mba_seafoodwatch_groundfish_alaska_report

Groundfish complex

Image ©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Alaska

Bottom trawl, Midwater trawl, Pot, Bottom longline, Handline

October 7, 2014

John Driscoll, Consulting researcher

Disclaimer

Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

2

About Seafood Watch® The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the North American marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The program’s mission is to engage and empower consumers and businesses to purchase environmentally responsible seafood fished or farmed in ways that minimize their impact on the environment or are in a credible improvement project with the same goal. Each sustainability recommendation is supported by a seafood report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s sustainability criteria to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choice,” “Good Alternative,” or “Avoid.” In producing the seafood reports, Seafood Watch utilizes research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch research analysts also communicate with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying seafood reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Both the detailed evaluation methodology and the scientific reports, are available on seafoodwatch.org. For more information about Seafood Watch and seafood reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990 or visit online at seafoodwatch.org. Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all its seafood reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. The program welcomes additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and seafood reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

3

Guiding Principles Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:

• Stocks are healthy and abundant. • Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any

marine life. • The fishery minimizes bycatch. • The fishery is managed to sustain long-term productivity of all impacted species. • The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the

ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained. • Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished

species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction of genetic diversity.

Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

1. Impacts on the species under assessment 2. Impacts on other species 3. Effectiveness of management 4. Habitat and ecosystem impacts

Each criterion includes:

• Factors to evaluate and score • Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score • A resulting numerical score and rating for that criterion

Once a score and rating has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide:

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

4

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

5

Summary This analysis encompasses the major commercial groundfish species that are caught in commercial groundfish fisheries off of the coast of Alaska. This report includes all commercial groundfish fisheries that are prosecuted in the federally managed waters off of the coast of Alaska, with the exception of those that target pollock. This report includes a number of rockfish, flatfish and roundfish species. Of the 43 species/area/fishery combinations that were assessed for inherent resilience, stock status, and fishing mortality under Criterion 1, 40 received ’green’ ratings, 3 received ’yellow,’ and 0 received ’red.’ The predominance of green ratings indicates not only that many of the stocks are healthy, but also implies that there is a good deal of up-to-date, publicly-available information for these stocks. Criterion 1 scores are informed not only by stock status and fishing mortality, but also by the amount of information available for a given species.

Due to the multi-species nature of the Alaska groundfish fisheries, the distinction between ‘targeted’ and ‘bycatch’ species is not often a clear one. In general, there are actually very few true bycatch species that are caught in substantial amounts across all groundfish fisheries. As it does for Criterion 1, information availability informs the scores for Criterion 2 species, and several species have conservative scores due to a lack of information. The management of target and bycatch species scores ’excellent’ and ’moderate,’ respectively, for all fisheries addressed in this report. By their nature, groundfish tend to be demersal species, and the fisheries that target them use bottom-tending gears. While the Alaskan commercial groundfish fisheries use a variety of gears, including bottom trawl, longline, pot, and jig gears, the common denominator between the gears is that they are expected to contact the bottom during their normal use. As such, the potential for habitat disturbance and destruction is present for all of the gears. A wealth of scientific information suggests that mobile bottom trawl gear should be expected to have the most significant impacts of all of the gears used in these fisheries; bottom longline and trap gears may also cause damage but, being fixed gears, they do not sweep over the seafloor as does trawl gear. In recognition of the potential for bottom-tending gears to damage habitat, a number of spatial restrictions on gear use are in place, and gear modifications have been implemented by regulation for two trawl fisheries. These spatial restrictions and modifications offer mitigation of bottom trawl habitat impacts.

6

Of the 43 area/gear/species combinations that were assessed for this report, 34 received overall ’green’ recommendations and the remaining 9 received overall ’yellow’ recommendations. In general, there were few concerns regarding the stock status, fishing mortality, or management of the assessed species; however, the stock status and/or fishing mortality of certain bycatch species reduced the overall scores for many of the assessed species.

Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations

Stock / Fishery Impacts on the Stock

Impacts on other Spp.

Management Habitat and Ecosystem

Overall Recommendation

Alaska Plaice - BSAI Bottom Trawl

Green (5.00) Yellow (2.24)

Green (3.87) Green (3.46) Best Choice (3.500)

Arrowtooth Flounder - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Arrowtooth Flounder - GOA Bottom Trawl



Atka Mackerel - BSAI Bottom Trawl


Green (3.87) Yellow (2.74) Best Choice (3.367)

Blackspotted Rockfish - BSAI Bottom Trawl


Green (3.87) Yellow (2.45) Good Alternative (3.150)

Blackspotted Rockfish - GOA Bottom Trawl

Green (3.83) Green (5.00)


Butter Sole - GOA Bottom Trawl



Dover Sole - GOA Bottom Trawl



Dusky Rockfish - GOA Bottom Trawl



Flathead Sole - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Flathead Sole - GOA Bottom Trawl



Greenland Turbot - BSAI Bottom Trawl

Yellow (2.71) Yellow (2.24)

Green (3.87) Green (3.46) Good Alternative (3.002)

Greenland Turbot - BSAI Bottom longline


Green (3.87) Green (3.74) Good Alternative (3.151)

Kamchatka Flounder - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Northern Rock Sole - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Northern Rock Sole - GOA Bottom Trawl (caught in the Pacific cod fishery)



Northern Rock Sole - GOA Bottom Trawl (caught in the



7

Flatfish fishery) Northern Rockfish - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Northern Rockfish - GOA Bottom Trawl



Pacific Cod - BSAI Jig Green (5.00) Green (5.00)


Pacific Cod - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Pacific Cod - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Pacific Cod - BSAI Bottom Longline



Pacific Cod - BSAI Pot Green (5.00) Green (4.75)


Pacific Cod - GOA Bottom Trawl



Pacific Cod - GOA Bottom Longline



Pacific Cod - GOA Pot Green (5.00) Green (4.75)


Pacific Cod - GOA Jig Green (5.00) Green (5.00)


Pacific Ocean Perch - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Pacific Ocean Perch - GOA Bottom Trawl



Rex sole - BSAI Bottom Trawl Green (3.83) Yellow (2.24)


Rex Sole - GOA Bottom Trawl Green (4.28) Yellow (2.57)


Rougheye Rockfish - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Rougheye Rockfish - GOA Bottom Trawl



Sablefish - BSAI Bottom Longline



Sablefish - BSAI Pot Green (4.47) Green (4.50)


Sablefish - GOA Bottom Longline



Shortraker Rockfish - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Shortraker Rockfish - GOA Bottom Trawl



Shortspine Thornyhead - GOA Bottom Trawl



8

Shortspine Thornyhead - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Southern Rock Sole - GOA Bottom Trawl



Yellowfin Sole - BSAI Bottom Trawl



Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

• Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

• Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern,2 and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

• Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern,2 or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

9

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 2

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ..................................................................... 24

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 78

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ............................................................................................... 155

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem.............................................................................. 171

Appendix A: Common, Market, and Vernacular Names for Groundfish Species ..................................... 195

Appendix B: Main species complete assessment ..................................................................................... 196

Appendix C: Marine Mammal and Seabird Bycatch ................................................................................. 198

Appendix D: Discards and Bait Use ........................................................................................................... 206

Appendix E: Habitat Impact Mitigation Efforts ......................................................................................... 207

Appendix F: Ecosystem and Food Web Considerations ............................................................................ 213

Appendix G: Details of Inherent Vulnerability Analysis ............................................................................ 221

Appendix H: Review Schedule .................................................................................................................. 222

10

Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This analysis encompasses the major commercial groundfish species that are caught in commercial groundfish fisheries off of the coast of Alaska. This report includes all commercial groundfish fisheries that are prosecuted in the federally managed waters off of the coast of Alaska, with the exception of those that target pollock. This report includes a number of rockfish, flatfish, and roundfish species. The Alaskan groundfish fisheries catch a variety of species, and as such the selection of species for this assessment presented challenges. Ultimately, the basic guideline that was used is as follows: a species was included if the catch of the species in a given fishery composed >5% of that fishery’s catch, or >1% of that fishery’s catch and >5% of species’ total mortality across all fisheries, or <1% of fishery’s catch and >20% of species’ total mortality across all fisheries. Species of concern (such seabirds and marine mammals) were also included where appropriate. The intent was to include the ‘main’ species, (including the species of concern), which are associated with these fisheries. Therefore, the analyst’s discretion was used in some situations. Groundfish catch is managed with stock, species group, or complex-specific total allowable catch (TAC). A TAC is derived from, and is less than or equal to, the acceptable biological catch (ABC). The maximum ABC, in turn, is less than the estimated overfishing limit (OFL) for the stock, species group, or complex. The OFL defines the maximum annual catch beyond which overfishing is said to be occurring. A tier system is used to determine the annual catch limits for commercial groundfish species in Alaska. Each stock is assigned to one of six possible tiers, generally with the most information-rich stocks in Tier 1 and the most information-poor stocks in Tier 6. Tiers 3 and 5 are the most commonly used tiers for the stocks addressed in this report. Stocks managed under Tier 3 have OFLs and ABCs derived from stock-specific estimates of biomass (B), the fishing mortality rate estimated to result in 40% of the equilibrium level of spawning per recruit that would occur in the absence of fishing (F40%), F35%, and the long-term average biomass expected under F40% and average recruitment (B40%). Tier 5 stocks are those for which reliable estimates of B and natural mortality (M) exist, but F40% and F35% do not. Tier 5 stocks are therefore managed with OFLs and ABCs that are derived from B and M such that FOFL = M, and maxFABC= 0.75*M.

This assessment treats the stock status and fishing mortality scores for Tier 5 stocks somewhat more conservatively than the scores for Tier 3 stocks, because Tier 3 stocks have more reliable information) available to inform the scores. Generally, the stock status of Tier 5 stocks is

11

considered to be of ’low’ concern if biomass estimates indicate stable or increasing biomass, and fishing mortality is considered to be of ’low’ concern if recent catches were less than Tier 5 OFLs; these scores may be adjusted due to other factors (e.g., mortality may be scored ’very low’ concern if catch <10% of the Tier 5 OFL).

Overview of the species and management bodies

The groundfish fisheries that take place in the federally managed waters off of the coast of Alaska are diverse in terms of the type and fishing capacity of the vessels, the gears used by these vessels, the species targeted and caught, the habitats accessed, and the management systems that are in place for each fishery. It is possible to use more than one set of characteristics to differentiate the fisheries; fisheries can be defined by the licensing/permitting program under which they operate (e.g., the Amendment 80 fleet), or by a combination of the area, the target species/species complexes, and the gear used (e.g., Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery). This assessment uses the latter method to define fisheries. Throughout this report, the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands is referred to as ‘BSAI,’ and the Gulf of Alaska is referred to as ‘GoA.’ Descriptions of the fisheries addressed in this assessment are as follows.

BSAI Trawl Fisheries The BSAI groundfish trawl fleet is essentially divided into three segments: 1) vessels that belong to the American Fisheries Act (AFA) catcher vessel fleet, AFA catcher-processor fleet, or AFA mothership fleet targeting pollock; 2) vessels in the ‘Amendment 80’ fleet targeting Atka mackerel, rockfish, and flatfish, and 3) the "non-AFA Bering Sea trawlers' fleet (vessels that target Pacific cod) (NPFMC 2012a). The Amendment 80 fleet is allocated portions of several stocks, including some GoA stocks (Table 1).

Table 1. Amendment 80 TAC allocations (NPFMC 2012a).

Stock Area

% of TAC Allocated to

Amendment 80 Fleet

Atka mackerel BSAI 90%–100% Flathead sole BSAI 100% Pacific cod BSAI 13.4% Pacific cod Western GoA 2.4% Pacific cod Central GoA 4.2% Pacific Ocean perch

Aleutian Islands

90%–98%

Rock sole BSAI 100% Yellowfin sole BSAI ≤93%

12

As of 2010, there were 24 vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet, a total of 114 vessels in the three AFA fleets, and 13 vessels in the non-AFA BSAI trawl fleet (NPFMC 2012a). Vessels essentially belong to either the AFA, Amendment 80, or non-AFA BSAI trawlers fleets; in 2010 only one vessel took part in more than one of these fleets (NPFMC 2012a).

For the purposes of this assessment, the BSAI trawl sector is further broken down into the following fisheries:

BSAI Atka mackerel trawl The BSAI Atka mackerel trawl fishery refers to the sub-section of the Amendment 80 trawl fleet that targets Atka mackerel with bottom trawl gear designed to access rough substrates (NPFMC 2012a). The footrope of the trawl gear used in this fishery is equipped with discs, bobbins, and/or tires that are of larger diameter than those used in the flatfish trawl fisheries (NOAA 2005a). This fishery’s total catch of commercial species in 2011 was approximately 57,600 t; Atka mackerel composed approximately 84% of this catch (Figure 1; Fissel, B. et al. 2012). This fishery has also been responsible for approximately 84% of annual catch of BSAI northern rockfish since 2004 (Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012a). A series of management measures have been developed and implemented in order to manage this fishery’s potential impact on western Steller sea lions (see Factor 4.3).

Figure 1. Species composition of the commercial catch in the BSAI Atka mackerel trawl fishery, 2011 (Data: Fissel et al.

2012; information for proportion of northern rockfish catch taken in this fishery: Spencer and Ianelli 2012a). BSAI flatfish trawl There are several GoA trawl fisheries that target different flatfish species and species complexes using bottom trawl gear. All of these fisheries are grouped together as ‘BSAI flatfish

13

trawl’ for this report. The BSAI flatfish trawl fishery refers to that subsection of the Amendment 80 fleet that uses bottom trawl gear to target yellowfin sole, flathead sole, rock sole, arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder, and Greenland turbot in the BSAI. The total catch of commercial species in the 2011 BSAI flatfish fishery was approximately 303,600 t (combination of the total catches in the trawl fisheries for yellowfin sole, arrowtooth, Kamchatka flounder, flathead sole, rock sole, turbot, and ‘other flatfish’ fishery categories; Table 4 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012). This catch was dominated by yellowfin sole and rock sole (Figure 2). The primary species caught in BSAI flatfish trawl tows varies by location (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Species composition of the commercial catch in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery, 2011 (Data: Fissel et al. 2012).

14

Figure 3. Location of flatfish catch in BSAI flatfish trawl fishery, 2011 (Figure from Fissel et al. 2012). BSAI Pacific cod trawl The BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery includes both catcher and catcher-processor vessels equipped with bottom trawl gear (NOAA 2005a). As of 2010, there were 12 catcher vessels and 1 catcher-processor vessel in the fishery; some of these vessels were also active in the GoA, but there was no overlap with the AFA or Amendment 80 fleets (NPFMC 2012a). Pacific cod are the primary species caught in this fishery (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Species composition of the commercial catch in the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery, 2011 (Data: Fissel et al. 2012).

15

BSAI rockfish trawl The BSAI rockfish trawl fishery is a bottom trawl fishery in which Amendment 80 catcher-processors target Pacific Ocean perch, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and other rockfish species using bottom trawl gear designed for rough substrate (NOAA 2005a). The footrope of the trawl gear used in this fishery is equipped with tires, discs, and/or bobbins that are of a larger diameter than those used in the flatfish trawl fisheries (NOAA 2005a); elevating devices are not required to be used in this fishery.

Figure 5. Species composition of the commercial catch in the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery, 2011 (Data: Fissel et al. 2012). BSAI Fixed Gear Fisheries BSAI Pacific cod, sablefish, and Greenland turbot bottom longline fisheries In the BSAI, a fleet of approximately 40 ‘freezer longliner’ catcher-processor vessels uses bottom longline gear to target Pacific cod, and may also target sablefish and/or Greenland turbot (NPFMC 2012a). Pacific cod are by far the primary commercial species caught by BSAI longline gear (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). Those fixed gear vessels that retain sablefish must be part of the sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) fishery (described below, NPFMC 2012b). For the purposes of this report, the BSAI Pacific cod, sablefish, and Greenland turbot longline fisheries are treated as separate fisheries.

The BSAI Pacific cod longline fleet is composed largely of freezer-longliner catcher-processor vessels; 48.7% of the total BSAI Pacific cod TAC is allocated to the freezer-longliner fleet (NPFMC 2012a). The gear is a bottom longline with baited hooks (NPFMC 2012a) with squid as the preferred bait (NOAA 2005a). The average length of the gear deployed in a typical BSAI Pacific cod catcher-processor set is approximately 8 miles, with approximately 12,300 hooks deployed in such a set (NPFMC 2012a). Sets for Pacific cod tend to be set in shallower water (30-80 fm) relative to sets that target sablefish (150-600 fm) and Greenland turbot (250-500 fm) (NPFMC 2012a). In 2011, more than 90% of the commercial catch in the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery was Pacific cod (Figure 6).

16

In addition to the freezer-longliner component of the fishery, smaller catcher vessels also use bottom longline gear to target BSAI Pacific cod (NPFMC 2012a). In the BSAI, longline/pot catcher vessels that are <60’ length overall (LOA) are allocated 2% of the total BSAI Pacific cod TAC, with an additional 0.2% allocated to vessels >60’ LOA (NPFMC 2012a).

Figure 6. Species composition of the commercial catch in the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery, 2011 (Data: Fissel et al. 2012). BSAI Pacific cod jig BSAI Pacific cod are also caught by jig, but catches by jig are minimal relative to catches by trawl, longline, and pot (Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). This sector is allocated 1.4% of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC (NPFMC 2012a). Approximately 76% of the jig fleet’s 2010 catch was Pacific cod (NPFMC 2012a).

BSAI Pacific cod pot A total of 8.4% of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC is allocated to BSAI pot vessels of >60’ LOA, while vessels <60’ LOA share a 2% allocation of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC with BSAI longline vessels of <60’ LOA (NPFMC 2012a). In the BSAI pot fishery, catcher and catcher-processor vessels target Pacific cod using modified crab pots that are baited with herring and deployed on single lines (NOAA 2005a). Pots have degradable cotton escape hatches to prevent ‘ghost fishing’ in the event of gear loss (NOAA 2005a).

GoA GoA Trawl Fisheries The Western and Central GoA trawl sectors target a variety of stocks, including Pacific cod, pollock, northern rockfish, Pacific Ocean perch, and flatfish (NPFMC 2012a). Several vessels

17

from the Amendment 80 fleet are also active in the Western and Central GoA (NPFMC 2012a). For the purposes of this report, the GoA trawl fisheries are split into the following categories:

GoA flatfish trawl There are several GoA trawl fisheries that target different flatfish species and species complexes using bottom trawl gear. All of these fisheries are grouped together as ‘GoA flatfish trawl’ for this report due to similarities in gear, habitat effects, management, and catch composition.

The GoA shallow water flatfish trawl fishery occurs in the Central GoA, and vessels in this fishery use bottom trawl gear to target flatfish over shallow sand, silt, and gravel substrates at depths of 15-40 fm (NPFMC 2012a). Vessels in this fishery include shore-based catcher vessels and several catcher-processors (NOAA 2005a). The combined catch of southern and northern rock sole composed 77.5% of shallow water flatfish catch in 2011 (Turnock, B.J., et al. 2012).

The GoA deepwater trawl fishery is composed primarily of shore-based catcher vessels, with several catcher-processors in the fishery as well (NOAA 2005a). This fishery operates in areas of sand, silt, cobble, gravel, and mud substrates at depths of 70-300 fm (NPFMC 2012a). Dover sole dominate the catch of the deepwater flatfish fishery (NPFMC 2012a).

GoA Pacific cod trawl In this GoA fishery, trawl vessels use bottom trawl gear to target Pacific cod (NPFMC 2012a). The fishery has nearshore and offshore components, with the former composed of smaller catcher vessels and the latter, catcher-processors (NOAA 2005a). In 2012, trawl catcher vessels were apportioned 41.6% of the Central GoA Pacific cod TAC and 38.4% of the Western GoA TAC, while catcher-processor vessels were allocated 4.2% and 2.4% of the Central and Western GoA Pacific cod TACs, respectively (NPFMC 2012a). Pacific cod are the primary species (Figure 7).

18

Figure 7. Species composition of the commercial catch in the GoA Pacific cod trawl fishery, 2011 (Data: Fissel et al. 2012).

GoA rockfish trawl Vessels in this fishery use both pelagic and bottom trawl gear (NOAA 2005a). The bottom trawl gear used in this fishery is designed to operate on rougher substrates than that used in the GoA flatfish fisheries; footropes on the rockfish bottom trawl nets, for example, are protected with discs or bobbins that are 18 to 24 inches in diameter, 24-inch airplane tires, or a combination thereof (NOAA 2005a).

Pacific Ocean perch and northern rockfish are targeted in this fishery. The pelagic component of this fishery targets primarily Pacific Ocean perch (NOAA 2005a); the proportion of GoA Pacific Ocean perch caught with pelagic trawl gear increased from 2% in 1990 to 31% in 2008 (NPFMC 2011a). The Central GoA Rockfish program is allocated 95% of the dusky rockfish TAC (NPFMC 2011a); dusky rockfish are also targeted with pelagic trawl gear and co-occur with northern rockfish (NPFMC 2011a).

19

Figure 8. Species composition of the commercial catch in the GoA rockfish trawl fishery, 2011 (Data: Fissel et al. 2012).

GoA Fixed Gear GoA Pacific cod jig A small Pacific cod jig fishery exists in the GoA. The total catch of GoA Pacific cod by ‘other’ fishing gears (i.e., gears other than trawl, longline, and pot) was approximately 1.15% of the total catch of GoA Pacific cod in 2011 (Table 2.1 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b). In 2012, this sector was allocated 1.5% of the Pacific cod TAC in the Western GoA and 1% in the Central GoA (NPFMC 2012a). Approximately 76% of the jig fleet’s 2010 catch was Pacific cod (NPFMC 2012a).

GoA Pacific cod longline The GoA Pacific cod longline fishery is prosecuted by both catcher and catcher-processor vessels that use anchored bottom longlines with baited hooks (NOAA 2005a). The GoA Pacific cod longline fishery includes vessels from the freezer-longline fleet; catcher-processors are allocated 19.8% of the Western GoA Pacific cod TAC and 5.1% of the Central GoA TAC (NPFMC 2012a). Catcher vessels receive 1.4% of the Western GoA Pacific cod TAC and a total of 21.3% of the Central GoA TAC (NPFMC 2012a). Approximately 98% of the commercial catch in the GoA Pacific cod longline fishery in 2011 was Pacific cod (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

GoA Pacific cod pot The GoA Pacific cod pot fleet is allocated 38% of the Western GoA Pacific cod TAC and 27.8% of the Central GoA TAC (NPFMC 2012a). The GoA Pacific cod pot fishery includes both catcher vessels, which work nearshore waters, and catcher-processors offshore

20

(NOAA 2005a). Both vessel types use modified crab pots that are baited with herring and fished on single lines (NOAA 2005a). Pots have a decomposable cotton escape panel to reduce the potential for ‘ghost fishing’ if the gear is lost (NOAA 2005a). Sablefish IFQ Sablefish IFQ Longline The sablefish longline fishery has been managed under an IFQ program since 1995 (NPFMC 2012a). This fishery is allocated 80% of the sablefish TAC in the Western and Central GoA, and 95% of the TAC in the Eastern GoA (NPFMC 2012c). Approximately 390 vessels took part in this fishery in 2010; 17 of these vessels were part of the freezer-longliner fleet described previously (NPFMC 2012a). Vessels in this fishery use anchored longlines with hooks baited with squid, pollock, or herring (NPFMC 2012a).

Figure 9. Species composition of the commercial catch in longline sets targeting sablefish, 2011 (Data: Fissel et al. 2012).

Production Statistics

In 2011, the catch of groundfish in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries of BSAI and GoA totaled approximately 763,400 t (Tables 3 and 4 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012); catch in the BSAI accounted for approximately 81% of this amount (Figure 10).

21

Figure 10. Catch in BSAI and GoA, 2011 (Data from Fissel et al. 2011) BSAI Pacific cod and yellowfin sole are the primary species in terms of biomass caught; combined, these two stocks accounted for nearly 49% of groundfish caught in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries in 2011 (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Groundfish catch in Alaska fisheries, 2011 (Data from Fissel et al. 2012)

22

Importance to the US/North American market

See "Primary product forms."

Common and market names

For common and market names of groundfish caught in the Alaska groundfish fisheries, see Appendix A.

Primary product forms

Groundfish caught in Alaska's fisheries are processed into a variety of products, and are destined for markets around the world. Primary products include head and gut, fillet, and whole fish (Figure 12). In 2011, head and gut was the primary product in terms of both weight and value (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Production and gross values of Alaskan groundfish products, 2011 (Data from Fissel et al. 2012). Species, products and markets of note include: Arrowtooth flounder: Historically, efforts to develop markets for arrowtooth flounder have met with limited success, as the flesh naturally breaks down at cooking temperatures. Recent advances have improved the market for arrowtooth, however. H&G arrowtooth flounder is exported to China for further processing; primary products include the frill, which is used in the

23

sushi market, and fillets, and which may be re-exported to the U.S. (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). Atka mackerel: Atka mackerel are processed as whole fish and H&G (NPFMC 2011a). Pacific cod: Pacific cod products include H&G and fillet blocks. Fillets are destined for domestic markets in the United States, where they are used across the domestic food service industry, from upscale restaurants to large food service providers to fast-food restaurants (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). Pacific cod H&G products are exported to Europe, China (where they may be processed and re-exported to the United States), and Japan (Fissel, B. et al., 2012). Pacific Ocean perch: Pacific Ocean perch is processed as H&G and whole fish (NPFMC 2011a). Rock sole: Female rock sole with roe is destined for export to Japan, while male rock sole is exported to China, processed, and often re-exported to the U.S. (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). Sablefish: Sablefish is primarily headed and gutted. Sablefish is chiefly destined for export to Japan, but some sablefish is sold via white-tablecloth restaurants; sablefish is also smoked and sold in New York City delis as "smoked sable" (Fissel, B. et al., 2012). Yellowfin sole: Yellowfin sole is processed at sea as H&G and whole fish, and is often exported to China, where it may be processed further and re-exported to the U.S. (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

24

Assessment

This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(ies) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2 = Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2 = Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2 = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 1 Summary

ALASKA PLAICE Region / Method Inherent

Vulnerability Stock Status Fishing

Mortality Subscore

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Flatfish Trawl Trawl, Bottom

1.00:High 5.00:Very Low Concern

5.00:Very Low Concern

Green (5.000)

ARROWTOOTH FLOUNDER Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore


2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low Concern


Green (5.000)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Flatfish Trawl Trawl, Bottom



Green (5.000)

ATKA MACKEREL Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Atka Mackerel Trawl Trawl, Bottom

3.00:Low 4.00:Low Concern


Green (4.472)

25

BLACKSPOTTED ROCKFISH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Rockfish trawl Trawl, Bottom

1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern

3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

BLACKSPOTTED ROCKFISH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Rockfish Trawl Large-Mesh Bottom Trawl


3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

BUTTER SOLE Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore


3.00:Low 4.00:Low Concern

3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

DOVER SOLE Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore


2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern


Green (4.472)

DUSKY ROCKFISH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Rockfish Trawl Trawl, Bottom



Green (5.000)

FLATHEAD SOLE Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore




Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)

26

GREENLAND TURBOT Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore


1.00:High 2.00:High Concern

3.67:Low Concern

Yellow (2.709)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Greenland turbot longline Longline, Bottom


3.67:Low Concern

Yellow (2.709)

KAMCHATKA FLOUNDER Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore



3.67:Low Concern

Green (4.284)

NORTHERN ROCK SOLE Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore




Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Pacific Cod Trawl Trawl, Bottom



Green (5.000)

NORTHERN ROCKFISH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Atka Mackerel Trawl Trawl, Bottom



Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)

PACIFIC COD Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green (5.000)

27

Flatfish Trawl Trawl, Bottom

Concern Concern

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Pacific Cod Jig Jig



Green (5.000)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Pacific Cod Longline Longline, Bottom



Green (5.000)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Pacific Cod Pot Pot



Green (5.000)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Pacific Cod Trawl Trawl, Bottom



Green (5.000)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Pacific Cod Jig Jig



Green (5.000)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Pacific Cod Longline Longline, Bottom



Green (5.000)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Pacific Cod Pot Pot



Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)

PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Rockfish Trawl Trawl, Bottom



Green (5.000)




Green (5.000)

REX SOLE Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore



3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)



3.67:Low Concern

Green (4.284)

28

ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore



3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore



3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

SABLEFISH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Sablefish Longline Longline, Bottom



Green (4.472)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Sablefish Pot Trap



Green (4.472)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Sablefish Longline Longline, Bottom



Green (4.472)

SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore



3.67:Low Concern

Yellow (2.709)



3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.831)

SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore


1.00:High 3.00:Moderate Concern

3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.318)

29


1.00:High 3.00:Moderate Concern

3.67:Low Concern

Green (3.318)

SOUTHERN ROCK SOLE Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore




Green (5.000)

YELLOWFIN SOLE Region / Method Inherent


Mortality Subscore




Green (5.000)

Of the 43 species/area/fishery combinations that were assessed for inherent resilience, stock status, and fishing mortality under Criterion 1, 40 received ’green’ ratings, 3 received ’yellow,’ and 0 received ’red.’ The predominance of green ratings not only indicates that many of the stocks are healthy, but also implies that there is a good deal of up-to-date, publicly-available information for these stocks. Criterion 1 scores are informed not only by stock status and fishing mortality, but also by the amount of information available for a given species.

Criterion 1 Assessment

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines

• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing (

• Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).

• High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator).

30

Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

• 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished

• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

• 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

• 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.

31

• 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.

• 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.

ALASKA PLAICE


BSAI Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Alaska plaice is 67.


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The BSAI Alaska plaice stock was classified as not overfished in 2012, and for 2013, estimated BSAI Alaska plaice spawning biomass (SB):SB40% is 1.71. Rationale Estimated total age 3+ BSAI Alaska plaice biomass increased from 376,087 t in 1975 to a peak of 729,366 t in 1984 and then decreased to 537,335 t in 2003; subsequently it had increased to 598,432 t in 2011, and is projected to reach 588,499 t in 2012 (Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Spencer, P.D. 2012). Changes to stock biomass over the years are attributed to recruitment variability as fishing pressure has been light (Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Spencer, P.D. 2012). There is also new evidence that substantial Alaska plaice biomass exists in the northern Bering Sea, which is outside the area currently surveyed (Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Spencer, P.D. 2011). Modeled estimates show that female spawning biomass (SB) has been above SB40% since the late 1970s (Figure 10.10 in (Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Spencer, P.D. 2012)). For 2012, the BSAI Alaska plaice stock was classified as ‘not overfished,’ with a B:BMSY ratio of 2.04 (NMFS 2012). For 2013, SB is 260,500 t, while SB40% is 152,000 t (Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Spencer, P.D. 2012).

32


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Fishing mortality rates have been low for BSAI Alaska plaice for many years. The 2011 catch was 29.9% and 36.3% of the OFL and ABC (Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Spencer, P.D. 2011), respectively, and NMFS classified the stock as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). Rationale Fishing mortality rates for BSAI Alaska plaice have been fairly light for the past several decades, averaging 0.03 from 1975 to 2010; for reference, the FOFL for 2012 to 2013 is 0.19 (Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Spencer, P.D. 2011). For 2011, estimated harvest of BSAI Alaska plaice was 23,656 t (Table 10.1 in Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Spencer, P.D. 2012), while the ABC and OFL were 65,100 and 79,100 t, respectively (Federal Register 2011). Of that catch, 18,340 t (77.5%) was caught in trawl tows targeting yellowfin sole (Table 4-23 in Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Ianelli, J. 2012), and 3,162 t (13.4%) were taken in tows targeting rock sole (Table 8.23 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012). The BSAI Alaska plaice stock was classified by NMFS as not experiencing overfishing for 2012 (NMFS 2012).

ARROWTOOTH FLOUNDER


BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for arrowtooth flounder is 64, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.95 (Cope, J.M., et al., 2011).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

In Alaskan waters, arrowtooth biomass is much greater in the GoA than in the BSAI (Turnock, B.J. & Wilderbuer, T.K. 2011). BSAI arrowtooth flounder biomass has been increasing since at least 1975 (Figure 13; Spies, I., Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Aydin, K. 2012), and in 2012, BSAI arrowtooth

33

flounder were classified as ‘not overfished’ by NMFS (NMFS 2012). For 2013, BSAI arrowtooth flounder SB:SB40% was 2.59 (Spies, I., Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Aydin, K. 2012). Rationale:

Figure 13. Estimates of BSAI arrowtooth flounder biomass, 1976-present (figure from Spies et al. 2012).

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Save for brief and minor decreases in the mid-1990s and from 2009 to 2011, GoA arrowtooth flounder biomass has been steadily increasing since 1960 (Turnock, B.J. & Wilderbuer, T.K. 2011). In 2012, the GoA arrowtooth flounder was classified as ‘not overfished’ by NMFS (NMFS 2012). For 2013, GoA arrowtooth flounder SB:SB40% was estimated at 2.64 (Turnock, B.J. 2012a). The stock status of GoA arrowtooth flounder is thus scored ’very low’ concern.


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of BSAI arrowtooth flounder (excluding estimated Kamchatka flounder catch) was 7.2% and 51.5%, respectively, of the OFL and TAC ((Federal Register 2011; Spies, I., Wilderbuer, T.K.,

34

Nichol, D.G., & Aydin, K. 2012). The BSAI arrowtooth flounder stock was not considered to be experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). Rationale Approximately 80% of the 2011 BSAI arrowtooth catch was taken in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery, and substantial amounts were also caught in the Pacific cod longline fishery (6.4%) (Appendix A).

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

GoA arrowtooth flounder have been lightly exploited for decades. Since 2000, annual GoA arrowtooth flounder catch has been, on average, only 13% of the ABC (Turnock, B.J. & Wilderbuer, T.K. 2011). In 2011, total catch of GoA arrowtooth flounder (30,890 t; Turnock, B.J. 2012a) was 12.3% of the OFL and 71.8% of the TAC (Turnock, B.J. 2012a). For 2012, the GoA arrowtooth flounder stock is considered to not be experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012). For these reasons, GoA arrowtooth flounder fishing mortality is scored ’very low’ concern for the GoA flatfish trawl fishery. Rationale Approximately 89% of the total catch was taken in the GoA flatfish trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

ATKA MACKEREL


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low

The FishBase vulnerability score for Atka mackerel is 32.


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

Estimated 2013 BSAI Atka mackerel biomass is at the lowest point since the late 1970s. However, BSAI Atka mackerel were classified as ‘not overfished’ for 2012, and for 2013, spawning biomass is 92.5% of SB40% and 105.7% of SB35%. For these reasons, BSAI Atka mackerel are scored ’low’ concern for stock

35

status. Rationale Modeled estimates of BSAI Atka mackerel biomass suggest that the stock has gone through several major fluctuations since the late 1970s, with three periods in which spawning biomass peaked at 220,000-260,000 t, and three troughs (not counting the current period) in which spawning biomass reached lows of 117,000-133,000 t (Figure 14; Table 17.13 in Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The estimated spawning biomass for of BSAI Atka mackerel in 2013 (103,034 t) is less than the estimated SB40% (111,385 t; Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012), and is lower than any of the other biomass estimates since at least 1977 (Table 17.13 in Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012).

Figure 14. Estimated BSAI Atka mackerel spawning biomass with approximate 90% confidence intervals (Figure from Lowe,

Ianelli, and Palsson 2012). The 2012 trawl survey yielded an Aleutian Islands biomass estimate that was 70% less than the 2010 estimate (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). Particular declines were noted in the Eastern Aleutian Islands and Southern Bering Sea areas, which declined by 91% and 99% relative to their 2010 values, respectively (Table 17.6 in Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The authors of the 2012 stock assessment point out that; the variances in the Eastern Aleutian Islands area have tended to be greater than those for other areas in previous surveys; that survey catches of Atka mackerel in the Eastern area have tended to be

36

characterized by patchy, large tows in the past; and that these large tows did not materialize in the 2012 survey (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The authors also point out that bottom temperatures were 0.25°C lower than average for the depth stratum at which 99% of Atka mackerel are caught, and that a previous year with similarly cold bottom temperatures also yielded a low biomass estimate (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). BSAI Atka mackerel were classified as ‘not overfished’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The 2011 catch of BSAI Atka mackerel was 51.3% and 60.7% of the OFL and ABC, respectively (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012, and for 2013, the FOFL and maxFABC have been adjusted to account for the sub-SB40% status of the stock’s spawning biomass. For these reasons, fishing mortality of BSAI Atka mackerel is scored ’very low’ concern for the Atka mackerel trawl fishery and rockfish trawl fishery. Rationale Catch of BSAI Atka mackerel in 2011 was 51,818 t, while the OFL and ABC were 101,000 t and 85,300 t, respectively (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). In 2011, the Atka mackerel trawl fishery was responsible for approximately 94% of total BSAI Atka mackerel fishing mortality (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). Smaller amounts are also caught in the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). The stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). For 2013, allowable fishing mortality rates have been reduced in light of the stock’s sub-target status: FOFL and maxFABC were reduced 7.8% and 8.6%, respectively, due to the harvest control rule that reduces allowable fishing mortality when B<B40% (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). Estimates of F and B for the Aleutian Islands (where the majority of the BSAI stock is found) suggest that mortality rates have been appropriate for the stock status in previous years (Figure 15).

37

Figure 15. 2012 estimates of Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel spawning biomass and fishing mortality rates relative to

reference points (Figure from Lowe, Ianelli, and Palsson 2012).

BLACKSPOTTED ROCKFISH


BSAI Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for rougheye rockfish is 69. Rougheye rockfish inherent vulnerability is therefore scored ‘high.’ In the absence of a FishBase score for blackspotted rockfish, inherent vulnerability for blackspotted rockfish is scored ’high’ as well.


BSAI Bottom Trawl

38

Low Concern

The BSAI blackspotted/rougheye (BS/RE) rockfish complex as a whole was classified as not overfished for 2012. For the Aleutian Islands portion of the BSAI population, the projected SB2013:SB40% is 1.32. There are no reference points for the Eastern Bering Sea portion of the population. The Factor 1.2 score is moderated by the lack of reference points for the Eastern Bering Sea portion of the complex and the lack of species-specific biomass estimates and reference points for the two species in this complex and, therefore, the Factor 1.2 score for BSAI BS/RE rockfish is scored ’low concern.’ Rationale For 2012, NMFS classified BS/RE rockfish stock status as ’not overfished,’ with a B:BMSY ratio of 1.328 (NMFS 2012). BS/RE rockfish are managed under Tier 3a for the Aleutian Islands region and under Tier 5 for the Eastern Bering Sea region. For 2013, the estimated spawning biomass of Aleutian Islands BS/RE rockfish is 6,838 t, while the estimated SB40% is 5,196 t (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a). The 2013 biomass estimate for BS/RE rockfish in the Eastern Bering Sea region is 1,774 t (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a); as a Tier 5 stock, there are no biomass reference points for the Eastern Bering Sea portion of the stock. The estimated 2012 BSAI BS/RE rockfish spawning biomass is the highest since at least 1977 (Table 14 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of BS/RE rockfish in the BSAI was 31.0% and 37.4% of the BSAI-wide OFL and ABC, respectively (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a). The BSAI BS/RE rockfish complex was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012. While the fact that the BSAI-wide catch was less than the BSAI-wide OFL suggests that fishing mortality should be considered ’very low’ concern, the Factor 1.3 score is ’low’ concern for the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery because the total catch of that portion of the stock that is found in the Eastern Bering Sea slightly exceeded the area-specific ABC and was 87% of the area-specific, Tier 5-derived OFL, and also because the lack of species-specific information moderates this score. Rationale In 2011, the catch of BSAI BS/RE rockfish was 170 t, while the OFL and ABC were 549 t and 454 t, respectively (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a). The OFL and ABC were a combination of the Tier 3b Aleutian Islands values and Tier 5 Eastern Bering Sea values (Table 3). Approximately 92% of the BSAI-wide OFL and ABC was derived from the Aleutian Island Tier 3b estimates, and 8% was derived from Tier 5 estimates for the Eastern Bering Sea region. Roughly 77% of the 2011 catch was from the Aleutian Islands (Table 3). The catch of BS/RE rockfish in the Eastern Bering Sea slightly exceeded the area-

39

specific ABC (Table 3). As a whole, the BSAI BS/RE rockfish complex was classified as not undergoing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). It is estimated that more than 50% of the 2011 catch of BSAI BS/RE rockfish came from the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery (Table 5 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a).



GOA Bottom Trawl

High



GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

After declining from the late 1970s through the end of the 1980s, GoA BS/RE rockfish spawning biomass has generally increased each year since 1991 (Table 13-18 in (Shotwell, S.K., et al., 2011)). The GoA BS/RE rockfish complex was classified as "not overfished" in 2012 (NMFS 2012), and estimated SB2013:SB40% is 1.31 (Shotwell, S.K., et al., 2012). In light of the lack of species-specific biomass estimates and reference points for this complex’s two constituent species, the Factor 1.2 score for the GoA BS/RE rockfish complex is scored “low concern”.


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of GoA BS/RE rockfish (543 t) was 34.4% and 41.4% of the Tier 3b OFL and ABC, respectively (Shotwell, S.K., et al. 2012). The stock complex was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). The Factor 1.3 score for GoA BS/RE rockfish is moderated by the lack of species-specific information, and is therefore scored ’low’ concern for the GoA rockfish trawl and sablefish longline fisheries.

40

Rationale Approximately 52.5% of 2011 BSAI BS/RE rockfish catch was taken in the rockfish trawl fishery, and another 22.3% and 12.5% are estimated to have been taken in the sablefish longline and flatfish trawl fisheries, respectively (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

BUTTER SOLE


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low

The FishBase vulnerability score for butter sole is 35, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 2.45 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

GoA butter sole are part of the shallow water flatfish complex and are managed under Tier 5, without biomass reference points. Trawl survey biomass estimates for GoA butter sole have been variable in recent years; the most recent estimate (19,695 t in 2011) is similar to the average of the biomass estimates from 1984 to 2011 (21,371 t; Table 4.6a in Turnock, B.J., et al. 2011). Therefore, there is no indication that the stock’s biomass is trending downwards. The GoA butter sole stock receives a score of ’low concern’ for stock status, due to the lack of biomass reference points and the low inherent vulnerability of the species (see Factor 1.1).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The total catch of GoA butter sole in 2011 was 769 t (Turnock, B.J., et al., 2012). This was 30.3% of the non-binding stock-specific Tier 5 OFL estimate (2,539 t) and 39.4% of the ABC (1,950 t; Turnock, B.J., et al. 2010). Fishing mortality of GoA butter sole in the GoA flatfish trawl and GoA Pacific cod trawl fisheries is scored ’low’ concern because recent catch has been substantially less than stock-specific (yet

41

non-binding) OFL and ABC. Rationale When the total 2011 catch of GoA butter sole is distributed among fisheries in a manner proportional to the distribution of shallow water flatfish catch (Fissel, B. et al. 2012), the result is that 69.2% of the 2011 butter sole catch is attributed to the GoA flatfish trawl fishery, 23.1% is attributed to the Pacific cod trawl fishery, and 7.7% to the GoA pollock bottom trawl fishery (Appendix A).

DOVER SOLE


GOA Bottom Trawl

Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for Dover sole is 42, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.80 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

In the BSAI, Dover sole are part of the ‘other flatfish’ complex, where they are a minor component of the catch (<1% of total ‘other flatfish’ catch in 2011; Table 11.2 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b). In the GoA, however, Dover sole composed over 99% of the total 2011 catch of the ‘deepwater flatfish’ complex (Stockhausen, W.T. 2012a). Therefore, this assessment addresses only GoA Dover sole. While there is uncertainty regarding the stock assessment for Dover sole, recent information suggests that the stock is above SB40%. However, there are currently no reference points against which to assess the status of the stock. The stock status of GoA Dover sole is therefore scored ’low’ conservation concern. Rationale A recent Tier 3 model suggested that only older Dover sole are well-selected by the GoA groundfish survey; as a result, Dover sole biomass may be substantially greater than previous stock assessments have shown (Stockhausen, W.T., et al., 2011a). The implications of this finding reduced the stock assessment team’s confidence in the Tier 3 model, and as such the stock has been managed under Tier 5 for 2012 and 2013 (Stockhausen, W.T. 2012a). While biomass reference points are not presented in the most recent assessment, the 2010 stock assessment (which used the data that may not adequately

42

represent younger Dover sole) reported a SB2011:SB40% ratio of 2.3 (Stockhausen, W.T. 2010). Given that the uncertainty regarding the Tier 3 stock assessment revolves around the possibility that the stock’s biomass is much greater than previously estimated, it does not seem likely that the stock is overfished.


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

GoA Dover sole are a Tier 5 stock. The 2011 catch of GoA Dover sole was 6.1% of the stock-specific OFL estimate. Therefore, GoA Dover sole fishing mortality is scored ’very low’ concern for the GoA flatfish fishery. Rationale The 2011 catch of GoA Dover sole was 461 t, which was approximately 99% of the total catch of the entire deepwater flatfish complex (Stockhausen, W.T. 2012a). The stock-specific estimated OFL for GoA Dover sole was 7,579 t (Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011a). In 2011, approximately 67% of the deepwater flatfish complex catch was taken in flatfish trawl tows (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

DUSKY ROCKFISH


GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for dusky rockfish (Sebastes variabilis) is 68, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.28(Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The GoA dusky rockfish stock was classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and SB2013:SB40% is 1.27. The stock status of GoA dusky rockfish is therefore scored ’very low’ concern. Rationale:

43

Estimates of GoA dusky rockfish spawning biomass suggest a generally increasing trend, from approximately 10,221 t in 1982 to 31,478 t in 2008, and a slight decline in subsequent years (Table 12-15 in Lunsford, C.R., et al. 2011). The GoA dusky rockfish stock was classified as ’not overfished’ in 2012 (NMFS 2012), and for 2013, the estimated spawning biomass of GoA dusky rockfish is 25,337 t, while SB40% is 19,873 t (Lunsford, C.R., et al. 2012).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

There is a targeted trawl fishery for GoA dusky rockfish (NPFMC 2011a). The total catch of GoA dusky rockfish in 2011 was 2,523 t, while the Tier 3a OFL and ABC were 5,649 t and 4,663 t, respectively (Lunsford, C.R., et al. 2012). The GoA rockfish trawl fishery caught 2,308 t of the pelagic shelf rockfish’ (PSR) complex in 2011 (Table 10.3 in Hulson, P-J., et al. 2011), and as this complex was essentially composed of only dusky rockfish in that year, this fishery’s PSR catch is assumed to represent approximately 91.5% of the 2011 GoA dusky rockfish catch. In 2012, GoA dusky rockfish were not considered to be experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012). Fishing mortality of GoA dusky rockfish is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the GoA rockfish trawl fishery.

FLATHEAD SOLE


BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Medium

The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for flathead sole is 36, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 2.30 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

BSAI flathead sole were classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and SB2013:SB40% is 1.91.

44

Rationale Estimated BSAI flathead sole total biomass increased from approximately 122,000 t in 1977 to over 980,000 t in 1994, and subsequently decreased to approximately 776,000 t in 2010 (Table 9.15 in Stockhausen, W.T. & Nichol, D. 2011). For 2012, BSAI flathead sole was classified as ’not overfished’ by NMFS (NMFS 2012). For 2013, estimated spawning biomass is 245,175 t, while SB40% is 128,286 t (Stockhausen, W.T., Nichol, D., & Palsson, W. 2012).

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

GoA flathead sole were classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and SB2013:SB40% is 2.56. For these reasons, GoA flathead sole are scored ’very low’ concern for Factor 1.2. Rationale GoA flathead sole age 3+ biomass steadily increased from 210,000 t in 1984 to 305,000 t in 2009, with a slight decrease to 303,000 t in 2010 (Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011b). In 2012, the GoA flathead sole stock was classified as ’not overfished’ by NMFS (NMFS 2012). For 2013, estimated GoA flathead sole SB is 106,377 t and SB40% is 41,547 t (Stockhausen, W.T. 2012b).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The catch of BSAI flathead sole in 2011 was 16.2% of the OFL and 19.6% of the ABC. In 2012, the stock was not classified as experiencing overfishing. Rationale Fishing mortality rates for BSAI flathead sole declined substantially from the late 1970s through the late 1980s, and have remained less than 0.10 in the years since; for reference, F35% was estimated to be 0.340 for 2012 (Figure 16; Stockhausen, W.T. & Nichol, D. 2011). Total catch of BSAI flathead sole was 13,556 t in 2011, which was substantially less than the ABC (69,300 t) and the OFL (83,300 t) (Table 9.3 in Stockhausen, W.T., Nichol, D., & Palsson, W. 2012). For 2012, the stock was not classified as experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012). In 2011, BSAI flathead sole catch was distributed between the following fisheries: flatfish trawl (58.5% of flathead sole catch), pollock pelagic trawl (21.5%), and pollock bottom trawl (14.8%) (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

45

Figure 16. Estimated BSAI flathead sole fishing mortality rate (Figure from Stockhausen, W.T. and Nichol, D. 2011)

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of GoA flathead sole was 4.4% of the OFL. For 2012, the stock was not classified as experiencing overfishing. GoA flathead sole fishing mortality is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the GoA flatfish trawl and Pacific cod trawl fisheries. Rationale Total catch of GoA flathead sole was 2,728 t in 2011 (Stockhausen, W.T. 2012b), while the OFL was 61,412 t (Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011b). Approximately 85.7% of this catch was taken in the GoA flatfish trawl fishery, with 7.1% taken in both the Pacific cod trawl and pollock bottom trawl fisheries (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). For 2012, NMFS classified the stock as not undergoing overfishing (NMFS 2012).

GREENLAND TURBOT


BSAI Bottom Trawl

BSAI Bottom Longline

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Greenland turbot is 73.

46


BSAI Bottom Trawl


High Concern

Due to a long-term trend of declining biomass, and the fact that SB2013 is 19.7% of SB100%, BSAI Greenland turbot stock status is scored ’high’ concern. Rationale The 2012 estimate of BSAI Greenland turbot spawning biomass was sharply reduced from the 2011 estimate (Barbeaux, S.J. et al. 2012). This reduction resulted from changes to the assessment model and data, and the correction of an error that had underestimated SB100% (and therefore SB40% and SB35%) for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 assessments (Barbeaux, S.J. et al. 2012). As a result of these changes, the 2012 assessment generated an estimate of 2011 spawning biomass (27,263 t) that was 53% of the estimate generated by the 2011 assessment (51,278 t) (Table 5.19 in Barbeaux, S.J. et al. 2012). The combination of the changes to the model and to the inputs had the effect of raising the estimate of SB100%, SB40%, and SB35%, while reducing estimated SB2013 (Table 5.19 in Barbeaux, S.J. et al. 2012). As a result, estimated SB2013 (23,485 t) is 49.2% of estimated SB40% (47,686 t), and is 56.3% of the BMSY proxy (SB35%) (Barbeaux, S.J. et al. 2012). This is just above the official designation for ‘overfished’ (50% of SB35%). The stock therefore was not classified as overfished by NMFS during 2012 (NMFS 2012). More recently, the 2013 stock assessment estimated that SB2014 is 22% of SB100%, 55% of SB40%, and 63% of SB35% (Barbeaux, S.J., et al. 2013). However, the authors of the 2013 assessment noted that a second model, which was the better-fitting model but which had not been "thoroughly vetted" at the time of the release of the assessment, generated an estimate of SB2014 that would qualify the stock for ’overfished’ status (Barbeaux, S.J., et al. 2013). The authors also note that exceptionally large year classes of 2008 and 2009 will begin to increase the spawning biomass starting in 2015 (Barbeaux, S.J., et al. 2013). An additional consideration for this stock is a long-term trend of declining biomass (Figure 17), as the stock's spawning biomass is estimated to have declined every year from 1973 through 2013, with a slight increase noted for 2014 (Table 5.20 in Barbeaux, S.J., et al. 2013).

47

Figure 17. BSAI Greenland turbot estimated spawning biomass, 1972-2013 (Data from Table 5.19 in Barbeaux et al. 2012).


BSAI Bottom Trawl


Low Concern

The BSAI Greenland turbot OFL and ABC were reduced substantially in the 2012 assessment, due to the changes to the stock assessment model and input data that are presented in the 2012 assessment. While catches were less than ABCs during the years immediately preceding the 2012 assessment, the reduced OFL and ABC presented in the 2012 assessment indicate that previous catch levels may not have been appropriate for the stock. However, it is expected that fishing mortality will be appropriate for the stock going into the future (for reference, the estimated catch for 2013 is approximately 26% of the 2012 catch; Table 5.1 in Barbeaux, S.J., et al. 2013). Fishing mortality of BSAI Greenland turbot is scored ’low’ concern for the BSAI Greenland turbot longline and flatfish trawl fisheries. Rationale BSAI Greenland turbot are caught primarily in the Greenland turbot longline and flatfish trawl fisheries (Table 5.3 in Barbeaux, S.J., et al. 2013).

KAMCHATKA FLOUNDER


BSAI Bottom Trawl

48

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Kamchatka flounder is 64.


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The total biomass of BSAI Kamchatka flounder is estimated to have increased from 2001 through 2008-2010, but may have diminished somewhat during 2011 and 2012 (Figure 17; Table 7-3 in Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012b). Estimated spawning biomass shows a slightly different trend, with maximums of approximately 48,000 t in the late 1990s and mid-2000s, and subsequent declines after both (Figure 7A-15 (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012b). Kamchatka flounder are managed under Tier 3, and projected spawning biomass for 2014 is greater than SB40% (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2013). BSAI Kamchatka flounder stock status is therefore scored ’very low’ concern. Rationale

Figure 18. Estimated total BSAI Kamchatka flounder biomass (Figure from Wilderbuer, Nichol, and Lauth 2012).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

49

Fishing mortality was minimal for many years, but increased substantially in recent years. In 2012, the total catch of BSAI Kamchatka flounder was approximately 32% and 51% of the Tier 5 OFL and ABC, respectively (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012b). The stock is now managed under Tier 3; catches are expected to be reduced as a result of substantially reduced OFL and ABC. Fishing mortality is scored ’low’ concern. Rationale BSAI Kamchatka flounder fishing mortality is estimated to have been relatively minimal for many years, with an average annual F of 0.015 for the years 1991-2008 (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012b). However, the recent targeting of the species led to increased fishing mortality in the last several years (Figure 19) (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012b). In 2012, the estimated total catch of BSAI Kamchatka flounder was 9,466 t (Table 7-1 in Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012b), which was less than the 2012 Tier 5 OFL (24,800 t) and ABC (18,600 t) (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012b). It should be noted that the 2012 catch is greater than the new Tier 3-based estimates of OFL and ABC for 2014 (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2013). In 2011, approximately 92% of BSAI Kamchatka flounder catch was taken in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

Figure 19. Estimated full-selection F for BSAI Kamchatka flounder, 1991-2011 (Figure from Wilderbuer, Nichol, and Lauth

2012)

NORTHERN ROCK SOLE


BSAI Bottom Trawl

50

GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for Lepidopsetta polyxystra is 48.


GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

For northern and southern rock sole in the GoA, SB2013:SB40% is 2.12 and 1.84, respectively (A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). Stock status for GoA northern and southern rock sole is therefore scored ’very low’ concern.

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

For BSAI northern rock sole, SB2013: SBMSY is 2.42, and SB2013 is approximately 90% of SB0 (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012a). The stock has increased substantially since the late 1970s (Figure 20), and was classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012). BSAI northern rock sole is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for Factor 1.2. Rationale:

51

Figure 20. Estimated BSAI northern rock sole spawning biomass (figure from NPFMC 2011a).


GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Rock sole are part of the GoA Shallow Water Flatfish Complex, and as such they do not have an official classification regarding overfishing. However, in 2011, the catches of GoA northern and southern rock sole were 5.4% and 6.8% of their respective stock-specific (and non-binding) OFLs (A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). Fishing mortality of GoA northern and southern rock sole is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the flatfish trawl and Pacific cod trawl fisheries. Rationale GoA rock sole are managed as part of the Shallow Water Flatfish (SWFF) complex; rock sole has composed an average of 75% of the annual SWFF catch since 1993 (Table 4.1.1 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). In 2011, total catches of GoA northern and southern rock sole were 1,029 and 2,066 t, respectively (Turnock, B.J., et al. 2012), while the OFL and ABC values were 18,953 and 16,085 t for northern rock sole and 30,460 and 26,064 t for southern rock sole (Turnock, B.J. et al., 2010). The SWFF complex was not considered to be experiencing overfishing during 2012, but there was no official classification of the GoA northern and southern rock sole stocks per se (NMFS 2012). Approximately 69.2% of the 2011 SWFF catch was taken in the flatfish trawl fishery, while another 23.1% was taken in the Pacific cod trawl fishery and 7.7% in the pollock bottom trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

52

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

In 2011, catch of BSAI northern rock sole was 24.4% and 27.0% of the OFL and ABC, respectively (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012a). The stock was not classified as undergoing overfishing in 2012. BSAI northern rock sole fishing mortality is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the flatfish trawl fishery. Rationale BSAI northern rock sole exploitation rates have not exceeded 0.05 since 1989 (Table 8.13 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012a). Catch of BSAI northern rock sole in 2011 was 60,401 t (Table 8.1 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012a), while OFL and ABC were 248,000 and 224,000 t, respectively (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2011). Approximately 83% of the 2011 BSAI rock sole catch was taken in the flatfish trawl fishery, while 14% was caught in the two pollock trawl fisheries (pelagic and bottom) (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). For 2012, the stock was not classified as experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012), and the estimated F2012 was well below the overfishing level associated with the current estimated spawning biomass (Figure 21).

Figure 21. BSAI northern rock sole fishing mortality rate, female spawning biomass, and the harvest control rule (Figure

from (Wilderbuer and Nichol 2012a).

NORTHERN ROCKFISH


53

BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for northern rockfish is 46.


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The GoA northern rockfish stock was classified as ’not overfished’ in 2012 (NMFS 2012), and for 2013, the estimated GoA northern rockfish spawning biomass is 40,452 t, while SB40% is 29,193 t (Hulson, P.J., et al. 2012). GoA northern rockfish stock status is therefore considered to be ’very low’ concern.

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

BSAI northern rockfish were classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and SB2013:SB40% is 1.43. The stock status of BSAI northern rockfish is therefore scored ’very low’ concern. Rationale Estimates of BSAI northern rockfish spawning biomass indicate a steady increase from the late 1970s, and suggest that current biomass levels are near a recent maximum (Figure 22; Table 11 in Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012a). In 2012, BSAI northern rockfish were classified as ’not overfished,’ with a B:BMSY ratio of 1.615 (NMFS 2012). For 2013, BSAI northern rockfish spawning biomass is estimated to be 84,697, while estimated SB40% is 59,167 t (Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012a).

54

Figure 22. BSAI northern rockfish spawning biomass estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (Figure from Spencer and

Ianelli 2012).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Recent catches of GoA northern rockfish have been relatively steady (Figure 23). In 2011, total catch of GoA northern rockfish was 3,440 t, while the OFL and ABC were 5,784 t and 4,854 t, respectively (Hulson, P.J., et al. 2012). The stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2011 (NMFS 2012). GoA northern rockfish fishing mortality is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the rockfish trawl fishery.

Rationale Approximately 94% of this catch was taken in the rockfish trawl fishery (Table 10.3 in Hulson, P.J., et al. 2011).

55

Figure 23. Estimated catches of GoA northern rockfish, 1960-2010 (Figure from Hulson, P.J.F. et al. 2011)

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Total catch of BSAI northern rockfish in 2011 was 2,762 t, while the Tier 3a OFL and ABC were 10,600 t and 8,670 t, respectively (Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012a). The stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). Fishing mortality of BSAI northern rockfish is therefore considered to be ’very low’ concern for the BSAI Atka mackerel trawl fishery. Rationale BSAI northern rockfish are caught primarily in the Atka mackerel trawl fishery (NPFMC 2011a); this fishery was responsible for approximately 84% of the catch of northern rockfish during the period 2004-2012 (Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012a).

PACIFIC COD


BSAI Bottom Trawl

BSAI Jig


BSAI Pot

56

GOA Jig

GOA Bottom Longline

GOA Pot

Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for Pacific cod is 50, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 2.11 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


GOA Jig

GOA Bottom Longline

GOA Pot

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

GoA Pacific cod were classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and estimated SB2013:SB40% is 1.15. GoA Pacific cod are therefore scored ’very low’ concern. Rationale GoA Pacific cod spawning biomass declined over most of the past three decades, from approximately 258,000 t in 1983 to 81,890 t in 2008 (Figure 23; Table 2.14 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b). Spawning biomass has increased since 2008, and for 2013, the estimated spawning biomass of GoA Pacific cod is 108,491 t (S.D. = 15,806 t; Table 2.14 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b), while SB40% is 93,900 t (A'mar, T., et al. 2012b). In 2012, the GoA Pacific cod stock was classified as ’not overfished,’ with a B:BMSY ratio of 1.198 (NMFS 2012).

57

Figure 24. Estimated GoA Pacific cod spawning biomass (Figure from Thompson and Lauth 2012)

BSAI Bottom Trawl

BSAI Jig


BSAI Pot

Very Low Concern

The BSAI Pacific cod stock were classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and for 2013, BSAI Pacific cod SB2013:SB40% is 1.18. BSAI Pacific cod are therefore scored ’very low’ concern for Factor 1.2. RationaleThe estimated spawning biomass of BSAI Pacific cod generally declined from 1984 through 1993, remained relatively steady through 2003, declined until 2009, and increased in the subsequent years (Table 2.26 in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). The estimated 2013 BSAI Pacific cod spawning is 422,000 t, which is the highest value since 1992 (Table 2.26 in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012), taking the 93% conversion rate into account). The estimated 2013 spawning biomass also exceeds SB40% (358,000 t; Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). The BSAI Pacific cod stock was classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012).

58


GOA Jig

GOA Bottom Longline

GOA Pot

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

For 2011, catch of GoA Pacific cod in federal and state fisheries was 82.7% of the OFL (A'mar, T., et al. 2012b), and the stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). Fishing mortality of GoA Pacific cod is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the GoA Pacific cod pot, longline, trawl, and jig fisheries. Rationale The total catch of GoA Pacific cod by federal and state fisheries has not exceeded the OFL since at least 1992 (Table 2.2 in ('mar, T., et al. 2012b). In 2011, the total catch of GoA Pacific cod was 84,839 t, with 62,821 t caught in federal fisheries and 22,018 t caught in state fisheries (Table 2.1 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b), while the OFL and ABC were 102,600 t and 86,800 t, respectively (Table 2.2 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b). The 2011 catch of GoA Pacific cod was caught primarily in the Pacific cod pot (47.3%), Pacific cod longline (25.9%), and Pacific cod trawl (18.6%) fisheries (Table 3 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012). For 2012, the stock was classified as not undergoing overfishing (NMFS 2012).

BSAI Bottom Trawl

BSAI Jig


BSAI Pot

Very Low Concern

Catch of BSAI Pacific cod was 80.9% of the Tier 3a OFL in 2011 (Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012), and the stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing for 2012 (NMFS 2012). BSAI Pacific cod fishing mortality is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the BSAI Pacific cod longline, trawl, pot, and jig fisheries, and the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery. Rationale Fishing mortality rates for BSAI Pacific cod have been relatively steady in recent years, varying between 0.202 and 0.264 since 1998 (Table 2.19d in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). For reference, the

59

estimated FOFL for 2013 is 0.34 (Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). Catch of BSAI Pacific cod has not exceeded OFL since 1992 (Table 2.3 in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). In 2011, total catch of BSAI Pacific cod was 220,134 t, while the OFL and ABC were 272,000 t and 235,000 t, respectively (Table 2.3 in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). The 2011 BSAI Pacific cod catch was taken primarily in the Pacific cod longline fishery (53.8% of catch), Pacific cod trawl fishery (16.6%), Pacific cod pot fishery (12.7%), and flatfish trawl tows for yellowfin sole (7.4%) (Table 4 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012). For 2012, the BSAI Pacific cod stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012).

PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH


BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Pacific Ocean perch is 60, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.44 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The GoA Pacific Ocean perch stock was classified as ’not overfished’ in 2012, and SB2013:SB40% is 1.14. GoA Pacific Ocean perch stock status is therefore scored ’very low’ concern. Rationale As in the BSAI, a foreign fleet caught enormous amounts of GoA Pacific Ocean perch during the 1960s, and Pacific Ocean perch biomass declined substantially from the mid-1960s through the end of the 1970s (Figure 25; Hanselman, D.H.et al., 2012). In the years since, biomass has steadily recovered (Figure 25). For 2012, the stock was classified as ’not overfished,’ with a B:BMSY ratio of 1.302 (NMFS 2012). More recently, the 2013 GoA Pacific Ocean perch estimated spawning biomass is 107,511 t, while SB40% is 93,876 t (Hanselman, D.H.et al. 2012).

60

Figure 25. Estimated spawning biomass of BSAI Pacific Ocean perch (Figure from Spencer and Ianelli 2012b).

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

In 2012, the BSAI Pacific Ocean perch stock was classified as ’not overfished,’ and SB2013:SB40% is 1.49. The stock status of BSAI Pacific Ocean perch is therefore scored ’very low‘concern. Rationale Heavily fished by foreign fleets through the early 1960s, BSAI Pacific Ocean perch spawning biomass declined substantially from the 1960s through 1978 (Figure 26; Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012b). Spawning biomass has recovered during the subsequent years (Figure 26; Table 12 in Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012b). For 2012, the BSAI Pacific Ocean perch stock was classified as ’not overfished,’ with a B:BMSY ratio of 1.63 (NMFS 2012). For 2013, the estimated spawning biomass of BSAI Pacific Ocean perch is 273,683 t, while SB40% is 183,774 t (Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012b).

61

Figure 26. Estimated spawning biomass of GoA Pacific Ocean perch, with 95% credible intervals (Figure from (Hanselman, D.

et al. 2011)


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The 2011 catch of GoA Pacific Ocean perch was 72.6% and 83.6% of the OFL and ABC, respectively, and the stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012. GoA Pacific Ocean perch fishing mortality is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the GoA rockfish trawl fishery. Rationale During the 1960s, the GoA Pacific Ocean perch fishery was characterized by very large catches and high fishing mortality rates; catches declined during the late 1960s and 1970s and have remained low in the years since (Figure 9-1 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2011). In 2011, the total catch of GoA Pacific Ocean perch was 14,211 t, while the OFL and ABC were 19,566 t and 16,997 t, respectively (Hanselman, D.H.et al. 2012). Approximately 90% of the 2011 catch was taken in the GoA rockfish trawl fishery (Table 10.3 in Hulson, P.J., et al. 2011). For 2012, the stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012).

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Total catch of BSAI Pacific Ocean perch in 2011 was 66.1% and 97.2% of the OFL and ABC, respectively.

62

For 2012, the stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing. Fishing mortality of BSAI Pacific Ocean perch is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery. Rationale For 2011, total catch of BSAI Pacific Ocean perch was 24,001 t (Table 1 in Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012b), while the OFL and ABC were 36,300 t and 24,700 t, respectively (Federal Register 2011). This catch was the highest recorded since at least 1977 (Table 1 in Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012b), but the 2011 fishing mortality rate was similar to recent levels (Figure 27). At least 73% of the 2011 catch was taken in the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery (see Appendix A).

Figure 27. Estimates fishing mortality rates for BSAI Pacific Ocean perch (Figure from Spencer and Ianelli 2012b).

REX SOLE


BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for rex sole is 65, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 2.05 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


63

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

For GoA rex sole, SB2012:SB35% was 2.74, and the stock was classified as not overfished for 2012. GoA rex sole are therefore scored ’very low‘concern for Factor 1.2. Rationale Species managed under Tier 5 generally do not have biomass reference points, but the Scientific and Statistical Committee of the NPFMC determined that, for GoA rex sole, estimates of SB2012 (53,164 t) and SB35% (19,434 t) were reliable and indicated that the stock was not overfished (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b). The stock was classified as not overfished by NMFS for 2012 (NMFS 2012). Furthermore, recent estimates suggest that GoA rex sole biomass is near a 3-decade high, and that GoA rex sole biomass increased from the late 1990s through 2009 (Table 6.15 in Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011c).

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

BSAI rex sole are part of the BSAI “other flatfish” complex. The 2012 estimated BSAI rex sole biomass is the second-highest since at least 1997 (Table 11.6 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b). The stock status of BSAI rex sole is scored ’low’ concern.


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The 2011 catch of GoA rex sole was 23.0% and 30.0% of the Tier 5 OFL and ABC, respectively, and the stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012. GoA rex sole are therefore scored ’low’ concern for fishing mortality associated with the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery. Rationale Catches of GoA rex sole have remained relatively constant since the early 1990s (Figure 27; Table 6.14 in Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011c). In 2011, the catch of GoA rex sole was 2,876 t, while the Tier 5 OFL and ABC were 12,499 and 9,565 t, respectively (Stockhausen, W.T. 2012a). Approximately 93% of the 2011 GoA rex sole catch was taken in the GoA flatfish trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

64

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

BSAI rex sole are a Tier 5 stock and are not targeted in any fishery. Fishing mortality rates for BSAI rex sole have not exceeded 0.05 since 1997 (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b). The 2011 catch of BSAI rex sole was 860 t (Table 11.2 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b), which was approximately 16.9% of the stock-specific Tier 5 estimate of OFL (5,114 t) and 22.0% of the ABC (3,911 t) (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2010). There is no information available to indicate the apportionment of 2011 BAI rex sole catch between fisheries, and therefore this assessment assigns BAI rex sole catch to the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery only. Fishing mortality of BSAI rex sole is scored ’low’ concern.

ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH


BSAI Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for rougheye rockfish is 69, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.17 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The BSAI blackspotted/rougheye (BS/RE) rockfish complex as a whole was classified as not overfished for 2012. For the Aleutian Islands portion of the BSAI population, the projected SB2013:SB40% is 1.32. There are no reference points for the Eastern Bering Sea portion of the population. The Factor 1.2 score is moderated by the lack of reference points for the Eastern Bering Sea portion of the complex and the lack of species-specific biomass estimates and reference points for the two species in this complex, and therefore the Factor 1.2 score for BSAI BS/RE rockfish is scored ’low concern.’

Rationale For 2012, NMFS classified BS/RE rockfish stock status as ’not overfished,’ with a B:BMSY ratio of 1.328 (NMFS 2012). BS/RE rockfish are managed under Tier 3a for the Aleutian Islands region and under Tier 5 for the Eastern Bering Sea region. For 2013, the estimated spawning biomass of Aleutian Islands BS/RE rockfish is 6,838 t, while the estimated SB40% is 5,196 t (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a). The 2013 biomass estimate for BS/RE rockfish in the Eastern Bering Sea region is 1,774 t (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper,

65

C.N. 2012a). As a Tier 5 stock, there are no biomass reference points for the Eastern Bering Sea portion of the stock. The estimated 2012 BSAI BS/RE rockfish spawning biomass is the highest since at least 1977 (Table 14 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of BS/RE rockfish in the BSAI was 31.0% and 37.4% of the BSAI-wide OFL and ABC, respectively (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a). The BSAI BS/RE rockfish complex was classified as not undergoing overfishing in 2012. While the fact that the BSAI-wide catch was less than the BSAI-wide OFL suggests that fishing mortality should be considered ’very low’ concern, the Factor 1.3 score is ’low’ concern for the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery because the total catch of that portion of the stock that is found in the Eastern Bering Sea slightly exceeded the area-specific ABC and was 87% of the area-specific, Tier 5-derived OFL, and also because the lack of species-specific information moderates this score. Rationale In 2011, the catch of BSAI BS/RE rockfish was 170 t, while the OFL and ABC were 549 t and 454 t, respectively (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a). The OFL and ABC were a combination of the Tier 3b Aleutian Islands values and Tier 5 Eastern Bering Sea values (Table 3). Approximately 92% of the BSAI-wide OFL and ABC were derived from the Aleutian Island Tier 3b estimates, and 8% were derived from Tier 5 estimates for the Eastern Bering Sea region. Roughly 77% of the 2011 catch was from the Aleutian Islands (Table 3). The catch of BS/RE rockfish in the Eastern Bering Sea slightly exceeded the area-specific ABC (Table 3). As a whole, the BSAI BS/RE rockfish complex was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). It is estimated that more than 50% of the 2011 catch of BSAI BS/RE rockfish came from the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery (Table 5 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012a).

66

Figure 28. Catch of GoA rex sole, 1982-2011 (Figure from Stockhausen, W.T., Wilkins, M.E., and Martin, M.H. 2011c).

ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH


GOA Bottom Trawl

High



GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

After declining from the late 1970s through the end of the 1980s, GoA BS/RE rockfish spawning biomass has generally increased each year since 1991 (Table 13-18 in Shotwell, S.K., et al. 2011). The GoA BS/RE rockfish complex was classified as ’not overfished’ in 2012 (NMFS 2012), and estimated SB2013:SB40% is 1.31 (Shotwell, S.K., et al. 2012). In light of the lack of species-specific biomass estimates and reference points for this complex’s two constituent species, the Factor 1.2 score for the GoA BS/RE rockfish complex is scored low concern.’

67


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of GoA BS/RE rockfish (543 t) was 34.4% and 41.4% of the Tier 3b OFL and ABC, respectively (Shotwell, S.K., et al. 2012). The stock complex was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). The Factor 1.3 score for GoA BS/RE rockfish is moderated by the lack of species-specific information, and is therefore scored ’low’ concern for the GoA rockfish trawl and sablefish longline fisheries. Rationale Approximately 52.5% of 2011 BSAI BS/RE rockfish catch was taken in the rockfish trawl fishery, and another 22.3% and 12.5% are estimated to have been taken in the sablefish longline and flatfish trawl fisheries, respectively (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

SABLEFISH



BSAI Pot

GOA Bottom Longline

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for sablefish is 49, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.61 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



BSAI Pot

GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

The Alaska sablefish stock was classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and for 2013, Alaska sablefish

68

spawning biomass is approximately 91.3% of the target reference point SB40%, and 104.3% of SB35%. Alaska sablefish stock status is therefore scored ’low’ concern. Rationale Sablefish in Alaska belong to the northern stock of the species, which extends from Alaska into northern British Columbia and is differentiated from a southern stock that inhabits waters off of southern British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California (Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). Alaska sablefish have undergone several fluctuations in biomass over the past several decades (Figure 28). Fishing pressure likely drove the decrease in abundance noted in the 1970s, while abundance increased in the 1980s as a result of high recruitment. Estimated spawning biomass then declined from 1987 (171 t) through 2002 (81 t), and has increased somewhat in the years since. Still, the 2012 estimated spawning biomass represented a decline of approximately 42% relative to the 1987 level (Table 3.17 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). For 2012, Alaska sablefish were classified as not overfished,’with a B:BMSY ratio of 1.09 (NMFS 2012). For 2013, Alaska sablefish spawning biomass is estimated at 97,193 t, while SB40% is 105,506 t and SB35% is 93,192 (Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012).

Figure 28. Estimated Alaska sablefish spawning biomass (Figure from Hanselman, Lunsford, and Rodgveller 2012).



BSAI Pot

GOA Bottom Longline

Very Low Concern

69

The catch of Alaska sablefish in 2011 was 67.9% of the OFL, and the stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012. Fishing mortality of Alaska sablefish is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the sablefish longline and pot fisheries. Rationale Catch of Alaska sablefish peaked at over 50,000 t in the early 1970s and then declined sharply as fishing pressure diminished the stock (Table 3.1 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012)). Catches were just over 10,000 t by the late 1970s, but they climbed again as strong recruitment rebuilt the stock in the 1980s. Catches subsequently declined during the 1990s and have fluctuated between approximately 12,000 t and 17,000 t since 1996 (Table 3.1 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). A review of estimated fishing mortality rates relative to estimated stock status and reference mortality rates suggests that overfishing occurred in the early and mid-1970s, that fishing mortality rates in excess of F40% regularly occurred during the early 1990s, and that recent mortality rates are clustered between 40% and 80% of F35% (Figure 29; Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). Alaska sablefish OFLs and ABCs are apportioned between the GoA, the Bering Sea, and the Aleutian Islands. In 2011, sablefish catch did not exceed these limits (Table 4), and total catch of Alaska sablefish (12,862 t) was 67.9% and 80.2% of the OFL and ABC, respectively (Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). The sablefish longline and pot fisheries are the primary fisheries for sablefish in Alaska, catching approximately 81% of total sablefish catch in 2011 (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). For 2012, Alaska sablefish were classified as not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012).

Figure 29. Estimates of sablefish fishing mortality relative to reference mortality rates and biomass estimates relative to

SB35%, with 2013 visible on the left (Figure from Hanselman, Lunsford, and Rodgveller 2012).

70

SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH


BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for shortraker rockfish is 71, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.22 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The stock status of GoA shortraker rockfish is scored ’low‘concern. The species has high inherent vulnerability and there are no biomass reference points for this stock, but recent trawl survey biomass estimates suggest a generally increasing trend. Rationale As a Tier 5 stock, there are no biomass reference points against which to assess the current status of the GoA shortraker rockfish stock, and the official status of the stock was ’undefined’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012). Trends in estimated biomass of GoA shortraker rockfish suggest a general increase in biomass since at least the early 1980s, with the 2011 estimate being the highest since at least 1984 (Table 11-5 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011a).

BSAI Bottom Trawl

High Concern

The stock status of BSAI shortraker rockfish is scored ’high’ concern, as the species’ inherent vulnerability is high, there are no biomass reference points for this stock, and the most recent biomass estimate continues a gradually declining trend. Rationale BSAI shortraker rockfish are a Tier 5 stock and therefore have no biomass reference points. The official status of the stock in 2012 was ’undefined’ (NMFS 2012). The estimated biomass for 2013 (16,447 t) is a

71

continuation of what seems to be a trend of gradually declining biomass since at least 1980, when estimated biomass was 29,776 t (Figure 30; Table 8 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b).

Figure 30. Estimated beginning-year biomass of BSAI shortraker rockfish (data from Spencer and Rooper 2012).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The 2011 catch of GoA shortraker rockfish was 44.8% of the Tier 5 OFL and 59.7% of the ABC. The 2012 stock was not considered to be experiencing overfishing. Fishing mortality of GoA shortraker rockfish is scored ’low’ concern for the rockfish trawl, sablefish longline, and flatfish trawl fisheries. Rationale The 2011 catch of GoA shortraker rockfish was 546 t, which was 44.8% of the OFL (1,219 t) and 59.7% of the ABC (914 t) (Echave, K.B., et al. 2012), and was similar to catches in recent years (Table 11-1 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011a). The stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 by NMFS (NMFS 2012). In 2011, GoA shortraker rockfish were caught primarily in the rockfish trawl fishery (43%), the sablefish longline fishery (21%), the halibut longline fishery (11%), and the flatfish trawl fishery (12%) (Table 11-3 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011a).

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The total catch of BSAI shortraker rockfish in 2011 was 44.7% of the Tier 5 OFL and 59.5% of the ABC. The fishing mortality rate for 2011 was the highest estimate since 1990. The stock was not considered to

72

be experiencing overfishing in 2012. Fishing mortality of BSAI shortraker rockfish is scored ’low’ concern for the rockfish trawl, turbot longline, and sablefish longline fisheries. Rationale The total catch of BSAI shortraker rockfish in 2011 was 234 t, which was 44.7% of the OFL (524 t) and 59.5% of the ABC (393 t) (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b). This catch level is very similar to the average catch during the period 1993-2011 (238 t; Table 2 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b), but the 2011 estimated fishing mortality rate (0.20) is the highest since 1990 (Table 8 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b). This stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). During the period 2004-2012, BSAI shortraker rockfish were caught primarily in the trawl fishery for rockfish (40%), the longline fisheries for Pacific cod (12.5%) and turbot (10%), the flatfish trawl fishery (8.4%), and sablefish longline (6.1%) (Tables 5 and 6 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b).

SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD


BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score is 70 for shortspine thornyhead, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.33 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Moderate Concern

Shortspine thornyhead are the dominant GoA thornyhead species, and fisheries rarely encounter longspine thornyhead. Therefore, shortspine thornyhead are the only thornyhead species that this report assesses for the GoA. The thornyhead species in the GoA thornyhead complex are managed under Tier 5, and as such there are no biomass reference points against which to assess the status of the stocks. Trawl survey biomass estimates for GoA shortspine thornyhead have steadily declined over the past several surveys. The status of the complex is ’undefined’ in regard to the potential for being overfished, but the authors of the 2011 assessment state that it is ’unlikely’ that the GoA thornyhead complex is overfished. This mitigates concern, and GoA shortspine thornyhead thus receive a score of ’moderate’ concern for stock status.

73

Rationale Trawl survey estimates of GoA shortspine thornyhead biomass have low variation within each year (C.V.s generally are less than 0.10), but are moderately variable from survey to survey as the depths sampled in each year’s survey have varied (Table 15.8 in Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). The GoA trawl survey biomass estimate in 2005 (94,740 t) was the highest on record for surveys that covered all depths, but estimates have declined in subsequent surveys (Table 15.8 in Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). The estimate of 2013 shortspine thornyhead biomass also serves as the estimate of the GoA thornyhead complex biomass; longspine thornyhead estimated biomass is not included in the estimate, but the catch of longspine thornyhead is constrained by the catch limits that are derived from the shortspine estimate. As Tier 5 stocks, there are no biomass reference points for GoA shortspine or longspine thornyhead. The status of the thornyhead complex was therefore classified as ’undefined’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012), but the authors of the 2011 stock assessment suggest that it is ’unlikely’ that the GoA thornyhead complex is overfished (Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011).

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Moderate Concern

As a Tier 5 stock, there are no biomass reference points for BSAI shortspine thornyhead. Recent trends in trawl survey biomass estimates suggest that the stock is not diminishing. The species’ ’high’ inherent vulnerability (see Factor 1.1) and the lack of biomass reference points would suggest a Factor 1.2 score of ’high’ concern, but the generally increasing trend in trawl survey biomass estimates is a mitigating factor. BSAI shortspine thornyhead stock status is therefore scored ’moderate’ concern. Rationale In the BSAI, shortspine thornyhead are a part of the "other rockfish" stock complex, and are one of the two most abundant species in this complex (Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). Trawl survey biomass estimates suggest that BSAI shortspine thornyhead biomass generally increased from 1991 through 2010 and diminished somewhat in 2012 (Table 13 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). As a Tier 5 stock, there are no biomass reference points for BSAI shortspine thornyhead.


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The catch of GoA thornyhead in 2011 was 25.9% and 34.6% of the Tier 5 OFL and ABC, respectively; this catch was likely composed almost entirely of shortspine thornyhead. The thornyhead complex as a

74

whole was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012. GoA thornyhead catches have been steadily declining for the past decade. Fishing mortality for GoA shortspine thornyhead is scored ’low’ concern for the sablefish longline and rockfish trawl fisheries. Rationale Total catch of GoA thornyheads was 612 t in 2011, while the OFL and ABC were 2,360 t and 1,770 t, respectively (Shotwell, S.K. & Ianelli, J. 2012). The 2011 catch was similar to catches in recent years; catches of GoA thornyhead have not exceeded 1,000 t since 2003 and have not exceeded 2,000 t since 1992, and have exceeded 2,000 only 3 times since at least 1977 (Table 15.1 in Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). The GoA thornyhead catch is likely to be almost entirely composed of shortspine thornyhead, as longspine thornyhead are ‘rarely’ caught by GoA fisheries (Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). Targeted fishing of GoA shortspine thornyhead is not permitted, and the valuable species is primarily taken in fisheries targeting sablefish (58% of thornyhead catch in 2011), other rockfish (27%), and flatfish (13%)(Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). The GoA thornyhead complex was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012).

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The catch of BSAI shortspine thornyhead in 2011 was 30.5% and 40.7% of the Tier 5 OFL and ABC, respectively. The 2011 catch represented the seventh consecutive year of increasing catches, and was approximately 37% greater than the 2004-2010 average. Fishing mortality for BSAI shortspine thornyhead is scored ’low’ concern for the sablefish longline fishery, flatfish trawl, rockfish trawl, and Greenland turbot longline fisheries. Rationale Total catch of BSAI shortspine thornyhead was 411 t in 2011 (Tables 4 and 5 in (Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012)). This was less than the Tier 5 OFL (1,348 t) and ABC (1,011 t) (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2010a), and somewhat greater than the 2004-2010 average of 299 t (Tables 4 and 5 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). In 2011, the amount caught in the Eastern Bering Sea (254 t) was the highest since at least 2004, and the amount caught in the Aleutian Islands (157 t) was essentially tied for the second-highest in the same time period (Tables 4 and 5 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). For 2012, the BSAI ‘other rockfish’ complex as a whole was classified as not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012), but there was no status determination for BSAI shortspine thornyhead per se. The 2004-2012 BSAI shortspine thornyhead catch is spread out among many fisheries, with the primary fisheries being the sablefish longline (26.7% of 2004-2012 shortspine thornyhead catch), flatfish trawl (18.7%), rockfish trawl (17.8%), and Greenland turbot longline (13.4%) fisheries (Tables 7 and 9 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). These values were used to apportion, in an approximate sense, the 2011 catch between fisheries (see Appendix A).

75

SOUTHERN ROCK SOLE


GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Lepidopsetta bilineata is 57, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.95 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Northern and southern rock sole SB2013:SB40% is 2.12 and 1.84 in the GoA, respectively (A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). Stock status for GoA northern and southern rock sole is therefore scored ’very low’ concern.


GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Rock sole are part of the GoA shallow-water flatfish complex and, as such, they do not have an official classification regarding overfishing. However, in 2011, the catches of GoA northern and southern rock sole were 5.4% and 6.8% of their respective stock-specific (and non-binding) OFLs (A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). Fishing mortality of GoA northern and southern rock sole is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the flatfish trawl and Pacific cod trawl fisheries. Rationale GoA rock sole are managed as part of the shallow-water flatfish (SWFF) complex; rock sole has composed an average of 75% of the annual SWFF catch since 1993 (Table 4.1.1 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). In 2011, total catches of GoA northern and southern rock sole were 1,029 and 2,066 t, respectively (Turnock, B.J., et al. 2012), while the OFL and ABC values were 18,953 and 16,085 t for northern rock sole and 30,460 and 26,064 t for southern rock sole (Turnock, B.J., et al. 2010). The SWFF complex was not considered to be experiencing overfishing during 2012, but there was no official classification of the GoA northern and southern rock sole stocks per se (NMFS 2012). Approximately 69.2% of the 2011 SWFF catch was taken in the flatfish trawl fishery, while another 23.1% was taken in

76

the Pacific cod trawl fishery and 7.7% in the pollock bottom trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

YELLOWFIN SOLE


BSAI Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for yellowfin sole is 58.


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

In Alaska, yellowfin sole catch comes almost entirely from the BSAI, where the species is targeted by a trawl fishery. In 2011, catch of yellowfin sole in the GoA was minimal (less than 1 t; Table 4.3 in Turnock, B.J., et al. 2012)). Therefore, only BSAI yellowfin sole are addressed in this report. The BSAI yellowfin sole stock was classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and estimated SB2013:SBMSY is 1.65. BSAI yellowfin sole stock status is therefore scored ’very low’ concern. Rationale BSAI yellowfin sole were overfished by foreign vessels during the late 1950s and early 1960s, and a period of very low abundance followed during the 1960s and early 1970s (Figure 31; NPFMC 2011a). Biomass recovered thereafter, and has been above SB40% since the early 1980s (Figure 31). The stock was classified as ’not overfished’ by NMFS for 2012 (NMFS 2012), and for 2013, estimated BSAI spawning biomass (582,300 t) is greater than estimated SBMSY (353,000 t) and SB40% (Figure 33; Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012c).

77

Figure 31. BSAI yellowfin sole female spawning biomass (Figure from NPFMC 2011a).


BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The 2011 catch of BSAI yellowfin sole was 57.7% of the OFL and 63.2% of the ABC, and the stock was classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012. BSAI yellowfin sole fishing mortality is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery. Rationale Estimated fishing mortality rates for BSAI yellowfin sole ranged from 0.25 to 1.02 from 1964 to 1971, but declined thereafter and did not exceed 0.11 from 1988 to 2010 (Table 4.15 in Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012c). For reference, the estimated FOFL for 2013 is 0.112 (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012c). The 2011 catch of BSAI yellowfin sole was 151,164 t (Table 4.1 in Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012c), while the OFL and ABC were 262,300 and 239,200 t, respectively (Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2011c). The stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). Approximately 98.5% of the 2011 BSAI yellowfin sole catch was taken in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

78

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B.

Alaska Plaice: BSAI Bottom Trawl

Subscore: 2.236 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 2.236

Species Inherent Vulnerability

Stock Status Fishing Mortality

Subscore

STELLER SEA LION: W. US High 1.00: Very High Concern

5.00: Very Low Concern

2.236

GIANT GRENADIER High 3.00: Moderate Concern

2.33: Moderate Concern

2.644

GREENLAND TURBOT High 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709

PACIFIC HALIBUT High 4.00: Low Concern


3.053

KILLER WHALE: ALASKA RESIDENT High 2.00: High Concern


3.162

BUTTER SOLE Low 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

REX SOLE High 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

STARRY FLOUNDER Medium 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

KAMCHATKA FLOUNDER High 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284

79

Low Concern Concern TANNER CRAB Medium 4.00: Low

Concern 5.00: Very Low Concern

4.472

ALASKA PLAICE High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

ARROWTOOTH FLOUNDER Medium 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

FLATHEAD SOLE Medium 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

NORTHERN ROCK SOLE Medium 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

PACIFIC COD Medium 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

SNOW CRAB High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

YELLOWFIN SOLE High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

Arrowtooth Flounder: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.236



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.053



3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

KAMCHATKA FLOUNDER High 5.00: Very Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

4.284

TANNER CRAB Medium 4.00: Low Concern


4.472

ALASKA PLAICE High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000

80

Low Concern Low Concern ARROWTOOTH FLOUNDER Medium 5.00: Very

Low Concern 5.00: Very Low Concern

5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Arrowtooth Flounder: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore

PACIFIC SLEEPER SHARK High 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709

LONGNOSE SKATE Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318

SPINY DOGFISH High 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

REX SOLE High 5.00: Very Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284

DOVER SOLE Medium 4.00: Low Concern


4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

SOUTHERN ROCK SOLE High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000

81

Low Concern Low Concern

Atka Mackerel: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore

DUSKY ROCKFISH High 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709

ATKA MACKEREL Low 4.00: Low Concern


4.472



4.472

NORTHERN ROCKFISH Medium 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000



5.000

Blackspotted RockfishBSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709

KILLER WHALE: GOA, AI, BS TRANSIENT

High 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709

SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH High 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709

SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD High 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318

BLACKSPOTTED ROCKFISH High 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831

ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH High 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831



4.472

PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000



5.000

82

Blackspotted Rockfish: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

Butter Sole: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

SOUTHERN ROCK SOLE High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000

Dover Sole: GOA Bottom Trawl


83



Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Dusky Rockfish: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore

HARLEQUIN ROCKFISH High 3.00: Moderate Concern


2.644

DARK ROCKFISH: GULF OF ALASKA High 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709

SHARPCHIN ROCKFISH High 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318

84


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH High 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472

DUSKY ROCKFISH High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000



5.000



5.000

Flathead Sole: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.236



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.053



3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000

85



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Flathead Sole: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

86

Greenland Turbot: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.236

GIANT GRENADIER

High 3.00: Moderate Concern


2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.053



3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Greenland turbot: BSAI Bottom Longline


Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore

87

Vulnerability Mortality GIANT GRENADIER High 3.00:

Moderate Concern


2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709

BLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS High 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318

LAYSAN ALBATROSS High 3.00: Moderate Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318

Kamchatka flounder: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.236



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.053



3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472

ALASKA PLAICE High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000

88

Low Concern Low Concern ARROWTOOTH FLOUNDER Medium 5.00: Very


5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Northern RockSsole: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.236



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.053



3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000

FLATHEAD SOLE Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000

89

Low Concern Low Concern NORTHERN ROCK SOLE Medium 5.00: Very


5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Northern Rock Sole: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

90

Northern Rock Sole: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Northern Rockfish: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore

DUSKY ROCKFISH High 2.00: High Concern

3.67: Low Concern

2.709

ATKA MACKEREL Low 4.00: Low Concern


4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000

Northern Rockfish: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore

HARLEQUIN ROCKFISH High 3.00: Moderate

2.33: Moderate

2.644

91

Concern Concern DARK ROCKFISH: GULF OF ALASKA High 2.00: High

Concern 3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

Pacific Cod: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.236



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.053



3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

92


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Pacific Cod: BSAI Jig




Subscore



5.000

Pacific Cod: BSAI Bottom Longline




Subscore

SHORT-TAILED ALBATROSS High 1.00: Very High Concern


2.236



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318

93


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

ALASKA SKATE High 5.00: Very Low Concern


5.000



5.000



5.000

Pacific Cod: BSAI Pot




Subscore



5.000

Pacific Cod: BSAI Bottom TrawlBSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831



4.472



5.000



5.000

Pacific Cod: GOA Jig




Subscore



5.000

94

Pacific Cod: GOA Bottom Longline




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318

BIG SKATE High 4.00: Low Concern

3.67: Low Concern

3.831



5.000

Pacific cod: GOA Pot




Subscore



5.000

Pacific Cod: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



4.472

95



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Pacific Ocean Perch: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831



4.472



5.000



5.000

Pacific Ocean Perch: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.644

DARK ROCKFISH: GULF OF ALASKA High 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709

96

Concern Concern SHARPCHIN ROCKFISH High 2.00: High

Concern 3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

Rex Sole: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.236



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.053



3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284

97



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Rex Sole: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000

98



5.000



5.000

Rougheye RockfishBSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709

KILLER WHALE: GoA, AI, BS TRANSIENT


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831



4.472



5.000



5.000

Rougheye Rockfish—GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709

SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318

99

Moderate Concern

Concern


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

Sablefish: BSAI Bottom Longline




Subscore



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318

SABLEFISH High 4.00: Low Concern


4.472

Sablefish: BSAI Pot




Subscore

SABLEFISH High 4.00: Low 5.00: Very 4.472

100

Concern Low Concern

Sablefish: GOA Bottom Longline




Subscore



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

SABLEFISH High 4.00: Low Concern


4.472

Shortraker Rockfish: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831

ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831

101

Concern Concern TANNER CRAB Medium 4.00: Low

Concern 5.00: Very Low Concern

4.472



5.000



5.000

Shortraker Rockfish: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000

Shortspine Thornyhead: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709

102



3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831



4.472



5.000



5.000

Shortspine Thornyhead: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000

NORTHERN ROCKFISH Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000

103

Low Concern Low Concern PACIFIC OCEAN PERCH High 5.00: Very


5.000

Southern Rock Sole: GOA Bottom Trawl




Subscore


3.67: Low Concern

2.709


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.318


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Yellowfin Sole: BSAI Bottom Trawl




Subscore



2.236

104



2.644


3.67: Low Concern

2.709



3.053



3.162


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

3.831


3.67: Low Concern

4.284



4.472



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000



5.000

Due to the multi-species nature of the Alaska groundfish fisheries, the distinction between ‘targeted’ and ‘bycatch’ species is not often a clear one. In general, there are actually very few true bycatch species that are caught in substantial amounts across all groundfish fisheries. As it does for Criterion 1, information availability informs the scores for Criterion 2 species, and several species have conservative scores due to a lack of information.

Criterion 2 Assessment

ALASKA SKATE


105

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)


High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Alaska skate is 76.




Very Low Concern

Alaska skate dominate the biomass and catch of skate species in the BSAI (Ormseth, O.A. 2012a), but are a minor part of the skate complex in the GoA (Ormseth, O.A. 2011). Alaska skate composed approximately 81% of the total biomass of the BSAI skate complex (Table 2 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012a) and over 90% of the 2011 BSAI skate complex catch (see below). For these reasons, Alaska skate are the only BSAI skate species included in this assessment, and GoA Alaska skate are not addressed in this assessment. In the BSAI, Alaska skate are the dominant species on the Eastern Bering Sea shelf, but are less abundant on the Eastern Bering Sea slope and Aleutian Islands. The most recent stock assessment shows that modeled total BSAI Alaska skate biomass has been relatively constant since 1980, fluctuating between 608,000 t and 670,000 t (Table 12 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012a). Most recently, BSAI Alaska skate SB2013:SB40% is 1.82 (Ormseth, O.A. 2012a), and therefore the Factor 1.2 score is ’very low’ concern.




Very Low Concern

For 2011, catch of BSAI Alaska skate was 21,108 t (Table 6 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012a). This was 74.5% and 86.4% of the Tier 3a 2011 OFL and ABC, respectively (Ormseth, O.A. & Matta, B. 2011), and was 91.2% of the total estimated catch of all BSAI skate complex species (compare to Table 4 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012a). Fishing mortality of BSAI Alaska skate is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the Pacific cod longline fishery.

106

Rationale There is currently no directed fishery for skates in the BSAI. Approximately 82% of BSAI Alaska skate bycatch was taken in longline fisheries (Table 6 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012a), and approximately 72% of total BSAI skate bycatch was taken in fisheries for Pacific cod (Table 5a in Ormseth, O.A. 2012a). Overall, BSAI skates are caught primarily in the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery; the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery also catches substantial amounts (Ormseth, O.A. 2012a).

ARROWTOOTH FLOUNDER




Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for arrowtooth flounder is 64, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.95 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).




Very Low Concern

In Alaskan waters, arrowtooth biomass is much greater in the GoA than in the BSAI (Turnock, B.J. & Wilderbuer, T.K. 2011). BSAI arrowtooth flounder biomass generally has been increasing since at least 1975 (Figure 12; Spies, I., Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Aydin, K. 2012), and in 2012, BSAI arrowtooth flounder were classified as ‘not overfished’ by NMFS (NMFS 2012). For 2013, BSAI arrowtooth flounder SB:SB40%is 2.59 (Spies, I., Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Aydin, K. 2012).




107

Very Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of BSAI arrowtooth flounder (excluding estimated Kamchatka flounder catch) was 7.2% and 51.5%, respectively, of the OFL and TAC (Federal Register 2011; Spies, I., Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., & Aydin, K. 2012). The BSAI arrowtooth flounder stock was not considered to be experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). Rationale Approximately 80% of the 2011 BSAI arrowtooth catch was taken in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery, and substantial amounts were also caught in the Pacific cod longline fishery (6.4%) (Appendix A).

ATKA MACKEREL



BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Low

The FishBase vulnerability score for Atka mackerel is 32.



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

Estimated 2013 BSAI Atka mackerel biomass is at the lowest point since the late 1970s. However, BSAI Atka mackerel were classified as ‘not overfished’ for 2012, and for 2013, spawning biomass is 92.5% of SB40% and 105.7% of SB35%. For these reasons, BSAI Atka mackerel is scored ’low’ concern for stock status. Rationale Modeled estimates of BSAI Atka mackerel biomass suggest that the stock has gone through several major fluctuations since the late 1970s, with three periods in which spawning biomass peaked at 220,000-260,000 t, and three troughs (not counting the current period) in which spawning biomass

108

reached lows of 117,000-133,000 t (Figure 13; Table 17.13 in Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The estimated spawning biomass for of BSAI Atka mackerel in 2013 (103,034 t) is less than the estimated SB40% (111,385 t; Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012), and is lower than any of the other biomass estimates since at least 1977 (Table 17.13 in Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The 2012 trawl survey yielded an Aleutian Islands biomass estimate that was 70% less than the 2010 estimate (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). Particular declines were noted in the Eastern Aleutian Islands and Southern Bering Sea areas, which declined by 91% and 99% relative to their 2010 values, respectively (Table 17.6 in Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The authors of the 2012 stock assessment point out that the variances in the Eastern Aleutian Islands area have tended to be greater than those for other areas in previous surveys. Additionally, survey catches of Atka mackerel in the Eastern area have tended to be characterized by patchy, large tows, and these large tows did not materialize in the 2012 survey (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The authors also point out that bottom temperatures were 0.25°C lower than average for the depth stratum at which 99% of Atka mackerel are caught, and a previous year with similarly cold bottom temperatures also yielded a low biomass estimate (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). BSAI Atka mackerel were classified as ‘not overfished’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012).

GOA Bottom Trawl

Moderate Concern

GoA Atka mackerel supported a fishery as recently as the 1980s, but the population was diminished, likely by fishing pressure, and has not recovered. It is possible that the GoA is at the edge of the species’ range (Lowe, S.A. 2011). GoA Atka mackerel are managed under Tier 6. As such, there is no reliable biomass estimate and no biomass reference points for this stock, and the stock status is classified as ‘undefined’ (NMFS 2012). Due to their ‘high’ inherent resilience and the unknown stock status classification, GoA Atka mackerel are scored “moderate” for stock status.



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The 2011 catch of BSAI Atka mackerel was 51.3% and 60.7% of the OFL and ABC, respectively (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). The stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012, and for 2013, the FOFL and maxFABC have been adjusted to account for the sub-SB40% status of the stock’s spawning biomass. For these reasons, fishing mortality of BSAI Atka mackerel is scored ’very low’ concern for the Atka mackerel trawl fishery and rockfish trawl fishery.

109

Rationale Catch of BSAI Atka mackerel in 2011 was 51,818 t, while the OFL and ABC were 101,000 t and 85,300 t, respectively (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). In 2011, the Atka mackerel trawl fishery was responsible for approximately 94% of total BSAI Atka mackerel fishing mortality (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). Smaller amounts are also caught in the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). The stock was classified as not undergoing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). For 2013, allowable fishing mortality rates have been reduced in light of the stock’s sub-target status: FOFL and maxFABC were reduced 7.8% and 8.6%, respectively, due to the harvest control rule that reduces allowable fishing mortality when B<B40%(Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012). Estimates of F and B for the Aleutian Islands (where the majority of the BSAI stock is found) suggest that mortality rates have been appropriate for the stock status in previous years (Figure 14).

GOA Bottom Trawl

Moderate Concern

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, catches of GoA Atka mackerel regularly exceeded 15,000 t (Table 17.1 in Lowe, S.A. 2011). Catches diminished during the late 1980s and through the 1990s, and reached a low of 76 t in 2001 (Table 17.1 in Lowe, S.A. 2011). Catches then substantially increased in subsequent years, to 2,405 t in 2010 (Table 17.1 in Lowe, S.A. 2011). The 2011 catch of GoA Atka mackerel was 1,615 t, which was 26.0% of the stock-specific Tier 6 OFL (6,200 t) and 34.4% of the ABC (4,700 t) (Lowe, S.A. 2012). In the previous year, the rockfish trawl fishery was responsible for approximately 89% of GoA Atka mackerel catch (Lowe, S.A. 2011). As Tier 6 OFLs and ABCs are based on historical catches, and are not necessarily indicative of levels of fishing mortality that are appropriate for a given stock at a given time, the recent fishing mortality of GoA Atka mackerel is scored ’moderate’ concern for the rockfish trawl fishery.

BIG SKATE



GOA Bottom Longline

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for big skate is 86, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.37 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).

110



GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

Big skate are not a significant component of the BSAI skate complex (Table 2 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012a). Therefore, only GoA big skate are included in this assessment. GoA big skate are managed under Tier 5, and as such there are no biomass reference points against which to assess the status of the stock. The stock is therefore ’undefined’ in terms of its potential to be overfished (NMFS 2012). However, biomass estimates from GoA trawl surveys suggest that GoA big skate biomass has been increasing since the early 1980s; the 2011 estimate (67,883 t) is the highest since at least 1994 (Table 2 in Ormseth, O.A. 2011). Therefore, GoA big skate stock status is scored ’low’ concern.



GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of GoA big skate was 51.6% and 68.8% of the Tier 5 OFL and ABC, respectively. The fishing mortality of GoA big skate is scored ’low’ concern for the GoA flatfish trawl and Pacific cod longline fisheries. Rationale GoA skates are only caught as bycatch, as targeting GoA skates has been prohibited since 2005 in federal waters (Ormseth, O.A. 2011). A short-lived state fishery for skates ended in 2011 (Ormseth, O.A. 2011). In 2011, total catch of GoA big skate was 2,291 t, while the OFL and Gulf-wide ABC were 4,438 t and 3,328 t, respectively (Table 1 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012b). Most of this catch came from the Central Gulf, where catch (2,074 t) slightly exceeded the area-specific ABC (2,049 t) (Table 1 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012b). Approximately 50% of this catch was taken in the GoA flatfish trawl fishery, and another 40% was taken in the Pacific cod fisheries—primarily the longline fishery (Table 3a in Ormseth, O.A. 2012b), (NPFMC 2011a). For 2012, the stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012).

111

BLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS




GOA Bottom Longline

High

The Seafood Watch criteria assign a score of ’high’ inherent vulnerability for seabirds.




GOA Bottom Longline

Moderate Concern

The populations of both Laysan and black-footed albatross were decimated by various sources during the 20th century. While both species have recovered to some degree, both species are still faced with substantial conservation concerns (USFWS 2013). The stock statuses of Laysan and black-footed albatross are scored ’moderate‘concern due to their IUCN classifications (see Appendix C).




GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

Mortality of black-footed and Laysan albatrosses is scored ’low concern’ for all demersal longline fisheries. See Appendix C for rationale.

112




GOA Bottom Longline

High




GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

After declining from the late 1970s through the end of the 1980s, GoA BS/RE rockfish spawning biomass has generally increased each year since 1991 (Table 13-18 in Shotwell, S.K., et al. 2011). The GoA BS/RE rockfish complex was classified as "not overfished" in 2012 (NMFS 2012), and estimated SB2013:SB40% is 1.31 (Shotwell, S.K., et al. 2012). In light of the lack of species-specific biomass estimates and reference points for this complex’s two constituent species, the Factor 1.2 score for the GoA BS/RE rockfish complex is scored ’low concern.’



GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern


113


BUTTER SOLE



BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Low

The FishBase vulnerability score for butter sole is 35, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 2.45 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

Butter sole are a part of the BSAI ‘other flatfish’ stock complex and are managed under Tier 5. As such, there are no biomass reference points for this stock. The general trend in biomass appears to be downward (Table 11.6 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b), but trawl survey biomass estimates of BSAI butter sole have been characterized by substantial variability, with high coefficients of variation and large changes from year to year (Table 11.5 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b). While there is no evidence of the stock’s status relative to reference points and no reliable biomass trend, the species’ low inherent vulnerability mitigates concern, and the stock status is scored ’low concern.’

GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

114

GoA butter sole are part of the shallow water flatfish complex and are managed under Tier 5, without biomass reference points. Trawl survey biomass estimates for GoA butter sole have been variable in recent years; the most recent estimate (19,695 t in 2011) is similar to the average of the biomass estimates from 1984 to 2011 (21,371 t; Table 4.6a in Turnock, B.J., et al. 2011). Therefore, there is no indication that the stock’s biomass is trending downwards. The GoA butter sole stock receives a score of ’low concern’ for stock status, due to the lack of biomass reference points and the low inherent vulnerability of the species (see Factor 1.1).



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

BSAI butter sole are caught primarily in shallow (<50 m) waters in January and February in the trawl catcher-processor fisheries for rock sole and Pacific cod (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b). Exploitation rates have varied substantially in recent years, from a low of 0.08 to a maximum of 1.14; the stock assessment authors suggest that this variability is a reflection of variability in the biomass estimates (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b). A total of 107 t of BSAI butter sole were caught in 2011, representing an estimated exploitation rate of 0.18 (Table 11.2 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b). Fishing mortality for BSAI butter sole is scored ’low’ concern for the BSAI flatfish trawl and Pacific cod trawl fisheries.

GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The total catch of GoA butter sole in 2011 was 769 t (Turnock, B.J., et al. 2012). This was 30.3% of the non-binding stock-specific Tier 5 OFL estimate (2,539 t) and 39.4% of the ABC (1,950 t; Turnock, B.J., et al. 2010). Fishing mortality of GoA butter sole in the GoA flatfish trawl and GoA Pacific cod trawl fisheries is scored ’low’ concern because recent catch has been substantially less than stock-specific (yet non-binding) OFL and ABC. Rationale When the total 2011 catch of GoA butter sole was distributed among fisheries in a manner proportional to the distribution of ‘shallow flatfish’ catch (Fissel, B. et al. 2012), the result was that 69.2% of the 2011 butter sole catch was attributed to the GoA flatfish trawl fishery, 23.1% is attributed to the Pacific cod trawl fishery, and 7.7% to the GoA pollock bottom trawl fishery (Appendix A).

115

DARK ROCKFISH: GULF OF ALASKA



GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Sebastes ciliatus is 70.



GOA Bottom Trawl

High Concern

There is no assessment of the dark rockfish stock for Alaska. Dark rockfish stock status is scored ’high’ concern due to the unknown status of the stock and the ’high’ inherent vulnerability of the species (see Factor 1.1).



GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

Dark rockfish retention is limited to no more than 5% of total retained rockfish (Mark Stichert, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm.). Since 2008 (the year that the species was removed from the fishery management plan (FMP), bycatch of dark rockfish in federally managed GoA rockfish fisheries ranged from a low of 12.8 t in 2011 to 110.9 t in 2010 (Table 10.4 in Hulson, P-J., et al. 2011). For comparison, a non-binding Tier 5 estimate of ABC for dark rockfish was 450 t in 2007 (Lunsford, C.R., et al. 2007). While there are concerns over the lack of a stock assessment and the lack of a recent estimate of sustainable mortality, fishing mortality of GoA dark rockfish is far lower than the most recent OFL estimate and so is scored ’low’ concern for the GoA rockfish trawl fishery.

116

DUSKY ROCKFISH



BSAI Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for dusky rockfish (Sebastes variabilis) is 68, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.28 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



BSAI Bottom Trawl

High Concern

BSAI dusky rockfish are a Tier 5 stock and as such there are no biomass reference points against which to assess the status of the stock. Trawl survey estimates of BSAI dusky rockfish biomass are characterized by high coefficients of variation and are highly variable from survey to survey (Table 12 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). While no trend is apparent for the trawl survey biomass estimates, the most recent estimate is the lowest of the 1997-2012 period (Table 12 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). The stock status of BSAI dusky rockfish is scored ’high’ concern.



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

BSAI dusky rockfish are managed as part of the BSAI "other rockfish" complex, with a complex-wide OFL and ABC derived from Tier 5 methods. While there is no directed fishery for BSAI dusky rockfish, catches have been increasing in recent years. Fishing mortality of BSAI dusky rockfish is scored ’low’ concern for the BSAI Atka mackerel trawl fishery. Rationale Total catch of BSAI dusky rockfish was approximately 420 t in 2011; roughly 90% of this was caught in

117

the Aleutian Islands (Tables 4 and 5 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). Catches of dusky rockfish in the Aleutian Islands have been generally increasing in recent years, from 129 t in 2004 to 380 in 2011 (Table 4 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). In the BSAI, approximately 74% of the 2004-2012 dusky rockfish catch was taken in the bottom trawl fishery for Atka mackerel (Tables 6 and 8 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012).

FLATHEAD SOLE



GOA Bottom Trawl

Medium

The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for flathead sole is 36, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 2.30 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

GoA flathead sole were classified as ’not overfished’ for 2012, and SB2013:SB40% is 2.56. For these reasons, GoA flathead sole are scored ’very low’ concern for Factor 1.2. Rationale GoA flathead sole Age 3+ biomass steadily increased from 210,000 t in 1984 to 305,000 t in 2009, with a slight decrease to 303,000 t in 2010 (Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011b). In 2012, the GoA flathead sole stock was classified as ’not overfished’ by NMFS (NMFS 2012). For 2013, estimated GoA flathead sole SB is 106,377 t and SB40% is 41,547 t (Stockhausen, W.T. 2012b).



118

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

In 2011, the catch of GoA flathead sole was 4.4% of the OFL. For 2012, the stock was not classified as experiencing overfishing. GoA flathead sole fishing mortality is therefore scored a ’very low’ concern for the GoA flatfish trawl and Pacific cod trawl fisheries. Rationale Total catch of GoA flathead sole was 2,728 t in 2011 (Stockhausen, W.T. 2012b), while the OFL was 61,412 t (Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011b). Approximately 85.7% of this catch was taken in the GoA flatfish trawl fishery, with 7.1% taken in both the Pacific cod trawl and pollock bottom trawl fisheries (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). For 2012, NMFS classified the stock as not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012).

GIANT GRENADIER



BSAI Bottom Trawl


GOA Bottom Longline

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for giant grenadier is 72.



BSAI Bottom Trawl


GOA Bottom Longline

Moderate Concern

From 1980 through 2013, grenadiers were not included in the BSAI or GoA groundfish fishery management plans, despite their high catches in the fisheries (NMFS Alaska Region 2013). In February

119

2014, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council moved to move grenadier species into the FMPs as "ecosystem component" species (NPFMC 2014). While several species of grenadier are found in Alaska, giant grenadier is the species that dominates the commercial catch of grenadier (Rodgveller, C., et al. 2012). Therefore, giant grenadier is the only grenadier species to be included in this assessment. There are no biomass reference points for giant grenadier. While estimates of grenadier biomass are considered to be reliable, and the most recent estimates of giant grenadier biomass in the GoA, Aleutian Islands, and Eastern Bering Sea are generally similar to the average of recent previous assessments, it is difficult to ascertain trends in giant grenadier biomass due to the intermittency of the estimates. The status of the giant grenadier stock relative to reference points is not known and the species has ’high’ inherent vulnerability, but the recent trawl survey biomass estimates do not indicate that the stock is declining. The stock status of giant grenadier is scored ’moderate’ concern. Rationale There are no biomass reference points available for the stock. The current biomass estimates for giant grenadier are considered to be reliable, but interpretation of trends in estimated biomass is essentially precluded by the intermittency of the estimates (Rodgveller, Clausen, and Hulson 2012). The most recent trawl survey biomass estimates for giant grenadier in the Eastern Bering Sea (550,366 t in 2012) and the GoA (718,320 t in 2009) are similar and greater, respectively, than the recent average survey biomass estimates for these two regions (553,446 t from 2002-2012 for the EBS and 545,890 t from 1999-2009 for the GoA; Table 1-5 in Clausen, D.M. and Rodgveller, C.J. 2010). The 2012 Aleutian Islands survey estimate (537,001 t) is somewhat less than the 1996-2012 Aleutian Islands average (606,463 t; Table 1-6 in Rodgveller, Clausen, and Hulson 2012), but it should be noted that the coefficients of variation for the Aleutian Islands surveys (approximately 24%) have tended to be greater than those for the GoA and the Eastern Bering Sea (generally around 10%; Table 1-6 in Rodgveller, Clausen, and Hulson 2012); in part, this may be because the maximum depth sampled by the Aleutian Islands survey (500 m) is shallower than the maximum depth of the GoA and EBS surveys (1,000 m) (C. Rooper, pers. comm.).



BSAI Bottom Trawl


GOA Bottom Longline

Moderate Concern

The amount of grenadier caught as bycatch in Alaskan groundfish fisheries has remained relatively

120

stable since 1997, and the estimated total catch for 2011 was similar to the 1997-2012 mean. However, there are reasons for concern: the sex ratio of grenadier in fisheries bycatch is heavily skewed towards females (which reach maturity at a late age), and discarded grenadiers have 100% mortality. Despite recent actions to bring grenadiers ’into the FMP’ as ecosystem component species, there are no binding limits on the catch of giant grenadier in Alaska groundfish fisheries. For these reasons, the GoA sablefish longline fishery and the BSAI flatfish trawl, Greenland turbot longline, sablefish longline, and Pacific cod longline fisheries are scored ’moderate’ concern for fishing mortality of giant grenadier, with the caveat that this score should be revisited if catches of grenadier increase. Rationale While the available information for grenadier catch in Alaskan groundfish fisheries does not differentiate grenadier by species, giant grenadier are, by far, the species that is most often caught due to its abundance and the great depths at which the other grenadier species are found, and thus giant grenadier can be assumed to be the ‘overwhelmingly predominant’ species represented in the grenadier catch information (Rodgveller, C., et al. 2012). Since 1997, the catch of grenadier in Alaskan groundfish fisheries has been relatively steady, generally varying from approximately 11,700 t -19,000 t (with 1998 reaching 21,272 t); the mean catch for this period is 15,413 t (Table 1-1 in Rodgveller, C., et al. 2012). Approximately 63.8% of the mean catch came from the GoA (Table 1.1 in Rodgveller, C., et al. 2012). The 2011 catch (15,032 t) was similar to the 1997-2012 mean (Table 1-1 in Rodgveller, C., et al. 2012) and was less than the non-binding 2011 Tier 5 estimates of OFL and ABC (46,635 t and 34,976 t, respectively; Clausen, D.M. & Rodgveller, C.J. 2010). In 2011, grenadiers were caught primarily in fisheries for GoA sablefish (39.7% of total catch of grenadier), BSAI other flatfish trawl (12.0%), BSAI Greenland turbot (11.9%), BSAI sablefish (9.7%), GoA halibut (7.8%), and BSAI Pacific cod (7.3%) (Table 1-2 in Rodgveller, C., et al. 2012). Catches of giant grenadier are disproportionately composed of females. The sex composition of observed 2007-2012 grenadier catch in the BSAI pot and BSAI and GoA longline fisheries was approximately 20% male and 80% female (Table 1-3 in Rodgveller, C., et al. 2012), but observer error is suspected by the stock assessment authors because the sex composition of giant grenadier caught in surveys has generally been >95% female (Table 1-9 in Rodgveller, C., et al. 2012). Female giant grenadiers are very slow to reach sexual maturity (age at 50% maturity = 22.9; Rodgveller, C., et al. 2010), and mortality of discarded grenadiers is 100% (NMFS Alaska Region 2013).

HARLEQUIN ROCKFISH



GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for harlequin rockfish is 66, and the species' productivity score in Table

121

1 is 1.31 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



GOA Bottom Trawl

Moderate Concern

In 2010, over 93% of total harlequin rockfish catch was taken in the GoA (Table 16.3 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b; Tables 4 and 5 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). For this reason, only GoA harlequin rockfish are included in this assessment. GoA harlequin rockfish are part of the GoA ‘other rockfish’ complex and are managed under Tier 5; as such, there are no biomass reference points against which to assess the current status of the stock. Trawl survey biomass estimates of GoA harlequin rockfish are highly variable from survey to survey. Prior to 2013, recent survey biomass estimates had been low relative to previous estimates, but the 2013 estimate was more than double the 2011 estimate (Tribuzio, C.A. & Echave, K.B. 2013). Furthermore, there is evidence that the trawl survey does not sample this species well, due to the species' association with rocky habitats that are avoided during the trawl surveys. While there is, therefore, a dearth of reliable stock status information for this stock, concern is mitigated by evidence that the species is much more abundant over rocky habitats that are not sampled by the trawl survey. The stock status of GoA harlequin rockfish is scored ’moderate’ concern. Rationale Trawl survey biomass estimates for GoA harlequin rockfish vary substantially from year to year, and have had high coefficients of variation (generally >40.0) for each survey (Table 16.5 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). The biomass estimates were averaged for each 3-survey period (to reduce survey-to-survey variability) and the resulting three-year averages were plotted (Figure 32). The results indicated variability throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and consistently low estimates for the three most recent surveys. The authors of the 2011 stock assessment suggest that harlequin rockfish may be ’poorly sampled’ by the trawl survey (Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b), and there is evidence that harlequin rockfish may be much more abundant in rocky areas that are not sampled by the trawl survey. Jones and colleagues (2010) used several methods to investigate rockfish biomass in a Gulf of Alaska area that is considered to be ’untrawlable’ by the trawl surveys. In this study, harlequin rockfish were estimated to be 60 times denser in the ’untrawlable’ study area than in the trawl survey of the surrounding area (Jones, D.T., et al. 2010). While this indicates that total harlequin rockfish abundance may be substantially greater than that estimated from trawl surveys, it does not indicate whether or not harlequin rockfish abundance in areas that are not accessed by the trawl surveys is steady, increasing, or decreasing.

122

Figure 32. Estimated GoA harlequin rockfish biomass, 1990-2011. Each point is the average of three surveys. (Data

from Clausen, D.M. and Echave, K.B. 2011a)



GOA Bottom Trawl

Moderate Concern

In general, GoA harlequin rockfish catch has increased since 2000. The 2010 catch of GoA harlequin rockfish was 82.4% of a hypothetical OFL estimate, and 109.9% of the associated ABC. The species has been disproportionately represented in the commercial catch of the GoA ’other rockfish’ complex, relative to their contribution to the complex’s trawl survey biomass estimates, but this may be due in part to differences in the habitats accessed by the trawl survey vs. the commercial fishery. Similarly, differences between the habitats accessed by the trawl survey and the commercial fishery may contribute to the commercial fishery's relatively high catche of harlequin rockfish relative to the survey-derived estimates of hypothetical OFL and ABC. Due to the generally increasing catches, the unknown status of the stock, and uncertainty regarding appropriate levels of fishing mortality for the stock, fishing mortality of harlequin rockfish in the GoA rockfish trawl fishery is scored ’moderate’ concern. Rationale Harlequin rockfish are the primary species represented in the GoA ’other rockfish’ catch. The 2010 catch of harlequin rockfish was 657 t, which represented 69.7% of the total catch of the GoA ‘other rockfish’ complex and continued a generally increasing trend in harlequin rockfish catch (Figure 33) (Clausen,

123

D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). Relative to their representation in trawl surveys, GoA harlequin rockfish are disproportionately represented in commercial trawl catch: from the years 2001-2010, they composed approximately 14% of the total ‘other rockfish’ trawl survey biomass estimate, yet composed 69% of this complex’s catch (Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). For 2010, the hypothetical GoA harlequin rockfish OFL and ABC were 797 t and 598 t, respectively (Table 11-16 in Clausen, D.M. 2009), while catch was 657 t (Table 16-3 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). The 2010 catch, therefore, exceeded the hypothetical ABC estimate, and stock assessment authors express concern that catches of harlequin rockfish may exceed stock-specific Tier 5 estimates of OFL and ABC in future years, due in part to low biomass estimates from the last three trawl surveys (Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). However, if the catch of harlequin rockfish exceeds the stock-specific OFL estimate, no management actions will be triggered, because the stock is part of the larger GoA ’other rockfish’ group and, as such, management actions are triggered only if the group-wide ABC and OFL are exceeded (Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). The GoA rockfish trawl fishery accounted for approximately 75.2% of the 2011 catch of GoA ’other rockfish’ complex (656 of 872 total tons; Table 10.3 in Hulson, P.J., et al. 2011; Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b), and therefore the GoA rockfish trawl fishery is assumed to be the primary fishery for GoA harlequin rockfish. Research suggests that harlequin rockfish densities may be much higher over rocky substrates, which are not sampled by the trawl survey, relative to areas sampled by the trawl survey (Jones, D.T., et al. 2010). The authors of the 2011 stock assessment likewise suggest that harlequin rockfish may be "poorly sampled" by the trawl survey (Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). The hypothetical OFL and ABC for this species are derived from trawl survey data, and therefore may be based on survey data that underestimate the species' abundance (Rooper, C. & Hanselman, S., pers. comm.). The rockfish trawl fishery, however, may access rocky areas that the trawl survey does not, and as such it may encounter harlequin rockfish at much greater densities than the trawl survey.

124

Figure 33. Catch of GoA harlequin rockfish, 1994-2010 (Data from Clausen, D.M. and Echave, K.B. 2011a)

KILLER WHALE: ALASKA RESIDENT



BSAI Bottom Trawl

High

According to the Seafood Watch criteria, all marine mammals qualify as having ’high’ inherent vulnerability.



BSAI Bottom Trawl

High Concern

There are no classifications for this stock by the ESA, MMPA, or CITES, and the IUCN classification for killer whales as a whole is ‘data deficient.’ Currently, there are no reliable data on population trends for this stock (Allen, B.M. & Angliss, R.P. 2013). Due to marine mammals’ inherent low resilience and the

125

lack of stock status information for this stock, the two killer whale stocks are classified as ’high’ concern.



BSAI Bottom Trawl (Flatfish)

Very Low Concern

Estimated mortality of this stock across all fisheries is less than PBR, and in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery, estimated annual mortality of killer whales (Alaska resident stock) is 4.8% of PBR (Appendix B). The mortality of this stock in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery is scored ’very low’ concern.

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Rockfish)

Low Concern

The estimated mortality of this stock across all fisheries is less than PBR. While the average annual mortality in this fishery is not known, the fishery's classification as a Category II fishery is due to one documented serious injury/mortality of a killer whale (see Appendix C). Mortality of this stock in the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery is scored ’low’ concern.

KILLER WHALE: GoA, AI, BS TRANSIENT



BSAI Bottom Trawl

High




126

BSAI Bottom Trawl

High Concern

There are no classifications for this stock by the ESA, MMPA, or CITES, and the IUCN classification for killer whales as a whole is ‘data deficient.’ Currently, there are no reliable data on population trends for this stock (Allen, B.M. & Angliss, R.P. 2013). Due to marine mammals’ inherent low resilience and the lack of stock status information for this stock, the two killer whale stocks are classified as ’high’ concern.



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The estimated mortality of this stock across all fisheries is less than PBR. While the average annual mortality in this fishery is not known, the fishery's classification as a Category II fishery is due to one documented serious injury/mortality of a killer whale (see Appendix C). Mortality of this stock in the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery is scored ’low’ concern.

LAYSAN ALBATROSS




GOA Bottom Longline

High





127

GOA Bottom Longline

Moderate Concern

The populations of both Laysan and black-footed albatross were decimated by various sources during the 20th century. While the populations of both species have recovered to some degree, both species are still faced with substantial conservation concerns (USFWS 2013). The stock statuses of Laysan and black-footed albatross are scored ’moderate’ concern due to their IUCN classifications (see Appendix C).




GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

Mortality of black-footed and Laysan albatrosses is scored ’low concern’ for all demersal longline fisheries. See Appendix C for rationale.

LONGNOSE SKATE



GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline

Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for longnose skate is 55, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.53 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



128

GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline

Moderate Concern

Longnose skate is a minor component of the BSAI skate complex (Table 2 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012a), but along with big skate, dominates the GoA skate complex (NPFMC 2011a). Therefore, only GoA longnose skate is included in this assessment. GoA longnose skate is a Tier 5 species, and as such does not have biomass reference points. The official status of the stock is therefore ’undefined’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012). Trawl survey biomass estimates suggest that longnose skate biomass increased from approximately 9,000 t in 1984 to 41,449 t in 2005, and has declined to an estimated 33,911 t in 2011 (table 2 in Ormseth, O.A. 2011). GoA longnose skate stock status is scored ’moderate’ concern, as the status of the stock relative to reference points is not known and the stock has ’medium’ inherent vulnerability.



GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

After recent attempts to develop skate fisheries in the GoA, targeting skates is now prohibited (Ormseth, O.A. 2012b) and skates are only caught as bycatch in several GoA groundfish fisheries (NPFMC 2011a). The catch of GoA longnose skate in 2011 was 1,109 t, which was 26.8% of the Tier 5 OFL (3,803 t) and 35.7% of the Gulf-wide ABC (2,852 t; Table 1 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012b). No area-specific ABCs were exceeded in 2011 (Table 1 in Ormseth, O.A. 2012b). Approximately 37% of this catch was taken in the GoA flatfish trawl fishery, 34% was taken in the Pacific cod fisheries (primarily in the longline fishery, NPFMC 2011a), 17% was taken in the halibut IFQ fishery, and 6.6% was taken in the sablefish longline fishery (Table 3b in Ormseth, O.A. 2012b) The stock is classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2011 (NMFS 2012). GoA longnose skate fishing mortality is scored ’low’ concern for the GoA flatfish trawl and Pacific cod longline fisheries.

PACIFIC HALIBUT


129


BSAI Bottom Trawl


GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Pacific halibut is 86.



BSAI Bottom Trawl


GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

Pacific halibut biomass has declined for much of the past decade. Contributing factors include a decline in size-at-age across all ages and areas, and poor recruitment. Despite the decline, the stock was classified as not overfished in 2012. For 2013, the estimated Pacific halibut spawning biomass is 35% of the reference spawning biomass and therefore is greater than the harvest policy threshold (SB30%). Due to the recent declining trend, the persistent decline in size-at-age, and the proximity of the current biomass estimate to the harvest policy threshold, the stock status of Pacific halibut is scored ’low’ concern. Rationale The estimated 2013 spawning biomass of Pacific halibut is approximately 35% of the reference spawning biomass (Table 5 in Stewart, I.J., et al. 2012); this is above the SB30% harvest policy target threshold that is used by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) (Stewart, I.J., et al. 2012). The estimated 2013 spawning biomass is a slight increase over the estimate for 2012, and represents the fourth consecutive year in which estimated spawning biomass increased (Table 5 in Stewart, I.J., et al. 2012). However, the estimated 2013 total biomass is at its lowest point since at least 1996; 2013 represents the seventh consecutive year in which estimated total biomass declined (Table 5 in Stewart, I.J., et al. 2012). The declining trends in both total and spawning biomasses are believed to have stabilized (Stewart, I.J., et al. 2012). The stock’s recent decline is due to both decreasing size-at-age and poor recruitment (Stewart, I.J., et al. 2012). The declining trend in size-at-age is well documented and is seen in all ages and areas (NPFMC 2011a). Pacific halibut were classified as not overfished for 2012

130

(NMFS 2012).




Moderate Concern

No overfishing threshold is defined for Pacific halibut, but the harvest policy sets a target fishing mortality of 80% of BMSY (Ian Stewart, IPHC, pers. comm). Fishing mortality was recently found to be above the target for the last decade. This was partially driven by errors in the stock assessment which were resolved in 2012 (Stewart, pers.comm). Fishing mortality increased from 2003 and then declined from 2011, but remained above the target in 2013. The target set by the IPHC for 2014 was forecast (before the decision was made) to reduce fishing mortality from 2013 levels, but to still be above the target (89% chance) (IPHC 2014). For the purpose of this assessment, we assume the target line is the overfishing threshold and so overfishing is occurring (this is especially so as the target rate is not particularly precautionary).

For the directed fisheries, this would score a ‘high concern.’ Commercial landings account for about 63% of the total fishing mortality in 2013. Other sources of mortality were bycatch in other fisheries, recreational catch, commercial fishery wastage (catch of undersize individuals), and personal usage, which accounted for 17%, 14%, 3% and 2%, respectively (Stewart 2013 Table 4). Virtually all bycatch mortality is in the Alaskan groundfish fisheries (97% in 2012; 80% in the trawl fisheries) (Williams 2013).

Bycatch of halibut is limited through the use of Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) limits. In 2011, the bycatch of halibut in BSAI trawl and hook and line fisheries were approximately 71.2% and 61.9%, respectively, of the trawl and hook and line PSC limits. Halibut were caught primarily in BSAI trawl fisheries for flatfish (35% of Alaska-wide halibut catch in groundfish fisheries) and in the BSAI Pacific cod longline (11%) and trawl (5%) fisheries (NPFMC 2012a). For the BSAI, halibut PSC limits have not been adjusted since 1999 (trawl) and 1991 (non-trawl).

While catch of halibut in BSAI commercial fisheries was less than the PSC limit, in light of the persistent decline in the stock’s biomass, concerns regarding the appropriateness of current halibut PSC limits require a precautionary score for fishing mortality of the stock in BSAI groundfish fisheries. Fishing mortality of halibut is therefore scored ’moderate’ concern for the BSAI flatfish trawl, and ’low concern’ for the Pacific cod longline and Pacific cod trawl fisheries given their relatively minor contribution to total mortality. Rationale Halibut PSC limits for Alaska groundfish fisheries are fixed amounts that do not vary from year to year.

131

The BSAI total PSC limits for trawl (3,675 t) and non-trawl (900 t) have been in place since 1999 and 1991, respectively (apportionment of these totals between fisheries has occurred during the years since; Table 3 in Northern Economics, Inc. 2012). Because they are fixed amounts, PSC limits have not been adjusted downwards to reflect the decline in exploitable biomass that has occurred over the past decade. The 2011 BSAI halibut mortality limits were 3,675 t for trawl fisheries and 900 t for non-trawl fisheries (Federal Register 2011), while the catch of halibut in BSAI groundfish fisheries was approximately 2,618 t in trawl fisheries and 557 t in non-trawl fisheries (Table 13 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012). BSAI halibut bycatch was taken primarily in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery (35% of total halibut catch across all Alaskan groundfish fisheries), Pacific cod longline (11%), and Pacific cod trawl (5%) (Table 13 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012). BSAI pot, jig, and sablefish IFQ hook and line fisheries are exempt from halibut PSC limits (50 CFR Part 679 2011, (BSAI)).


BSAI Bottom Trawl (Pacific cod)

Low Concern

See above for rationale.

GOA Bottom Trawl (Flatfish)

Low Concern

See BSAI above for discussion of overall fishing mortality of Pacific halibut. In 2011, the total bycatch of Pacific halibut in GoA trawl and hook and line fisheries for groundfish (excepting the sablefish longline fishery) was 92.7% of the total halibut PSC limit for the GoA. The GoA flatfish trawl fishery was responsible for approximately 24% of the total halibut bycatch taken in BSAI and GoA groundfish fisheries, while the GoA Pacific cod trawl fishery was responsible for 9%. In recent years, substantial concerns have been raised regarding both the appropriateness of GoA PSC limits for halibut, and monitoring of halibut bycatch in GoA groundfish fisheries. Beginning in 2014, a recent amendment to the GoA management plan will reduce trawl halibut PSC limits by 15% over the next three years, hook and line catcher vessel limits by 15% over three years, and hook and line catcher/processor limits by 7%. These reductions in halibut PSC limits moderate concern regarding bycatch mortality in GoA groundfish fisheries, and therefore fishing mortality of halibut caught as bycatch is scored ’low’ concern for the GoA flatfish trawl and ’very low’ for the Pacific cod trawl fishery. Rationale The 2011 GoA halibut PSC limits were 2,000 t for trawl fisheries and 300 t for hook and line fisheries (50 CFR Part 679 2011 (Gulf of Alaska)). The total estimated 2011 GoA halibut PSC mortality was 2,132 t, of which 1,847 t were caught in trawl fisheries and 285 t in hook and line fisheries (50 CFR Part 679 2012).

132

GoA halibut bycatch was taken primarily in the GoA flatfish trawl fishery (24% of total halibut bycatch across all Alaska groundfish fisheries) and the Pacific cod trawl fishery (9%) (Table 12 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012). Fisheries using pot gear and the sablefish IFQ hook and line fishery are exempt from PSC restrictions (50 CFR Part 679 2011 (Gulf of Alaska)). Halibut composed approximately 14% of the Pacific cod jig fishery’s 2010 catch as well (NPFMC 2012a). In recent years, the IPHC has expressed substantial concerns regarding the appropriateness of the current GoA halibut PSC limits for groundfish fisheries (NPFMC 2011b). Despite a 50% decline in exploitable biomass over the past decade, and subsequent reductions in allowable catch for commercial and charter sport fisheries that target halibut, the halibut PSC limits for most groundfish fisheries were not altered after 1989 (NPFMC 2011b). In addition, the IPHC has expressed concern regarding bycatch monitoring in the Gulf (IPHC 2011). A recent amendment to the Gulf of Alaska fishery management plan reduces PSC limits for GoA groundfish fisheries. Beginning in 2014, Amendment 95 reduces trawl halibut PSC limits by 15% (relative to 2013 levels) over three years, hook and line catcher vessel limits by 15% of three years, and hook and line catcher/processor limits by 7% (50 CFR Part 679 2014b).

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very low Concern

See above for rationale.

PACIFIC SLEEPER SHARK




BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Pacific sleeper shark is 87. In a draft vulnerability analysis of GoA and BSAI species, this species also has the highest vulnerability score of any species

133

considered (Ormseth, O.A. & Spencer, P.D. 2009).




BSAI Bottom Trawl

High Concern

Pacific sleeper shark stock status in the BSAI is scored ’high’ concern due to the unknown status of the stock, a declining trend in longline survey abundance indices, and the ’high’ inherent vulnerability of the species (see Factor 1.1). Rationale In the BSAI, Pacific sleeper sharks are managed as part of the shark stock complex, and they are the primary shark species caught in this complex (Table 20.4 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a). The BSAI shark complex is managed under Tier 6, and as such there is no reliable estimate of Pacific sleeper shark biomass. Trawl survey biomass estimates are available, but trawl surveys may not adequately sample sharks and, as such, these estimates are not reliable (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a). Pacific sleeper shark relative population numbers (RPNs), derived from IPHC longline surveys, show a steep decline since the late 1990s, and have been minimal since 2003 (Figure 20.10 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a).

GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline

High Concern

Pacific sleeper shark stock status in the GoA is scored ’high’ concern, due to the unknown status of the stock, declining trends noted in several longline-based indices, and the "high" inherent vulnerability of the species (see Factor 1.1). Rationale In the GoA, Pacific sleeper sharks are managed under Tier 6, and as such there is no reliable estimate of the stock’s biomass. Trawl survey biomass estimates for the species are considered to be highly uncertain (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011). Pacific sleeper shark RPNs, derived from International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) longline surveys, show a steady and substantial decline since 2001 (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011). Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) longline survey catch per unit effort (CPUE) likewise has declined over this period, and observed commercial longline CPUE values have generally

134

declined since 2003 (Figure 20.6 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011).




BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

BSAI Pacific sleeper sharks are the primary component of the BSAI sharks complex, managed under Tier 6. According to the Seafood Watch criteria, an appropriate TAC for data poor species that may be overfished is 25% of the OFL, based on average historical catch during a period of time showing no declines in abundance. Typically, OFL for Tier 6 species is set at the average historical catch, but in the case of BSAI sharks, OFL is set at the maximum catch in the 1997 to 2007 period, which is a concern. The catch of Pacific sleeper sharks in the last few years has been far lower than 25% of the OFL for even the average historical catch, thus fishing mortality is scored ‘low concern’ (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a – see tables below).

Shark complex (mt) Pacific sleeper shark (Maximum historical catch)

Pacific sleeper shark (average historical catch)

OFL 1360 839 422

ABC 1020 629

25% OFL 340 210 106

Catch 95 43 (21 to 47 for last 4 years)

Rationale The catch of Pacific sleeper sharks in BSAI groundfish fisheries has declined substantially over the past two decades, from an average of 356 t during 1997-2008, to 38 t during 2009-2011 (Table 20.5 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a). The estimated total catch of Pacific sleeper sharks in 2011 was 46.6 t (Table 20.5 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a), 41.1% of which was caught in the Pacific cod longline fishery (Table 2.37a in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012), and 10.3% of which was caught in the rockfish trawl fishery (Table 20.5 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a). The pollock fishery, which is not covered in this assessment, contributed 38.8% of total 2011 BSAI Pacific sleeper shark catch. The total 2011 catch of BSAI Pacific sleeper sharks was a small fraction of the BSAI shark complex ABC (1,020 t; Table 20.2

135

in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a).

Despite the relatively high catch of BSAI Pacific sleeper sharks in the 2011 rockfish fishery, the BSAI rockfish fishery has historically been a minimal contributor to this species' mortality: from 1997 to 2012, average annual mortality of Pacific sleeper sharks in the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery was 1% of the species' average annual mortality across all BSAI groundfish fisheries (Table 20.5 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a).

Estimated catches of Pacific sleeper sharks in the BSAI by target fishery (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2012a)

GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

GoA Pacific sleeper sharks as part of the GoA Sharks Complex under Tier 6 (OFL is set at the average catch from 1997 to 2007). Bycatch of Pacific sleeper sharks in GoA groundfish fisheries has varied greatly from year to year and no trend is immediately apparent; however, in the last three years, bycatch of Pacific sleeper shark in the GoA Pacific cod and flatfish fisheries has been relatively low. As the catch in the last few years is way below 25% of the OFL (see BSAI discussion above), fishing mortality is scored ‘low concern’ (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011 – see table below).

136

Shark complex (t) Pacific sleeper shark

OFL 8037 312

ABC 6028 234

25% OFL 2009 78

Recent Catch 23-160 2-14.5

Rationale The total catch of Pacific sleeper sharks in GoA groundfish fisheries has varied substantially over the past 20 years, ranging from 19.7 t (1990) to 608.2 t (2000) and showing no discernible trend (Table 20.7 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011). During the period 1990-2011, GoA Pacific sleeper sharks were caught primarily in the fisheries for Pacific cod (37% of 1990-2011 catch), flatfish (21%), and pollock (36%) (Table 20.7 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011). Annual catches in the Pacific cod and flatfish fisheries varied greatly from year to year, but have been relatively low (<15 t/year) since 2008 (Table 20.7 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011).

Estimated catch (t) of Pacific sleeper sharks in the GOS by fishery (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011)

137

ROUGHEYE ROCKFISH



GOA Bottom Longline

High




GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

After declining from the late 1970s through the end of the 1980s, GoA BS/RE rockfish spawning biomass has generally increased each year since 1991 (Table 13-18 in Shotwell, S.K., et al. 2011). The GoA BS/RE rockfish complex was classified as ’not overfished’ in 2012 (NMFS 2012), and estimated SB2013:SB40% is 1.31 (Shotwell, S.K., et al. 2012). In light of the lack of species-specific biomass estimates and reference points for this complex’s two constituent species, the Factor 1.2 score for the GoA BS/RE rockfish complex is scored ’low concern.’



GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern


138


SHARPCHIN ROCKFISH



GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for sharpchin rockfish is 64, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.36 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



GOA Bottom Trawl

High Concern

Catch of sharpchin rockfish is minimal in the BSAI. Therefore, only GoA sharpchin rockfish are included in this assessment. GoA sharpchin rockfish are a Tier 5 stock that is managed as part of the GoA "other rockfish" stock complex. As such, there are no biomass reference points for the stock. A review of trawl survey biomass estimates suggests that GoA sharpchin rockfish biomass may have declined since the 1990s. Due to the unknown status of the stock relative to reference points, the species’ ’high’ inherent vulnerability, and the possible decline noted in the GoA stock’s estimated biomass, the GoA sharpchin rockfish stock is scored ’high’ concern for Factor 1.2. Rationale Trawl survey biomass estimates of GoA sharpchin rockfish biomass have varied substantially from survey to survey, and each estimate since 1984 has had a coefficient of variation greater than 30% (Table 16-5 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). When the biomass estimates are averaged for each 3-survey period (to reduce survey-to-survey variability) and are then plotted, a general decline is observed (Figure 34).

139

Figure 34. Estimated GoA sharpchin rockfish biomass, 1990-2011. Each point is the average of three surveys. (Data

from Clausen, D.M. and Echave, K.B. 2011a) A reviewer of this report noted that the trawl survey sampling identified for harlequin rockfish may also affect survey estimates for sharpchin rockfish. In the case of harlequin rockfish, research suggests that harlequin rockfish abundance may be much greater in rocky areas, which are not sampled by the trawl survey, than in areas that are accessible to the trawl survey (Jones, D.T., et al. 2010). However, no such research is currently available for sharpchin rockfish.



GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The 2010 catch of GoA sharpchin rockfish was less than 20% of the non-binding stock-specific Tier 5 OFL. The fishing mortality of GoA sharpchin rockfish is scored ’low’ concern. Rationale The estimated 2010 catch of GoA sharpchin rockfish was 185 t (Table 16-3 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b), while the non-binding, Tier 5 OFL was 1,125 t and the ABC was 931 t (Table 11-16 in Clausen, D.M. 2009). Catch of GoA sharpchin rockfish has not exceeded 400 t since 1993 (Table 16-3 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b). While the distribution of GoA sharpchin rockfish catch between GoA fisheries is not known, it is known that, in 2011, the GoA rockfish trawl fishery caught

140

approximately 75% of that year’s total GoA "other rockfish" catch (Hulson, P-J., et al. 2011). As sharpchin rockfish is one of the primary species in this complex, in terms of both abundance and catch it is assumed that the GoA rockfish trawl fishery is the primary source of GoA sharpchin rockfish fishing mortality (Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011b).

SHORT-TAILED ALBATROSS




High





Very High Concern

Short-tailed albatross are of particular concern. Short-tailed albatross were exploited for their feathers during the 19th and 20th centuries, and by 1949 the species was believed to be extinct. Survivors were discovered in 1951, and in the years since, a concerted conservation effort has led to a strong recovery of the nesting population (IUCN 2013c). Short-tailed albatross are listed as an IUCN vulnerable species (IUCN 2013c), a CITES Appendix I species (CITES 2012), and an endangered species under the ESA (ADF&G 2013). Short-tailed albatross stock status is scored ’very high’ concern due to its status under the ESA.




Very Low Concern

141

The fishing mortality of short-tailed albatross in the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery is scored ’very low’ concern because the population seems to be increasing due to conservation efforts, and recent catch levels in the relevant fisheries appear to be within limits that will allow the stock to recover. Rationale In 2010, fisheries observers noted two incidents of short-tailed albatross mortality in the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery; these were the first observed takes since 1998 (AFSC 2011). The resulting estimated take of short-tailed albatross in this fishery was 15 individuals in 2010 (AFSC 2011). Prior to the two mortalities in 2010, there were five observed takes of short-tailed albatross in Alaska’s demersal longline groundfish fisheries between 1990 and 1998: one was caught in the GoA sablefish longline fishery, two were caught in the Bering Sea Pacific cod hook and line fishery, one was taken in the Bering Sea “IFQ hook and line” (sablefish) fishery, and the last was taken in an unidentified Bering Sea hook and line fishery (Table 6 in USFWS 2008). Despite its endangered status, the short-tailed albatross’s recovery plan states that "short-tailed albatross populations are not declining due to seabird bycatch in commercial fisheries" (USFWS 2008). The recovery plan also demonstrates that a 5% mortality rate would be indicated by approximately 11-13 observed mortalities/year across all fisheries (assuming 10% probability of observing mortalities across all fisheries, and a population between 1,800 and 2,600; Table 7 in USFWS 2008). The 2007-2010 average for Alaska demersal longline groundfish fisheries is 0.5 observed mortalities/year, or 4.5% of 11 observed mortalities/year. Furthermore, two takes over four years is less than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s estimated maximum incidental take of short-tailed albatross in the Alaska demersal groundfish fisheries (a maximum of four birds in every two years, USFWS 2008).

SHORTRAKER ROCKFISH





Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Sablefish Longline, Longline, deep-set

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for shortraker rockfish is 71, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.22 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).

142





High Concern

The stock status of BSAI shortraker rockfish is scored ’high’ concern, as the species’ inherent vulnerability is high, there are no biomass reference points for this stock, and the most recent biomass estimate continues a gradually declining trend. Rationale BSAI shortraker rockfish are a Tier 5 stock and therefore have no biomass reference points. The official status of the stock in 2012 was ’undefined’ (NMFS 2012). The estimated biomass for 2013 (16,447 t) is a continuation of what seems to be a trend of gradually declining biomass since at least 1980, when estimated biomass was 29,776 t (Figure 30; Table 8 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b).

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Sablefish Longline, Longline, Deep-Set

Low Concern

The stock status of GoA shortraker rockfish is scored ’low’ concern. The species has high inherent vulnerability and there are no biomass reference points for this stock, but recent trawl survey biomass estimates suggest a generally increasing trend. Rationale As a Tier 5 stock, there are no biomass reference points against which to assess the current status of the GoA shortraker rockfish stock, and the official status of the stock was ’undefined’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012). Trends in estimated biomass of GoA shortraker rockfish suggest a general increase in biomass since at least the early 1980s, with the 2011 estimate being the highest since at least 1984 (Table 11-5 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011a).




143


Low Concern

The total catch of BSAI shortraker rockfish in 2011 was 44.7% of the Tier 5 OFL and 59.5% of the ABC. The fishing mortality rate for 2011 was the highest estimate since 1990. The stock was not considered to be experiencing overfishing in 2012. Fishing mortality of BSAI shortraker rockfish is scored ’low’ concern for the rockfish trawl, turbot longline, and sablefish longline fisheries. Rationale The total catch of BSAI shortraker rockfish in 2011 was 234 t, which was 44.7% of the OFL (524 t) and 59.5% of the ABC (393 t) (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b). This catch level is very similar to the average catch during the period 1993-2011 (238 t; Table 2 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b), but the 2011 estimated fishing mortality rate (0.20) is the highest since 1990 (Table 8 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b). This stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012). During the period 2004-2012, BSAI shortraker rockfish were caught primarily in the trawl fishery for rockfish (40%), the longline fisheries for Pacific cod (12.5%) and turbot (10%), the flatfish trawl fishery (8.4%), and sablefish longline (6.1%) (Tables 5 and 6 in Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2012b).

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Sablefish Longline, Longline, deep-set

Low Concern

The 2011 catch of GoA shortraker rockfish was 44.8% of the Tier 5 OFL and 59.7% of the ABC. The 2012 stock was not considered to be experiencing overfishing. Fishing mortality of GoA shortraker rockfish is scored ’low’ concern for the rockfish trawl, sablefish longline, and flatfish trawl fisheries. Rationale The 2011 catch of GoA shortraker rockfish was 546 t, which was 44.8% of the OFL (1,219 t) and 59.7% of the ABC (914 t) (Echave, K.B., et al. 2012), and was similar to catches in recent years (Table 11-1 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011a). The stock was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 by NMFS (NMFS 2012). In 2011, GoA shortraker rockfish were caught primarily in the rockfish trawl fishery (43%), the sablefish longline fishery (21%), the halibut longline fishery (11%), and the flatfish trawl fishery (12%) (Table 11-3 in Clausen, D.M. & Echave, K.B. 2011a).

SHORTSPINE THORNYHEAD



144



GOA Bottom Longline

High

The FishBase vulnerability score is 70 for shortspine thornyhead, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.33 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).




Moderate Concern

As a Tier 5 stock, there are no biomass reference points for BSAI shortspine thornyhead. Recent trends in trawl survey biomass estimates suggest that the stock is not diminishing. The species’ ’high’ inherent vulnerability (see Factor 1.1) and the lack of biomass reference points would suggest a Factor 1.2 score of ’high’ concern, but the generally increasing trend in trawl survey biomass estimates is a mitigating factor. BSAI shortspine thornyhead stock status is therefore scored ’moderate’ concern. Rationale In the BSAI, shortspine thornyhead are a part of the "other rockfish" stock complex, and are one of the two most abundant species in this complex (Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). Trawl survey biomass estimates suggest that BSAI shortspine thornyhead biomass generally increased from 1991 through 2010 and diminished somewhat in 2012 (Table 13 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). As a Tier 5 stock, there are no biomass reference points for BSAI shortspine thornyhead.

GOA Bottom Longline

Moderate Concern

Shortspine thornyhead are the dominant GoA thornyhead species, and fisheries rarely encounter longspine thornyhead. Therefore, shortspine thornyhead are the only thornyhead species that this report assesses for the GoA. The thornyhead species in the GoA thornyhead complex are managed under Tier 5, and as such there are no biomass reference points against which to assess the status of the stocks. Trawl survey biomass estimates for GoA shortspine thornyhead have steadily declined over the past several surveys. The status of the complex is ’undefined’ in regard to the potential for being

145

overfished, but the authors of the 2011 assessment state that it is "unlikely" that the GoA thornyhead complex is overfished. This mitigates concern, and GoA shortspine thornyhead thus receive a score of ’moderate’ concern for stock status. Rationale Trawl survey estimates of GoA shortspine thornyhead biomass have low variation within each year (C.V.s generally are less than 0.10), but are moderately variable from survey to survey as the depths sampled in each year’s survey have varied (Table 15.8 in Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). The GoA trawl survey biomass estimate in 2005 (94,740 t) was the highest on record for surveys that covered all depths, but estimates have declined in subsequent surveys (Table 15.8 in Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). The estimate of 2013 shortspine thornyhead biomass also serves as the estimate of the GoA thornyhead complex biomass; longspine thornyhead estimated biomass is not included in the estimate, but the catch of longspine thornyhead is constrained by the catch limits that are derived from it. As Tier 5 stocks, there are no biomass reference points for GoA shortspine or longspine thornyhead. The status of the thornyhead complex was therefore classified as ’undefined’ for 2012 (NMFS 2012), but the authors of the 2011 stock assessment suggest that it is "unlikely" that the GoA thornyhead complex is overfished (Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011).





Low Concern

The catch of BSAI shortspine thornyhead in 2011 was 30.5% and 40.7% of the Tier 5 OFL and ABC, respectively. The 2011 catch represented the seventh consecutive year of increasing catches, and was approximately 37% greater than the 2004-2010 average. Fishing mortality for BSAI shortspine thornyhead is scored ’low’ concern for the sablefish longline fishery, flatfish trawl, rockfish trawl, and Greenland turbot longline fisheries. Rationale Total catch of BSAI shortspine thornyhead was 411 t in 2011 (Tables 4 and 5 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). This was less than the Tier 5 OFL (1,348 t) and ABC (1,011 t) (Spencer, P.D. & Rooper, C.N. 2010a), and somewhat greater than the 2004-2010 average of 299 t (Tables 4 and 5 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). In 2011, the amount caught in the Eastern Bering Sea (254 t) was the highest since at least 2004, and the amount caught in the Aleutian Islands (157 t) was essentially tied for the second-highest in the same time period (Tables 4 and 5 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). For 2012, the BSAI ‘other rockfish’

146

complex as a whole was classified as not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012), but there was no status determination for BSAI shortspine thornyhead per se. The 2004-2012 BSAI shortspine thornyhead catch is spread out among many fisheries, with the primary fisheries being the sablefish longline (26.7% of 2004-2012 shortspine thornyhead catch), flatfish trawl (18.7%), rockfish trawl (17.8%), and Greenland turbot longline (13.4%) fisheries (Tables 7 and 9 in Spies, I. & Spencer, P.D. 2012). These values were used to apportion, in an approximate sense, the 2011 catch between fisheries (see Appendix A).

GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

The catch of GoA thornyhead in 2011 was 25.9% and 34.6% of the Tier 5 OFL and ABC, respectively; this catch was likely composed almost entirely of shortspine thornyhead. The thornyhead complex as a whole was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012. GoA thornyhead catches have been steadily declining for the past decade. Fishing mortality for GoA shortspine thornyhead is scored ’low’ concern for the sablefish longline and rockfish trawl fisheries. Rationale Total catch of GoA thornyheads was 612 t in 2011, while the OFL and ABC were 2,360 t and 1,770 t, respectively (Shotwell, S.K. & Ianelli, J. 2012). The 2011 catch was similar to catches in recent years; catches of GoA thornyhead have not exceeded 1,000 t since 2003 and have not exceeded 2,000 t since 1992, and have exceeded 2,000 only 3 times since at least 1977 (Table 15.1 in Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). The GoA thornyhead catch is likely to be almost entirely composed of shortspine thornyhead, as longspine thornyhead are ‘rarely’ caught by GoA fisheries (Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). Targeted fishing of GoA shortspine thornyhead is not permitted, and the valuable species is taken primarily in fisheries targeting sablefish (58% of thornyhead catch in 2011), other rockfish (27%), and flatfish (13%)(Murphy, J. & Ianelli, J. 2011). The GoA thornyhead complex was classified as not experiencing overfishing in 2012 (NMFS 2012).

SNOW CRAB



BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

High

147

Inherent vulnerability to overfishing is considered 'high' for snow crabs (see below).



BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Biomass has been estimated to be above B35% since 2008 (Turnock & Rugolo 2011). Rationale Stock assessments are performed annually on the EBS snow crab stock using both fishery-dependent and independent data. Under the crab fishery management plan (FMP), fisheries are classified in one of five available tiers based on the quality of information available (where tier one is highest and tier five is lowest). The EBS snow crab stock is classified as tier three, meaning that an empirical stock recruitment curve cannot be determined. As a result, the fishery is managed through proxies for Bmsy and Fmsy. In this case, a 35% control rule is applied, in which F35% is the fishing effort that would result in egg production equal to 35% of the egg production that would occur in the unexploited population (NPFMC 2011b). Following these metrics, the stock assessment for EBS snow crab uses mature male biomass (MMB) to evaluate the state of the stock relative to the B35% level of MMB (MMB35). Numerous models are fit to available data (including landings, catch per unit effort, size frequency data, and fishery-independent survey data) to develop estimates of the current and past status of the EBS snow crab stock. Under all model scenarios, MMB has been above MMB35% since 2008 (Turnock & Rugolo 2011). As such, the fishery has been declared recovered. However, this finding is highly dependent on assumptions underlying the model such as the selectivity of the fishery-independent survey gear. In addition, future projections based on alternative harvest strategies for the EBS snow crab indicate that MMB will likely dip below MMB35% following the 2012 season. Recovery to levels above MMB35% is also likely, however, dependent on future recruitment (Turnock 2012).



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Total catches of snow crab in non-pollock groundfish trawl fisheries were <50% of the PSC limit in 2011

148

(Table 5). Fishing mortality of snow crabs caught as bycatch in BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries is therefore scored ’very low’ conservation concern.

GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

There are no PSC limits for crab in GoA groundfish fisheries. The total catch of king, Tanner, and snow crabs in non-pollock GoA groundfish trawl fisheries was approximately 92,600 individuals in 2011 (Table 12 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012). There are no estimates for sustainable fishing mortality of GoA crab. Fishing mortality of crab in GoA groundfish fisheries is scored ’low’ concern.

SOUTHERN ROCK SOLE



GOA Bottom Trawl

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Lepidopsetta bilineata is 57, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 is 1.95 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

The northern and southern rock sole SB2013:SB40% is 2.12 and 1.84 in the GoA, respectively (A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). Stock status for GoA northern and southern rock sole is therefore scored ’very low’ concern.



149

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Rock sole are part of the GoA Shallow Water Flatfish Complex, and as such they do not have an official classification regarding overfishing. However, in 2011, the catches of GoA northern and southern rock sole were 5.4% and 6.8% of their respective stock-specific (and non-binding) OFLs (A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). Fishing mortality of GoA northern and southern rock sole is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the flatfish trawl and Pacific cod trawl fisheries. Rationale GoA rock sole are managed as part of the Shallow Water Flatfish (SWFF) complex; rock sole has composed an average of 75% of the annual SWFF catch since 1993 (Table 4.1.1 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012a). In 2011, total catches of GoA northern and southern rock sole were 1,029 and 2,066 t, respectively (Turnock, B.J., et al. 2012), while the OFL and ABC values were 18,953 and 16,085 t for northern rock sole and 30,460 and 26,064 t for southern rock sole (Turnock, B.J., et al. 2010). The SWFF complex was not considered to be experiencing overfishing during 2012, but there was no official classification of the GoA northern and southern rock sole stocks per se (NMFS 2012). Approximately 69.2% of the 2011 SWFF catch was taken in the flatfish trawl fishery, while another 23.1% was taken in the Pacific cod trawl fishery and 7.7% in the pollock bottom trawl fishery (Fissel, B. et al. 2012).

SPINY DOGFISH



GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline

High

The FishBase vulnerability score for Squalus acanthias is 69, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 of (Cope, J.M., et al., 2011) is 1.11 (Cope, J.M., et al. 2011).



GOA Bottom Trawl

150

GOA Bottom Longline

Moderate Concern

Due to its minimal catch in the BSAI, spiny dogfish are assessed only for GoA fisheries. It should be noted that spiny dogfish are an IUCN "vulnerable" species, but the IUCN’s assessment justification specifically states that the Alaska stock of spiny dogfish "appear[s] stable" (IUCN 2013b). GoA spiny dogfish are a Tier 5 stock, and as such, there are no biomass reference points against which to assess the status of the stock. Caveats associated with the trawl survey biomass estimates preclude reliable interpretation of year-to-year trends; however, CPUE and RPNs derived from longline surveys show no apparent trends. The lack of apparent declines from the longline surveys mitigates concern associated with the stock's unknown status and the species' ’high’ inherent vulnerability. GoA spiny dogfish are therefore scored ’moderate’ conservation concern. Rationale The GoA spiny dogfish biomass estimate used in the current SAFE report is the average of the last three trawl survey biomass estimates. However, the trawl survey biomass estimates for GoA spiny dogfish are subject to several caveats that render comparison of year-to-year estimates difficult (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011) and, therefore, it is not possible to evaluate these estimates for potential trends in spiny dogfish biomass. CPUE in AFSC and IPHC longline surveys, and RPNs from the IPHC longline survey, show no apparent trend during the period 1997-2011 (Figures 20.6 and 201.10 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011).



GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline

Low Concern

The total catch of GoA spiny dogfish in 2010 was approximately 57% of that year’s non-binding OFL calculated for the species based on Tier 6 calculations; however, the following year the stock was moved to Tier 5, and the OFL increased by one order of magnitude. The exact catch of spiny dogfish in 2011 is not known, but total shark catch was 522 t in 2011. This means that the 2011 catch of GoA spiny dogfish was no more than 6.8% of its non-binding OFL for that year. Fishing mortality of GoA spiny dogfish is scored ’low’ concern for the GoA flatfish trawl and Pacific cod longline fisheries. Rationale A total of 398 t of spiny dogfish were caught as bycatch in GoA commercial groundfish fisheries in 2010

151

(Table 20.4 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011), while the non-binding, Tier 6 OFL calculated for GoA spiny dogfish in 2010 was 703 t (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011). However, it should be noted that the stock was moved to Tier 5 for 2011, and the resulting non-binding Tier 5 OFL calculated for GoA spiny dogfish in 2011 increased to 7,688 t (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011). The exact catch of spiny dogfish in 2011 is not known, but total shark catch was 522 t in 2011 (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011) and, therefore, the catch of spiny dogfish was no more than 522 t in 2011. Of the 2010 catch, approximately 41.2% was taken in the flatfish fishery, 29.7% in Pacific cod fisheries, and 17.7% in sablefish longline (Table 20.6 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011). While the gears associated with the flatfish and Pacific cod fisheries are not defined (Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011), other sources suggest that the relevant gears are flatfish trawl and Pacific cod longline (NPFMC 2011a). Approximately 95% of the 2010 catch of GoA spiny dogfish was discarded (Table 20.5 in Tribuzio, C.A., et al. 2011).

STELLER SEA LION: W. US



BSAI Bottom Trawl

High




BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very High Concern

The western U.S. population of Steller sea lions is listed as ‘endangered’ under the ESA, and ‘endangered’ by the IUCN (Appendix B). According to the Seafood Watch criteria, this stock is therefore scored ’very high’ concern for Factor 2.2.



152

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

In the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery, annual mortality of Steller sea lions (western U.S. stock) is 2.2% of PBR (Appendix B). According to the Seafood Watch criteria, the mortalities of this stock in the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery is scored ’very low’ concern.

TANNER CRAB



BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Medium

An existing Seafood Watch report assigned an inherent resilience score of ’medium’ to tanner crab (Ovando, D.A. 2012).



BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

The Eastern Bering Sea Chionoecetes bairdi stock was previously classified as overfished by the NPFMC, but this designation was revoked in October 2012. The fishery was closed from 1997 to 2005 due to low abundance and declared overfished in 1999. In 2005, the fishery reached a level that allowed fishing, but subsequently declined. The fishery was closed again in 2010 when it was determined to be overfished (Rugolo, L. & Turnock, B. 2011). The most recent assessment approved by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the NPFMC in October 2012 uses a new model that has been under development for several years. The new model indicates that the stock status has changed and that the stock is neither overfished nor below Bmsy. Thus, at present, the C. bairdi stock is no longer considered

153

overfished. Stock status of tanner crabs is therefore scored ’low concern’ for this assessment.



BSAI Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Trawl

Very Low Concern

Total catches of tanner crab in non-pollock groundfish trawl fisheries were <50% of the relevant PSC limits in 2011 (Table 6). Fishing mortality of tanner crabs caught as bycatch in BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries is therefore scored ’very low’ concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

< 20% to 20%–40%

For Factor 2.4, the Seafood Watch criteria assign the scores in the following table to fisheries based on the ratio of (discards + bait)/landings:

(Bait+Discards)/Landings Factor 2.4 Score

0.0-0.2 1

0.2-0.4 0.95

0.4-0.6 0.9

0.6-0.8 0.85

0.8-1.0 0.8

>1.0

However, there is no quantitative information available for the amount of bait used by the longline and pot fisheries in Alaska. Pot fisheries in particular are known to often use significant quantities of bait, and so are assigned a score that is one ‘step’ below the one that corresponds to their discards/landings

154

ratio. Discards: landings ratios and associated Factor 2.4 scores are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Ratios of discards: landings, and associated Factor 2.4 scores (discard and landings data from Fissel et al. 2012)

Discard: Landings (2011)

Score (no bait)

Score (adjusted for fisheries that use bait)

GoA

Flatfish Trawl 0.27 0.95 1 Pacific Cod Trawl 0.05 1 1 Rockfish Trawl 0.08 1 1 Pacific Cod Longline 0.07 1 1 Sablefish Longline 0.08 1 1 Pacific Cod Pot 0.03 1 0.95 Pacific Cod Jig NK 1 1

BSAI

Atka Mackerel Trawl 0.04 1 1 Flatfish Trawl 0.06 1 1 Pacific Cod Trawl 0.11 1 1 Rockfish Trawl 0.05 1 1 Yellowfin Sole Trawl 0.09 1 1 Pacific Cod Longline 0.18 1 1 Sablefish Longline 0.09 1 1 Turbot Longline 0.31 0.95 0.95 Pacific Cod Pot 0.03 1 0.95 Sablefish Pot 0.25 0.95 0.9 Pacific Cod Jig NK 1 1

155

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy

(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Management of Retained Species

Management of Non-Retained Species

Overall Recommendation

BSAI BottomTrawl 5.000 3.000 Green(3.873) BSAI Trawl, Bottom 5.000 3.000 Green(3.873) BSAI Longline, Bottom

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Pacific Cod Jig Jig

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Pacific Cod Longline Longline, Bottom

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Pacific Cod Pot Pot

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Pacific Cod Trawl Trawl, Bottom

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)


5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Sablefish Longline Longline, Bottom

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Bering Sea Aleutian Islands: Sablefish Pot Trap

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)


5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

156

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Pacific Cod Jig Jig

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Pacific Cod Longline Longline, Bottom

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Pacific Cod Pot Pot

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)


5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Rockfish Trawl Large mesh bottom trawl

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)


5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Alaska Gulf of Alaska: Sablefish Longline Longline, Bottom

5.000 3.000 Green(3.873)

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated

‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for

Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’

• 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

157

Factor 3.1 Summary

Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion All fisheries Highly

Effective N/A Highly

Effective Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.

Highly Effective

Management strategy and implementation is scored ’highly effective’ for all fisheries in this assessment. The standards for “management strategy and implementation,” and the degree to which the management of Criterion 1 species meets them, are summarized below. Rationale

1. Appropriate reference points Each managed stock is placed into one of six tiers based upon the information available for the stock. Stocks in Tiers 1-3 have biomass reference points (BMSY for Tiers 1 and 2, and B35% for Tier 3). There are no estimates of BMSY or B35%for Tiers 4-6.

2. Harvest control rules that adjust for declining biomass The harvest control rules for stocks managed under Tiers 1-3 incorporate measures that automatically reduce fishing mortality when the stock’s biomass passes beneath a threshold, and which set fishing mortality to zero if the biomass falls below a minimum threshold. Stocks in Tiers 4 and 5 lack biomass reference points, and as such the fishing mortality rates used to calculate OFL are not affected by stock status (NPFMC 2012c). The OFL for Tier 6 stocks is generated from estimates of historical catch.

3. Risk aversion and buffering against uncertainty The differences between OFL, ABC, and TAC offer a buffer against scientific and management uncertainty, and help fisheries managers to avoid the risk of accidental over-exploitation. The first degree of buffering occurs when ABCs are set at less than OFLs; when the 2013 ABCs and OFLs for important retained species are summed, the sum of the ABCs is 83.6% and 86.4% of the sum of the OFLs for the GoA and BSAI, respectively (Tables 8 and 9). Management uncertainty may be buffered further by reducing the TAC below the ABC: for the same stocks in the GoA and BSAI, the sums of TACs are 52.4% and 54.1%, respectively, of the sums of OFLs (Tables 8 and 9).

158

Table 8. 2013 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for primary retained species in GoA groundfish fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 2013c)

Species OFL ABC TAC ABC:OFL TAC:OFL

Arrowtooth 247,196 210,451 103,300 0.851 0.418

Atka Mackerel 6,200 4,700 2,000 0.758 0.323

Dusky Rockfish 5,746 4,700 4,700 0.818 0.818

Flathead Sole 61,036 48,738 30,496 0.799 0.500

Northern Rockfish 6,124 5,130 5,130 0.838 0.838

Pacific Cod 97,200 80,800 60,600 0.831 0.623

Pacific Ocean Perch 18,919 16,412 16,412 0.867 0.867

Rex Sole 12,492 9,560 9,560 0.765 0.765

Rougheye/Blackspotted 1,482 1,232 1,232 0.831 0.831

Sablefish 14,780 12,510 12,510 0.846 0.846

Shortraker Rockfish 1,441 1,081 1,081 0.750 0.750

Thornyhead 2,220 1,775 1,775 0.800 0.800

SUM 474,836 397,089 248,796 0.836 0.524

Table 9. 2013 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for primary retained species in BSAI groundfish fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 2013c)

Species OFL ABC TAC ABC:OFL TAC:OFL

Alaska Plaice 67,000 55,200 20,000 0.824 0.299

Arrowtooth 186,000 152,000 25,000 0.817 0.134

Atka Mackerel 57,700 50,000 25,920 0.867 0.449

Flathead Sole 81,500 67,900 22,699 0.833 0.279

159

Greenland Turbot 2,540 2,060 2,060 0.811 0.811

Kamchatka Flounder 16,300 12,200 10,000 0.748 0.613

Northern Rockfish 12,200 9,850 3,000 0.807 0.246

Pacific Cod 359,000 307,000 260,000 0.855 0.724

Pacific Ocean Perch 41,900 35,100 35,100 0.838 0.838

Rock Pole 241,000 214,000 92,380 0.888 0.383

Rougheye Rockfish 462 378 378 0.818 0.818

Sablefish 4,400 3,720 3,720 0.845 0.845

Shortraker Rockfish 493 370 370 0.751 0.751

Yellowfin Sole 220,000 206,000 198,000 0.936 0.900

SUM 1,290,495 1,115,778 698,627 0.864 0.541

Furthermore, for many managed stocks, 20% of TAC is set aside in a reserve, which can be accessed and re-released to the appropriate fishery as necessary by the regional administrator (NPFMC 2012c). Finally, the sum of all species’ TACs is also subject to the cumulative OY. If the sum of target species’ TACs is outside of the OY range for a given year, the TACs are adjusted accordingly. By serving as a maximum cap on the sum of TACs, the OYs can act to prevent risky, yield-maximizing decisions during times when TACs are high.

The Alaska groundfish fisheries vary in terms of the number of Criterion 1 stocks that they catch. Obviously, those that catch more stocks are more likely to catch a stock that does not currently have biomass reference points, an associated harvest control rule, etc. To avoid skewing the interpretation of management strategy and implementation to favor fisheries with less-diverse catches, the following approach was used.

The three key components of management strategy and implementation were first broken out (Tables 10 and 11). Then, for each fishery, the number of Criterion 1 stocks that met each of these components

160

was determined. The number of Criterion 1 stocks that achieved the components was then totaled, and divided by the total number of the fishery’s Criterion 1 stocks multiplied by the number of management components (i.e., the total number of Criterion 1 stocks in the fishery multiplied by 3) to indicate the fishery’s “achievement rate.” The achievement rate is an indication of the frequency with which a fishery’s stocks achieve the requirements of management strategy and implementation.

For example, five Criterion 1 stocks are caught in the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery (Appendix B). Of these five stocks, three have biomass reference points, three have a Tier 1-3 harvest control rule, and five have catch limits that are buffered against uncertainty and risk (Appendix B). This fishery’s Criterion 3 stocks, therefore, achieve 11 out of 15 possible stock/management component combinations, for an achievement rate of 73.3% (Table 10).

As Tables 10 and 11 demonstrate, all fisheries assessed in this report have achievement rates ≥50%.

Table 10. Number of major retained species in each BSAI fishery that meets each standard for each aspect of highly effective management strategy and evaluation.

Fishery

Standard

Biomass ref. points

Harvest Control Rule

Risk/Uncert. buffering

Sub-total

Achievement Rate

BSAI

Atka Mackerel Trawl

Stocks that achieve

2 2 2 6

100.0% Stocks in fishery

2 2 2 6

Flatfish Trawl

Stocks that achieve

6 6 11 23


11 11 11 33

Pacific Cod Trawl

Stocks that achieve

1 1 2 4


2 2 2 6

Rockfish Trawl

Stocks that achieve

3 3 5 11 73.3%

161

Stocks in fishery

5 5 5 15

Pacific Cod Longline

Stocks that achieve

2 2 3 7


3 3 3 9

Sablefish Longline

Stocks that achieve

1 1 3 5


3 3 3 9

Turbot Longline

Stocks that achieve

1 1 3 5


3 3 3 9

Pacific Cod Pot

Stocks that achieve

1 1 1 3


1 1 1 3

Sablefish Pot

Stocks that achieve

1 1 1 3

100% Stocks in fishery

1 1 1 3

Pacific Cod Jig

Stocks that achieve

1 1 1 3

100% Stocks in fishery

1 1 1 3

Table 11. Number of major retained species in each GoA fishery that meet each standard for each aspect of highly effective management strategy and evaluation.

Fishery Standard

162

Biomass ref. points

Harvest Control Rule

Risk/uncert. buffering

Sub-total

Achievement Rate

GoA

Flatfish Trawl

Stocks that achieve

6 5 9 20


9 9 9 27

Pacific Cod Trawl

Stocks that achieve

3 3 4 10


4 4 4 12

Rockfish Trawl

Stocks that achieve

5 5 7 17


7 7 7 21

Pacific Cod Longline

Stocks that achieve

1 1 1 3


1 1 1 3

Sablefish Longline

Stocks that achieve

2 2 3 7


3 3 3 9

Pacific Cod Pot

Stocks that achieve

1 1 1 3


1 1 1 3

Pacific Cod Jig

Stocks that achieve

1 1 1 3 100.0%

Stocks in 1 1 1 3

163

fishery

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

N/A

There are no overfished, depleted, endangered, or threatened stocks targeted or retained in the fisheries addressed in this assessment. One species (spiny dogfish) is an IUCN ‘vulnerable’ species, but the IUCN’s assessment justification specifically states that the Alaska stock of spiny dogfish ‘appears stable’ (IUCN 2013b). All fisheries in this assessment, therefore, receive scores of ‘NA’ for this aspect of management.

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

Highly Effective

All of the major retained species (Appendix B) have up-to-date stock assessments.

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

164

Highly Effective

One of the primary avenues through which science informs management of Alaska groundfish is through the determination of the OFL and ABC. A prescriptive process is followed to determine the OFL and maximum ABC for each stock or complex. This process takes into consideration the information available for the productivity of the stock and the stock’s status (if known), and then specifies the mortality rate (or, in the case of Tier 6 stocks, the historical catch data) to be used to determine OFL and maximum ABC. While a final ABC may be reduced from the maximum ABC for various reasons, it cannot be greater than the calculated maximum ABC, and it will always be less than the OFL due to the process that is followed to calculate both (NPFMC 2012c). In addition, reductions in ABC that are recommended by the science body cannot be overruled by the Council; the ABCs recommended by the NPFMC to the secretary cannot exceed the SSC’s recommended ABC (NPFMC 2012c). In essence, the process that exists for the determination of OFLs and maximum ABCs, and the recommendation of ABCs, ensures that the maximum acceptable mortality is determined by science and scientists and cannot be overruled, exceeded, or otherwise ignored.

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

Highly Effective

Methods to ensure compliance with regulations include mandatory use of vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and record-keeping requirements, including mandatory logbooks and the submission of product, discard, and disposition information via eLandings. These measures meet the standard for ‘highly effective’ enforcement for those fisheries in which they are in place. The GoA sablefish and GoA and BSAI groundfish jig fisheries are essentially the only fisheries without full VMS coverage (VMS Discussion Paper 2012). Many sablefish and jig vessels do have VMS equipped, however (Table 3 in VMS Discussion Paper 2012).

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

Highly Effective

165

The Alaska groundfish fisheries have a solid record of sustained catch levels and healthy stocks. In the GoA, landings have stayed relatively steady since 1990, ranging from a low of approximately 171,734 t in 2004 to 261,694 t in 1992 (Table 5 in (GoA Groundfish Plan Team 2012)). In the BSAI, catches, TACs, ABCs, OFLs, and total groundfish biomass have stayed relatively steady since the early 1980s (Figure 33). Retention rates for many species have steadily increased over the past two decades, as well; this is especially true for species, such as arrowtooth flounder, that traditionally had been retained at very low rates. Finally, there are no stocks that are currently listed as overfished or as experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2012). For these reasons, the track record for the management of the non-pollock groundfish fisheries in Alaska warrants a score of ‘highly effective.’ Rationale

Figure 33. BSAI groundfish biomass, OFL, ABC, and TAC, 1981-present (Data include pollock; figure from BSAI Groundfish Plan

Team 2012).

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

Highly Effective

There are several avenues through which stakeholder input may considered and integrated into fisheries management decisions. The meetings of the NPFMC are open to the public, and public statements are

166

taken prior to major decisions. Prior to the adoption of harvest specifications, the proposed specifications are published in the Federal Register, followed by a public review and comment period of no less than 15 days (NPFMC 2012c). The NPFMC also takes advice from an advisory panel composed of representatives from commercial fishing companies, subsistence fishers, processors, observers, environmental organizations, and sport fishermen.

Bycatch Strategy

Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species Region / Method All Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce BSAI Bottom Trawl No No Moderately

Effective Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

BSAI Bottom Longline (Greenland turbot and Pacific cod)

No No Moderately Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

BSAI Jig No No Moderately Effective

Moderately Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

BSAI Pot No No Moderately Effective


Highly Effective

Highly Effective

BSAI Bottom Longline (Sablefish) No No Moderately Effective


Highly Effective

Highly Effective

GOA Bottom Trawl No No Moderately Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

GOA Jig No No Moderately Effective


Highly Effective

Highly Effective

GOA Bottom Longline (Pacific cod) No No Moderately Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Highly Effective

GOA Pot No No Moderately Effective


Highly Effective

Highly Effective

GOA Bottom Longline (Sablefish) No No Moderately Effective


Highly Effective

Highly Effective

Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).


The management of bycatch species is generally sound. Concerns include the halibut PSC limits' very

167

slow response to declining halibut abundance, a lack of limits on grenadier bycatch, and the apparently minimal limits on dark rockfish bycatch in the Gulf. Several other common bycatch species lack biomass reference points (e.g., sleeper shark, harlequin rockfish). In the BSAI, sharks are managed as Tier 6 species, but instead of the overfishing limit being set at the typical level for Tier 6 species (average historical catch) it is set at a less precautionary level (maximum average catch). Fisheries in this assessment receive a score of ’moderately effective’ for management strategy and implementation for bycatch species. Rationale The groundfish fisheries are prohibited from retaining certain species. Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) refers to the catch of a group of species/species groups that may not be retained for sale by Alaska groundfish vessels. PSC species consist of Pacific halibut, Pacific herring, Pacific salmon and steelhead species, and king, Tanner (Chionoecetes bairdi), and snow (C. opilio) crabs (NPFMC 2012b). Limits on PSC are in place for certain PSC stock/fishery combinations, and the relevant fishery is closed when a PSC limit is reached. Catch of PSC species is not equally distributed among the groundfish fisheries. In 2011, the Alaskan pollock trawl fisheries were responsible for the vast majority of the groundfish fisheries’ catch of Pacific herring (95% of all Pacific herring caught in all groundfish fisheries), Chinook salmon (84%), and all other salmon (99%) (Tables 12 and 13 in Fissel, B. et al. 2012). The PSC limits generally represent strong management of the fisheries' catches of this set of species; however, the slowness of the management regime to reduce halibut PSC limits in the face of declining halibut abundance is a concern (see Pacific halibut fishing mortality summary in this report). The management of non-PSC fish species that are caught as bycatch generally meets the standard for ’moderately effective’ management. Some common bycatch species do not have biomass reference points (e.g., harlequin rockfish, sharpchin rockfish, sleeper shark). Measures to improve the management of grenadier bycatch were recently adopted by the NPFMC (NPFMC 2014), but these measures do not place limits on grenadier bycatch (see giant grenadier fishing mortality summary). Another bycatch species for which bycatch management is a concern is the GoA dark rockfish. This species was removed from the FMP and is managed by the state of Alaska; currently, there is no assessment for the stock, and it is caught in nontrivial amounts in the GoA rockfish trawl fishery, where the only limit on its catch is that it cannot be more than 5% of the total weight of retained rockfish for a trip (see dark rockfish summary in Criterion 2). Seabird bycatch in Alaskan groundfish demersal longline fisheries sharply declined after the introduction of streamer lines in 2002 (Figure 34; Zador, S. ed. 2012). All longline vessels >55’ length must use paired streamer lines, while vessels from 26’ to 55’ have to use single streamer lines or a buoy bag (NPFMC 2012a). Bycatch of short-tailed albatross in demersal longline fisheries is a matter of particular concern, and it should be noted that there were no observed mortalities of short-tailed albatross during the period 1998-2010 (AFSC 2011).

168

Figure 34. Estimated total seabird catch in demersal longline fisheries (Figure from Zador, S. 2012)

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met.

BSAI Bottom Trawl

BSAI Bottom Longline (Greenland turbot and Pacific cod)

GOA Bottom Trawl

GOA Bottom Longline (Pacific cod)

Highly Effective

The GoA and BSAI Pacific cod pot and jig fisheries, the GoA sablefish longline fishery, and the BSAI sablefish longline and pot fisheries are scored ‘moderately effective’ for scientific research and monitoring, because substantial proportions of these fisheries’ fleets have been exempt from observer coverage in recent years. Recent changes to the observer program address this issue and will warrant a review of this score once coverage rates under the new regime are available. All other fisheries are scored ‘highly effective’ for scientific research and monitoring, due to sufficient observer coverage.

169

Rationale The at-sea observer program has long been in place for Alaska groundfish fisheries, but coverage varied greatly from fishery to fishery due to the criteria used to determine observer coverage rates. For example, 82% of total observer at-sea days in 2008 were spent on larger catcher-processors and motherships, or BSAI pollock catcher vessels and processors; conversely, 18% of at-sea days in 2008 were spent on vessels between the lengths of 60 feet and 125 feet (Northern Economics, Inc. 2011). Furthermore, vessels under 60 feet in length were exempt from observer coverage at this time. In 2009, vessels that were exempt from observer coverage due to the 60’ length threshold included 464 hook and line vessels (out of 527 total hook and line vessels), 106 pot vessels (out of 159 pot vessels), and 27 trawl vessels (out of 148 trawl vessels) (summing these values results in double-counting of vessels that used more than gear in 2009; Table 19 in Northern Economics, Inc. 2011). The GoA and BSAI Pacific cod pot and jig fisheries, the GoA sablefish longline fishery, and the BSAI sablefish longline and pot fisheries are largely or entirely composed of vessels <60’ LOA (NPFMC 2012a). In previous years, observer coverage requirements were determined by vessel length and processing volume, but a recent overhaul to the program replaces predetermined coverage levels with an approach meant to confer more flexibility to NMFS in observer deployment (NOAA Fisheries 2012a). This overhaul will also increase substantially the number of vessels covered by the observer program, because the hundreds of vessels under 60’ in length are now subject to observer coverage (Northern Economics, Inc. 2011). All vessels (including both catcher vessels and processors) engaged in any federally managed groundfish and halibut fishery in Alaska are now placed into one of two categories: full observer coverage, or partial observer coverage. Vessels in the full observer coverage category must carry an observer on 100% of trips and have 100% of hauls sampled (Northern Economics, Inc. 2011), while those placed into the partial coverage group will carry observers based on random assignment from NMFS (NOAA Fisheries 2012a). The partial coverage category includes smaller vessels (<60’ length) that previously had not received observer coverage (Northern Economics, Inc. 2011). The changes to the program were implemented in January 2013, and as such there is not yet information available regarding observer coverage rates for vessels in the partial coverage category.

BSAI Jig

BSAI Pot

BSAI Bottom Longline (Sablefish)

GOA Jig

GOA Pot

GOA Bottom Longline (Sablefish)


170

See above

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Highly Effective

See ‘Scientific Advice’ under Factor 3.1.

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

Highly Effective

See ‘Enforcement’ under Factor 3.1.

171

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Region / Method Gear Type and Substrate

Mitigation of Gear Impacts

EBFM Overall Recomm.

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Atka Mackerel) 1.00:High Concern

0.50:Moderate Mitigation


Yellow (2.739)

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Flatfish) 2.00:Moderate Concern

1.00:Strong Mitigation

4.00:Low Concern

Green (3.464)

BSAI Bottom Longline 3.00:Low Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Green (3.742)

BSAI Jig 4.00:Very Low Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Green (4.243)

BSAI Pot 3.00:Low Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Green (3.742)

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Pacific cod) 2.00:Moderate Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Yellow (3.162)

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Rockfish) 1.00:High Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Yellow (2.450)

GOA Bottom Trawl (Flatfish) 2.00:Moderate Concern

1.00:Strong Mitigation

4.00:Low Concern

Green (3.464)

GOA Jig 4.00:Very Low Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Green (4.243)

GOA Longline 3.00:Low Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Green (3.742)

GOA Pot 3.00:Low Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Green (3.742)

GOA Bottom Trawl (Pacific cod) 2.00:Moderate Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Yellow (3.162)

GOA Bottom Trawl (Rockfish) 1.00:High Concern


4.00:Low Concern

Yellow (2.450)

172

By their nature, groundfish tend to be demersal species, and the fisheries that target them correspondingly use bottom-tending gears. While the Alaskan commercial groundfish fisheries use a variety of gears, including bottom trawl, longline, pot, and jig gears, the common denominator between the gears is that they are expected to contact the bottom during their normal use. As such, the potential for habitat disturbance and destruction is present for all of the gears. A wealth of scientific information suggests that mobile bottom trawl gear should be expected to have the most significant impacts of all of the gears used in these fisheries; bottom longline and trap gears may also cause damage but, being fixed gears, they do not sweep over the seafloor as does trawl gear. In recognition of the potential for bottom-tending gears to damage habitat, a number of spatial restrictions on gear use are in place, and gear modifications have been implemented by regulation for two trawl fisheries. These spatial restrictions and modifications offer mitigation of bottom trawl habitat impacts.

Justification of Ranking

Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom • 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear • 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g.

gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (

• 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand

• 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)

• 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)

Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Atka Mackerel)

High Concern

The BSAI trawl fishery for Atka mackerel accesses habitats that are characterized by high rugosity and hard substrates, including rock. The fishery’s catch of coral and sponge is variable, but can be substantial relative to other fisheries. The impact of the gear on substrate is scored ‘high’ concern for the BSAI Atka mackerel trawl fishery, due to its use of bottom trawl gear on hard substrates and its catch of coral and

173

sponge. Rationale The essential fish habitat (EFH) identified for adult BSAI Atka mackerel consists of gravel and rock, and also patches of kelp (NPFMC 2012b). Similarly, the EFH for BSAI dusky rockfish – which are primarily caught in the BSAI Atka mackerel trawl fishery – consists of cobble, gravel, and rock (NPFMC 2012b). The BSAI Atka mackerel trawl fishery is identified as accessing sand, rock, and living substrates (NOAA 2005a). This fishery does catch variable and nontrivial amounts of coral and sponge: from 2009 to 2011, for example, the fishery took approximately 51% and 23% of all sponge and coral, respectively, that were caught as bycatch in the Aleutian Islands (Lowe, S.J., et al. 2012).

BSAI Bottom Trawl (flatfish)

Moderate Concern

Available information suggests that the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery interacts primarily with soft substrates, gravel, and cobble. This is indicated by both the known substrate associations of the major species caught in this fishery, and by the spatial location of the catches of BSAI flatfish species. The impact of BSAI flatfish trawl fishing gear on substrate is scored ’moderate’ concern, due to the associations of target species with deep gravel and cobble. Rationale The BSAI flatfish trawl fishery consists of bottom trawl tows that target rock sole, flathead sole, arrowtooth and Kamchatka flounder, Greenland turbot, Alaska plaice, yellowfin sole, and ‘other flatfish.’ These species tend to associate with soft substrates (sand and mud), cobble, and gravel (Table 11). Rock sole are distributed throughout the BSAI shelf, where they are known to associate with sand, gravel, and cobble substrates (Table 11; NPFMC 2012b). The locations of rock sole tows (Figure 35) correspond to areas of sand and mud (Figure 36) on the Eastern Bering Sea shelf. In contrast to the locations of rock sole tows, tows with catches composed primarily of flathead sole, arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder, or Greenland turbot clustered around sand and mud substrates on the outer shelf and slope (Figures 35 and 36). Yellowfin sole catch is centered on the southeastern BSAI shelf (Figure 35), where the substrate is primarily sand and sand/mud (Figure 36). The BSAI fishery management plan identifies sand as EFH for adult yellowfin sole, and sand and mud as EFH for adult Alaska plaice (Table 11; NPFMC 2012b).

174

Figure 35. BSAI flatfish trawl tow locations and dominant species, 2011 (NPFMC 2012a)

Figure 36. Surface sediments, Eastern Bering Sea shelf (Figure from McConnaughey, Olson, and Sigler 2009)

175

Catch data show that substantial amounts of sessile epibenthic fauna (corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and unidentified sponge) are caught in tows targeting BSAI yellowfin sole (Table 4-24 in Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012c). The observed bycatch of these three categories of sessile epibenthic fauna for the years 2003-2011 was 18.5% of the total nontarget species catch component of yellowfin sole during this time period (Table 4-24 in Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012c). For comparison, the total catch of these epibenthic fauna in tows targeting BSAI rock sole was only 0.3% of target species catch from 2003 to 2011 (Table 8.24 in Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012a), and was essentially zero relative to target catch in trawl tows targeting BSAI flathead sole from 2004 to 2011 (Tables 9.3 and 9.19b in Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2012). Unidentified sponges composed approximately 86% of the total 2003-2011 BSAI yellowfin sole trawl catch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponge, but corals/bryozoans dominated in two years of this period (Table 4-24 in Wilderbuer, T.K., et al. 2012c).

BSAI Bottom Longline (Greenland turbot)

Low Concern

The EFH for sablefish is varied, but generally consists of soft substrates (NPFMC 2012b). Greenland turbot EFH includes mud and sandy mud (NPFMC 2012b). The BSAI sablefish and Greenland turbot longline fisheries access silt, mud, gravel, cobble, and rocky substrates (NOAA 2005b). Bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponges is relatively minimal in Alaska sablefish fisheries (Table 3.5 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). The BSAI sablefish and Greenland turbot fisheries receive a score of ’low’ concern for the impacts of the gear on substrate, as there is no indication that the gear is set directly on boulders or living substrates.

BSAI Jig (Pacific cod)

Very Low Concern

The BSAI Pacific cod jig fishery, which occurs near Unalaska Island, occurs over gravel, cobble, and rocky substrates (NOAA 2005b). Bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and unidentified sponges are relatively minimal in BSAI Pacific cod fisheries (Table 2.38 in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). Gear impacts on substrate are therefore scored "very low" concern for the BSAI Pacific cod jig fishery.

BSAI Bottom Longline (Pacific cod)

Low Concern

The EFH for BSAI Pacific cod has been identified as sand, mud, combinations of the two, and gravel (NPFMC 2012b). Catcher vessels in the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery access gravel, cobble, and rocky substrates, while the fishery’s catcher-processor vessels access silt, sand, and rocky substrates (NOAA

176

2005b). Bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and unidentified sponges are relatively minimal in BSAI Pacific cod fisheries (Table 2.38 in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012). Gear impacts on substrate are therefore scored ’low’ concern for the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery.

BSAI Pot (Pacific cod)

Low Concern

The EFH for BSAI Pacific cod has been identified as sand, mud, combinations of the two, and gravel (NPFMC 2012b). The BSAI Pacific cod pot fishery takes place on mud, sand, cobble, and hard substrates with low relief (NOAA 2005b). Bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and unidentified sponges are relatively minimal in BSAI Pacific cod fisheries (Table 2.38 in (Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012)). Gear impacts on substrate are therefore scored "low" concern for the BSAI Pacific cod pot fishery.

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Pacific cod)

Moderate Concern

The available information suggests that the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery accesses sand, mud, and/or cobble substrates, with relatively minimal bycatch of sessile epibenthic fauna. The impact of the gear on substrate is scored ’moderate’ concern for the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery. Rationale Pacific cod composed approximately 83% of the total catch in the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery in 2011 (Fissel, B. et al. 2012). The 2012 BSAI fishery management plan identifies sand, mud, sandy mud, and gravel as potential EFH for BSAI Pacific cod (NPFMC 2012b). Likewise, the environmental impact statement for EFH identification and conservation identifies sand, sandy mud, and gravel as substrates that are accessed by the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery (NOAA 2005a). Bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and unidentified sponges are relatively minimal in BSAI Pacific cod fisheries (Table 2.38 in Thompson, G.G. & Lauth, R.R. 2012).

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Rockfish)

High Concern

The available information suggests that the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery accesses habitats characterized by hard, high relief substrates, and that the fishery is a nontrivial source of bycatch of corals and sponges. The impact of the gear on substrate is therefore scored ’high’ concern for the BSAI rockfish trawl fishery.

177

Rationale The BSAI rockfish trawl fishery has been identified as accessing rock and living substrate along the slope (NOAA 2005a). BSAI Pacific Ocean perch EFH has been identified as cobble, gravel, mud, and sandy mud, northern rockfish EFH is cobble and rock, and shortraker and rougheye rockfish EFH consists of sand, mud, gravel, cobble, and rock (NPFMC 2012b). BSAI rockfish fisheries were responsible for approximately 31% of total BSAI-wide bycatch of coral/bryozoans, 18% of the bycatch of sponges, and 8% of total bycatch of habitat-forming ‘red tree’ corals during the period 2003-2008 (Spencer, P.D. & Ianelli, J.N. 2012b).

BSAI Bottom Longline (Sablefish)

Low Concern

The EFH for sablefish is varied, but generally consists of soft substrates (NPFMC 2012b). Greenland turbot EFH includes mud and sandy mud (NPFMC 2012b). The BSAI sablefish and Greenland turbot longline fisheries access silt, mud, gravel, cobble, and rocky substrates (NOAA 2005b). Bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponges is relatively minimal in Alaska sablefish fisheries (Table 3.5 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). The BSAI sablefish and Greenland turbot fisheries receive a score of ’low’ concern for the impacts of the gear on substrate, as there is no indication that the gear is set directly on boulders or living substrates.

BSAI Pot (Sablefish)

Low Concern

The EFH for sablefish is varied, but generally consists of soft substrates (NPFMC 2012b). Bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponges is relatively minimal in Alaska sablefish fisheries (Table 3.5 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). The BSAI sablefish pot fishery is therefore scored ’low’ concern for habitat impacts.

GOA Bottom Trawl (Flatfish)

Moderate Concern

In addition to soft substrates, arrowtooth flounder, rex sole, and rock sole are known to associate with gravel and/or cobble substrates. Furthermore, bottom trawl tows targeting GoA rex sole have been responsible for nontrivial proportions of annual Gulf-wide coral and sponge bycatch; similar information is not available for arrowtooth or rock sole. For these reasons, the GoA flatfish trawl fishery is scored ’moderate’ concern for the gear’s impacts on substrate.

178

Rationale The GoA shallow-water flatfish trawl fishery accesses areas with sandy, silt, and gravel substrates at depths of 90 to 240 feet, and the deepwater fishery takes place over sand, mud, silt, cobble, and gravel at depths of 420 to 1,800 feet (NOAA 2005b). The GoA flatfish species targeted in the trawl fishery tend to associate with sand, mud, and gravel (Table 13). GoA trawl tows targeting flathead sole have been responsible for relatively little bycatch of corals and sponges, although catches of sea pens/whips in 2010 and 2011 were not negligible (Table 8.22 in (Stockhausen, W.T., et al., 2011b)). The bycatch of corals and sponges in trawl tows targeting the GoA deepwater flatfish complex (e.g., Dover sole) has essentially been nil since 2003 (Table 5.22, Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011a). Conversely, between 2003 and 2011, trawl tows targeting GoA rex sole accounted for 0.0 to 17.8% of the annual bycatch of corals/bryozoans, and 0.0% to 12.4% of annual bycatch of sponges, in all GoA groundfish fisheries (Table 6.19 in Stockhausen, W.T., et al. 2011c).

GOA Jig (Pacific cod)

Very Low Concern

The GoA Pacific cod jig fishery takes place over sand, mud, gravel, cobble, and rock substrates (NOAA 2005b). Catches of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponges are minimal across the GoA Pacific cod fisheries (including the trawl, longline, and pot fisheries; Table 2.5 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b). The impact of the fishing gear on substrate is therefore scored ’very low’ concern for the GoA Pacific cod jig fishery.

GOA Bottom Longline (Pacific cod)

Low Concern

Identified EFH for adult GoA Pacific cod includes sand, mud, sandy mud, and gravel (NPFMC 2012c). The GoA Pacific cod longline fishery takes place over sand, mud, gravel, cobble, and rock substrates (NOAA 2005b). Catches of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponges are minimal across the GoA Pacific cod fisheries (including the trawl and pot fisheries; Table 2.5 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b). The impact of the fishing gear on substrate is therefore scored ’low’ concern for the GoA Pacific cod longline fishery.

GOA Pot (Pacific cod)

Low Concern

179

Identified EFH for adult GoA Pacific cod includes sand, mud, sandy mud, and gravel (NPFMC 2012c). The GoA Pacific cod pot fishery takes place over sand, mud, gravel, cobble, and rock substrates (NOAA 2005b). Catches of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponges are minimal across the GoA Pacific cod fisheries (including the trawl and longline fisheries; Table 2.5 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b). The impact of the fishing gear on substrate is therefore scored ’low’ concern for the GoA Pacific cod longline fishery.

GOA Bottom Trawl (Pacific cod)

Moderate Concern

In the GoA, EFH for adult Pacific cod includes sand, mud, combinations of the two, and gravel (NPFMC 2012c) and cobble (NOAA 2005a). Bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponges is relatively minimal in the three fisheries that target Pacific cod in the GoA (Table 2.5 in A'mar, T., et al. 2012b). The GoA Pacific cod trawl fishery is scored ’moderate’ concern for Factor 4.1, due to the associations of the target species with deep (>60 m) gravel and cobble.

GOA Bottom Trawl (Rockfish)

High Concern

There are several rockfish species that are targeted by trawl vessels in the GoA. These species associate with soft and hard substrates, including cobble and rock, and the fishery takes part over rough seafloor. While the fishery’s catch of corals and sponges has been relatively minimal in recent years, the use of bottom trawl gear on deep, hard substrates requires a score of ’high’ concern for gear impacts on substrate. Rationale All of the major rockfish species caught in the GoA rockfish trawl fishery are known to associate with hard substrates (cobble, rock) as adults; some associate with soft substrates as well (Table 14). The component of this fishery that targets Pacific Ocean perch does so over sand, mud, and gravel, while tows targeting northern rockfish and dusky rockfish occur over hard sand, gravel, and rock (NOAA 2005b). The GoA rockfish trawl fishery takes place along the shelf break, over ‘rough’ seafloor (NOAA 2005b). Observed bycatch of corals/bryozoans, sea pens/whips, and sponges in the GoA rockfish fishery has been minimal in recent years; the ratio of coral/sponge bycatch to rockfish catch has essentially been zero since at least 2006 (Compare Table 9-5 to Table 9-3 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2011

180

GOA Bottom Longline (Sablefish)

Low Concern

Sablefish associate with soft substrates (NPFMC 2012c), and the GoA sablefish longline fishery takes place over mud, gravel, and cobble substrates (NOAA 2005b). In 2011, the bycatch of corals/bryozoans in Alaska-wide sablefish fisheries was not insubstantial (4.9 t; Table 3.5 in Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012), and the sablefish fishery’s impacts on corals and sponges is identified as a ‘possible concern’ (Hanselman, D.H., et al. 2012). However, this information is for all Alaska sablefish, including that caught with pot and trawl gear. As there is no indication that the gear used in the GoA sablefish longline fishery is set directly on boulders or high-density coral areas, the fishery receives a score of ’low’ concern for the impacts of the gear on the substrate.

Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Scoring Guidelines

• +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.

• +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.

• +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced.

• 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.


Strong Mitigation

In the EBS, the area disturbed by bottom trawl vessels has been generally declining since the late 1990s. The total area trawled in the AI decreased in 2011. Bycatch of HAPC biota (e.g., corals and sponges) has generally declined in recent years in the AI, EBS, and GoA. The EBS remains the primary source for observed HAPC bycatch in Alaskan groundfish fisheries.

181

Approximately 51% of Alaskan EEZ waters south of the Bering Strait are in closed areas. In addition, approximately 1% of Alaska’s EEZ waters are in areas designated as HAPCs, which generally offer protection from a wider suite of fishing gears than other closures. Due to the large cumulative area of the habitat-related closures, it could be easy to assume that habitat is adequately protected in Alaskan waters. However, such an assumption would overlook the critical question of habitat representation: if a closure is composed primarily of one group of habitats, and does little or nothing to protect another group of habitats that are affected by fisheries, then the size of the closure is moot as far as the protection of the second group is concerned. Habitat representation in closed areas is an important consideration in the Seafood Watch assessment criteria, and to date, there is insufficient information regarding habitat representation in EFH closed areas vs. the areas that are open to bottom-contact gears in Alaskan groundfish fisheries. HAPC areas provide strong protection for the important habitat features within them, but cover only approximately 1% of Alaska’s waters. For these reasons, the existing suite of closed areas, by itself, meets the Seafood Watch guidelines for ’moderate’ mitigation of fishing gear impacts for the bottom trawl, longline, and pot fisheries assessed in this report; this is the score that is assigned to all fisheries except for the BSAI and GoA flatfish trawl fisheries. Modified trawl sweeps are required for all vessels fishing in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl fisheries. Field tests have found that modifications of the sort used in these fisheries result in less visible disturbance of sediment, significantly less damage to sea pens, and significantly less mortality of crabs. Mitigation of fishing gear impacts is scored ’strong’ for the BSAI and GoA flatfish trawl fisheries, due primarily to the gear modifications that are mandatory in the two fisheries, and due secondarily to existing trawl closed areas. Rationale See Appendix E for rationale.


BSAI Jig

BSAI Pot

BSAI Bottom Trawl (non-flatfish)

Moderate Mitigation

See above Rationale See Appendix E for rationale.

182

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators).

• 4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.

• 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.

• 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.

BSAI Bottom Trawl (Atka mackerel)

Very Low Concern

The importance of BSAI Atka mackerel in the diet of Steller sea lions is such that Atka mackerel qualify as an ecologically ’exceptional’ species. The Factor 4.3 score for the BSAI Atka mackerel trawl fishery is ’very low’ concern, due to the substantial amount of science and management effort that has been expended with the aim of maintaining this critical ecological function of the fishery’s target species. Rationale See Appendix F for rationale.

Other fisheries

183

Low Concern

There is a good deal of scientific information available regarding the ecosystem roles of some, but not all, species that are caught by fisheries in substantial amounts. A thorough ‘ecosystem considerations’ report accompanies the SAFE reports, and each SAFE report contains a summary of relevant ecosystem information, and often a qualitative assessment of the risk posed by fisheries activities. A pilot fishery ecosystem plan (FEP) exists for the Aleutian Islands; this document summarizes key relationships within the AI ecosystem and offers guidance for the integration of ecosystem considerations into fisheries management. Despite the relative wealth of information and research available to support ecosystem-based management efforts, there is no evidence that ecosystem or food web concerns are regularly integrated into the determination of harvest limits (with the exception of the AI Atka mackerel and Pacific cod fisheries mentioned below). For this reason, the Factor 4.3 score is ’low’ concern for all fisheries except BSAI Atka mackerel. Rationale See Appendix F for rationale.

184

Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® would like to thank Chris Rooper of the National Marine Fisheries Service and eleven anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

185

References

50 CFR Part 679. 2014. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 95 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish.

50 CFR Part 679. 2014. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Tanner Crab Area Closure in the Gulf of Alaska and Gear Modification Requirements for the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea Groundfish Fisheries.

50 CFR Part 679. 2012. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; Final 2012 and 2013 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 50, Wednesday, March 14 2012

50 CFR Part 679. 2011. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Final 2011 and 2012 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish. Federal Register, Vol. 26, No. 40, Tuesday, March 1 2011.

50 CFR Part 679. 2011. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; Final 2011 and 2012 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish. Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 40, Tuesday, March 1 2011

50 CFR Part 679. 2010. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Modified Nonpelagic Trawl Gear and Habitat Conservation in the Bering Sea Subarea. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 193, Wednesday, October 6 2010

ADFG. 2013. Short-tailed Albatross: Federally Endangered Listing Information, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AFSC. 2011. Seabird Bycatch 2007 to 2010-Alaskan Groundfish Preliminary Report - Seabird Bycatch 2007 to 2010

Allen, B.M. Angliss, R.P. . 2013. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2012. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

A'mar, T., Martin, M., Palsson, W.. 2012. Assessment of the Northern and Southern Rock Sole (Lepidopsetta polyxystra and bilineata) Stocks in the Gulf of Alaska for 2013

A'mar, T., Thompson, G., Martin, M., Palsson, W.. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific Cod (Gadus Macrocephauls) Stock in the Gulf of Alaska for 2013

Aydin, K., Gaichas, S., Ortiz, D., Kinzey, D. Friday, N.. 2007. A Comparison of the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Aleutian Islands Large Marine Ecosystems through Food Web Modeling”. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-178

Barbeaux, S.J., Ianelli, J., Nichols, D. Hoff, J.. 2013. Assessment of the Greenland turbot (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.

186

Barbeaux, S.J., Ianelli, J., Nichols, D., Hoff, J. 2012. Assessment of Greenland Turbot (Reinhardtius Hippoglossoides) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

BSAI Groundfish Plan Team. 2012. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Regions. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

CITES . 2012. Appendix I, II, and III of CITES

Clausen, D.M.. 2009. Assessment of Shortraker Rockfish and ‘Other Slope Rockfish’ in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC

Clausen, D.M. Echave, K.B.. 2011. Assessment of the ‘Other Rockfish’ Stock Complex in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC.

Clausen, D.M. Echave, K.B.. 2011. Assessment of the Shortraker Rockfish Stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC.

Clausen, D.M. Rodgveller, C.J.. 2010. Assessment of Grenadier Stocks in the Gulf of Alaska, Eastern Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands. NPFMC.

Cope, J.M., DeVore, J., Dick, E.J., Ames, K., Budrick, J., Erickson, D.L., Grebel, J., Hanshew, G., Jones, R., Mattes, L., Niles, C. Williams, S.. 2011. An approach to defining stock complexes for U.S. west coast groundfishes using vulnerabilities and ecological distributions. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 31(4), 589-604.

Danner, S.. 2010. Seafood Watch Report: King Crab (US and Russia). Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA.

Echave, K.B., Clausen, D.M., Shotwell, S.K.. 2012. Assessment of the shortraker rockfish stock in the Gulf of Alaska.

FDA. 2012. The Seafood List. First accessed October 16 2012.

Federal Register. 2011. Final 2011 and 2012 Overfishing Level (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Initial TAC (ITAC), and CDQ reserve allocation of groundfish in the BSAI. Federal Register, 76(40), Tuesday, March 1 2011

Fissel, B., Dalton, M., Felthoven, R., Garber-Yonts, B., Haynie, A., Himes-Cornell, A., Kasperski, S., Lee, J., Lew, D., Phfieffer, L., Sepez, J., Seung, C. . 2012. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for the groundfish fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area: economic status of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska, 2011

GOA Groundfish Plan Team. 2012. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of the Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

Hanselman, D.H., Lunsford, C.R. Rodgveller, C.J.. 2012. Assessment of the sablefish stock in Alaska.

187

Hanselman, D.H., Shotwell, S.K., Hulson, P.J.F., Heifetz, J., Ianelli, J.N. . 2011. Assessment of the Pacific ocean perch stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC.

Hanselman, D.H., Shotwell, S.K., Hulson, P.J.F., Hiefetz, J. Ianelli, J.N.. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific Ocean perch stock in the Gulf of Alaska.

Hartill, T. . 2012. Annual Management Report for the Bering Sea - Aleutian Islands Area State-waters Groundfish Fisheries and Groundfish Harvest from Parallel Seasons in 2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Heifetz, J., Woodby, D., Reynolds, J. Stone, R.. 2007. Deep sea coral distribution and habitat in the Aleutian Archipelago. North Pacific Research Board Project Final Report, R0304.

Hulson, P-J., Heifetz, J., Hanselman, D.H., Shotwell, S.K., Ianelli, J.N.. 2012. Assessment of the Northern rockfish stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC.

Hulson, P-J., Heifetz, J., Hanselman, D.H., Shotwell, S.K., Ianelli, J.N.. 2011. Assessment of the Northern rockfish stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC.

Incze, L.S., Armstrong, D.A. Smith, S.L.. 1987. Abundance of larval Tanner crabs (Chionoecetes spp.) in relation to adult females and regional oceanography of the southeastern Bering Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44(6), 1143-1156.

IPHC. 2011. International Pacific Halibut Commission Discussion Paper

IPHC. 2014. Final Versions of Tables and Figures Produced During the 2014 IPHC Annual Meeting, Incorporating the Catch Limits Adopted for 2014. January 27 2014. Accessible at http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2014am/Finaladoptedcatchlimits2014.pdf.

IUCN. 2013. Phoebastria albatrus (Short-tailed albatross)

IUCN. 2013. Sebastolobus alascanus (Shortspine thornyhead)

IUCN. 2013. The IUCN Red List of threatened species

Jones, D.T., Wilson, C.D., De Robertis, A., Rooper, C.N., Weber, T.C. Butler, J.L.. 2010. Evaluation of rockfish abundance in untrawlable habitat: combining acoustic and complementary sampling tools. Fishery Bulletin, 110(3), 332-343.

Lowe, S.A. . 2012. Assessment of the Atka mackerel stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC.

Lowe, S.A.. 2011. Assessment of the Atka mackerel stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC.

Lowe, S.J., Ianelli, J., Palsson, W. . 2012. Assessment of the Atka mackerel stock in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. NPFMC.

http://www.iphc.int/meetings/2014am/Finaladoptedcatchlimits2014.pdf

188

Lunsford, C.R., Shotwell, S.K., Hanselman, D.H. Clausen, D.M.. 2007. Pelagic shelf rockfish. NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE.

Lunsford, C.R., Shotwell, S.K., Hulson, P-J., Hanselman D.H.. 2011. Assessment of the dusky rockfish stock in the Gulf of Alaska. NPFMC.

Lunsford, C.R., Shotwell, S.K., Hulson, P-J., Hanselman, D.H.. 2012. Assessment of the dusky rockfish stock in the Gulf of Alaska

McConnaughey, R.A., Olson, J.V., Sigler, M.F.. 2009. Alaska Fisheries Science Center Essential Fish Habitat Data Inventory. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

Moore, J.E., Wallace, B.P., Lewison, R.L., Zydelis, R., Cox, T.M. Crowder, L.B.. 2009. A review of marine mammal, sea turtle and seabird bycatch in USA fisheries and the role of policy in shaping management. Marine Policy 33, 435-451

MSFCMA. 1996. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Murphy, J. Ianelli, J. . 2011. Assessment of the thornyhead stock in the Gulf of Alaska

Naughton, M.B., Romano, M.D., Zimmerman, T.S.. 2007. A conservation action plan for black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan albatross (P. immutabilis), Version 1.0

NMFS. 2012. Summary of stock status for FSSI stocks - 2nd Quarter 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service.

NMFS. 2010. Endangered Species act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region.

NMFS Alaska Region. 2013. Inclusion of grenadiers (Family Macrouridae) in the fishery management plans for gorundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska. Preliminary Review Draft, Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regularity Flexibility Analysis for proposed amendments to the fishery management plans for groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska. August 30, 2013.

NOAA. 2012. NOAA - FIshWatch: Alaska Snow Crab. Retrieved March 12, 2012:

NOAA. 2005. Chapter 3 - Final environmental impact statement for essential fish habitat identification and conservation in Alaska

NOAA. 2005. Final environmental impact statement for essential fish habitat identification and conservation in Alaska: Chapter 9

NOAA Fisheries. 2013. 2012 List of fisheries - Office of Protected Resources - NOAA Fisheries

NOAA Fisheries. 2013. 2013-2014 Alaska groundfish harvest specification tables for the BSAI and GOA

189

NOAA Fisheries. 2013. Marine mammals - Office of Protected Resources - NOAA Fisheries

NOAA Fisheries. 2013. Steller sea lion protection measures for groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. Draft environmental impact statement/regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region.

NOAA Fisheries. 2012. Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area: Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region

NOAA Fisheries. 2012. Summary of upcoming changes to the North Pacific groundfish and halibut observer program

Northern Economics, Inc.. 2012. Halibut prohibited species in the BSAI groundfish FMP and regulations. Discussion paper prepared for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

Northern Economics, Inc.. 2011. A review of observer and monitoring programs in the Northeast, the West Coast, and Alaska. Prepared for Environmental Defense Fund.

NPFMC . 2014. News and Notes: Pacific Fishery Management Council. February 2014.

NPFMC. 2012. Fishery management plan for groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK

NPFMC. 2012. Fishery management plan for groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK

NPFMC. 2012. Fishing fleet profiles

NPFMC . 2011. Environmental assessment/regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis to revise halibut prohibited species catch limits under Gulf of Alaska harvest specifications: initial review draft. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK

NPFMC. 2011. Fishery management plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands king and Tanner crabs. North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

NPFMC. 2011. Groundfish species profiles

NPFMC. 2011. Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for the king and tanner crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region (Crab SAFE). North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

NPFMC. 2010. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-year Review for 2010: Summary Report

NPFMC. 2010. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) with Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): HAPC Process Document. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

190

NPFMC. 2007. Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan. North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

Orensanz, J.M., Ernst, B. Armstrong, D.A.. 2007. Variation of female size and stage at maturity in snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio)(Brachyura: Majidae) from the eastern Bering Sea. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 27(4), 576-591.

Ormseth, O.A.. 2012. Assessment of the skate complex in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Ormseth, O.A.. 2012. Assessment of the skate complex in the Gulf of Alaska

Ormseth, O.A.. 2011. Gulf of Alaska skates

Ormseth, O.A. Matta, B. . 2011. Bering Sea and Aleutian Island skates

Ormseth, O.A. Spencer, P.D.. 2009. Draft Alaska groundfish vulnerability analysis.

Ovando, D.A.. 2012. Seafood Watch Report: snow and tanner crab (Alaska, Bering Sea). Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA

Rieser, A., Watling, L. Guinotte, J. . 2013. Trawl fisheries, catch shares and the protection of benthic marine ecosystems: has ownership generated incentives for seafloor stewardship? Marine Policy 40, 75-83.

Rodgveller, C., Clausen, D. Hulson, P. . 2012. Assessment of the grenadier stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska, eastern Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands

Rodgveller, C., Clausen, D., Nagler, J. Hutchinson, C.. 2010. Reproductive characteristics and mortality of female giant grenadiers in the northern Pacific Ocean. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science, 2(1), 73-82.

Rose, C., Munk, E., Hammond, C. Stoner, A.. 2010. Cooperative research to reduce the effects of Bering Sea flatfish trawling on seafloor habitats and crabs. AFSC Quarterly Report, 1-6.

Rugolo, L. Turnock, B. . 2011. 2011 stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for the Tanner crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region. BSAI Crab SAFE. North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

Sea Around Us Project. 2013. EEZ Waters of Alaska (USA)

Shotwell, S.K. Ianelli, J.. 2012. Assessment of the thornyhead stock in the Gulf of Alaska

Shotwell, S.K., Hanselman, D.H. Clausen, D.M.. 2012. Assessment of the rougheye and blackspotted rockfish stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska.

Shotwell, S.K., Hanselman, D.H. Clausen, D.M.. 2011. Assessment of the rougheye and blackspotted rockfish complex in the Gulf of Alaska

191

Spencer, P.D. Ianelli, J.N.. 2012. Assessment of the northern rockfish stock in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

Spencer, P.D. Ianelli, J.N.. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific Ocean perch stock in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

Spencer, P.D. Rooper, C.N. . 2012. Assessment of blackspotted and rougheye rockfish stock complex in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

Spencer, P.D. Rooper, C.N. . 2012. Assessment of the shortraker rockfish stock in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

Spencer, P.D. Rooper, C.N. . 2010. Assessment of blackspotted and rougheye rockfish stock complex in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

Spencer, P.D. Rooper, C.N. . 2010. Assessment of the "other rockfish" stock complex in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

Spies, I. Spencer, P.D. 2012. 2012. Assessment of the "other rockfish" stock complex in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands

Spies, I., Ormseth, O.A. TenBrink, T.T.. 2012. Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands sculpins

Spies, I., Ormseth, O.A., Martin, M. TenBrink, T.T. . 2011. Assessment of the sculpin complex in the Gulf of Alaska

Spies, I., Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., Aydin, K.. 2012. Arrowtooth flounder. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

Stewart, I.J., Leaman, B., Martell, S. Webster, R.A.. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific halibut stock at the end of 2012

Stewart, I.J. 2013. Overview of data sources for the Pacific halibut stock assessment and related analyses. Accessible at http://www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2013/rara2013_11_sadatasources.pdf

Stockhausen, W.T.. 2012. Assessment of the deepwater flatfish stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska (Executive Summary)

Stockhausen, W.T.. 2012. Assessment of the flathead sole stock in the Gulf of Alaska (Executive Summary)

Stockhausen, W.T.. 2012. Assessment of the rex sole stock in the Gulf of Alaska (Executive Summary)

Stockhausen, W.T. . 2010. Assessment of the deepwater flatfish stock in the Gulf of Alaska (Executive Summary)

http://www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2013/rara2013_11_sadatasources.pdf

192

Stockhausen, W.T. Nichol, D.. 2011. Assessment of the flathead sole stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Stockhausen, W.T., Nichol, D., Palsson, W.. 2012. Assessment of the flathead sole stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Stockhausen, W.T., Wilkins, M.E. Martin, M.H.. 2011. Assessment of the deepwater flatfish stocks in the Gulf of Alaska

Stockhausen, W.T., Wilkins, M.E. Martin, M.H.. 2011. Assessment of the flathead sole stock in the Gulf of Alaska

Stockhausen, W.T., Wilkins, M.E. Martin, M.H.. 2011. Assessment of the rex sole stock in the Gulf of Alaska

Thompson, G.G. Lauth, R.R.. 2012. Assessment of the Pacific cod stock in the Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area

Tribuzio, C.A. Echave, K.B.. 2013. Assessment of the Other Rockfish stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska

Tribuzio, C.A., Echave, K., Rodgveller, C. Hulson, P-J. 2012. Assessment of the shark stock complex in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Tribuzio, C.A., Echave, K., Rodgveller, C. Hulson, P-J. 2012. Assessment of the shark stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska (Executive Summary)

Tribuzio, C.A., Echave, K., Rodgveller, C., Hulson, P. Goldman, K.J.. 2011. Assessment of the shark stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska

Tribuzio, C.A., Rodgveller, C., Heifetz, J. Goldman, K.J.. 2009. Assessment of the shark stocks in the Gulf of Alaska

Turnock, B.. 2012. Interview with NMFS fisheries scientists. March 2012.

Turnock, B. Rugolo, L. . 2011. Stock assessment of eastern Bering Sea snow crab. BSAI Crab SAFE. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Turnock, B.J.. 2012. Assessment of the arrowtooth flounder stock in the Gulf of Alaska (Executive Summary)

Turnock, B.J. Wilderbuer, T.K.. 2011. Assessment of the arrowtooth flounder stock in the Gulf of Alaska

Turnock, B.J., A'mar, T. Wilderbuer, T.K.. 2011. Assessment of the shallow-water flatfish complex in the Gulf of Alaska for 2012

Turnock, B.J., Stockhausen, W.T., Wilderbuer, T.K. Wilkins, M.E.. 2012. Gulf of Alaska shallow water flatfish (Executive Summary)

193

Turnock, B.J., Stockhausen, W.T., Wilderbuer, T.K. Wilkins, M.E.. 2010. Gulf of Alaska shallow-water flatfish (Executive Summary)

USFWS. 2013. Alaska region migratory bird management: seabirds

USFWS. 2008. Short-tailed albatross recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK

VMS Discussion Paper. 2012. Overview of vessel monitoring system: discussion paper

Williams, G.H. 2013. Incidental catch and mortality of Pacific halibut, 1962-2013. Accessed at http://www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2013/rara2013_17_2013incidentalcatchmortality.pdf

Wilderbuer, T.K. Nichol, D.G.. 2012. Assessment of the "other flatfish" stock complex in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K. Nichol, D.G.. 2012. Assessment of the northern rock sole stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K. Nichol, D.G.. 2011. Assessment of the northern rock sole stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G. Ianelli, J. . 2011. Assessment of the yellowfin sole stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G. Lauth, R.. 2012. Assessment of the Kamchatka flounder stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G. Lauth, R.. 2011. Assessment of the Kamchatka flounder stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., Ianelli, J.. 2013. Assessment of the Kamchatka flounder stock in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands.

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., Ianelli, J.. 2012. Assessment of the yellowfin sole stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., Spencer, P.D.. 2012. Assessment of the Alaska plaice stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., Spencer, P.D.. 2011. Assessment of the "other flatfish" stock complex in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., Spencer, P.D.. 2011. Assessment of the Alaska Plaice stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Wilderbuer, T.K., Nichol, D.G., Spencer, P.D.. 2010. Chapter 10: BSAI Other Flatfish

http://www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2013/rara2013_17_2013incidentalcatchmortality.pdf

194

Williams, G. 2013. Incidental catch and mortality of Pacific halibut, 1962-2013. Accessible at http://www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2013/rara2013_17_2013incidentalcatchmortality.pdf.

Witherell, D. Woodby, D. . 2005. Application of marine protected areas for sustainable production and marine biodiversity off Alaska. Marine Policy Review, 67(1), 1-28

Zador, S. (ed.).. 2012. Ecosystem considerations 2012. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK

Zheng, J. Kruse, G.H.. 2003. Stock-recruitment relationships for three major Alaskan crab stocks. Fisheries Research, 65(1-3), 103-121.

http://www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2013/rara2013_17_2013incidentalcatchmortality.pdf

195

Appendix A: Common, Market, and Vernacular Names for Groundfish Species

Table A.1. Common, market, and vernacular names of commercial groundfish species (FDA 2012).

Common name Acceptable market names Vernacular names

Alaska plaice Plaice or flounder Yellowbellied flounder

Arrowtooth flounder Flounder, Arrowtooth Turbot

Atka mackerel Atka mackerel Atkafish/yellowfish Dover sole Sole Slime sole, Slippery sole Flathead sole Sole or flounder Flathead flounder

Greenland turbot Greenland turbot Newfoundland turbot/turbot/blue halibut

Kamchatka flounder Flounder Arrowtooth halibut/Arctic halibut/turbot/Paltus

Longspine thornyhead Thornyhead Longspine channel rockfish/spinycheek rockfish

Northern rockfish Rockfish Multispined bass Pacific cod Cod, Alaska cod Alaska cod, Grey cod, True cod

Pacific Ocean perch Ocean perch or rockfish NA

Petrale sole Sole or Flounder California sole, Brill Rex sole Sole or Flounder Longfin sole, Witch Rock sole Sole or Flounder Rock flounder Rougheye/blackspotted rockfish Rockfish NA

Sablefish Sablefish Black cod, Butterfish, Skil, Skilfish, Coalfish

Shortraker rockfish Rockfish NA

Shortspine thornyhead Rockfish Shortspine channel rockfish/spinycheek rockfish

Starry flounder Flounder Great flounder, California flounder

Yellowfin sole Sole or flounder NA

196

Appendix B: Main species complete assessment

STARRY FLOUNDER



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for starry flounder is 51, and the species' productivity score in Table 1 of (Cope, J.M., et al., 2011) is 2.15.



BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

BSAI starry flounder are a Tier 5 stock and as such do not have biomass reference points against which to assess the status of the stock. Trawl survey biomass estimates for BSAI starry flounder are variable from year to year, but generally suggest that biomass increased from 2001 through 2007, and has declined somewhat in subsequent years (Table 11.6 in (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b)). Biomass estimates from trawl surveys in the Eastern Bering Sea, where the majority of BSAI starry flounder biomass is found, indicate a general increase from the mid-1990s through 2007, with subsequent 36% decline from 2007 to 2012 (Table 11.5 in (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b)). Despite this decline, the 2012 estimate is still greater than any estimate from 1982-2003 (Table 11.5 in (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b)). While there are no biomass reference points for BSAI starry flounder, concern is mitigated by the species’ "medium" inherent vulnerability and the fact that recent trawl survey biomass estimates are not lower than levels estimated in previous decades. The stock status of BSAI starry flounder is scored “low” concern.



197

BSAI Bottom Trawl

Low Concern

Exploitation rates for BSAI starry flounder have not exceeded 0.04 since at least 1994 (Table 11.6 in (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b)). The 2011 catch of BSAI starry flounder was 2,168 t (Table 11.2 in (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b)); this is the second-highest catch since at least 1995 (Table 11.2 in (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b)), and roughly corresponded to an exploitation rate of 0.03 (Table 11.6 in (Wilderbuer, T.K. & Nichol, D.G. 2012b)). There is no stock-specific estimated OFL against which to assess this level of mortality, and no detailed information regarding the apportionment of 2011 BSAI starry flounder catch between target fisheries. Fishing mortality of BSAI starry flounder is scored “low” concern for the BSAI flatfish trawl fishery.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

BSAI Bottom Trawl

< 20%

See Appendix D for rationale.

198

Appendix C: Marine Mammal and Seabird Bycatch

Marine Mammals

NOAA classifies commercial fisheries based upon their likelihood of interactions with marine mammals. Category I fisheries are those that have frequent interactions with marine mammals, Category II fisheries have occasional interactions, and Category III fisheries rarely or never interact with marine mammals. Currently, there are no Alaskan groundfish fisheries that are classified as Category I fisheries. As of 2014, two non-pollock Alaska groundfish fisheries have current Category II designations: BSAI flatfish trawl and BSAI rockfish trawl (NOAA Fisheries 2014).

The BSAI flatfish trawl fishery is classified as a Category II fishery due to documented takes of Steller sea lions (Western U.S. population) and Alaska resident orcas (NOAA Fisheries 2014). The BSAI rockfish trawl fishery is classified as Category II due to a serious injury/mortality of one killer whale during the 2007-2011 period (NOAA Fisheries 2014).

Factor 2.2 Stock status

Key relevant information:

The western U.S. population of Steller sea lions is listed as “endangered” under the ESA, and “endangered” by the IUCN (Table C.1). According to the Seafood Watch criteria, this stock is therefore scored “very high” concern for Factor 2.2.

There are no classifications of Alaska resident or GoA/BS/AI transient killer whales by the ESA, MMPA, or CITES, and the IUCN classification for killer whales as a whole is “data deficient”. Currently, there are no reliable data on population trends for these two stocks (Allen and Angliss 2013). Due to marine mammals’ inherent low resilience and the lack of stock status information for this stock, the two killer whale stocks are classified as “high” concern.

Seabirds A number of seabird species/species groups are caught as bycatch in Alaska groundfish fisheries. From 2007-2010, the average estimated annual seabird bycatch in all Alaskan groundfish fisheries was 8,045 birds (Table 2 in AFSC 2011). On average, approximately 84.7% of this annual catch was taken in demersal longline fisheries (Table 3 in AFSC 2011), and 8.8% percent was taken in bottom trawl fisheries (Table 10 in AFSC 2011). It should be noted that concerns have been raised regarding the likelihood of under-reporting of seabird bycatch in trawl fisheries (Moore et al. 2009). This is because seabird mortality associated with trawl operations often occurs as a result of collisions with cables on the gear, and since such mortalities are unlikely to end up among the catch, they may go unrecorded by observers (Moore et al. 2009).

Estimated seabird bycatch in pot fisheries was minimal (Table 11 in AFSC 2011). During this period, the pot fisheries did not catch any seabird species/species groups of particular concern (i.e., short-tailed

199

albatross, Laysan albatross, black-footed albatross, or unidentified albatross; Table 11 in AFSC 2011). For this reason, bycatch of seabirds in the Alaska groundfish pot fisheries is not addressed in this assessment.

Information for the seabird species and species groups caught as bycatch in the groundfish fisheries is presented in Table C.2. Table C.2. Information for species commonly caught in Alaska groundfish fisheries, 2007-2010 (Species list based on USFWS 2013)

Species1

Avg. Bycatch

(Individuals) (2007-2010)1

% of Total Seabird Bycatch (2007-2010)1

Global Population

Estimate (Trend)2

IUCN Status

CITES Appendix ESA Status

Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis)

4,571 56.8%

10-12,000,000

(Trend unknown)

Least concern No No

Glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus)

Total gulls = 1,304

Total gulls = 16.2%

100,000 in Alaska (Trend

unknown)

Least concern No No

Glaucous-winged gull (L. glaucescens)

400,000 individuals

in North America breeding

population (Trend

unknown)

Least concern No No

Herring gull (L. argentatus)

250,000 in North

America (Increasing)

Least concern No No

Slaty-backed gull (L. schisti)

131,300 breeding

pairs (Possibly

increasing)

Least concern No No

Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)

Total kittiwakes =

6.5

Total kittiwakes

= >1.0%

2,600,000 in North Pacific

(Variable trend)

Least concern No No

Red-legged kittiwake

213-214,000 Vulnerable No No

200

(R. brevirostris)

(Possible increase)

Short-tailed shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris)

Total shearwaters

= 1,521

Total shearwaters

= 18.9%

23,000,000 (Trend

unknown)

Least concern No No

Sooty shearwater (P. griseus)

>20,000,000 (Decreasing)

Near threatened No No

Black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes)

141 1.7%

58,000 breeding

pairs (Slight

decrease)

Vulnerable No No

Laysan albatross (P. immutabilis)

205 2.5%

630,000 breeding

pairs (Possible decline)

Near threatened No No

Short-tailed albatross (P. albatrus)

See Factor 2.3

See Factor 2.3

2,000 individuals (Increasing)

Vulnerable Appendix I Endangered

1 = AFSC 2011 2 = USFWS 2013

Factor 2.2 Stock status


The stock statuses of the relevant seabirds are as follows:

Northern fulmar: “Very low” concern

Gull species group: “Very low” concern Shearwater species group: “Moderate” concern

Kittiwake species group: “Moderate” concern

Laysan and black-footed albatrosses: “High” concern

Short-tailed albatross: “Very high” concern

201

Detailed rationale:

Currently, there are no conservation concerns for northern fulmar or the species in the "gull" species group (Table 6). The stock status of northern fulmar and the "gull" species group is therefore scored “very low” concern.

In isolation of each other, the short-tailed shearwater stock would be scored “very low” concern, while the sooty shearwater would be scored “high” concern due to its IUCN status (Table C.2). However, as the two species are combined under the “shearwater” species group in the information source for seabird bycatch in Alaska groundfish fisheries, only one stock status score can be assigned. The stock status of the “shearwater” species group is therefore scored “moderate” to reflect the disparate stock statuses of its two constituent species.

Similarly, the kittiwake species group consists of two species (black-legged and red-legged) that have dramatically different abundances. There are no conservation concerns for black-legged kittiwakes, which are widespread and very abundant in the North Pacific. Red-legged kittiwake abundance, however, is estimated to be an order of magnitude less than that of black-legged kittiwakes (Table C.2). Furthermore, while there are hundreds of black-legged kittiwake nesting sites in the North Pacific, there are only five or six places where red-legged kittiwakes nest (USFWS 2013) . Due to the disparate stocks statuses of its two constituent species, assigning one stock status to the “kittiwake” species group is challenging. As the species identity of each individual bird recorded as “kittiwake” bycatch could be of either species, the stock status of the “kittiwake” species group is scored “moderate”.

The populations of both Laysan and black-footed albatross were decimated by various sources during the 20th century. While the populations of both species have recovered to some degree, both species are still faced with substantial conservation concerns (USFWS 2013). The stock statuses of Laysan and black-footed albatross are scored “high” concern due to their IUCN classifications (Table C.2). Short-tailed albatross are of particular concern. Short-tailed albatross were exploited for their feathers during the 19th and 20th centuries, and by 1949 the species was believed to be extinct. Survivors were discovered in 1951, and in the years since a concerted conservation effort has led to a strong recovery of the nesting population (IUCN 2013c). Short-tailed albatross are listed as an IUCN vulnerable species (IUCN 2013c), a CITES Appendix I species (CITES 2012), and an endangered species under the ESA (ADF&G 2013). Short-tailed albatross stock status is scored “very high” concern due to its status under the ESA.

Factor 2.3 Fishing mortality


Factor 2.3 scores are as follows:

Northern fulmar: “Moderate” for demersal longline fisheries, “low” concern for bottom trawl fisheries

202

Gull group: “Moderate” for demersal longline fisheries, “low” concern for bottom trawl fisheries Shearwater group: “Moderate” for demersal longline and “low” for bottom trawl fisheries

Kittiwake group: “Moderate” for demersal longline fisheries

Laysan and black-footed albatrosses: "Low" for all demersal longline fisheries

Short-tailed albatross: "Low" for BSAI Pacific cod longline

Detailed rationale:

The species/species groups that contributed the most to estimated seabird bycatch during the period 2007-2010 were Northern fulmar (an average of 56.8% of all seabird bycatch across all Alaskan groundfish fisheries during this period), shearwaters (18.9%), and gulls (16.2%) (Table 2 in AFSC 2011).

There are no conservation concerns regarding northern fulmars or the species that constitute the “gull” species group (see Factor 2.2). Demersal longline fisheries were responsible for 84.0% of the groundfish fisheries' average annual take of northern fulmars, and 90.2% of the annual take of gulls (Table 3 in AFSC 2011). Non-pelagic trawls were responsible for 6.1% of the groundfish fisheries' average annual northern fulmar bycatch and 8.2% of average annual gull bycatch (Table 10 in AFSC 2011). In the absence of information regarding the effect of current levels of fisheries bycatch mortality, the fishing mortality of northern fulmars and the “gull” species group is scored “moderate” concern for all demersal longline fisheries, and “low” concern for all bottom trawl fisheries, in recognition of the latter’s smaller contribution to total mortality.

The “shearwater” and “kittiwake” species groups contain species that are abundant, and species for which there are substantial conservation concerns (see Factor 2.2). Demersal longline fisheries caught 84.6% of average annual “shearwater” bycatch, and 76.9% of average annual “kittiwake” bycatch, during the 2007-2010 period (Tables 2 and 3 in AFSC 2011). Non-pelagic trawl vessels had zero observed kittiwake bycatch during the 2007-2010 period, but were responsible for 14.4% of total shearwater bycatch (Table 10 in AFSC 2011). In the absence of information for the species identity of the shearwaters and kittiwakes caught by the demersal longline and bottom trawl fisheries, fishing mortality of “shearwater” is scored “moderate” for all demersal longline vessels, and “low” for bottom trawl fisheries. The fishing mortality score for “kittiwakes” is “moderate” for demersal longline fisheries.

From 2007-2010, the demersal longline fisheries were responsible for 100% of black-footed albatross and 98.0% of Laysan albatross bycatch in the Alaskan groundfish fisheries (Tables 2 and 3 in AFSC 2011). Adult survival rates of approximately 96% are required to ensure stable or increasing populations of black-footed and Laysan albatross (Naughton, Romano, and Zimmerman 2007). When this survival rate is applied to recent population estimates (see Table 6), the results are maximum annual mortalities of 4,640 and 50,400 individual black-footed and Laysan albatross, respectively. From 2007-2010, the average annual catch of black-footed (141) and Laysan (205) albatross in the Alaska groundfish demersal longline fisheries were 3.0% and <1.0% of these approximated annual maximum mortalities, respectively. The mortality of Laysan and black-footed albatross in the Alaska groundfish demersal longline fisheries is therefore scored “low” concern.

203

In 2010, fisheries observers noted two incidents of short-tailed albatross mortality in the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery; these were the first observed takes since 1998 (AFSC 2011). The resulting estimated take of short-tailed albatross in this fishery was 15 individuals in 2010 (AFSC 2011). Prior to the two mortalities in 2010, there were five observed takes of short-tailed albatross in Alaska’s demersal longline groundfish fisheries between 1990 and 1998: one was caught in the GoA sablefish longline fishery, two were caught in the Bering Sea Pacific cod hook and line fishery, one was taken in the Bering Sea “IFQ hook and line” (sablefish) fishery, and the last was taken in an unidentified Bering Sea hook and line fishery (Table 6 in USFWS 2008).

Despite its endangered status, the short-tailed albatross’s recovery plan states that “short-tailed albatross populations are not declining due to seabird bycatch in commercial fisheries” (USFWS 2008). The recovery plan also demonstrates that a 5% mortality rate would be indicated by approximately 11-13 observed mortalities/year across all fisheries (assuming 10% probability of observing mortalities across all fisheries, and a population between 1,800 and 2,600; Table 7 in USFWS 2008). The 2007-2010 average for Alaska demersal longline groundfish fisheries is 0.5 observed mortalities/year, or 4.5% of 11 observed mortalities/year. Furthermore, two takes over four years is less than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s estimated maximum incidental take of short-tailed albatross in the Alaska demersal groundfish fisheries (a maximum of four birds in every two years; USFWS 2008). The fishing mortality of short-tailed albatross in the BSAI Pacific cod longline fishery is scored “low” concern because the population seems to be increasing due to conservation efforts, and recent catch levels in the relevant fisheries appear to be within limits that will allow the stock to recover.

References ADF&G. 2013. “Short-Tailed Albatross: Federally Endangered Listing Information, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.” http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=specialstatus.fedsummary&species=shorttailedalbatross.

AFSC. 2011. “Seabird Bycatch 2007 to 2010-Alaskan Groundfish Preliminary Reprot - Seabird Bycatch 2007 to 2010_Alaskan Gndfish_PrelimReport.pdf.” http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/REEM/Seabirds/Seabird%20bycatch%202007%20to%202010_Alaskan%20Gndfish_PrelimReport.pdf.

Allen, B.M., and R.P. Angliss. 2013. “Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2012”. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

CITES. 2012. “Appendices I, II and III of CITES.” http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php.

IUCN. 2013a. “The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.” http://www.iucnredlist.org/.

———. 2013b. “Phoebastria Albatrus (Short-Tailed Albatross).” http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/106003956/0.

Moore, J.E., B.P. Wallace, R.L. Lewison, R. Zydelis, T.M. Cox, and L.B. Crowder. 2009. “A Review of Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle and Seabird Bycatch in USA Fisheries and the Role of Policy in Shaping Management.” Marine Policy 33: 435–51.

204

Naughton, M.B., M.D. Romano, and T.S. Zimmerman. 2007. “A Conservation Action Plan for Black-Footed Albatross (Phoebastria Nigripes) and Laysan Albatross (P. Immutabilis), Version 1.0.”

NOAA Fisheries. 2013. “Marine Mammals - Office of Protected Resources - NOAA Fisheries.” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. -----. 2014. “2014 List of Fisheries - Office of Protected Resources - NOAA Fisheries.” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/final2014.htm

USFWS. 2008. “Short-Tailed Albatross Recovery Plan”. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

———. 2013. “Alaska Region Migratory Bird Management Seabirds.” http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/species_list.htm.

Table C.1. Information for marine mammal stocks of particular concern that are known to interact with Alaska groundfish fisheries (Mean annual take data from (Allen and Angliss 2013)

Species (Stock) ESA Status1,2 MMPA

Depleted?1 CITES2,

3 IUCN2, 4

Estimated minimum

annual mortality

in all fisheries5

(PBR)5

Mean annual take in fishery5

(% of Stock’s PBR6)

BSAI

Flatfish Trawl

BSAI Rockfish Trawl7

Killer whale(AK Resident)

No No No Data Deficient

1.49 (20.8)

1.00 (4.8%) NA

Killer whale (GoA, AI, and BS Transient)

No No No Data Deficient

1.49 (5.5) NA

Steller sea lion (Western U.S.)

Endangered8 Yes No Endangered8 33.77 (275)

6.14 (2.2%)

1 = NOAA Fisheries 2013 2 = Classification applies to species as a whole, and not to the specific stock/population identified in the first column 3 = CITES 2012 4 = IUCN 2013b

205

5 = Allen and Angliss 2013 6 = Mean annual mortality in the fishery in recent years (Allen and Angliss 2013) divided by estimated PBR (Allen and Angliss 2013) 7 = This fishery was responsible for one total mortality of one killer whale during the period 2007-2011, but because the whale in question could not be ascribed to one particular population, its mortality is ascribed to both populations presented in this table (NOAA Fisheries 2014) 8 = Classification applies to the ‘western Steller sea lion’ sub-species, Eumetopias jubatus jubatus

206

Appendix D: Discards and Bait Use For Factor 2.4, the Seafood Watch criteria assign the following scores to fisheries based on the ratio of (discards + bait)/landings: Table D.1. Seafood Watch scores for (bait+discards)/landings ratios

(Bait+Discards)/Landings Factor 2.4 Score

0.0-0.2 1

0.2-0.4 0.95

0.4-0.6 0.9

0.6-0.8 0.85

0.8-1.0 0.8

>1.0

207

Appendix E: Habitat Impact Mitigation Efforts

"Essential Fish Habitat" (EFH) is the legal and conceptual basis for the identification and management of fishing impacts on habitat in U.S. fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended in 1996, requires that FMPs "describe and identify essential fish habitat for the fishery" and "minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing" (MSFCMA 1996). The act defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (MSFCMA 1996). In practice, the GoA and BSAI FMPs define EFH for managed species as the waters and substrates associated with the general distribution (>95% of the population) for each particular life stage (NPFMC 2012b; NPFMC 2012c). Where the general distribution of a particular life stage is not known, EFH is not defined.

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, or HAPCs, are areas of EFH that are "of special importance that may require additional protection from adverse effects" (NPFMC 2010a). EFH areas or features that are candidates for HAPC designation must be nominated to the NPFMC, and meet several standards set by the NPFMC: the area or feature must address an identified problem for a managed species, must meet the "rarity" criteria as defined in the federal regulations, and must meet at least one of the three remaining criteria, which focus on ecological function, sensitivity to human disturbance, and the extent of human disturbance (NPFMC 2010a). In addition, the NPFMC sets HAPC "priorities" at the beginning of each proposal cycle (NPFMC 2010a).

Spatial Management In Alaskan waters, the U.S. EEZ is approximately 3.77 million km2 (Sea Around Us Project 2013) or 1,099,200 nm2. As of 2011, bottom trawling is prohibited in approximately 65% of the Alaskan EEZ; (Zador, S. 2012). This includes an Arctic waters closure of approximately 150,000 nm2 (NPFMC 2010b), which is approximately 13.6% of the Alaskan EEZ. The non-Arctic closures therefore total approximately 51% of Alaska’s EEZ.

To date, EFH considerations have led to the identification of four habitat conservation areas (NPFMC 2010b):

- Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area (277,100 nm2; bottom trawl prohibited)

- Bering Sea Habitat Conservation Area (47,000 nm2; bottom trawl prohibited)

- Gulf of Alaska Slope Habitat Conservation Area (2,086 nm2; bottom trawl prohibited)

- Northern Bering Sea Research Area (85,000 nm2; bottom trawl prohibited)

The total area of these four habitat conservation areas, in which bottom trawling is prohibited, is approximately 411,186 nm2. This is approximately 37.4% of Alaska’s EEZ waters.

To date, there are three HAPC sites in Alaskan waters (NPFMC 2010b):

208

- Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Area (5,329 nm2; bottom-contact gears prohibited)

- Bowers Ridge Habitat Conservation Zone (5,286 nm2; mobile bottom gears prohibited)

- Gulf of Alaska Coral Habitat Protection Areas (67 nm2; bottom-contact gears prohibited in 13.5 nm2)

The total of these three HAPC protection areas is 10,682 nm2, which is approximately 0.97% of Alaska’s EEZ waters.

In addition to the aforementioned closures, there are additional areas, in waters potentially relevant to groundfish fisheries, that are closed to some or all groundfish gears for various reasons on a year-round basis (Witherell and Woodby 2005, unless otherwise noted):

BSAI

- Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat Conservation Zones (110 nm2; bottom-contact gears prohibited)

- Eastern Aleutian Islands Trawl Closure Areas (727 nm2; trawl prohibited)

- Modified Gear Trawl Zone (non-pelagic trawl gear prohibited unless modified; NPFMC 2012c)

- Nearshore Bristol Bay Trawl Closure (19,000 nm2; trawl prohibited)

- Northern Bering Sea Research Area (non-pelagic trawl prohibited with exceptions; NPFMC 2012c)

- Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay Habitat Conservation Area (non-pelagic trawl prohibited; NPFMC 2012c)

- Outer Kenai Peninsula Groundfish Trawl Closure (1,093 nm2; groundfish bottom trawl prohibited)

- Pribolof Islands Habitat Conservation Area (7,000 nm2; trawl prohibited)

- Prince William Sound Groundfish Trawl Closure (4,054 nm2; all groundfish bottom trawling prohibited except for sablefish)

- St. Lawrence Island Habitat Conservation Area (non-pelagic trawl prohibited; NPFMC 2012c)

- St. Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area (non-pelagic trawl prohibited; NPFMC 2012c)

- Steller Sea Lion closures (pollock, cod, Atka mackerel fishing prohibited; includes both seasonal and year-round closures)

209

Figure 37. Habitat conservation closures in the Bering Sea (Figure from NPFMC 2010)

GoA

- Cook Inlet Non-pelagic Trawl Closure (7,000 nm2; non-pelagic trawl prohibited)

- Kodiak Island King Crab Type I Closures (non-pelagic trawling prohibited; NPFMC 2012b)

- Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve (2.5 nm2; fishing for groundfish and anchoring are prohibited; NPFMC 2012b)

- Southeast Trawl Closure (52,600 nm2; trawl gear prohibited) - Marmot Bay Tanner Crab Protection Area (trawl gear prohibited as of January 2014)

Trends The total area potentially disturbed by trawls in 2011 represented 10-15% of the total Eastern Bering Sea area (Figure 38 in Zador, S. 2012), but approximately 50% of the total trawled area was trawled by pollock vessels, rather than groundfish bottom trawl vessels: the areal extent of the EBS pollock trawl fishery was near a multi-decade high in that year (Zador, in AKSC REF). In contrast, the total area disturbed by groundfish bottom trawl vessels has generally declined each year since the late 1990s (Zador, in AKSC). The amount of HAPC biota (e.g., corals and sponges) caught in all EBS groundfish fisheries in 2011 was the second-lowest since at least 1997 (Figure 104 in Zador, S. 2012). 2011 was also the fifth consecutive year in which bycatch of HAPC biota in EBS groundfish fisheries was less than 1,000 t from 2000-2005 (Figure 104 in

210

Zador, S. 2012). Despite these recent decreases, the EBS is still the source for the majority of Alaskan groundfish fisheries’ bycatch of HAPC biota, as it has been since at least the late 1990s (Figure 104 in Zador, S. 2012).

The total area of observed trawling in the Aleutian Islands region decreased, which is interpreted as indicating reduced fishing effort (rather than a concentration of an unchanging amount of effort) (Zador, S. 2012). In particular, the area trawled in the western Aleutian Islands eco-region was substantially reduced in 2011, due to Steller sea lion protection measures (Zador, S. 2012). Bycatch of HAPC biota in AI groundfish fisheries in 2011 was essentially unchanged from years previous, and has tended to be substantially less than HAPC biota bycatch in the EBS (Figure 104 in Zador, S. 2012).

In the GoA, HAPC bycatch has remained low, relative to EBS, since at least 1997; no trends are apparent (Figure 104 in Zador, S. 2012).

Habitat representation in fishing footprints and closed areas Information regarding the habitat composition of the BSAI and GoA is scant, and there is no information available regarding the habitat composition of Alaska’s closed areas or the various fisheries’ "footprints". Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the habitats that are protected by the existing closed areas are representative of the habitats that are affected by fisheries in "open" areas. This is an important consideration in the Seafood Watch criteria.

Without information for habitat representation in closed and open areas, it cannot be definitively stated that existing closed areas are protecting the habitat types that are affected by fisheries, and it remains a possibility that certain habitats may be over-represented in the footprints of various fisheries and may lack sufficient protection as a result. There is a significant amount of ongoing habitat-related research (e.g., McConnaughey, Olson, and Sigler 2009), and it is possible that more information on this subject may be available in coming years.

Drawbacks and challenges A recent paper by Rieser, Watling, and Guinotte (2013) calls into question the efficacy of one major Alaskan closure (the Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area) as a means of protecting corals. In this paper, Rieser and colleagues draw on various sources of data to demonstrate that the areas that remain open to trawling in the Aleutian Islands contain numerous historical records of coral (Figure 2 in Rieser, Watling, and Guinotte 2013). The authors point out that the vast majority of the closed area was not attractive to fishing interests in the past, and conversely that the vast majority of the recent trawl footprint was maintained in the areas that remain open for trawling. The implication of this paper’s criticism is that the Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area may more appropriately be understood as a check on the potential spatial expansion of fisheries in the future, rather than as a means of protecting known coral areas from fisheries today. However, Heifetz and colleagues (2007) state that the Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area protects "much of" optimal coral habitat, "including the 6 coral gardens discovered in 2002" (Heifetz, J. et al., 2007).

211

Gear Modifications

Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska flatfish bottom trawl fisheries In 2009, the NPFMC adopted regulations that require the use of elevating devices on flatfish bottom trawl gear used in the Bering Sea (NPFMC 2010b). These regulations were implemented in 2011 (NPFMC 2010b). In January 2014, similar requirements were put in place for the central Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl fishery (Federal Register 2014). The specific gear modifications required by these regulations, and evidence of their efficacy, are as follows.

The Alaskan flatfish trawl fisheries are prosecuted with bottom trawl gear. On this gear, cable ‘sweeps’ connect the net to the doors. The sweeps contact the seafloor as the net is towed, and serve to herd flatfish into the net (Rose et al. 2010). As of the time of the gear modifications, the sweep was the primary source of seafloor contact (Rose et al. 2010).

Rose and colleagues (2010) conducted field tests to examine the effects of modified-sweep trawl gear on seafloor sediment and epibenthic fauna in Alaska. Tows with trawl gear modified with sweeps raised by 8” discs yielded less visible disturbance to the seafloor, a significantly higher proportion of undamaged and upright sea whips in the trawl tracks, and significantly lower rates of ‘unobserved’ crab mortality (i.e., mortality that occurs as the gear passes but does not catch the organism; Rose et al. 2010). Interestingly, follow-up examinations found that the proportion of upright and undamaged sea whips in the tracks of the conventional trawl gear was considerably reduced one year after the trawl events, relative to the proportions observed one day, one week, and one month after the tows (Figure 8 in Rose et al. 2010). No such reduction was noted for sea whips in the tracks of the modified trawls, and the authors suggest that this may indicate delayed mortality for sea whips in the tracks of the conventional trawls and recovery of the sea whips in the tracks of the modified gear (Rose et al. 2010). Additional tests showed that sweeps raised with 8” discs spaced at 60’, and 10” discs at 90’, produced sweep clearances similar to those in the seafloor/sea whip field experiments (Rose et al. 2010); these disc size/spacing combinations are similar to those now required in the fishery.

References 50 CFR Part 679. 2010. “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Modified Non-pelagic Trawl Gear and Habitat Conservation in the Bering Sea Subarea”. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 193, Wednesday, October 6 2010.

Heifetz, J., Woodby, D., Reynolds, J., and Stone, R. 2007. “Deep Sea Coral Distribution and Habitat in the Aleutian Archipelago.” North Pacific Research Board.

McConnaughey, R.A., J.V. Olson, and M.F. Sigler. 2009. “Alaska Fisheries Science Center Essential Fish Habitat Data Inventory”. Alaska Fisheris Science Center, Seattle, WA.

MSFCMA. 1996. “Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/mag3.html#s304.

NPFMC. 2010a. “Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) with Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): HAPC Process Document”. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

212

———. 2010b. “Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-Year Review for 2010: Summary Report.” http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/review/efh_5yr_review_sumrpt.pdf.

———. 2012a. “Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska”. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

———. 2012b. “Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area”. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

Rieser, A., L. Watling, and J. Guinotte. 2013. “Trawl Fisheries, Catch Shares and the Protection of Benthic Marine Ecosystems: Has Ownership Generated Incentives for Seafloor Stewardship?” Marine Policy 40: 75–83.

Rose, C., E. Munk, C. Hammond, and A. Stoner. 2010. “Cooperative Research to Reduce the Effects of Bering Sea Flatfish Trawling on Seafloor Habitat and Crabs.” AFSC Quarterly Report, 1–6.

Sea Around Us Project. 2013. “EEZ Waters Of Alaska (USA).” http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/841.aspx.

Witherell, D., and D. Woodby. 2005. “Application of Marine Protected Areas for Sustainable Production and Marine Biodiversity off Alaska.” Marine Fisheries Review 67 (1): 1–28.

Zador, S., (ed.). 2012. “Ecosystem Considerations 2012”. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

213

Appendix F: Ecosystem and Food Web Considerations

The multi-species commercial groundfish fisheries are important components of the ecosystems and food webs of the EBS, AI, and GoA. The fisheries occupy high trophic levels in their respective food webs, and the consumption of many groundfish species by the fisheries is substantial relative to non-anthropogenic sources of consumption. Due to the complexity of the interactions of the relevant food webs and fisheries, an exhaustive review of the ecological effects of the fisheries is beyond the scope of this assessment. Instead, a brief review of existing information serves to identify species that are of particular ecological importance, fisheries effects on these species, and management measures that have been developed to address these effects.

Species of “Exceptional” Ecological Importance The Seafood Watch criteria defines species of ‘exceptional’ ecological importance as including top predators, important forage species, "keystone" species, habitat-formers, and species that play similarly foundational roles in the ecosystem. Information for GoA, AI, and EBS food webs is reviewed here to identify the exceptional species for those ecosystems; catch of habitat-forming species is addressed under Factors 4.1 and 4.2.

Mass balance (Ecopath) food web modeling using data from the early 1990s shows that there are clear differences in the structure of the food webs in the GoA, AI, and EBS (Aydin et al. 2007). In general, the EBS food web has the greatest benthic pathway influence, while the AI has the greatest pelagic pathway influence; the GoA is essentially balanced between the benthic and pelagic pathways (Aydin et al. 2007).

Primary forage species/species groups at various trophic levels are shown in Table F.1. Estimated ‘energy sinks’ for these species (Figures 37a-c in Aydin et al. 2007) suggest that Alaskan groundfish fisheries generally are sinks for <30% of the production of each forage species in Table 15 (these estimates include both direct catch of the forage species and the estimated production of each forage species embodied in the catch of higher-level predators by the groundfish fisheries).

214

Table F.1. Important forage species/species groups, with modeled contributions to total consumption at trophic levels (Figures 20, 21, 23 in Aydin et al. 2007)

GoA AI EBS

Trophic Level 2.5

Copepods (37%)

Euphausiids (31%)

Benthic amphipods (12%)

Bivalves (5%), Misc. crustacean (4%) Pteropods (1%)

Copepods (49%)

Euphausiids (33%)


Misc. crustacean (2%) Bivalves (2%)

Copepods (30%)


Euphausiids (19%)

Misc. crustacean (14%) Bivalves (8%)

Trophic Levels 2.6-3.4

NP shrimp (30%)

Pandalidae (28%)

Chaetognaths (15%)

Hermit crabs (11%), Snails (7%), Misc. crabs (6%)

NP shrimp (33%)

Chaetognaths (33%)

Pandalidae (18%)

Snails (8%)

Misc. crabs (4%)

NP shrimp (37%)

Pandalidae (20%)

Chaetognaths (13%)

Commercial crabs (11%), Snails (8%), Hermit crabs (7%)

Trophic Level 3.5

Capelin (39%)

Sandlance (14%)

Juv. Pollock (12%)

Myctophidae (49%)

Juv. Pollock (14%)

Sandlance

Juv. Pollock (48%)

Sandlance (15%)

Capelin (7%)

215

Other managed forage (8%), Eulachon (6%), Roundfish (4%), Flatfish (1%)

(7%)

Other managed forage (7%), Capelin (7%), Eulachon (6%), Roundfish (2%)

Eelpouts (7%), Myctophidae (5%),

Flatfish (3%)

A review of the estimated biomass densities of higher trophic level species, presented in Figures 3a-c in Aydin et al. 2007, suggests that arrowtooth flounder (GoA), pollock (GoA, EBS, and AI), and grenadiers, Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, Pacific Ocean perch, northern rockfish, squids, and sculpins (AI) may play "exceptional" roles in their food webs due to their high biomass densities relative to other species. Analysis of total consumption at trophic levels >4 (Figures 36a-c in Aydin et al. 2007) supports the identification of pollock, grenadiers (AI), Pacific cod (AI), and arrowtooth (GoA) as ecologically important predators at trophic levels >4, and further identifies Pacific cod (GoA) and grenadiers (EBS and GoA) as well.

A review of the modeled fate of ecologically "exceptional" species’ production during the early 1990s (Table F.2) shows that the proportions of AI Atka mackerel, AI and GoA Pacific cod, and EBS and AI pollock production that are sunk in groundfish fisheries approach or exceed the amounts sunk in either other living ecosystem components or in "unknown" sinks, i.e. in detritus. This suggests that these may be examples of the groundfish fisheries having substantial effects on ecologically "exceptional" species. The ecological roles of Atka mackerel and Pacific cod are addressed below, along with grenadier (pollock fisheries are not a part of this assessment).

Table F.2. Comparison of modeled production final ‘sinks’ for several high-biomass-density species caught in groundfish fisheries. The values are the estimated proportions of each species’ production that ultimately exit the system through the given sink; consumption at intermediate trophic levels is subsumed in these values (Values estimated from Figures 37a-c in Aydin et al. 2007)

Region Species % of production sunk in groundfish fisheries

% of production sunk in fish, birds, and marine

% of production sunk in detritus (approx.)

216

(approx.) mammals (approx.)

Aleutian

Islands

Atka mackerel

43 50 5

Grenadier 12 8 80

Northern rockfish

23 27 50

Pacific cod 43 8 49

Pacific Ocean perch

15 15 70

Pollock 60 20 18

Squids 21 57 20

Sculpins 28 50 20

Eastern Bering Sea

Grenadier 4 23 73

Pollock 46 36 16

Gulf of Alaska

Arrowtooth flounder

7 10 79

Grenadier 27 4 69

Pacific cod 41 6 45

Pollock 22 66 2

Atka mackerel Food web modeling (Aydin et al. 2007; NPFMC 2007) shows the importance of Atka mackerel to the AI food web. Atka mackerel production is almost entirely consumed within the food web; the food web model used in the 2007 Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), which uses data from the 1990s, estimates that approximately 90% of Atka mackerel consumption is due to predation from Steller sea lions (which consumes approximately 24% of Atka mackerel production), Pacific cod (20%), pollock (18%), the trawl fishery (17%), and remaining flatfish,

217

skates, and halibut (approximately 12%) (Figure 3-17 Aydin et al. 2007). AI Atka mackerel are particularly important components of Steller sea lion diets. The AI FEP estimates that Atka mackerel composed 65% of the diet of Steller sea lions (compared to 15% of Pacific cod diet and 5% of pollock diet) (NPFMC 2007). Atka mackerel play an important role as predators, as well; adult Atka mackerel are the source of approximately 70% of the mortality of juvenile pollock in the AI (Aydin et al. 2007). The importance of Atka mackerel to the AI food web is such that a 10% increase in ‘unexplained’ mortality was modeled to have effects on a wide variety of species and fisheries, ranging from increases in pollock and pollock fisheries to declines in Steller sea lion and Alaska skates (Figure 3-19 in NPFMC 2007). Furthermore, the modeled effects of the AI Atka mackerel fishery on low trophic level production were similar to the effects of a prominent predator in the AI food web model, Pacific cod (Aydin et al. 2007); the authors of the food web model study suggest that fisheries that consume primary production at scales similar to those of dominant predators may have ecosystem-level effects that require specific management attention.

Pacific cod In Alaska, Pacific cod are opportunistic, high-level predators with diverse diets that generally follow the structure of the food web (e.g., greater consumption of crabs in EBS and GoA, where benthic pathways are more prominent, and greater consumption of squid in the AI, where the pelagic pathway is more prominent; Aydin et al. 2007). The primary components of Pacific cod diets differ between the EBS and GoA, where pollock compose 26% and 19% of Pacific cod diets, respectively, and the AI, where Atka mackerel and sculpins are the primary diet items (15% each; Aydin et al. 2007). In the AI, Pacific cod are an important prey item for at least one species of particular concern: the endangered western population of Steller sea lions (NOAA Fisheries 2013d). The size range of Pacific cod that are taken by fisheries and by Steller sea lions overlap (Thompson and Lauth 2012).

From an ecological perspective, however, Pacific cod in Alaska may generally be "more important" as predators than as prey for other species. Fishing mortality is estimated to exceed predation mortality for Pacific cod across the AI, EBS, and GoA (Figure 13 in Aydin et al. 2007). A modeling exercise in which cod survival was decreased by 10% over 50 years in the three food webs resulted in little estimated change to the biomasses of major cod predators (pollock, halibut, and Steller sea lions in the EBS, GoA, and AI, respectively; Aydin et al. 2007). Conversely, this same change in cod survival yielded noticeable increases in a variety of species that are preyed upon by cod, and even some that are not directly linked to cod: a several-percent increase in AI sleeper shark biomass was attributed by the model’s authors to "strong indirect effects" of cod in the AI ecosystem, for example (Aydin et al. 2007). In general, sensitivity to changes in cod biomass is greater (in terms of both the number of species affected and each species’ response to changes in cod biomass) in the AI than in the EBS or GoA (Figure

218

15 in Aydin et al. 2007). The authors attribute the AI food web’s greater sensitivity to cod to the greater cod biomass density in the AI (Aydin et al. 2007).

Due to their abundance, Pacific cod predation can be a substantial source of mortality for species that compose even small fractions of their diet. For example, AI Pacific cod have been estimated to account for approximately 18% of AI adult sablefish mortality, even though sablefish are a relatively small (>1%) component of AI Pacific cod diet (NPFMC 2007). AI Pacific cod are also estimated to consume over 30% of rex sole, juvenile sablefish, and juvenile arrowtooth production, 30% of greenling production, and 20% of the production of Tanner crabs, eelpouts, and other sculpins (Aydin et al. 2007).

Grenadier Grenadier receive particular attention here because they are a prominent, high trophic level species group in the AI food web (Figure 3.c in Aydin et al. 2007), and are thought to be one of the most abundant species groups in the GoA and EBS as well (Rodgveller, Clausen, and Hulson 2012). Grenadier are identified as important consumers at high (>4) trophic levels in the AI, EBS, and GoA, and have the highest biomass density of any AI predator above trophic level 4.5 (Aydin et al. 2007). Despite being taken in substantial amounts by groundfish fisheries, (see the ‘Grenadier’ section under Criterion 2), there are no binding OFLS or ABCs for grenadier. The bycatch of grenadier in commercial groundfish fisheries therefore represents a substantial and lightly-managed catch of an ecologically important species. Management of Fisheries Effects on Ecosystem and Food Webs General Measures Determination of ABC and TAC One potential avenue for the integration of ecological or food web-related objectives may be through the setting of catch limits (e.g., reducing catch limits due to food web concerns). Ecological considerations may be taken into account during the determination of the ABC. However, there is no evidence that ecological and/or food web considerations influenced any of the 2013 ABCs. The TAC may be lowered from the ABC due to ‘bycatch considerations, management uncertainty, or socioeconomic considerations’ (NPFMC 2012b); there are no examples of TACs being lowered from ABCs specifically for ecological or food web-related reasons. SAFE reports do include a section devoted to information regarding the ecological roles and relationships of managed species, and sometimes specify ecological and food web information as a high-priority data need (e.g., the 2012 BSAI Pacific cod SAFE).

Optimum Yield The BSAI and GoA OYs act as caps on the sum of all groundfish TACs. The BSAI OY is set at a maximum of 85% of the sum of single species MSYs due, in part, to an understanding that harvesting at 100% of all single species MSYs will exceed the MSY of the ecosystem in question

219

(NMFS 2010). The maximum GoA OY (800,000 t) is approximately 92% of the mean MSY of all species during the period 1983-1987 (NPFMC 2012c). For the purposes of ecosystem/food web concerns, the BSAI and GoA maximum OYs serve a basic purpose because they both cap the maximum amount of groundfish that may be extracted from the BSAI and GoA in any given year.

Specific Measures Western Steller sea lion protection measures (BSAI Atka mackerel and Pacific cod) A primary avenue through which ecosystem and food web considerations have been incorporated into AI Atka mackerel and Pacific cod fisheries management are the efforts to manage these fisheries’ effects on western Steller sea lions in a manner compliant with the Endangered Species Act. The western population of Steller sea lions has declined by 90% throughout its range (NMFS 2010). In particular, continued, statistically significant declines in the western AI sub-region during the period 2000-2008 has caused concern, especially in light of increases (some statistically significant) in other sub-regions over this time period (NMFS 2010). Natality is lower in the western AI than in other sub-regions, and nutrition stress is identified as the ‘most reasonable explanation’ for this reduced natality (NMFS 2010). In a biological opinion, NMFS determined that groundfish fisheries, as they were managed prior to 2010, were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of western Steller sea lions, and were likely to lead to adverse effects on western Steller sea lion critical habitat (NMFS 2010). This biological opinion then put forward a series of changes to the management of the AI Atka mackerel and Pacific cod fisheries (NMFS 2010). These measures were put in place on January 1, 2011, but were subjected to a lawsuit by the state of Alaska and fishing industry interests (NOAA Fisheries 2012b). A recent decision in this case keeps the management measures in place, but requires NMFS to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the environmental implications of these and alternative measures and to allow for public participation (NOAA Fisheries 2012b). At the time of the writing of this report, the EIS process was ongoing.

The measures put in place following the 2010 biological opinion consist of a combination of spatial and temporal limitations and target species TAC adjustments for the Atka mackerel trawl, Pacific cod trawl, and Pacific cod non-trawl fisheries in three management sub-areas within the Aleutian Islands Management Area. These measures are in addition to the measures that were in place at the time of the biological opinion, which include provisions that prohibit directed fishing for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod if estimated biomass falls below B20% (NMFS 2010).

The preceding management measures address a very specific ecological relationship (that of western Steller sea lions and Atka mackerel and Pacific cod), but may also mitigate fisheries’

220

effects on other ecological roles of AI Atka mackerel and Pacific cod. In particular, the minimum biomass required for fisheries to target Atka mackerel and Pacific cod (B20%) is a higher standard than exists for other species.

Aydin, K., S. Gaichas, D. Ortiz, D. Kinzey, and N. Friday. 2007. “A Comparison of the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Aleutian Islands Large Marine Ecosystems through Food Web Modeling”. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-178.

NMFS. 2010. “Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion”. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region.

NOAA Fisheries. 2012. “Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area: Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report”. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region.

———. 2013. “Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area”. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region.

NPFMC. 2007. “Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan”. North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

———. 2012a. “Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area”. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

———. 2012b. “Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska”. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK.

Rodgveller, C., D. Clausen, and P. Hulson. 2012. “Assessment of the Grenadier Stock Complex in the Gulf of Alaska, Eastern Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands.”

Thompson, G.G., and R.L. Lauth. 2012. “Assessment of the Pacific Cod Stock in the Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area.”

221

Appendix G: Details of Inherent Vulnerability Analysis

Throughout this report the inherent vulnerability of assessed stocks is informed by the productivity scores presented in Table 1 of Cope, J.M et al. 2011. The manner in which these productivity scores are interpreted is described below. Cope and colleagues scored each species for 10 productivity attributes; for each attribute, the species was put into one of three "bins" based on its species-specific information for that attribute. Each bin had a score associated with it, and the three bins were: low productivity (score of 1), medium (2), and high (3) (Table 2 in Cope, J.M et al. 2011). The species' overall productivity score was then derived from its scores on these 10 specific attributes. Since a species' productivity score could range between 1.0 and 3.0 (i.e, no species could have an overall productivity score of less than 1 or more than 3), the "distance" over which a species' productivity score could range was 2. If this "distance" (i.e., 2) is divided equally between the three bins, we can say that the "low" productivity bin includes productivity scores of 1 to 1.67, the "medium" bin has scores of 1.68-2.33, and the "high" bin has scores of 2.34-3.0. To inform this report's assessment of inherent vulnerability (rather than resilience), these scores are reversed to reflect vulnerability, so that high vulnerability is indicated by a productivity score of 1.0-1.67, medium vulnerability is a score of 1.68-2.33, and low vulnerability is a score of 2.34-3.0. These scores are presented alongside FishBase vulnerability scores, which are interpreted in accordance with Seafood Watch criteria. Where there was a discrepancy between the productivity scores and the FishBase vulnerability scores, the productivity scores were the final determinant of the inherent vulnerability score.

222

Appendix H: Review Schedule Stock assessment information is updated for managed groundfish species on an annual basis, with reports available in December of each year.

mba_seafoodwatch_groundfish_alaska_report

Documents