectiveness of this approach is facilitated by the terminal nature of the fishery. The management system implements research efforts to address data gaps. Research is conducted by the governmental scientific agency and by the company implementing the fishery. Recent examples include genetics studies (Zhivotovsky et al. 2008), hatchery evaluations (Mizina and Molchanov 2007), and pink salmon production trends (Kaev et al. 2007). No newly developing fisheries exist on Iturup but the management system implements controls on the development of the fishery that are precautionary in nature. The management system considers the effect of implementation uncertainty on the effectiveness of most of the proposed management actions. Quantitative evaluations are used to consider whether escapement goals are being met to compare forecast and actual harvests. Other evaluations of the effect of implementation uncertainty (the tendency for actual harvest rates or escapements to differ from those intended by the management regulations) on the effectiveness of the proposed management actions are typically qualitative and adaptive rather than quantitative and formal.

Indicator 3.1.5 - Responses to new information are timely and adaptive (score = 90) The management system provides a mechanism for responding to unexpected changes in the fishery. Adjustments in system implementation can be implemented rapidly where they fall within the scope of normal management processes. The management system reacts on a timely and flexible basis, provides a mechanism for introducing quick corrections and improving current fisheries management measures. Thus, changes in total allowable catches, fishing schedules, and escapement objectives are effectively managed in a timely manner at the local level. When new information or findings support altering implementation of existing management and conservation programs, adjustments are made within 12 months of obtaining the new information. For example, the company and the governmental scientific body completed a biological analysis of chum in the Kurilka River in December 2006. The data obtained permitted a correction to be made in the plan for 2007 on the escapement of spawners to the natural

112 spawning grounds (escapement schedule), as well as correction of the predicted numbers of chum in the Kurilka River to a larger amount, which, in turn, required changes to be made to the harvest plan for the harvestable portion of the population. However, more systematic changes and effective changes in more centralized management structures and processes are made with difficulty. Recent reorganization of centralized management authority for establishing or revising the TAC and allocating harvests among stakeholders is an example of this difficulty.

Indicator 3.1.6 - Responsive to social and economic impact of fishery (score = 100) The management system regularly considers the views, customs and interests of indigenous peoples whose livelihood or food are dependent on the fishery and impact of the fishery on coastal communities that are closely tied to the fishery. A formal public process has been established for annual allocation of the allowable harvest among the various fishing interests. This process explicitly considers the needs of the indigenous peoples (although no indigenous people are found on Iturup Island). This process has greatly benefited the local economy of Iturup Island, providing consistent employment and much-enhanced services. The company also supports the local community by providing fish free of charge to local senior people, schools, hospitals, and the poor, and at a reduced cost to employees of the company.

There are no direct subsidies to the fishing industry. The management system regularly seeks and considers input from stakeholders through a public TAC allocation process in an effort to understand and address socioeconomic issues related to the fishery.

Indicator 3.1.7 - Useful and relevant information to decision makers (score = 93) The management system provides managers with a range of alternatives for management although risk assessments of alternatives are typically informal rather than formal. There is a place in the TAC review process where alternatives and risks can be introduced and this process provides an opportunity for proposal and consideration of alternatives. All management decisions are based on useful and relevant information and advice that is provided through the management system. The management system, whenever possible, provides information to decision makers within a time frame that permits management controls to be determined before they need to be taken.

Indicator 3.1.8 - Socioeconomic incentives for sustainable fishing (score = 98) The Gidrostroy Iturup fishery is unique in that the fishing company has been assigned long term and exclusive rights to the harvest fish produced in the fishing area but also responsibility for maintaining the fish runs. This has led to extensive investment by the company into local fishing infrastructure and the community. This system has provided a strong socioeconomic incentive for sustainable fishing. Stable production trends for pink salmon and recent improvements in natural chum production trends on Iturup Island can be considered evidence for the efficacy of the system on Iturup. While the management system appears to provide a strong socioeconomic incentive for sustainable fishing on Iturup, it is unclear whether it has been similarly effective in other areas of the region including Sakhalin and Kamchatka. This evaluation is specific to the Gidrostroy Iturup Island fishery which may not be a representative of the rest of the region due to differences in habitation and accessibility.

113 The management system has formal procedure for providing social and economic incentives to stakeholders in the fishery to develop and utilize sustainable fishing practices, particularly the development of selective fishing gear and practices that lead to improved conservation. The management system creates strong incentives for harvesters to not exceed target catches or exploitation rates. The qualifier is that we are unaware of evidence that a permit has been revoked by the management system for consistently exceeding target catches or exploitation rates. The stakeholders in the fishery regularly avail themselves of the opportunity to utilize these incentives. Evidence provided by the management system demonstrates that such incentives have contributed to improved conservation. The management system consistently attempts to understand the impact of their decisions on social and economic factors affecting the stakeholders in the fishery and regularly takes action to mitigate the impacts on stakeholders.

Indicator 3.1.9 - Management protects habitat (score = 80) The management agencies participate in regulatory decisions that may affect fish habitat and have a proven track record for protection of fish habitat although the extent of their regulatory authority for protection of fish habitat in the face of competing economic interests is unclear. The management agencies have a proven track record for protection of fish habitat on Iturup Island although developmental pressure and habitat threats on the island are not severe.

Indicator 3.1.10 - Hatchery management protects genetics and reproduction (score = 70) The management agencies have an agreement that establishes protocol for all hatchery programs with respect to practices that sustain the genetic structure and productivity of the natural stocks. Hatchery marking studies have been completed in past years but the hatcheries do not currently mark all production with coded-wire-tags (CWTs) or other suitable marks such that reliable and meaningful estimates of hatchery composition of the catch and escapement can be computed. see Conditions 1 and 5.

10.3.3 CRITERION 3.2 - FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH PERTINENT TO MANAGEMENT

Indicator 3.2.1 - Research plan for target and non-target species (score = 71) The management system incorporates a research component that provides for the collection and analysis of information necessary for formulating management strategies and decisions for both target and non-target species. Annual research plans are developed and implemented by the government scientific agency and the company. A planning program to determine the size of research required and additional research on salmon and other target species is in place, and the result of this planning is the industry-wide "Plan for resource research and government monitoring of aquatic bioresources for the current year". Under current law, the Plan is coordinated with all interested federal ministries and agencies and is approved by the Fisheries Committee of Russia. This Plan stipulates the amounts and content of scientific research work to be conducted by all fisheries-related institutes for all commercial target species, including salmon. Scientific research work is conducted year- round. During the salmon season, scientific research work covers the entire span of the fisheries period, taking account of both commercial fisheries fish and non-fisheries fish species. The plan takes into consideration the impact of commercial fisheries activities on the ecosystem, inasmuch

114 as it is approved only after a positive conclusion by government ecological experts with respect to the materials used to justify the TAC amounts of aquatic bioresources for the up-coming year. Among other things, these materials contain an evaluation of the impact of the fishery (harvest) on the communities and the ecosystems. TINRO, as a scientific research commercial fisheries institute, conducts annual planning of scientific research work as described above, and also is one of the executors of the Plan within the scope of its responsibility. All programs and research plans approved by the State Fisheries Committee of Russia, including their financing, are available at www.fishcom.ru. The degree to which the research plan addresses concerns related to the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem is unclear. Data on the catch, landings and discards of non-target species provides some information leading to an understanding of the dynamics of the ecosystem although dedicated ecosystem research appears to be limited.

Socioeconimic issues are addressed in two main ways. Firstly by a Deputy Agency Head (currently Valeriy Viktorovich Kholodov) at the Federal Fisheries Agency whose responsibilities, as defined in Federal Fisheries Agency Order #233, include,  comprehensive economic analysis of the condition and forecast plans for social/economic and scientific/technical development of the industry over the long-, medium- and short- terms;  economic analysis, planning and control over commercial economic activity of the organizations subordinate to the Agency;  directed, targeted, departmental and other federal programs within the Agency's established sphere of activity;  draft the portion of the federal budget that concerns the financing of the activities of the Agency, its territorial offices, the Agency's representative offices and representatives abroad, and its subordinate organizations;  plan the Agency's work, including formulating plans and projections of the Agency's indicators of activity on the basis of a programmed targeted method for budget planning; arrange for the preparation and submission of reports on the results and main directions of the Agency's activity to the Government of the Russian Federation (RF Government Order #452 of 28 July 2005 "Standard Models for Internal Organization of the Federal Executive Agencies", Section II);  arrange and coordinate the preparation of materials for the potential financial plan and draft federal law on the federal budget for the upcoming year, for that portion which concerns the Agency, (RF Government Order #452 of 28 July 2005 "Standard Models for Internal Organization of the Federal Executive Agencies", Section II);  make suggestions on the maximum numbers and wage fund for workers of the Agency's central apparatus, its territorial offices, the Agency's representative offices and representatives abroad, and its subordinate organizations;  coordinate measures for the Agency's participation in the work of the Governmental Commission for issues that concern development of the commercial fisheries complex;  manage federal property assigned to the Agency and its subordinate organizations;  coordinate work in placing government orders for goods and services for the needs of the Agency and its subordinate government institutions;  organize and control over expenditures of funds from the federal budget for the obligations of the Agency and its subordinate organizations;  organize inspections in the Agency's assigned areas of activity and those of its subordinate organizations;

115  issues of organization and statistical reporting in the industry;  issues of improving the government component of the economy of the fishing industry;  system of payments in the industry, including payment for the utilization of aquatic biological resources;  financial support, bookkeeping and control over the Agency's financial activity; and,  social security for employees of the Agency's central apparatus.

Additionally, meetings of the FESFC, held at least bi-annually and composed of representatives of the Federal Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Natural Resources, scientific research institutes, non-profit commercial associations of commercial fisheries, minority peoples of the North and Russian Far East and the union of the pool of professional fishers allows any interested party to attend, express their opion and participate in the discussions.

The responsiveness of the research plan to changes in the fishery is unclear. Some level of funding is available for applied research of short-term needs but the adequacy and stability of funding levels is unclear particularly with respect to basic long-term research (including development of effective genetic analysis methods for pink salmon). Annual budgets for industry-wide commercial fisheries scientific research institutes are provided under their government contracts with the Fisheries Committee of Russia. In addition, financing may be obtained from work performed by the institutes for outside parties/organizations, if completion of such work is not in conflict with current law and has been specified in the Charter of the particular scientific research institute. As far as the long-term perspective is concerned, the financing amounts are established by the client (the Fisheries Committee of Russia) depending upon the amount of work it has planned for the future. There is progress in understanding the impact of the fishery on target and non-target species although the focus on non-target species and the general ecosystem is limited. For instance, there has been limited research on the effects of dolly varden and char predator removal activities to improve survival in the hatchery systems. Research results form the basis for formulating management strategies and decisions. Research is reviewed by the management authorities or other appropriate and technically qualified entities and is occasionally published in peer review journals and/or is reviewed by the management authorities. Condition 13: The client must publicly provide the research plan for the pink and chum fisheries on Iturup Island each year. The plan shall detail what research, if any, may be needed to address ecosystem impacts and shall list the research to be conducted by either the government or the client to address identified ecosystem impacts.

Indicator 3.2.2 - Research is timely, available and reviewed (score = 83) The management system provides for periodic reviews by stakeholders in the fishery, of the content and scope of research, including funding requirements. In the example of Gidrostroy, results from scientific research work are discussed periodically, no less than annually. At these meetings proposals of the managers on the continuing studies or new studies are examined. Jointly, with the general director, scientific research work plan is determined for the next year. In regard to Sakhrybvod- there is an annual examination and confirmation of scientific research work conducted in Moscow, determined jointly by the scientific organizations, which results in the issuance of special orders. Scientific organizations annually determine a work plan which

116 includes study of resources. This is confirmed by specialists by order of the Federal Fisheries Agency. In summary, clients for scientific research work are private companies as well as governmental entities. According to Russian law, there may be a confidentiality clause in the contract regarding any scientific work, which makes checking any scientific research possible only by the client. Research results are available to interested parties including stakeholders on a regular basis but are generally distributed by request.

10.3.4 CRITERION 3.3 - TRANSPARENCY IN OPERATIONS AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

Indicator 3.3.1 - Open consultations process (score = 98) The management system provides a formal arrangement for the direct participation of all interested and affected stakeholders from both the public and private sectors, on matters of a social, cultural, economic and scientific nature. Opportunities for consultation are provided to any interested party or group at several meetings held annually at various levels. Opportunities are provided at the meeting by to review the annual total allowable catch prior to adoption and the regional meeting by to determine annual catch allocations. Each year, before the materials justifying the TAC for salmon are sent for government ecological expert review in each region where salmon are harvested, representatives from the commercial fisheries scientific conduct public hearings at which the proposed harvest amounts are presented and discussed. Any person or group of persons, representatives of public organizations, agencies of authority, the media, etc., are entitled to take part in these public hearings. Notification on the convening of the public hearing is presented in the open press (newspapers). Based on the results of these hearings, a protocol is compiled which is subsequently sent to the commission of experts conducting the government expert review. Also annually, following approval of the salmon TAC, questions on the management of salmon stocks are discussed at the meetings of the Far East Scientific and Commercial Fisheries Council (FESCC), which are also open to all interested parties. The management system provides timely, advanced notice of meetings at which there can be stakeholder participation and formal records of findings. Notification of up-coming meetings of the FESCC and its agenda are published in the media. Based on the results of the FESCC, a protocol is also produced, which is subsequently sent to the Fisheries Committee of Russia. The management system does not exclude any interested and affected stakeholder from the consultative process. The views of most interested and affected stakeholders are regularly considered in the formulation of management strategies.

10.3.5 CRITERION 3.4 - MEASURE TO CONTROL LEVELS OF HARVEST Subcriterion 3.4.1 Catch and exploitation levels

Indicator 3.4.1.1 - Fishery control systems (score = 100) The management system employs fishery control systems that are effective for the Iturup Island fishery. The management system provides a formal and codified system to achieve harvest and/or escapement goals for target stock units and, as appropriate, non-target species of fish. The management system provides a formal and codified mechanism for establishing closed areas, no- take zones, and closed dates and times for any areas of the fishery. Management sets exploitation and escapement levels designed to maintain the target stock units at levels of abundance that can sustain high productivity. There is no evidence provided by the management system to indicate that, as a result of fishing, target stock units are in serious decline or degradation of the ecosystem is occurring. Measures are currently implemented to achieve these objectives.

117 Harvest is conducted in accordance with the annually allocated quotas, during specific times and in fishing areas as are indicated on the fishing permit. The permits specify the beginning and the end of the fishery and the type of fishing gear to be used. Failures to observe the times or volumes of harvest or escapement indicated in the fishing permits, as well as failure to observe the fishing regulations, use any other kind of fishing gear other than the gear permitted, individuals and organizations are subject to various types of punishment. Fishing may be conducted only in areas open to harvest. There are areas where fishing is prohibited (conservation areas) for the protection of marine mammals or due to a prohibition of fishing on the target species. Our fishing area has no sections closed to fishing. Fishing areas are designated in accordance with the recommendations made by the scientists based on effective resource utilization consistent with ensuring no resource depletion or the degradation of the ecosystem on the whole. Other commercial activities that might negatively impact the natural populations or the ecosystem on the whole, are prohibited, either completely or for a certain period of time. Depending on the quota volumes, the number of fishing vessels or the gear used (trap nets) may change to alter the intensity of the fishing load on the population. Recommendations to change the fishing intensity are adopted by the Fisheries Council of the Sakhalin Oblast Government, and confirmed by the Federal Fisheries Agency (Rosrybolovstvo). Depending on the area of the spawning waters and the requirements of the fish hatcheries, the number of spawner fish allowed for escapement is determined and a schedule is established. If the spawning grounds are lacking the proper numbers of spawner salmon temporary harvest restrictions might be introduced or fishing gear removed. During the fishery, representatives of fisheries scientists (SRI) and the ichthyological service (“Sakhalinrybvod” FGE) conduct control procedures, including collecting bio-statistical catch information (sex composition, catch dynamics, age composition, dynamics of the gonadosomatic index (GSI), research on density in the spawning grounds, etc.). Based on the data obtained, the total number of fish designated for fishing is adjusted. As needed, by decision of a joint commission of control agencies, government and scientists (regional government, SakhRybVod, Rosrybolovstvo, SakNIRO) recommendations are developed on closing the fishery, changing the mode of fishing or increasing the allocated quota.

Indicator 3.4.1.2 - Measures to restore depleted fish populations (score = 80) The management system includes measures, which are adequate to restore depleted populations of target stock to the TRP or equivalent high level of abundance as qualified by relevant environmental factors. In the Iturup fishery, this takes the form of fishery closures to achieve wild escapement goals. Implicit in the regulation is a mechanism for restoring depletion. This is an implied restoration but not a formal and codified mechanism. A time schedule for restoration, which considers environmental variability, is determined by the management system. The efficacy of this system for restoring depleted populations has not been tested by depletion of target stocks in the subject fishery.

Subcriterion 3.4.2 - Ensure that conservation objectives are met.

Indicator 3.4.2.1 - Compliance provisions (effective enforcement) (score = 95) The management system includes compliance provisions that are effective for the fisheries but we are not aware of a formal arrangement, such as a compliance committee or a staff review

118 team on compliance, to review the effectiveness of enforcement. Compliance is monitored by the local office of the governmental monitoring and enforcement agency (fish inspection) and by dedicated enforcement personnel provide by the company. The system includes internal functions to review the effectiveness of enforcement although the formality of the review process is unclear. Education and enforcement procedures are implemented and applicable rules are consistently applied. Enforcement actions are effective in achieving the objectives of management. There are no infractions being consistently committed in the fishery by the company. There are occasional minor sport and personal use fishing infractions in the local community.

Indicator 3.4.2.2 - Monitoring provisions (score = 75) An intensive monitoring program is implemented by Government scientific organizations, employees of KNS, IRO and the fish hatcheries. Annual statistics are maintained and analyzed relative to established goals and policies. While detailed monitoring and reporting protocols are followed by all regulatory agencies and participants, there appear to be institutional constraints on the distribution of much of this information in the Russian system. While information is generally available within the management system, results are primarily published in the form of internal working documents which may not be readily available to some stakeholders. According to consultations and information received from the Director and Deputy Director of SakhNIRO, V.I. Radchenko and V.V. Lapko, annual monitoring reports containing data on salmon forecasts, harvest, escapement, production and biological characteristics are prepared based on results of scientific research conducted by "SakhNIRO" FGUP or by other similar institutes in other areas of the Far East. Monitoring and forecasting of the salmon stocks and other aquatic species, together with the collection and analysis of data on the utilization (harvest) of these stocks, their reproduction and biological characteristics are completed under the government contracts that the Fisheries Committee of Russia, as client, concludes with SakhNIRO, operating as contractor. Under the terms of the government contract, scientific research work conducted by the institute is financed by the Government of the Russian Federation (the Fisheries Committee of Russia), and all scientific data and results of this work in the form of scientific reports belong to the client. These reports are archived in the institute's files, are not published in the open press and are not readily accessible to outside parties/organizations without direct requests. However, the reports are used by the coworkers of the client for writing articles and publications, including scientific dissertations. In this way, this data becomes available indirectly. The reports can be distributed to outsiders only with the written permission of the client, i.e., the Fisheries Committee of Russia. For persons/organizations interested in understanding the salmon fisheries, scientific works published in the open scientific and popular scientific press are available. In addition, the institute may upon individual inquiry by persons/organizations prepare paid informational and analytical references, conclusions, etc., but without presenting the data/materials collected in the course of the scientific research. Condition 14. Develop and implement an effective system for distribution of annual post- season monitoring reports to the certification surveillance team. Information would include: o run size forecasts and adopted total allowable catches, o numbers of fish harvested by species including target and non-target species, o escapement estimates of pink and chum salmon by population, o broodstock and juvenile production numbers by hatchery and species, o biological characteristics of the catch and escapement,

119 o a summary of recent annual averages and trends, o a list of research activities during that year. o descriptions of any unique environmental or run conditions or activities for the year’s fishery.

10.3.6 CRITERION 3. 5 - REGULAR AND TIMELY REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Indicator 3.5.1 - Internal review (score = 80) The management system includes provisions for internal review of its structures and functions and such reviews are conducted periodically as circumstances dictate. This refers to systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of fishery regulatory, scientific, and monitoring structures and functions rather than the annual TAC and regulatory development process. The work of the Fisheries Committee of Russia, as the federal executive agency dealing with fisheries, is reviewed on a relatively regular basis. In the course of such review, the actions of the Fisheries Committee are to one extent or another analyzed with respect to fisheries management as well. These reviews are conducted by such agencies as the Public Prosecutor of Russia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the Presidential Comptroller's Office, and so on. The last large-scale outside review and, correspondingly, expert review of the Fisheries Committee of Russia, including the salmon fisheries management system, was conducted by the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation two years ago. Audits of the State Fisheries Committee’s fishery related activities as a federal executive (enforcement) body are conducted on a comparatively regular basis. In the course of such audits work of State Fisheries Committee regarding fisheries management is also analyzed. The audits can be conducted by such state entities as: The General Prosecution Office of Russia; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; Auditing Directorate under the President of Russia. The last large scale external audit and expert review of the State Fisheries Committee’s activities, including same of the salmon fishery management, was carried out two years ago by the Audit (Accounting) Chamber of the Russian federation. Recent changes in regional management authorities are an example of the outcome of this process. Questions remain regarding the breadth, efficacy, and timeliness of internal review processes within the complicated Russian fishery management system. Results of the internal review are made available to interested stakeholders through the annual TAC reporting process.

Indicator 3.5.2 - External review (score = 93) The management system provides for a review of management performance by one or more independent experts at least once every five years. Annual review of management performance is provided by the environmental committee and enforcement agencies. This fishery certification process is also an example of an independent review. The format and standards of the review are established with input from outside the management system. Review results are made available to the public. Prior to this MSC assessment, there has been no regular outside expert review of the fisheries management system beyond the above-mentioned government ecological expert review. Interested agencies, such as the Fisheries Committee of Russia or the Government of the Russian Federation, could order an outside expert review of the whole fisheries management system by another governmental department/ministry, individual consultant or specialist. Such expert review could also be conducted by order of the parliament of Russia (the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation) or the President. This fishery certification is an example of an independent review.

120 Indicator 3.5.3 - Recommendations from reviews incorporated (score = 80) Recommendations from internal and external reviews are usually, but not always, used to make changes to the management system. Recommendations are considered and incorporated where deemed appropriate by the management system.

Indicator 3.5.4 - Mechanism for resolving disputes (score = 80) The management system has a dispute-resolution process for resolving significant disputes. The dispute resolution mechanism is available for use by affected parties, but is not routinely used. All matters of management, study, enhancement, etc., of salmon stocks fall under the jurisdiction of the federal executive fisheries agency, i.e., the Fisheries Committee of Russia, which, among other things, reviews complaints and disputes. Following completion of the government ecological expert review and TAC approval for the salmon species, any disputes arising with respect to TAC amounts for species utilization (quotas) are also reviewed at the Far East Scientific and Commercial Council meetings, the decisions of which, however, are of an advisory nature, and are then considered when preparing the Fisheries Committee of Russia orders that approve the quota amounts for each species. Following approval of the quota amounts by the Fisheries Committee of Russia, complaints and disputes relating to salmon stock management are settled by the Anadromous Fish Harvest (Catch) Commissions (see Point 2) operating in each administrative area of the Far East. Complaints or descriptions of dispute situations, depending on their specific nature, are forwarded in writing to the Fisheries Committee of Russia, its territorial agencies or local government of the administrative area of the Russian Federation within which the salmon stock is being utilized. If it is not possible to resolve the situation, then the applicant may petition the prosecutor.

10.3.7 CRITERION 3.6 - COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Indicator 3.6.1 - Compliance with international agreements (score = 100) The management system does not willingly act in contravention to any international treaty obligations pertaining to the fishery. The management system does not knowingly undertake unilateral exemption from any treaty obligation pertaining to the fishery. Evidence indicates any inadvertent action with regard to the contravention of any international treaty obligations by the management system is rare. Fisheries are prosecuted in accordance with international agreements signed by the Russian Federation and resolutions / provisions of competent international organizations such as: (ICES, NAFO, NEAFK, IKKAT, NASCO, ANTCOM, PIKES and NPAFC) to which the RF is a signatory. There are two primarily international agreements dealing with Pacific Salmon. The first is the multilateral Convention on conservation of stocks of anadromous fish in the North Pacific, which came into effect as of 16 February 1993, under which the above-mentioned North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) operates. Additional information on the activities of this Commission and the member nations of the commission can be obtained at the organization's website. The second is the bilateral Russian- Japanese Agreement on Fisheries Cooperation dated 12 May 1985. The Russian-Japanese Joint Fisheries Commission, which holds annual sessions and conferences of scientists and specialists, operates under this agreement. Both agreements are inter-governmental and their requirements are strictly observed by the Russian Federation.

121 Indicator 3.6.2 - Compliance with domestic laws and regulations (score = 100) The management system conducts annual assessments of the fisheries compliance with relevant domestic laws and regulations, and these assessments have confirmed full compliance with these laws and regulations. This review is conducted through the fishery permitting process and has proven to be effective in the case of Iturup fishery due to the cooperation and active involvement of JSC Gidrostroy.

Indicator 3.6.3 - Observes legal and customary (First Nation) rights (score = na) No legal and customary rights are affected by the fishery. The management system provides for legal and customary rights in areas where they are impacted by a fishery. No indigenous peoples inhabit Iturup Island.

10.3.8 CRITERION 3.7 - ECOSYSTEM SENSITIVE GEAR AND FISHING PRACTICES

Indicator 3.7.1 - Avoid catch and minimize mortality of non-target species (score = 90) There are requirements in the management system to reduce the capture of non-target species, including the use of gear types and fishing practices that result in very low catches of non-target species or undersized individuals of target species and prosecuting the fishery at times in areas of target species concentration. However, we are unaware of any evidence that the management system has enforced fishery closures based on excessive bycatch The management system has clearly demonstrated the effective use of these methods by fishers by continuing negligible catches of non-target species. Further, fish are captured alive in fixed trap nets which allows for selective release of sensitive non-target species. The level of exploitation has been determined by the management system to be acceptable. Data on bycatch does exist, but it does not show a demonstrable downward trend, which may be the result of low bycatch rates already in place The management system creates incentives to minimize the catch of non-target species by placing a cap on the allowable bycatch as a percentage of the total harvest. This allows more fishing timing for permit holders as long as the cap is not exceeded although independent monitoring of bycatch is limited.

Indicator 3.7.2 - No destructive fishing practices (score = 100) The management system prohibits fishing practices that utilize poisons or explosives, or other such devices that damage or destroy physical, chemical, and/or biological features and such destructive fishing practices are not employed.

Indicator 3.7.3 - Minimize operational waste (score = 100) Operational waste is practically non-existent in this fishery. Fish are live captured and delivered fresh or alive to the nearby state-of-the-art processing plants where product freshness is a critical element of the business plan. Some fish by products (offal) are currently discarded. Processing waste is treated and treated waste water is discharged into the ocean from a 300 m outfall pipe. Approximately 20% of fish offal is currently discharged (Borzov 2007) but the company is currently building additional facilities to produce fish meal which will reduce waste. The fishing gear used in the salmon fishery and the methods of their use call for the utilization of the main components of the trap net (trap, central line, frame, wing, stays) over the course of many fishing periods due to their durability and cost. For this reason, the trap nets are fully removed from their

122 fishing location at the end of each fishery. Net anchors are left in place but are made from natural materials (rock bags) and are reused each year exception to this is the (pickles), used to fasten the nets down. In circumstances where a trap has been washed ashore due to stormy weather, all efforts are expended and assistance sought to salvage the fishing gear. All of the webbing washed ashore is gathered up completely and delivered to the company’s facilities to be sorted through. In addition to the fact that the company has a internal policy of treating its fishing gear with care, the fishing area must be kept clean and organized under the recommendations of the Fishing Regulations. Finally, there have been no registered instances of any spills of petroleum products.

Indicator 3.7.4 – Cooperation of fishers (score = 95) All fish harvesters and processors are employed directly by Gidrostroy which is responsible for compliance with management requests for the collection of data on catches and discards of non- target species and undersized individuals of target species. Data on catch and discard is excellent with the exception of a small amount of discards of trap mortalities or seal-killed fish at the fish traps which does not appear to be recorded.

Indicator 3.7.5 - Fishing methods minimize impacts on habitat (score = 100) The fishery does not employ gear and fishing practices that have been shown to adversely affect habitat although no formal program to identify and document the impact of the fishery on habitat, and implements measures to restrict. The trap nets used in the fishery are considered to be the most benign fishing gear with respect to the ecosystem in this body of water, inasmuch as they are firmly fastened to a rigid framework and in operation are stationary relative to the bottom and the shoreline. At the end of the fishery, once the trap nets have been removed, there are no signs of human impact.

123 11 TRACKING, TRACING FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS MSC Chain of Custody requirements were checked as far as the landing of fish on board legally licensed fishing vessels and found to be compliant with MSC requirements. Furthermore, Chain of Custody requirements for processing both at shore-side facilities and floating processing vessels were checked. The chain of custody from landing through first processing on Iturup Island (Russia) has been completed and is fully compliant with MSC requirements.

12 PEER REVIEW, PUBLIC COMMENT, AND OBJECTIONS Two peer reviews have been chosen based on MSC requirements. A list of the potential peer reviews was posted for comment as required, and no comments were received with regard to the peer reviewers chosen.

13 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS It is the assessment team's consensus judgment that the management of the Iturup Island (Russia) salmon fisheries complies with the MSC’s requirements for achieving (Table 6). Therefore, SCS as the certification body of record recommends that the unit of certification for pink and chum salmon be issued a certification. Before a certificate can be issued, this report must be peer reviewed and put forth for stakeholder comment, a process now underway. In addition, JSC Gidrostroy needs to submit an Action Plan for meeting the Conditions set forth in this report for improving fisheries management in the 2 salmon fisheries assessed. SCS then needs to review and approve the Action Plan submitted by JSC Gidrostroy, and (2) receive a signed that assures the applicant will continue to comply with all specified conditions, all required surveillance audits, and all other responsibilities under the MSC program (not yet completed).

Table 6. Assessment Scores by MSC Principle for Iturup Salmon Units of Certification Unit of Certification MSC Principle 1 MSC Principle 2 MSC Principle 3 Pink Salmon 85 81 89 Chum Salmon 85 81 89

14 MSC LOGO LICENSING RESPONSIBILITIES As the “applicant” for certification of the Iturup Island (Russia) salmon fisheries, JSC Gidrostroy is the only entity that has the right to apply for a license to use the MSC logo. It is also the case that JSC Gidrostroy has the right to approve the use of the logo for others associated with the fishery at its discretion.

15 MSC CERTIFICATE The certificate for MSC certification of the Iturup Island salmon fisheries will be issued to JSC Gidrostroy only after peer review and stakeholder reviews have been completed and that there are no formal disputes regarding the finding so this assessment report.

124 16 CONCLUSION The SCS Assessment team concludes after the initial assessment, that the Iturup Island (Russia) salmon fisheries meet the standards of the MSC.

125 17 REFERENCES Borzov S.I. 2006. Информационная справка. Krasniy Mayak (for Kuril Region). Borzov S.I. “Information and observations of Ichthyological services of SakhalinRybVod and Fishery preservationists for Sakhlin.” Kuril Tourism (2007a). Borzov S.I. “Report of the center Servero-Kurilsk OIRMVBR for 2007” (translation). SakhalinRybVod. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsky (2007b) Borzov S.I., Information Summary Sakhalin taimen of the Iturup Island Biology, problems of species preservation. (2008) Kaev A., Chupakhin V. and Kruchinin M. “Reproductive indices of the Iturup Island pink salmon (Kuril Islands).” North Pacific Anadromous Fisheries Council Document 977 (2006). Kaev A., Antonov A., Chupakhin V. and Rudnev V., “Possible causes and effects of shifts in trends of abundance in pink salmon of southern Sakhalin and Iturup Islands.” North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 4 (2007): 23-33. Glubokovsky M. and Zhivotovsky L. 2: 39-43 Mizina T, and Molchanov L. “Report of the Reydovo salmon hatchery for the first half of 2007.” Lubaev, Memoirs of Sakhalin Rybvod. Moscow, self published, 2005. Noll Claire, Natalia V. Varnavskaya, Evgeny A. Matzak, Sharon L. Hawkins, Victoria V. Midanaya, Oleg N. Katugin, Charles Russell, Natalya M. Kinas, Charles M. Guthrie III, Hiroshi Mayama, Fumio Yamazaki, Bruce P. Finney and Anthony J. Gharrett. "Analysis of contemporary genetic structure of even-broodyear populations of Asian and western Alaskan pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha." Fishery Bulletin v. 99, num. 1(January 2001): 123-138. Pogodin. Email message to Ray Beamsderfer June 26, 2008 Sharp, D., Sharr S and Peckham C. “Homing and straying patterns of coded wire tagged pink salmon in Prince William Sound.” Alaska Sea Grant Report 94-02: 77-82. Safronov, S, and Makeev S. Red Book of the Sakhalin Region. Sakhalin Publishing House, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 2000. Smirnov, B. P., L. K. Fedorova, S. I. Borzov, and V. P. Pogodin. 2006. Salmon enhancement in south Kuril Islands: history, status and perspectives. Varonova, L. Email message to Donna Hartson, July 16, 2008 Zhivotovsky L.A. et al. 2008. On development of a DNA database for reproduction, identification and certification of populations of Pacific salmon: An example from chum salmon of Iturup Island. Voprosy Ichtiologii (Problems of Fisheries) 9: 96-109

126

APPENDIX 1 - PEER REVIEW 1

To: Chet Chaffee and Jason Swecker Scientific Certification Systems (SCS)

Subject: Review of MSC Assessment, Iturup Island (Russia) Pink and Chum Salmon Fisheries fished by J.S.C. Gidrastroy (December 10, 2008 draft)

Many of my detailed comments are provided in the introductory section rather than with specific comments on MSC criteria because it is much easier and quicker to provide comments in this manner given the short turn-around for this review.

General Comments

Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the MSC Assessment provide a good and relatively detailed review of Iturup Island salmon fisheries and management. This section of the report is very important because, as noted in the report, detailed descriptions of fisheries management in Russia and associated data are often not readily available because the information is typically owned by the government and because many documents are not translated to English. In order to improve transparency of the management system, I hope that MSC requires referenced documents to be made available on a web site. This was implied in the report, but the report failed to provide the web page link. Also, I fully concur with Condition 4, which requires that annual management reports with historical data tables be developed (and made available to the public via the internet).

In general, the report is written fairly well, but some key data were left incomplete apparently waiting for new information to arrive (sometimes highlighted in yellow or blank Table 3. Lack of some critical data made it more difficult to evaluate the fishery. A number of references were missing from the reference list. These and other references should be made available on a web site in order to enhance transparency.

The method used for setting escapement goals is quite different from that used in North America, therefore references are needed that substantiate this methodology. The method assumes that productivity is maintained at a high level when density of spawners is approximately 2/m2 for pink salmon and 1.5/m2 for chum salmon. This is an interesting approach if returns per spawner data are limited or compromised. However, it requires careful assessment to characterize and accurate quantify what is good, moderate, and marginal spawning habitat versus unsuitable habitat. There was no description of how spawning habitat was determined. This approach seems to ignore density dependent factors that may occur after emergence from the redds. Please provide a reference for the utility for this approach.

It was also unclear how spawning density was measured. Salmon often spawn in waves in that not all fish are on the spawning grounds at the same time. Are the spawning density estimates based on total weir count divided by spawning habitat area? The use of densities as an escapement goal seems to be an odd metric because the escapement is being measured at the

127 weir (or by ground survey). Does the fishery have escapement goals (numbers of fish) for each watershed, and if so, what are they?

The report notes that some Iturup pink salmon may be captured in the Sakhalin Island fishery (but reportedly questionable analysis) but suggests that few non-local salmon are captured in the fishery (p. 19). I am curious whether some of the highly numerous Sakhalin pink salmon and Japanese chum salmon may migrate near Iturup Island and be intercepted in the fishery. Maybe data are available but I did not see it. While it appears that the traps do fish in the terminal areas, salmon tend to “follow” each other and these other stocks are exceptionally abundant. Interceptions provide an alternative explanation for high reported survival rates. Otolith marks and analyses could help evaluate this issue.

The report noted that “minimal sorting occurs at the traps” (P. 19), but then says non-target species can be removed from the shallows of the net. Given the tremendous numbers of pink and chum salmon in the traps, I wonder how effect this method is for spotting non-target species. The small mesh (30 mm) indicates small fishes such as sea-run char would be captured. Table 3, which presented by catch data, was blank.

With regard to MSC goals to protect and manage wild salmon runs, the Iturup management system is complicated by the large hatchery system. The Iturup hatchery system is the most significant issue, I believe with regard to MSC certification in this area. Borzov (2007), who is the fisheries manager for the island, notes that there is a need for construction of new hatcheries on the island in order to increase and stabilize harvests, while also noting that the management system was unable to allow harvest of surplus pink salmon in 2007 when the run was exceptionally large. It is also apparent in the Borzov report that hatchery salmon spawning in the rivers with natural-origin fish is viewed as a favorable outcome of the hatcheries because it maintains high densities of salmon on the spawning grounds. The MSC needs to decide whether it wants to certify a fishery that may become more and more dependent on hatchery rather than wild salmon.

The report indicates that average annual exploitation rate on pink salmon is approximately 90% (P. 22). An average harvest rate of 90% on a natural pink salmon run is not likely sustainable. I suspect the high harvest rate is caused by the desire to fully utilize the hatchery fish. Indeed, pink salmon harvests tend to mimic hatchery releases (Figure on p. 23). I suspect the spawning grounds are still receiving sufficient numbers of spawners because many hatchery salmon stray to the rivers to spawn. However, numbers of hatchery stray salmon have not been documented because hatchery salmon are not marked and cannot be distinguished from natural origin salmon. I am surprised that the assessment team did not comment on this high average harvest rate.

Fig. 11 suggests hatchery pink salmon represented approximately 55% of the total until the decline (temporary?) in hatchery production in the late 1990s. However, this estimate is based on estimates of hatchery vs. natural-origin fry. Pink salmon fry abundance can be very difficult to accurately enumerate. Confidence intervals and a comprehensive report for these estimates would be useful. Marked adult hatchery fish would provide a more reliable estimate.

On page 26, the report states that “an estimated 90-95% of the current chum harvest is of hatchery origin,” presumably from Kurilsky Bay. The hatchery contribution is apparently less in other areas but the values were left blank (p. 28). The MSC needs to decide whether it wants to certify a chum fishery that is reportedly dominated by hatchery salmon. These hatcheries are

128 built on the major salmon producing rivers, therefore hatchery and wild salmon harvests cannot be segregated. Estimated harvest rates on chum salmon were not reported, therefore it is difficult to evaluate the impact the fishery is having on chum salmon even though spawning density goals may be achieved due to an unknown mixture of natural-origin and hatchery chum salmon.

The hatchery system appears to be an “integrated” hatchery system. For this approach, it is important to document the hatchery/natural origin ratio on the spawning grounds and used for brood stock in the hatchery. This type of approach may provide some indication of potential domestication issues, as has been described by the hatchery reform group in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., HSRG/WDFW/NWIFC Technical Paper No. 1, June 21, 2004).

The conditions placed on the fishery and hatchery by the assessment team are obviously needed in order to achieve MSC standards. The MSC should decide whether or not hatchery fish should be marked and recorded in the fishery, escapement and hatchery before the fishery is certified under the MSC label. I think the Iturup situation, where the hatchery is clearly integrated into the natural system, is different from segregated hatcheries where managers have located hatcheries in isolated bays separated from natural spawning areas. Data are certainly needed in both cases, but the need is much more immediate in the case on large-scale integrated hatcheries.

Mizina and Molochanov (2007) stated that 1,718 char were removed below the Reydovaya River hatchery because they were eating hatchery salmon fry during the time of release from the hatchery (Table 15). The removal of these fish does not seem to be consistent with MSC standards under principle 2, yet no mention of this was made when scoring the fishery.

Borzov (2007) and the MSC report note that fishery management has many levels and decisions can be slowed, at least when the manager wants to increase the harvest above the preseason TAC. The management system seems to be in a state of flux, therefore it is somewhat difficult to accurately evaluate. It is unclear to me why they manage the fishery using a TAC based on a preseason run size forecast when the report claims that they are collecting catch and escapement on a real-time basis and could therefore be used to compared with the escapement goals (densities converted to total fish numbers) for inseason management. The need to get permission to alter the TAC seems a bit slow, as noted by Borzov (2007), and perhaps less efficient in terms of managing the spawning escapement. The report claimed that the pink salmon forecasts were typically within 20% of the actual catch (p. 35), which is quite incredible for any salmon forecast let alone pink salmon whose runs tend to fluctuate.

Regarding inseason management when the natural-origin run is returning much weaker than expected, it was unclear what steps are taken to close the fishery, although the report did say that the fishery was closed to achieve escapement. Does the manager have a daily or weekly escapement threshold that is used to evaluate the run size and therefore make quick decisions as needed?

Comments on Specific Indicators

1.1.1.1 Stock units are well-define, however they seem to lump hatchery and wild-origin fish together because hatchery fish are not marked and cannot be counted on the spawning grounds. Is this what MSC is looking for?

129 1.1.1.5 I do not see how one can conclude the impacts of enhanced fish on harvest rates of wild fish stocks are low. Previously, the report indicated the average harvest rate on pink salmon was 90% (see Kaev reports, too). In one bay (see above), 90-95% of the chum harvest was hatchery- origin fish even though the hatchery appears to be located on a major river (please check). An unknown number of hatchery fish are allowed to stray into the rivers. Some evidence was provided that domestication issues might be low, but more information is needed. Hatchery chum salmon fry are released at same time as wild chum fry migration (pink release timing is different). These issues should be clarified.

The conditions reported here are decent, but the ratio of hatchery and natural-origin fish used in the brood stock needs to be monitored too. This is one tool to evaluate integrated hatcheries, according to the Hatchery Reform Group.

1.1.2.1 Data need to be provided for non-target species. Table 3 is blank. Repeatedly, there is a statement that non-target species can be no more than 2% of the total catch (unclear wording). This seems very high if one considers endangered species such as Taimen, which reported are rarely or never captured in the fishery.

Kaev et al. (2007) did not separate hatchery vs. wild salmon. They were lumped together in his adult salmon tables. I have seen brood tables for the hatchery fish but not for the natural-origin salmon. Condition 3 is reasonable but it should be done every year not just three years since this is an integrated hatchery system.

1.1.2.2 It does not appear that the 60 guidepost is met because there are no estimates of natural spawning of enhanced (marked hatchery) salmon and the capabilities are not presently in place (no marked salmon).

1.1.2.4 I did not find the detailed spawner-recruit (S-R) relationships for natural-origin pink salmon. I did see brood tables for hatchery chum salmon but not wild chum salmon. It does not appear that S-R relationships are used for setting goals. They do have natural-origin pink fry estimates. They use spawning densities to set goals, so this seems to meet guideposts.

1.2.2 Please provide evidence that an average harvest rate of 90% (see report) is sustainable for a wild pink salmon stock. Harvest rates on chum salmon need to be identified in the report before conclusions can be made.

1.3.1 More data are needed on wild/hatchery ratios on the spawning grounds and in the hatchery brood stock, as discussed by the Hatchery Reform Group with regard to integrated hatcheries.

2.1.1 Bycatch data in Table 3 need to be provided.

2.1.2 Studies by Kaev et al. indicate large numbers of pink salmon fry compete in the nearshore marine areas and reduce survival. This should be considered in one of these indicators since large fry production is due to hatchery releases. What is the effect of releases on wild stock?

Hatchery personnel reportedly kill large numbers of char in the river during the fry release period (Borzov 2007). This should be evaluated.

130 2.1.4 The method used to set escapement goals (spawner density) needs to be published and reviewed. It seems to only consider spawning habitat and not other factors that affects salmon productivity.

2.2.1 Does enforcement monitor the catch of Taimen, or is it just fishermen that search for Taimen? Does monitoring occur when fish are moved from trap to boats?

2.2.2 The ratio of hatchery and natural-origin fish used in the brood stock needs to be monitored too. This is one tool to evaluate integrated hatcheries, according to the Hatchery Reform Group.

Harvest rates on pink salmon are exceptionally high, probably because fisheries target hatchery salmon.

How can hatcheries undergo “rigorous” review when they do not mark the fish?

Studies by Kaev et al. indicate large numbers of pink salmon fry compete in the nearshore marine areas and reduce survival. This should be considered in one of these indicators since large fry production is due to hatchery releases. What is the effect of releases on wild stock?

3.1.1 Objectives are not for natural-origin salmon, rather they are for combined hatchery and natural origin fish. Harvest rates mentioned here but none reported for chum. Pink harvest rates are high (90%) for wild stock. Escapement goals include hatchery-origin salmon and managers seem to rely on hatcheries to supplement spawners (Borzov 2007).

3.1.4 Show data on forecasts and actual returns since TAC approach is used and it is based on forecast.

3.1.10 See previous comments about integrated hatcheries.

3.3.1 As part of the open consultation process, the management system should provide detailed data reports on an annual basis. These reports should continually update tables of historical data on spawning escapement by river (hatchery vs. natural origin), escapement to hatchery (hatchery vs. natural origin), catch of natural vs. hatchery origin fish, preseason forecasts, and actual returns, etc. These data should be made public on a web site to ensure transparency.

3.4.2.2 I endorse the condition to provide detailed annually management reports, including tables that provide historical data that can be updated annually.

131 APPENDIX 2 - PEER REVIEW 2

The report is well composed and clearly written.

The background information on the fishery, the MSC assessment process, and the evaluation team’s conclusions is adequate. The score assigned to each indicator corresponds to the given explanation and the scoring guidelines.

Some comments and minor mistyping’s are indicated below.

# 1. Just at the top of the front page, highlighted with blue color, change ‘Gidrastroy’ by ‘Gidrostroy’. # 2. Wrong spelling of name, ‘Zhivatocskiy’, occurs throughout the draft; the correct spelling must be ‘Zhivotovsky’: Page 11, 8th line from the bottom 6th line from the bottom 3rd line from the bottom Page 13, 8th line from the top Page 114, 17th line from the bottom Page 127, 5th reference 10th reference

# 3. Full references on page 127:

Ref. 5 Zhivotovsky L.A. and 10 coauthors. 2008. On development of a DNA database for reproduction, identification and certification of populations of Pacific salmon: An example from chum salmon of Iturup Island. Voprosy Ichtiologii (Problems of Fisheries) 9: 96-109.

Ref. 10

132 Glubokovsky M.K. and L.A. Zhivotovsky. 1986. Population structure of pink salmon: A system of fluctuating stocks. Biologia Morya (J. Marine Biology) 2: 39-43.

# 4. Indicator 1.1.1.3 (Geographic distribution. Page 101). The Gidrostroy company may have little success in getting information on harvest in those areas of Iturup Island where other companies operate. If the scoring process considers just two alternatives (‘there is information’ or ‘no information’) regardless of difficulties in obtaining such information then the score is correct. However, if the scoring takes into account that the company has no or very little chances to posses such an information from other companies or governmental sources, despite the wish and attempts of the company to get that, then this is not a fault of the company.

# 5. Indicator 1.1.1.5 (Enhanced stocks. Pages 101-103). The second criterion in the 80 Scoring Guidepost (page 53, the second paragraph) seems to be partially satisfied with regard to data on chum salmon genetic differentiation. Namely, microsatellite markers show that the Prostor Bay’s wild stock of chum salmon at Sopochnoe Lake differentiate from the Reydovaya stock, and the Kurilsky Bay’s wild stock of Rybatskaya River does from the Kurilka stock as well (Zhivotovsky et al. 2008). This genetic differentiation can be considered as a kind of proof for low gene flow from the hatchery stock into the wild population within each of the two bays, and thus for little impact of the enhanced populations on wild stocks.

# 6. To my knowledge, some non-target species, such as Sakhalin taimen, are so rare in Iturup Island, and particularly in the catches by Gidrostroy, that even if one or two specimen caught, these very few fishes cannot provide any reliable statistical estimate of desirable biological parameters (age distribution, average weight, average length, variation, etc.). Probably same is true for cherry salmon. On the other hand, I would suggest that the indicators 1.1.2.2. and 1.1.2.3 directly refer sockey salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) as a non- target species for which biological parameters can be statistically estimated if a sufficient number of fish of this species are caught and studied by required procedures.

I do not have other comments.

133