An intrinsic rate of increase value was not available for salmon. While there is considerable variation in age at maturity between discrete salmon spawning groups, in general, Chinook salmon reach sexual maturity between 2 and 8 years, Chum 2 to 7 years, Coho 2 to 4 years, Pink 2 years, and Sockeye 3 to 8 years (Buklis, 1994; Delaney, 1994; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004). These values fall between breakpoints for scoring a 2 and 3. Therefore, maximum age, the next life history criteria for which there is information available for salmon, is considered.

Salmon species generally can live up to seven years. For instance, Chum salmon can live up to 6 years (Buklis, 1994), Sockeye 4 years (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1994), and Chinook 7 years (Delaney, 1994). Since these values are all under 11 years, we award a score of 3 for this criteria.

All species of Pacific salmon are anadromous: They hatch in fresh water, spend part of their life in the ocean, spawn in fresh water, and die after spawning (Delaney, 1994; Kingsbury, 1994). This behavior makes salmon populations vulnerable when nets are placed across streams because their routes to spawning grounds are obstructed. Also, because each discrete salmon spawning group has site fidelity to spawn in a single stream, there is a risk of eliminating entire spawning groups.

Salmon exhibit population variability in response to environmental changes. Scientists hypothesize that since 1975, a long-term improvement in the biological productivity of the ocean in the Gulf of Alaska has supported an increase in the population and catch of salmon in Alaska fisheries (Chaffee, 2000). However, during the next 20 years, some scientists predict that the carrying-capacity of the North Pacific Ocean for salmon to decrease due to global warming and concomitant increase in sea-surface temperature (Koninberg, 2002), however, this is speculative. There is evidence that decadal scale oscillations in salmon abundance have occurred, and that these fluctuations in salmon abundance correlate with decadal scale oscillations in climate in the North Pacific (personal communication, Doug Eggers, 22 July 2004, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game). Salmon abundance levels are likely to continue to fluctuate as a result of changes in environmental conditions.

In North America, Chinook salmon range from the Monterey Bay area of California to the Chukchi Sea area of Alaska. On the Asian coast, Chinook salmon occur from the Anadyr River area of Siberia southward to Hokkaido, Japan. In Alaska, Chinook salmon are abundant from the southeastern panhandle to the Yukon River.

Chum salmon range south to the Sacramento River in California and the island of Kyushu in the Sea of Japan. In the north they range east in the Arctic Ocean to the Mackenzie River in Canada and west to the Lena River in Siberia.

Coho salmon are found in coastal waters of Alaska from Southeast to Point Hope on the Chukchi Sea and in the Yukon River to the Alaska-Yukon border. Coho are extremely adaptable and occur in nearly all accessible bodies of fresh water-from large transboundary watersheds to small tributaries (Elliott, 1994).

Pink salmon are native to Pacific and arctic coastal waters from northern California to the Mackenzie River, Canada, and to the west from the Lena River in Siberia to Korea (Kingsbury, 1994).

Sockeye salmon occur in the North Pacific and Arctic oceans and associated freshwater systems. This species ranges south as far as the Klamath River in California and northern Hokkaido in Japan, to as far north as Bathurst Inlet in the Canadian Arctic and the Anadyr River in Siberia (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1994).

We consider the five salmon species to have medium-sized ranges, and therefore no points are awarded for this criteria.

The vast majority of Alaska salmon population management units are healthy, and less than 5% of populations are of concern due to their abundance (Doug Eggers, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communication, 24 June 2004). While managers do not monitor every individual discrete spawning group from each individual stream, but instead typically monitor aggregations of populations, managers are confident that there is low risk of overfishing of a single genetic unit (Doug Eggers, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communication, 24 June 2004).

Salmon populations in Alaska, in general, are strong, healthy, and currently are at or near record high levels in spite of sharp fluctuations in some stocks in some regions in some years (Heard, 2002). Spawning escapements of all species were stable or increasing in 99 percent of the management units and 93 percent of the spawning aggregates, indicating nearly all species and stocks were healthy (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003).

Because no information was available quantifying biomass as a percent of BMSY or similar proxy, a medium score was awarded here.

There are “Evolutionarily Significant Units”, distinctive groups of Pacific salmon, listed as endangered and threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, however none of the salmon ESUs listed under this Act or listed as candidates for listing are from Alaska populations, but are all located in California, Oregon, and Washington (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003). Listed salmon stocks from the southern US stocks represent a very small percentage of the Alaska salmon catch (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003).

The Alaska salmon catch from Canadian stocks are considered to be healthy (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003). Of the 407 salmon stocks from British Columbia and Yukon, Canada, 81 percent are not threatened and 15 percent are classified as a special concern or at risk. Columbia River upriver bright chinook, Middle Columbia River bright chinook, and north-migrating Oregon coastal chinook represent a significant portion of the Alaska harvest and are stable (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003).

Wild runs of chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon in Southeast Alaska were at historically high levels in the 1980s and 1990s (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003). Escapement levels for five drainages that intersect Alaska and Canada (transboundary rivers) have steadily increased since the 1970s and have reached the escapement objectives in recent years (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003).

There on the order of hundreds to a few thousand individual populations (discrete spawning groups that do not interbreed), which make up the five salmon species of the Alaska commercial salmon fisheries (personal communication, Doug Eggers, 22 July 2004, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game). While trends are not known for all of these populations (Chaffee, 2000), managers are confident that there is low risk of overfishing of a single genetic unit (Doug Eggers, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communication, 24 June 2004).

Salmon are caught by Alaska fisheries using nets (drift and set gillnets, purse seine) and by trolling (Chaffee, 2000). 80% of nets are drift nets, anchored to a boat, and the remaining 20% are set gillnets, anchored from the shoreline (Doug Eggers, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communication, 24 June 2004). Almost all streams are closed to commercial salmon fishing because salmon in streams are too vulnerable to fishing pressure, and are of low commercial value (Doug Eggers, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communication, 24 June 2004).

The majority of the Chinook catch is made with troll gear and gillnets. Most chum are caught by purse seines and drift gillnets, but fishwheels and set gillnets harvest a portion of the catch (Buklis, 1994). Coho salmon are caught primarily in the troll fishery in Southeast Alaska (Elliott, 1994). Most pink salmon are taken with purse seines and drift or set gillnets; Lesser numbers are taken with troll gear or beach seines (Kingsbury, 1994). In Alaska, most sockeye salmon are caught with gillnets either drifted from a vessel or set with one end on the shore, some are captured with purse seines, and a relatively small number are caught with troll gear in the southeastern portion of the state (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1994).

Salmon rely on numerous aquatic freshwater, brackish, and marine habitats for all of their life stages. No concerns were identified in the MSC certification concerning habitat health for the major Alaska salmon runs (Chaffee, 2000). However, Trout Unlimited, an environmental non-governmental organization, in their comments on the MSC certification of the Alaska commercial salmon fisheries, state that, “ In areas where development and human activities occur, there has been significant habitat damage. In urban areas, such as Anchorage and Juneau, much salmon habitat has been lost and some salmon populations have been extirpated” (Konigsberg, 2002). The cumulative effects of habitat degradation to freshwater aquatic resources is not monitored nor is the concomitant effect of this gradual habitat degradation on salmon biodiversity and abundance understood (Konigsberg, 2002; Kolmes, 2004). No points are added for this criteria based on the lack of information on the significance of cumulative effects of salmon habitat degradation in Alaska.

Many important habitat areas for salmon are protected in Alaska. The Alaska state constitution requires that salmon habitat is conserved and protected. The US Forest Service manages commercial logging in Alaska on federal lands, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources manages logging on state and private lands. The Alaska Forest Practices Act regulates activities affecting fish habitat. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division is responsible for providing expert advice to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources on issues of logging near anadromous waters (Chaffee, 2000).

Gear effects on habitat are minimal (Chaffee, 2000).

Gear effects on habitat are minimal (Chaffee, 2000).

There is an extensive management framework in place to manage the Alaska salmon commercial fisheries. State fisheries law is codified in Alaska Statute Title 16 (AS 16) that includes provisions for creation and operation of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. The Board in turn promulgates regulations for the conservation, management, allocation and resource development of the fisheries resources under the Alaska Administrative Code Title 5 (5 AAC). These regulations address commercial, recreational, personal use and subsistence harvest (Chaffee, 2000). The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) administers the commercial fishery entry permit system. CFEC permits were awarded on the basis of documented historical participation. They are designated for a specific gear type in a specific area of the state. They are a property right of the holder and may be sold, bought and are heritable (Chaffee, 2000).

The Pacific Salmon Treaty impacts Alaska salmon catch particularly in southeast Alaska and to some extent in the Yukon River fisheries. The Pacific Salmon Commission sets limits for various species, areas and seasons, which may cause certain fisheries to change the manner in which they have operated historically. The US Endangered Species Act has a similar impact. Although there are no endemic species listed under either the state or federal ESA, there are numerous stocks that are listed that are known to transit Alaska waters during some part of their migration. The state manages the southeast Alaska troll fishery through an agreement with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (under the Magnusen-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act). It is in this segment of the Alaska salmon fishery that stocks listed under the ESA are most likely to be caught. This requires negotiation with the National Marine Fisheries Service to obtain an annual “Section 7” permit. This permit allows the fishery to be conducted in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of impact on listed stocks. These regulations may be significantly different from the manner in which the fishery was historically managed (Chaffee, 2000).

The Alaska commercial salmon fisheries received certification against the Marine Stewardship Council principles and criteria in 2000 (Chaffee, 2000). The Marine Stewardship Council’s principles and criteria are general statements describing what aspects need to be present in fisheries to indicate that they are moving toward sustainable management.

Catches are well monitored and population assessments of hatchery-released fish are conducted. However, the State is required to implement a sampling program to identify major non-salmon fish species, birds and marine mammals taken in the salmon net fisheries of the State in order to maintain its certification under the Marine Stewardship Council (Chaffee, 2000). But bycatch monitoring improvements, such as by instituting an onboard observer program, have not been implemented (Doug Eggers, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communication, 24 June 2004).

The state of Alaska has implemented an observer program for test fisheries that it operates for purpose of in-season salmon population assessments. These test fisheries provide information on bycatch, including interactions with seabirds and marine mammals, on an opportunistic basis (personal communication, Doug Eggers, 22 July 2004, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game). However, no quantitative information on bycatch observations from these test fisheries is available.

There are three general areas of controversy surrounding the salmon hatchery program, and there is a lack of consensus on whether or not these pose serious conservation threats:

(1) Returning hatchery fish mix with natural stocks as they enter fishing areas. Hatchery stocks are able to withstand very high exploitation rates that may exceed those tolerable by a stock that spawns under natural conditions. Fishing grounds where catch of mixed hatchery and wild stocks occurs makes it difficult to maximize hatchery harvest while ensuring adequate protection is provided to naturally spawning stocks.

(2) Some data suggest that the release of large numbers of hatchery juveniles into nearshore rearing areas may have an adverse effect on the growth and survival of natural stocks due to competition for food.

(3) Straying and spawning of hatchery-origin salmon into natural spawning areas may adversely affect the genetic fitness and productivity of wild populations (Chaffee, 2000). Hatchery fish may replace wild fish, and could plausibly extirpate wild populations, and may spread disease and parasites (Konigsberg, 2002; Kolmes, 2004).

However, the State of Alaska has policies and procedures in place to minimize the risk of these potential adverse impacts on wild stocks from the hatchery program. These include a policy prioritizing the conservation of wild salmon populations, a policy to provent the loss of genetic pools, procedures to monitor diseases, and management of hatchery terminal fishing areas. These policies and practices result in sustainable management of the permitting of fish transports and management of mixed wild/hatchery fisheries. Furthermore, most hatchery releases are marked (either with thermal marks or Coded Wire Tags) through hatchery wild stock identification programs (personal communication, Doug Eggers, 22 July 2004, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game).

There remains a high degree of uncertainty regarding potential adverse effects of the hatchery program on wild salmon populations.

Because the management authority is taking measures to address potential adverse effects from the salmon hatchery program, no points are deducted here.

These species are not overfished, thus recovery plans are not needed. However, managers do not monitor the abundance of all individual populations, but instead monitor aggregations of numerous individual populations (discrete spawning groups that do not interbreed) (Chaffee, 2000).

Capacity is controlled using a limited entry program with day to day adaptive management (Chaffee, 2000; U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003).

Bycatch in Alaska salmon fisheries is believed to not be significant (Chaffee, 2000; U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2003). However, no quantitative information of total bycatch was available.

Koningberg (2002) notes that the Marine Stewardship Council was provided with anecdotal information that bycatch of seabirds in some Alaska commercial salmon drift gill net fisheries may be substantial. The certification report prepared for the assessment of the Alaska commercial salmon fisheries against the Marine Stewardship Council principles and criteria identified the need for improvement in bycatch monitoring (Chaffee, 2000), but they do not mention bycatch of seabirds as an issue in these fisheries. Due to the lack of quantitative information, no points were deducted here.

Although there is some bycatch of salmon in the large Alaska-based offshore trawl fisheries, the non-salmon fisheries do not appear to significantly impact the operation of the Alaska salmon fisheries (Chaffee, 2000). In many areas Chum are caught incidental to the catch of Pink salmon (Buklis, 1994). The U.S. North Pacific Fishery Management Council has developed a comprehensive salmon bycatch monitoring and management system for the Alaska Bering Sea Groundfish fisheries. which includes conservative bycatch caps that trigger gear specific time and area closures to limit bycatch of salmon in these fisheries (personal communication, Doug Eggers, 22 July 2004, Alaska Department of Fish and Game). Available information indicates that the effect of salmon bycatch in non-salmon fisheries on salmon populations is low.