110 Chinook and Chum Salmon Bycatch Management Measures
Purpose and Need
The Council has been actively addressing Chinook and chum salmon PSC measures since the mid-1990s. Previously triggered time and area closures (Salmon Savings Areas (SSA)) have been used to manage chum and Chinook in the Bering Sea. These closures were designed based on analyses of groundfish observer data collected from 1990 through 1995. However, the efficacy of these closures was called into question when the fleet began observing that salmon bycatch rates were higher outside of the closures when triggered than inside of the closures. The industry began voluntarily participating in an Inter-cooperative Agreement (ICA) for salmon bycatch in which a private contractual agreement between fleet participants established a rolling hot spot (RHS) program through which the fleet would agree to adhere to short-term (4-day to 7-day) closures in discrete areas of the Bering Sea when observed salmon bycatch was high. The RHS program was initially developed to reduce bycatch of Chinook and ‘other’ salmon (primarily chum) in order to avoid triggering the closures themselves; however, eventually it became clear that the SSAs were exacerbating salmon bycatch by inadvertently inducing the fleet to move into areas of higher rates. Numerous requests from the pollock industry led to Amendment 84, which exempted the fleet from the SSAs, provided they participate in the ICA. Detailed regulations specified all of the provisions in the RHS program from the contractual agreement. This exemption was always intended to be an interim measure while the Council explored alternative salmon bycatch management measures. Due to continued concerns with extremely low returns to western Alaska Chinook stocks, and the genetic information regarding high proportions of the salmon bycatch consisting of these stocks, the Council reviewed a discussion paper in October 2013 that provided updated Adult Equivalent (AEQ) analysis of the salmon bycatch estimates to aggregate rivers of origin, impact rates of the salmon bycatch to these aggregate river systems, as well as an analysis of fishery and salmon bycatch performance in the first three years of the management program. The Council also requested a proposal from the pollock industry of how chum salmon bycatch could be incorporated into the existing Chinook salmon IPAs.
Analysis
An EA/RIR/IRFA was presented to the Council at the December 2015 meeting that analyzed five action alternatives and a status quo alternative. The EA concluded that ecosystem management, rationalization, and traditional management tools were likely to improve the protection and management of target and prohibited species, including pollock, Chinook, and chum salmon, and are not likely to result in significant effects when combined with the direct and indirect effects of the action alternatives. The RIR determined that an incentive based approach to PSC management would result in “surpluses” accruing to the pollock industry, which would, by-in-large, flow to foreign consumers (and producers that are foreign owned), while the surplus losses through salmon PSC would accrue primarily to U.S. “consumers” (in the broadest sense) and businesses.
Regulation Summary
Amendment 110 created a comprehensive Chinook and chum salmon bycatch avoidance program and revised language in the “Chum Salmon” and “Chinook Salmon” entries in the “Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) Limits” section of the FMP. Specifically, the term inter-cooperative agreement was replaced with incentive plan agreement (IPA). Both Chinook and chum salmon are managed under IPAs. The regulation also clarified that Chinook salmon abundance would be considered low when abundance was less than or equal to the 250,000 Chinook salmon threshold, based on the State of Alaska’s post-season in river Chinook salmon run size index.
Results
It is too early to gauge the success of Amendment 110.