Purpose and Need

The purpose of this amendment was to reduce salmon bycatch in trawl fisheries.  The incidental salmon fishing mortality experienced in the groundfish fisheries is one of several competing uses of the fully utilized salmon resource. Salmon are also used as catch and bycatch in directed commercial, subsistence, and sport salmon fisheries and as bycatch in other non-salmon fisheries.  The groundfish fisheries may result in reduced escapement or harvest in the salmon fisheries, thereby imposing a cost on other salmon users.

If sufficient incentives exist for a vessel operator to move to another area or take other action to reduce the possibility of continued high bycatch rates, then incidence of repeated high salmon bycatch rates on a haul by haul basis may be curtailed.  Nonetheless, some salmon bycatch is unavoidable in the groundfish trawl fisheries, as a degree of unpredictability is associated with salmon bycatch.  Difficulties may exist for individual vessel operators to take action that will predictably reduce salmon bycatch rates on a haul by haul basis.  The purpose of this amendment is to reduce salmon bycatch by holding individual vessel operators responsible for the amount of salmon bycatch their vessel takes.

Analysis

A 45-page EA/RIR/FRFA (public review draft dated May 14, 1993) plus a 39-page addendum was prepared for this amendment.  Two primary alternatives including the status quo, together with five options for Alternative 2 were considered.  The options considered would implement a salmon vessel incentive program similar to the halibut program (bycatch standards with compliance based on observer samples), and various configurations of a salmon incentive program that is independent of observer sampling procedures. The suboptions of an observer independent program included counting all salmon, extrapolation based on product recovery or landed weights, and mandatory retention of salmon for observer counting.

Regulation Summary

The amendment was never adopted and the vessel incentive portion was never implemented.  NMFS expressed reservations about obtaining statistically valid estimates of salmon bycatch amounts for use in enforcing a vessel incentive program.  Additionally, there were concerns raised about establishing a haul by haul vessel incentive program because the possibility of a vessel randomly encountering large numbers of salmon in a single haul, as well as vessels that deliver unsorted cod ends to shoreside operations. In both cases, violators would be unable to take action to avoid a violation. Notwithstanding these issues, it was felt that significant staff resources would need to be shifted to monitor salmon bycatch, enforce, and prosecute salmon bycatch violators.

Given the difficulties presented in establishing a regulatory solution to individual vessel bycatch accounting, amendment development was put on hold while industry representatives developed their own voluntary program named the Salmon Foundation.  Participants  assessed themselves a $20 fee per chinook and raised a total of  $120,000 in 1994. The purpose of the Foundation was to use income generated from salmon bycatch assessment payments to develop a salmon bycatch avoidance program for the BSAI trawl fisheries and to fund research on stock origin of salmon taken as bycatch.  After the Council adopted the time area closures in April 1995, the industry stopped the bycatch assessment fees, so the research monies were spent and the Foundation dissolved. 

Results

The amendment was never approved. Portions of the salmon bycatch control initiatives were adopted under Amendment 21b (time/area closures for Chinook salmon), Amendment 35 (time area closures for chum salmon), and Amendment 26 (voluntary retention of salmon for foodbanks).  Also, regulations were implemented that authorize disclosure of vessel specific observer information on prohibited species bycatch.