pre-assessment for western kamchatka salmon fishery · spawning on the western coast of kamchatka...

Pre-assessment for Western Kamchatka Salmon Fishery

Prepared for

“Vityaz-Avto Co” Ltd and “Delta Co” Ltd [OOO Витязь-Авто и ООО Дельта]

Contact: Mr. Andrei Bokov Str. Stepnaya 5, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Kamchatsky region, Russian Federation

Prepared by

Wild Salmon Center 721 NW Ninth Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97209 U.S.A.

Assessment Team:

Randy Ericksen, Wild Salmon Center Jocelyn Drugan, Ph.D., Wild Salmon Center

Denis Semenov, WWF Russia

November 21, 2014

Western Kamchatka Pre-Assessment Report page 1

Table of Contents 1. Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 2

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Aims/scope of pre-‐assessment ............................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Constraints to the pre-‐assessment of the fishery ........................................................................... 3 2.3 Unit(s) of certification ................................................................................................................................ 3

3. Description of the fishery .................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme .............................................................. 4 3.2 Overview of the fishery .............................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Principle One: Target species background ........................................................................................ 8 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background ............................................................................................ 20 3.5 Principle Three: Management system background .................................................................... 25

4. Evaluation Procedure ......................................................................................................... 36 4.1 Assessment methodologies used ........................................................................................................ 36 4.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-‐assessment ...................................... 36 4.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment ............................................................ 37 4.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries ............................................... 37

5. Traceability (issues relevant to chain of custody certification) .......................... 37 5.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further chains of custody ......................................... 37

6. Preliminary evaluation of the fishery ........................................................................... 38 6.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree .................................................................................. 38 6.1.1 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-‐Based Framework (RBF) ................................... 38 6.2 Evaluation of the fishery ......................................................................................................................... 38 6.2.1 Other issues specific to this fishery ................................................................................................ 39 6.3 Summary of likely PI scoring levels ................................................................................................... 40

References ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Annex 1. Provisional evaluation of the fishery against the Performance Indicators 44

Pre-‐assessment evaluation tables ......................................................................................... 45 Principle 1 Even-‐year Pink Salmon ............................................................................................................... 45 Principle 1 Odd-‐year Pink Salmon ................................................................................................................. 55 Principle 1 Chum Salmon ................................................................................................................................... 62 Principle 1 Sockeye Salmon .............................................................................................................................. 70 Principle 1 Coho Salmon ..................................................................................................................................... 77 Principle 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 84 Principle 3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 99


1. Executive summary Randy Ericksen and Jocelyn Drugan of the Wild Salmon Center conducted this assessment with the assistance of Denis Semenov of World Wildlife Fund, Russia. This was a desktop assessment conducted using information requested from the clients. The clients compiled information they had available and requested information from KamchatNIRO as appropriate. The clients were responsible for translating information into English. Some, but not all, information requested was provided. Additional information was obtained from the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) website.

The client fisheries occur in the western part of Kamchatka Peninsula on the Sea of Okhotsk coast (coastal trap nets) and the lower reaches (beach seines) of six large coastal rivers, the Ozernaya, Koshegochek, Golgina, Opala, Kol and Vorovskaya. The pre-assessment covers wild pink, chum, and coho salmon returning to all of these rivers, as well as sockeye salmon (excluding Ozernaya River sockeye salmon which are currently certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)). This is not considered an enhanced fishery because there are no hatcheries in the certification unit.

The fishery targets pink salmon during even-years and other species (primarily chum and coho salmon) during odd-years when pink salmon are less abundant. Information provided indicates that annual runs of these species have been stable or increasing in recent years. Sockeye and odd-year pink salmon are not targeted in these fisheries but are caught incidentally. Aggregate escapement targets for the entire Western Kamchatka Region have been developed for even-year pink salmon and coho salmon. There are also sockeye salmon escapement targets for individual lake-systems in the certification unit. KamchatNIRO stated that optimal production of chum salmon is achieved with a minimum aggregate escapement of 800,000 fish, but it was not clear if this was an official management target or a general guideline. The clients did not provide escapement data sufficient for assessing management performance relative to escapement targets. Escapement data available from NPAFC suggests that even-year pink salmon escapements have been fluctuating around their escapement targets, but escapements of coho and chum salmon have been below their targets. Available escapement data for sockeye salmon was insufficient to assess management performance in the certification unit.

Based on the information provided, even-year pink salmon could likely achieve MSC certification with conditions as long as data is provided verifying that escapements are generally meeting escapement targets. However, the likelihood of certification is somewhat uncertain due to the large number of “yellow” scores for the Principle 2 and 3 indicators that could result in Principle scores less than 80.

It is unlikely that the other species would achieve MSC certification based on the information provided for this pre-assessment. Information available from NPAFC suggests that Western Kamchatka chum and coho salmon are not meeting escapement targets. The data provided was insufficient for determining whether odd-year pink salmon and sockeye salmon are meeting escapement targets. Information is needed from KamchatNIRO to justify the escapement targets and demonstrate that stocks are generally meeting the targets.

2. Introduction

2.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment This report provides a pre-assessment of salmon fisheries according to standards of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for the clients “Vityaz-Avto Co” Ltd and “Delta Co” Ltd. The client companies fish for the following Pacific salmon species: pink salmon (Oncorhynchus


gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and coho salmon (O. kisutch). This pre-assessment includes pink, chum, and coho salmon caught in the Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, and Ozernaya rivers, as well as sockeye salmon for the Vorovskaya, Kol, and Opala rivers. Ozernaya River sockeye salmon have already been MSC certified under a separate assessment. This report only provides recommendations; full certification will be conducted completely independently of pre-assessment results. A pre-assessment of a fishery does not attempt to duplicate a full assessment against the MSC standard. A full assessment involves expert team members and public consultation stages that are not included in a pre-assessment. A pre-assessment provides a provisional assessment of a fishery based on information provided by the client.

2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery Every attempt was made to obtain the information necessary to conduct a thorough pre- assessment of this fishery. Nevertheless, some key data was not provided to the team. Specifically, the lack of escapement data hindered a robust assessment of management performance and stock status. The limited escapement data obtained from NPAFC was helpful but may not be entirely appropriate for the purpose for which it was used.

The information provided to the team was translated from Russian into English. The translations were sometimes unclear, requiring the team to request clarification or infer the meaning of the text. Additionally, information requests had to be translated from English to Russian, potentially leading to some confusion. As a result, some of the information provided may have been misinterpreted, even though efforts were made to fully understand the information.

2.3 Unit(s) of certification The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specifies that the unit of certification is "The fishery or fish stock (biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework." The fishery under pre-assessment is therefore defined as follows: Species: Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, chum salmon O. keta, sockeye salmon O.

nerka and coho salmon O. kisutch. Geographical Area: Sea of Okhotsk, Western coast of Kamchatka peninsula, including the

Ust-Bolsheretsk and Sobolevsky districts and within the Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, Golygina, Koshegochek and Ozernaya rivers.

Method of Capture: Coastal trap nets, length up to 2000 m in the sea, and beach seines,

length up to 200 m in rivers. In the area indicated by companies for fishing, there are 14 marine fishing parcels and 4 river parcels in the Kol, Golygina, Koshegochek and Ozernaya rivers belonging to “Vityaz-Avto Co” Ltd, and 7 marine parcels and 2 river parcels in the Opala and Ozernaya rivers belonging to “Delta Co” Ltd.

Stock: Populations of four species of Pacific salmon (pink, chum, coho, and sockeye)

spawning on the western coast of Kamchatka (Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, Koshegocheck, Golygina and Ozernaya rivers and also adjacent rivers whose populations can be intercepted by the fishery under pre-assessment).

Management System:

• Federal Agency for Fisheries • SVTU, regional divisions of Federal Agency for Fisheries.


• Regional (Kamchatka) Fisheries Research Institute, KamchatNIRO. • Regional (Russian Far East) Fisheries Research Institute, TINRO-Center. • All-Russia Fisheries Research Institute, VNIRO. • SevvostRybvod.

3. Description of the fishery 3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme Based on the information provided, the fishery is within scope of MSC certification. The fishery does not include introduced species or inseparable or practically inseparable (IPI) species. The fishery targets naturally reproducing salmon stocks returning to rivers within the certification unit. There are no hatcheries located within the proposed certification unit. Therefore, this is not considered an enhanced fishery.

3.2 Overview of the fishery The fishery occurs in the Western part of Kamchatka Peninsula on the Sea of Okhotsk coast and the lower reaches of six large coastal rivers, the Ozernaya, Koshegochek, Golgina, Opala, Kol and Vorovskaya (Figure 1). The region of the fishery is remote and largely undeveloped. Watersheds are in excellent condition and salmon habitat diverse and highly productive. The human population is concentrated in about 10 small communities, the largest of which are Usk-Bolsheresk and Oktiabrsky. The local populations have been declining due to limited economic opportunity in the region. These rivers are all considered remote as they are not accessible by main roads, although there is a road built for the natural gas pipeline near the middle section of the Kol River. There is one traditional fishery parcel for indigenous peoples and two sport fishing parcels in the Vorokskaya River basin.

Historical Background Fishing is and has always been the primary occupation of people of western Kamchatka, including indigenous peoples. The Russian fishery on the Ozernaya started in 1897, and the first settlement was founded in 1907. Industrial salmon fisheries have operated in western Kamchatka at least since 1914, when a cannery began operation on the Ozernaya River. The fishing industry expanded during the Soviet period, although catches began to decrease in the 1950s due to interceptions by Japanese driftnet fishing and unfavorable ocean conditions for salmon production. A series of events fundamentally changed the fishery situation by the early 1990s. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a period of severe economic disruption. At the same time, salmon returns increased considerably following improvements in ocean conditions for salmon throughout the North Pacific during the 1980s and an international ban on unregulated high seas drift net fishing outside of the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone in 1993. Fishing parcels and fishing rights were also redistributed during the economic crisis. Until Perestroika, fishing was conducted by very few governmental enterprises. After 1990, commercial fishery access was leased to small private companies.

Two such fishing companies are included in this assessment: Vityaz-Avto and Delta. Vityaz-Avto was founded in 1997 and grew quickly. The company has three branches in the western coast of Kamchatka in the towns of Ozernovsky, Oktiabrsky and Sobolevo. Most production is sold abroad to Japan and Canada. Delta has operated in the Ozernaya and Opala river areas of Kamchatka since 1998. More than half of total production is exported to Asian countries.

The Ozernaya sockeye salmon fishery operated by Vityaz-Avto and Delta achieved MSC certification in September 2012. The fishery is scheduled for the second surveillance audit in the fall of 2014.

Fishing Methods


The fishery is prosecuted with fixed trap nets (coastal trap nets) in nearshore marine waters, and with beach seines in the lower reaches of rivers. Coastal trap nets typically consist of a mesh lead set perpendicular to shore to guide fish into one or more mesh wing-style traps, where narrowing mesh fykes make it difficult for fish to exit. The mesh lead or “fence” is usually 1100 -1300 m in length and 11-15 m deep at low tide. The mesh size of the central net and the traps is chosen to prevent fish from being gilled in the net cells. Traps are constructed of net mesh on a steel frame, typically have a wall height of 9 m, and do not reach bottom. Coastal trap nets are effective because tidal exchange is relatively small and littoral areas are wide and gradually-sloped. Traps have proven to be especially efficient at capturing fish migrating in the coastal area. This type of fishing is passive, and catch per unit effort is related to the intensity of the run strength. Coastal trap nets are operated from small boats. Catch is typically crowded from traps and dip netted or brailed into boats for transport to onshore fish processing facilities where they are off-loaded.

Beach seines are long nets used to encircle and crowd fish toward shore where they can be captured. These seines are typically 200 m in length. Seines are fished in the shallow waters of the lower river where the current is relatively slow. Seines are set from small skiffs and hauled from shore with vehicles and by hand.

The companies pay considerable attention to investing in community development projects of the towns in western Kamchatka where they are based. In addition to employing the local inhabitants in fish processing factories, the company contributes to maintaining the social sphere of the town and has numerous letters of gratitude from different organizations in the area.

Fishermen are hired by contract – they have a salary and then may receive extra pay based on catch results.

The companies generally process and freeze all of their catch at their own fish processing factories. Fish processing plants are operated by the fishing companies near the mouths of the Ozernaya, Koshegochek and Opala Rivers near the areas where main fishing activities occur. These plants process the catch from sea nets and lower river fishing parcels. Local catches are delivered by boats to the processing plants.

Organization and User Rights The fishing areas are situated in the western part of the Kamchatka Peninsula. Administratively, these areas are a part of the Ust-Bolsheretsk and Sobolevsky districts of the Kamchatka Krai of the Far East Federal Region of the Russian Federation. In terms of fisheries subdivision, these areas are a part of Kamchatka-Kuril and Western Kamchatka subzones of Sea of Okhotsk.

The Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, and Ozernaya rivers are not located near main roads, although there is a road built for the natural gas pipeline near the middle section of the Kol River. There is one traditional fishery parcel for indigenous peoples and two sport fishing parcels in the Vorokskaya River basin.

Fishing parcels consisting of trap or seine sites are leased to fishing companies under a long-term lease arrangement. Fishing parcels were distributed for period 2008-2027. Only commercial fishing occurs in sea fishing parcels. River parcels may be allocated for commercial fishing, sport fishing or hatchery purposes. Vityaz-Avto leases 18 fishing parcels, 14 of which are in the sea, and 4 of which are in the Ozernaya, Koshebochek, Golygina and Kol rivers. Delta leases 9 fishing parcels, 7 of which are in the sea, and 2 of which are in the Ozernaya and Opala rivers (Table 1).


Figure 1. Western Kamchatka areas covered under this pre-assessment.

±

Ozernaya

Opala

11.07.14

0 160

Kilometers

Kol

Vorovskaya

Koshegochek

Golygina


Table 1. List of fishing parcels permitted for use by Vityaz-Avto and Delta companies. Parcels denoted with a * are rarely fished in practice.

Owner Parcel Water body Latitude Longitude Length/

width (m) Processing

location Deg min sec Deg min sec

Vityaz-Avto

752 Ozernaya river

Low point - 1000 m from the mouth, top point - 1200 m from the mouth (south part of the island) 200/'-- Ozernaya

189 Sea of Okhotsk 51 48 20 156 30 06 300/2000 Ozernaya and Koshegochek


197 Sea of Okhotsk 51 39 43 156 29 58 300/2000 Ozernaya 203 Sea of Okhotsk 51 32 44 156 29 07 300/2000 Ozernaya 204 Sea of Okhotsk 51 31 38 156 29 07 300/2000 Ozernaya

746 Golygina river

Low point - 4000 m from the mouth, top point - 6200 m from the mouth (left shore) 2200/--

Ozernaya and Koshegochek

747 Koshegochek

river

Low point - 1000 m from the mouth, top point - 1500 m from the mouth (both shores) 500/--

Ozernaya and Koshegochek

697 Kol river

Low point - 3000 m from the mouth, top point - 5000 m from the mouth (both shores) 2000/-- Kol

90 Sea of Okhotsk 53 48 18 155 57 04 300/2000 Kol 89 Sea of Okhotsk 53 49 22 155 56 49 300/2000 Kol

*81 Sea of Okhotsk 54 03 11 155 52 29 300/2000 at sea (vessels) *80 Sea of Okhotsk 54 04 15 155 52 03 300/2000 at sea (vessels) *79 Sea of Okhotsk 54 05 18 155 51 41 300/2000 at sea (vessels)




*60 Sea of Okhotsk 54 23 55 155 44 51 300/2000 at sea (vessels)

Delta

755 Ozernaya river

Low point - 2000 m from the mouth, top point - 2400 m from the mouth (left shore) 400/-- Ozernaya

740 Opala river

Low point - 1000 m from the Khetik river mouth, top point - 2000 m from the Khetik river mouth (both shores) 1000/-- Opala

177 Sea of Okhotsk 52 03 43 156 28 40 300/2000 Opala 178 Sea of Okhotsk 52 02 39 156 28 49 300/2000 Opala 179 Sea of Okhotsk 52 01 34 156 28 56 300/2000 Opala 180 Sea of Okhotsk 52 00 30 156 29 02 300/2000 Opala 181 Sea of Okhotsk 51 59 25 156 29 08 300/2000 Opala

*184 Sea of Okhotsk 51 54 49 156 29 31 300/2000 at sea (vessels) 198 Sea of Okhotsk 51 37 13 156 29 53 300/2000 Ozernaya


3.3 Principle One: Target species background Five species of Pacific salmon have historically had commercial significance – pink, chum, sockeye, coho and Chinook. However, Western Kamchatka Chinook stocks have been depressed, and commercial fishing for Chinook salmon has been closed since 2010. Masu salmon are less numerous, and there are no official statistics for this species. Therefore Chinook and masu salmon are considered as bycatch species for this assessment. A few species of char are commercially harvested and assessed for recommended catch, but their relative commercial importance is low. They are treated as retained species in this report.

All six species of Pacific salmon (pink, chum, sockeye, coho, masu and Chinook salmon) are semelparous and anadromous Pacific salmon species. They have both marine and freshwater lifecycle stages. Adults spawn in freshwater, where their offspring hatch and rear before migrating to the ocean. The salmon grow large in the ocean, and then they mature into adults and return to freshwater to spawn and renew the lifecycle. These species die after spawning.

Salmon are not considered a Low Trophic Level (LTL) species. However, they do provide an important ecological role as described in Section 3.4.5.

3.3.1 Pink salmon Distribution and Life history

Pink salmon are found throughout the north Pacific, including streams of western Kamchatka. Large populations occur in the Ozernaya, Koshegochek, Golygina, Opala, Kol and Vorovskaya rivers. Russian pink salmon generally range into ocean waters of the Okhotsk and Bering seas.

Pink salmon return to western Kamchatka primarily in July and August, and spawning occurs in August and September. Spawning typically occurs in the lower and middle reaches of streams, rivers and sometimes the intertidal zone at the mouths of streams. After spawning all pink salmon die.

Like all salmon species, pink salmon bury their eggs in redds (nests) excavated by the females in coarse gravel or cobble-size rock, often in shallow riffles and the downstream ends of pools. Fecundity typically averages about 1,500 eggs per female. Fry hatch after several months, then spend several weeks in the gravel before emerging in late winter or spring to migrate downstream into salt water. Pink salmon fry spend only few days in river.

In Western Kamchatka, pink salmon typically average 1.2 - 1.5 kg in body weight and 50 cm in body length. All pink salmon spawn at the age of two years. As a result, this species forms two independent populations in the same river, entering the river in odd and even years. The odd-year or even-year cycle will typically predominate, although in some streams odd- and even-year pink salmon are about equally abundant. Cycle dominance will occasionally shift so that the previously weak cycle becomes the most abundant. In Western Kamchatka, a massive run of pink salmon in 1983 resulted in an excessive spawning escapement that was followed by depressed odd-year runs (Shevlyakov 2014). The even-year run is now dominant.

Genetic analyses of pink salmon stock structure have generally identified broad geographical patterns but little or no difference among local populations in any given region. Genetic differences appear to be less pronounced in Asian pink salmon as compared to North American pink salmon (Zhivotovsky, personal communication). Natural straying among local populations of pink salmon is generally assumed to be more significant than in other salmon species (Zhivotovsky 2010). However, the available information on pink salmon genetic stock structure and straying patterns is not conclusive. It remains unclear whether genetic methods found no stock structure because none existed or because the available methods lacked sufficient power to identify differences. More recent genetic analyses of pink salmon using microsatellites have been similarly inconclusive.


Stock Structure

Pink salmon are the most abundant salmon species in western Kamchatka (Semko 1954). This species is currently at historical levels of high production throughout the western Pacific including the rivers in this assessment.

Run sizes during odd years have been much smaller than in even years (Figure 2) since 1983, when a very large spawning escapement resulted in a shift in cycle dominance from odd to even years. Directed fishing on pink salmon is limited to the even years. Sea nets, where the majority of harvest typically occurs, are not open during odd years, when the catch of pink salmon is incidental to harvest of other salmon species at fishing sites within the river.

Figure 2. Catch and escapement of even- (top) and odd-year (bottom) pink salmon to Western Kamchatka, 2004 to 2013. Source: North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission reports.

Spawning escapement of pink salmon is estimated based on expansions of aerial counts in a series of index areas throughout western Kamchatka. These surveys estimate that millions of pink salmon spawn in western Kamchatka Rivers during dominant (even-numbered) years (Figure 3). Estimates are also made in subdominant (odd-numbered) years. However, Shevlyakov and Maslov (2011) reported that odd-year escapement estimates are subject to significant error and cannot be used as a prognostic parameter.


Spawner-recruitment analysis of the aggregate western Kamchatka return suggests that maximum sustained yield (MSY) is produced by spawning escapements of approximately 40-50 million pink salmon (Figure 4, Shevlyakov 2006). Spawning escapement data points are generally distributed around this range for dominant (even-year) broods (Figure 2 top).

Figure 3. Total run (bars) and commercial harvest rate (line) of Western Kamchatka even-year pink salmon, 1958–2012.

Figure 4. Spawner-recruit relationship (Sheppard’s model) for Western Kamchatka pink salmon.

3.3.2 Chum salmon Distribution and Life history


Chum salmon have the widest distribution of any of the Pacific salmon. Chum salmon generally spawn in low gradient temperate and subarctic rivers and streams throughout the north Pacific. They range south to the Sacramento River in California and the island of Kyushu in the Sea of Japan. In the north they range east in the Arctic Ocean to the Mackenzie River in Canada and west to the Lena River in Siberia. Chum salmon are abundant in western Kamchatka streams, including the rivers considered under this pre-assessment.

Chum salmon generally return to western Kamchatka from late June through October. Numbers peak in late August and early September. Chum salmon typically reach their spawning grounds in August and September. Spawning typically occurs in the lower and middle reaches of streams, rivers and sometimes the intertidal zone at the mouths of streams. Spawning areas often occur in areas of upwelling springs. After spawning all chum salmon die.

Western Kamchatka chum salmon typically average about 3 to 4.5 kg in body weight and 60 to 70 cm in body length although there has been a general decrease in size in recent years (Shevlyakov 2014). Age of maturity is 2 to 7 years. Age composition varies over time, but 4 and 5 year old fish (age 3+ and 4+) typically account for 75% or more of the annual run. Older fish are usually more abundant in the early portion of the run, and younger fish are more abundant in the later portion of the run (Zavarina 2009, 2010, 2011).

Fecundity typically ranges between 2,100 and 3,100 eggs. Eggs incubate over the winter before hatching in early spring. Juvenile chum salmon spend one to two months in fresh water after hatching and then migrate to the sea in the spring.

Stock structure

Kamchatka chum include spring, summer and fall runs returning in June, July-August, and October-November, respectively. Different runs typically spawn in different portions of a basin, with earlier-returning fish generally traveling farther upstream. Genetic analyses have identified system and run-specific differences among chum populations in other regions. All three run types are present in the area of this assessment. The early run is significant in the Opala River.

Status

Annual chum salmon runs and commercial harvest rates have steadily increased in western Kamchatka from the very low levels observed in the 1970s (Figure 5). Total run size averaged about 420,000 fish from 1970-1985 with commercial catch averaging 300mt and an associated exploitation rate averaging 20%. From 1986-2000, run size averaged 1.3 million fish with commercial catch and exploitation rate averaging 2,000 mt and about 44%, respectively. Since 2010, annual runs have averaged about 5 million chum, exploitation rates have averaged 90% for an annual average harvest of 17,000 mt. A similar pattern of increasing annual runs, commercial catches and exploitation rates for chum salmon has been evident in the rivers covered in this pre-assessment (Figure 6).

Chum salmon abundance has been increasing thoughout the North Pacific in recent years (NPAFC 2012). Historically, incidental mortality of chum salmon in the Japanese drift net fishery in the open ocean is blamed for variations in coastal abundance of this species. Large catches in Kamchatka from 1941-1950 coincide with the reduction and cessation of the drift fishery. Returns declined from 1960 - 1980 with the resumption of the drift fishery and climatic factors. Numbers rebounded beginning in the 1990s with regulation of the high seas drift net fishery and favorable ocean conditions for salmon throughout the north Pacific.


Figure 5. Total run (bars) and commercial harvest rate (line) of Western Kamchatka chum salmon, 1970–2013.

Figure 6. Total annual run (catch & escapement) and commercial catch as percent of total of chum salmon run for the Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, and Ozernaya Rivers, 1991 – 2013 (Shevlyakov 2014).

The relationship between juvenile production and the number of chum salmon spawners is not as clear as for other species of Pacific salmon. It is thought that juvenile chum production is related more to the relative abundance of spawning pink salmon (Shevlyakov and Zavarina 2004). Low pink salmon escapements do not provide sufficient nutrients for foraging juvenile fish, and excessively large (greater than 60 million) pink salmon escapements can reduce chum egg survival due to associated oxygen depletion in the system. KamchatNIRO believes that in order to provide enough eggs to adequately seed available habitat, the total chum salmon escapement to Western Kamchatka must not be fewer than 800,000 fish (based on forecast materials from KamchatNIRO). However, it is not clear if this is an official minimum escapement target. Information available from the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission suggests that escapements have been below 800,000 fish since 2007 (Figure 7).


Figure 7. Catch and escapement of chum salmon to Western Kamchatka, 2004 to 2013. Source North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission reports.

3.3.3 Sockeye salmon Distribution and Life history

Sockeye salmon occur in systems throughout the north Pacific from Washington USA to Kamchatka. Two large populations comprise the majority of the sockeye salmon return in Kamchatka. These are the Ozernaya in western Kamchatka and the Kamchatka River in eastern Kamchatka. Significant sockeye lakes in Kamchatka include Nachikinskoe, Golyginskoe, Kurilsky and Kambalnoe. Smaller populations also occur in a number of other systems throughout the region. Significant sockeye salmon populations also occur in Western Kamchatka in the Bolshaya system (including Lake Nachikinskoe) and the Palana River. Smaller populations occur in the Kikhchik and in Opala rivers.

The marine life stage of western Kamchatka sockeye salmon has been studied quite well, primarily for the Ozernaya population. After migrating to the sea, smolts spend 2-3 months in the Sea of Okhotsk near their river of origin, and then they migrate southeastward into the western north Pacific and Bering Sea.

In general, sockeye salmon prefer lake and lake-river systems because they rear primarily in lakes and can achieve large abundances in these systems (Bugaev 1995). Sockeye generally rear in the freshwater environment for one year, after which the juveniles migrate to the sea to feed. Important lake-river systems for sockeye salmon in Western Kamchatka are in the basins of the Ozernaya, Bolshaya and Palana Rivers, and this is where the main commercial sockeye salmon fisheries occur. Sockeye salmon production in small and medium river basins is low.

Catches of sockeye salmon in the Vorovskaya, Kol and Opala Rivers are relatively small compared to those of other species such as pink, chum and coho salmon, so they are not targeted directly. Catches from 2000-2012 near these basins varied depending on whether it was an even or odd year. This is likely due to the use of coastal trap nets during even-years when the dominant pink salmon cycle is targeted. This coastal catch likely represents interception of sockeye salmon returning to the Ozernaya River, and to a lesser degree, the Bolshaya River.

KamchatNIRO notes that a sustainable catch is maintained with spawning escapements of 7-10 thousand sockeye salmon in the Vorovskaya, 5-7 thousand in the Kol River; and 15-20 thousand in the Opala River. However, sockeye salmon are caught incidentally in fisheries


targeting other species, and KamchatNIRO states that special measures to increase escapement of this species are not required because the population is stable. Sockeye salmon escapement data was not provided for these systems.

3.3.4 Coho salmon Distribution and Life history

Coho salmon are generally distributed in streams and rivers throughout the subarctic and temperate north Pacific from the Sea of Okhotsk to northern California (Sandercock 1991). Distribution in Kamchatka is generally limited to the southern portion of the peninsula where coho salmon may be found in most mid-large and large bodies of water. Commercially significant populations occur from Palana Village southward to The Kambalnaya River. Significant populations in southwest Kamchatka occur in the Bolshaya River and in the rivers of the Central-West region, including the Vorovskaya, Krutogorova, Pymta, Kol, and Kikhchik. The Bolshaya River is one of the main areas of coho salmon reproduction on the west coast, containing more than 21% of all spawning grounds.

Coho salmon return to freshwater over a protracted period from August to December, spawning as late as February. Spawning typically occurs in a wide range of rivers and streams, including accessible tributaries far upstream. Western Kamchatka coho salmon average 3.0 - 3.5 kg in size but may reach 5 to 7 kg. Adults typically spawn at 3 to 4 years of age after 1 year at sea. Juvenile coho salmon may rear in streams for one to three years before physiologically transforming to smolts and migrating to the sea.

The major rivers of the western coast, such as the Opala, Bolshaya, Kikhchik, Kol and Vorovskaya Rivers have significant populations of coho salmon. Low water temperatures and the presence of shallow gravel areas allow coho salmon to spawn along nearly the entire lengths of the rivers. Coho salmon prefer to spawn in areas with intra-gravel water flow and/or areas with groundwater upwelling. Rivers with significant groundwater upwelling areas typically include two distinct coho salmon runs - summer and autumn (early and late). In years of high coho salmon returns, competition for available spawning area forces some fish to spawn in sub-optimal habitats where the egg survival is poor.

The amount of coho salmon spawning habitat varies by river in Western Kamchatka. The Vorovskaya River is one of the largest rivers and accounts for about 8% of the total spawning grounds along the western coast. The Kol, Opala and Ozernaya Rivers contribute 5.0%, 3.3% and 1.7%, respectively of the coho salmon spawning habitat in Western Kamchatka (archives of A.G. Ostroumov). The greatest densities of spawners are found in groundwater upwelling areas where production potential is higher. Nearly 22% of the spawning habitat in the Kol River is in upwelling areas, compared to 19% in the Opala and 10% in the Vorovskaya River. The Ozernaya has the least amount of suitable coho spawning habitat.

The spawning migration in the rivers of Western Kamchatka is very prolonged. In recent years, the migration timing of coho salmon has undergone significant changes. Previously mature coho salmon would begin to return in large numbers during the first week of August, and commercial fishing would begin in mid-August. In 2012 and 2013, the spawning migration shifted 7-10 days later, especially in the rivers of the Central-Western area. A late-run of coho salmon enters the rivers beginning about September 15-20.

As with other species that have a protracted freshwater rearing period, coho salmon are characterized by a complex age structure that includes up to 8 different age-at-maturity groups. The age composition of the spawning population varies from year to year but often remains consistent for several years. The commercial harvest is almost always comprised of age of 1.1+, 2.1+, 3.1+ fish that reared in freshwater 1 to 3 years and resided one year in the ocean. In some years, the spawning run may include a small number of fish that spent two


years at sea (1.2+ 2.2+), and also a small number of “jacks” or “kaurkas” that return to freshwater the same year they out-migrate to sea (1.0, 2.0, 3.0). On average, the dominant age class in the Vorovskaya, Kol and Opala Rivers is age 2.1+ (i.e. most juveniles resided in the river for two years before outmigrating to the sea (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Coho salmon age structure for some Western Kamchatka Rivers.

Status

Most Western Kamchatka coho salmon populations declined after 1992-1994 but have improved in recent years (Figure 9). There have been several cycles of growth and decline of coho salmon production historically (Zorbidi 2010). For example, one of the largest coho salmon fisheries in Western Kamchatka, the Vorovskaya River, had its highest catch in 1946 (1312 mt), followed by a period of decreased catches. Then the fishery rebounded in the 1960's to the mid 1980's when the annual catch often exceeded 100 mt, and ranged as high as 700 mt. Then the fishery steadily declined through the mid-2000s, ranging from 13.8 mt (1993) to 42.9 mt (2005). In 2010, the Vorovskaya fishery catch reached 312 mt (1.135 million fish). In 2013 the total catch in this river basin was 38.8 mt. However, the reason for the low catch was the late migration timing which resulted in an extended closure of the fishery. As a result, more than 27,000 fish escaped to the spawning grounds in 2013 (Figure 9).


Figure 9. Annual catch (bars) and escapement (lines with square markers) of coho salmon for the Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, and Ozernaya Rivers, 1991 – 2013 (Shevlyakov 2014).

The optimal aggregate escapement range for coho salmon returning to Western Kamchatka rivers is estimated to be 300-350 thousand fish (Figure 10). Total runs of coho salmon have been increasing in recent years, although data reported to the NPAFC suggests that escapement targets have not been reached since 2009 (Figure 11). However, most coho salmon spawn late in the season after aerial surveys have been conducted (Shevlyakov 2014) so escapements are likely under-estimated.

Figure 10. Spawner-recruit relationship (Sheppard’s model) for Western Kamchatka coho salmon based on 1978-1982 and 1987-2008 brood years.


Figure 11. Catch and escapement of coho salmon to Western Kamchatka, 2004 to 2013. Source: North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission reports.

3.3.5 Management Assessment methods

Data collected for fishery management purposes include catch estimation based on daily reporting of commercial fishery landings, fishery catch per unit effort, regular subsampling of the catch for estimation of biological characteristics, and estimation of run size and spawning escapement. Stock assessment data have been collected for all species of Pacific salmon in the area under assessment since the 1950s.

Detailed records on daily harvest are kept because fishermen are paid in part based on their catch volume, and companies are required to maintain detailed records for production and licensing purposes. Fish volumes are recorded upon delivery to the processing plants. All fish delivered to the plants for processing and sale are weighed. Amounts are then recorded at several stages throughout processing. Numbers are reported by the fishing companies to the management authorities who compile the information for each fishing area for weekly reporting to the Anadromous Fish Commission that is responsible for in-season management decisions.

Biological sampling of the catch is conducted periodically throughout the fishing season in fish processing plants by government inspectors. Measurements taken include fish length, weight, sex and age.

Run size and spawning escapement data is estimated using a combination of aerial surveys, ground surveys, and limited sonar counting methods. Aerial surveys are a primary assessment tool throughout Kamchatka due to the numerous rivers and vast area involved.

Aerial surveys have been conducted since 1950 almost without interruption (Ostroumov 1964). Flights are made by helicopter from a height of 50-150 m and by plane from a height of 150-250 m. Counts are made of live fish, carcasses (“snenka”) and/or redds. Surveys are ideally conducted at least two or three times per year, but single peak or maximum counts are sometimes used.

The historical aerial survey program aimed to survey escapements of all Pacific salmon species in all major bodies of water in the region in 600 hours of flight time each year. However, assessment time has been declining over the last decade due to budgetary constraints (Figure 12). Current effort is allocated to high value index areas, and flights are


timed to allow counting of multiple species (Shevlyakov and Maslov 2011). Index areas were established by selecting the most representative areas in the comprehensive historical data set.

Figure 12. Aerial salmon stock survey effort (flight hours) in Kamchatka, 1999-2012.

Counts from index areas are expanded to non-index areas based on historical sampling data. For instance, the Bolshaya is a reference river for the region that includes the Kikhchik, Mukhina, Khomutina, Utka, Mitoga and Bolshaya rivers. Aerial survey effort in western Kamchatka is summarized in Table 13. Approximately 20 flight hours are currently used to conduct aerial surveys of salmon spawning escapements in the Bolshaya River.

Table 13. Aerial survey schedule for salmon spawning escapements in western Kamchatka.

Location Time period Stock counted Flight time Lks. Nachikinskoe, Golyginskoe, Kurilsky & Kambalnoe

Late June – Early July

Early Sockeye 4 hrs

Opala & Golygina rivers Early chum, Chinook Late Sept – Oct Coho 4 hrs

Vorovskaya, Kolpakova & other rivers

Late June – Early July Early Chinook 5 hrs

Bolshaya River

Late July Early sockeye, Chinook 5 hrs August - 3rd week Pink, Chum 5 hrs Early September Sockeye, Chum, Coho 5 hrs October - middle Late Chum, Coho 5 hrs

Kikhchik & Kolpakova rivers

Late July Sockeye, Chinook 10 hrs August Pink, Chum, Late 10 hrs


Chinook Late September Sockeye, Chum, Coho 10 hrs

Oblukovina & Icha rivers

July - 2nd half Sockeye, Chinook 6 hrs

August Pink, Chum, Late Chinook 6 hrs

Late September Sockeye, Chum, Coho 10 hrs Tigil & Palana rivers Late Aug – Early Sept Pink, Chum, Coho 7 hrs

In addition, ground surveys are used to supplement aerial surveys. Counts are made weekly or every other week in each of the Bolshaya, Opala and Kikhchik rivers. Ground surveys also include smaller streams not included in aerial surveys. Biological samples are collected concurrently by beach seine. Fishing associations and several fishing companies currently help support the stock assessment program by providing food, accommodation and transportation for survey crews.

Remote escapement estimation methods being evaluated as alternatives include hydroacoustic methods and photo and video recording. Similar equipment has been used in eastern Kamchatka (Degtev et al. 2012) and Alaska. Hydroacoustic equipment was tested in the Kikhchik River in 2013 for coho salmon, but effectiveness was limited due to an unseasonal flood.

Reference Points

Optimum escapement objectives are established by KamchatNIRO for most salmon species and management area based on analysis of historical production patterns. In most cases, this involves stock-recruitment analysis where comparisons of numbers of progeny vs. parents (for example using Sheppards model) are used to calculate spawning escapements that produce maximum levels of sustained yield. Species summaries in this report included a number of examples of these stock-recruitment analyses. In most cases, stock-recruitment analyses were based on aggregate run reconstructions for multiple rivers across western Kamchatka. This was the case for pink and coho salmon. It is possible to define river specific spawning targets by apportioning the totals based on relative population sizes in the various areas, however it is not clear if this is actually done. It is clear that biologists fly individual rivers during the fishing season to assess relative spawning densities for in-season management purposes (E.A. Shevlyakov, personal communication, July 28, 2014). Formal limit reference points are not used in management of salmon fisheries in Russia.

Management Strategy

For management purposes, the Kamchatka peninsula coastal zone is subdivided into several management units (six in the Western Kamchatka coast). Each management unit contains a number of fishing parcels.

Preseason run forecasts are made for each salmon species by the Fisheries Research Institute (KamchatNIRO). The fishery management agency (FAR) approves a recommended annual catch for each fishery subzone based on this forecast. The pre-season forecast is currently used primarily for planning purposes and to establish quotas for some non-commercial fisheries. The forecast was historically used to establish total allowable catches and quotas for fishing companies. However, the quota system has been replaced with an “Olympic” system where fishing companies operate in designated areas and periods and are allowed to harvest fish freely while the fishery is open, as opposed to being limited by a specific allocation. Harvest quotas are still established for the fishery as a whole in each river, but these quotas can be adjusted in-season based on commercial catch and escapement data.

The fishery is managed in-season with time and area openings and closures based on catch, biological characteristics of the catch, run size and escapement information. The timing and frequency of escapement surveys may not be sufficient to accurately manage the


fishery in-season, but the escapement data are used to assess management performance at the end of the season each year (E.A. Shevlyakov, personal communication, July 28, 2014).

A primary means of controlling harvest in freshwater is through the use of passing days when fishing with beach seines is prohibited. On larger rivers, passing days are managed by river zone (area closures are staggered) because the fishery is spread over a large area through which fish need to pass. In smaller rivers, fishing areas are more concentrated, so passing days are typically applied to the entire river. For instance, there are typically two passing days per week on the Opala River, where only three users are concentrated in the lower river.

Areas and dates that sea nets can be fished are also regulated. Regulations may take the form of temporary closures where leads and traps are tied up to allow fish to pass, or season-long closures where nets are removed. Sea nets are very effective and can take up to 90% of the catch if unregulated. The majority of sea nets are typically fished only during even years when the dominant cohort of pink salmon is returning.

During large pink salmon runs, the potential harvest exceeds the capacity of the fish processing plants, and so fishing companies voluntarily reduce their fishing time even when the fishery is open. In this case, harvest rates are effectively reduced by capacity limitations even when passing days are cancelled due to large escapements. Escapements of other salmon species may benefit in large pink salmon years due to this effect. However, excessive pink salmon escapements are believed to have a negative impact on chum salmon production due to oxygen depletion resulting from decaying carcasses and fungal infections (Krokhin and Krogius 1937, Shevlyakov and Zavarina 2004).

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background 3.4.1 Retained Species For the purposes of this assessment, retained species are defined as those that provide a commercial value significant enough to warrant processing and sale (and thus an economic incentive for capture). Other species that are not typically processed for commercial value are treated as bycatch. Some bycatch species are released at fishing sites, and additional sorting occurs at the processing plants.

In addition to pink, chum, sockeye and coho salmon, the primary species retained and processed by the fishery are char species. No other species is classified as a retained species for this assessment.

Char

Two species of char (kunscha) are associated with this fishery: Dolly varden (Salvelinus malma) and white-spotted (S. leucomaensis).

Arctic char S. alpinus malma does not occur in the fishery area but is present in some other parts of Kamchatka according to Leman and Esin (2008).

Char are widely distributed and abundant throughout the Kamchatka region. Life history variation of these species is diverse and includes anadromous and resident individuals. Char are caught throughout the fishing season, but numbers vary by month. Char generally move upstream following in-migrating coho salmon during late summer and return back downstream along with the juvenile salmon outmigration in spring. Char abundance throughout the region is believed to be increasing.

Char are retained during commercial salmon seasons and sold (Figure 13). The proportion of char in the total salmon harvest varies from year to year due to differences in pink salmon abundance between even and odd year runs (Figure 14). The proportion also varies from


river to river but does not exceed 3% of the total catch in any river on average (Shevlyakov 2014).

Figure 13. Catch of char (mt) and percent of the total commercial catch in the Golygina and Koshegochek Rivers, 2004 to 2013.

Figure 14. Char catch as a percent of the total commercial catch in the Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, and Ozernaya Rivers, 1994 to 2013. Char catch data was not available for every year and river.

3.4.2 Bycatch Species There is no official reporting of bycatch such as cod, flounder, silver smelt and birds in these fisheries (Shevlyakov 2014). It is believed that the bycatch of these species is small or non-existent, representing a negligible portion of the commercial harvest. Flounders and jellyfish are the most commonly observed bycatch species in the marine trap nets, and smaller flounder may be caught in beach seines. KamchatNIRO reports that bycatch species are typically released alive at the capture site (Shevlyakov 2014).

A bycatch monitoring study was conducted in the Ozernaya sockeye fishery in 2011 and supports the claim that bycatch represents a negligible portion of the commercial catch (Table 2) (MRAG 2012). However, it was reported that trap net and seine fishers generally keep the entire catch of all target and non-target species alive until it gets loaded into boats


or trucks for delivery to the processor. Fishers typically don’t handle fish directly since the catch is dipped or brailed from the trap or seine; however, an attempt is made to remove bycatch species while the catch is removed from the nets. Fishers might brail only commercially-important species, while leaving more bottom-oriented bycatch species (like flatfish) behind until they are ready to empty the net completely. If discarded, flatfish and cottids probably stay alive because they are very resistant to handling. Table 2. Bycatch reported for marine and river fishing site samples at the Vityaz-Avto Ozernaya processing plant (taken from MRAG 2012).

Fishing area Totals Species Marine River Number % Number of net days 38 13 51

Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) 364 106 470 84.2% Japanese sandfish (Arctoscopus japonicas) 69 14 83 14.9% Sculpin (Melletes papilio) 2 0 2 0.4% Rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata) 0 1 1 0.2% Longhead dab (Limanda proboscidea) 0 2 2 0.4% Fish/sample 11.4 9.5 10.9

Other species that may occasionally be caught in the fishery but which may not be retained include Chinook and masu salmon.

Chinook salmon

Commercial fishing for Chinook salmon has been closed in the fishery area since 2010. Commercial fishing of Chinook salmon was also significantly reduced in years prior to 2010, and in some years (2000, 2006, 2008) it was totally absent. Current commercial fishing seasons are timed to minimize Chinook harvest, and even minor catches of Chinook in the commercial fishery may result in closure of the fishing area. Management aims to reserve Chinook salmon for sports and traditional fishing. The sport fishery is very popular. Allocations are small and cumulatively account for 40-50 mt.

Chinook salmon production in Asia is primarily limited to the Kamchatka peninsula where significant populations may be found in large rivers of the western and eastern coasts. Although Chinook spawn in nearly all the rivers of the Western coast, only the Bolshaya River has a significant population. In 1988-2010, an average of about 62% of the entire Western Coast Chinook salmon catch came from this river. Moderate runs occur in the Opala and Vorovskaya Rivers.

Western Kamchatka Chinook typically average 6.5 – 9.5 kg in size but may reach 20 to 30 kg. These Chinook return to freshwater from May through July and spawn in July and August. In the Opala River the beginning of the Chinook salmon fishing season historically occurred from June 25 to July 20 with maximum catches in the middle of July. Spawning occurs in large rivers and streams. Adults typically return to spawn at 3 to 5 years of age after 2 to 4 years at sea. Predominate ages are 1.3, 1.4 and 1.2, accounting for 41, 28 and 20% of the return respectively. Age composition has shifted since the 1990s with fewer older fish (5+ 6+) in the run. All adults die after spawning. Juvenile Chinook salmon generally rear in streams for one year, but some individuals may spend from a few months to three years in freshwater before emigrating. Average size is typically greater in the early portion of the spawning migration because the proportion of females in catches is larger, and females are usually larger in size than males.

Harvests, run sizes and escapements of Bolshaya and Vorovskaya Chinook salmon have declined substantially over the last 20 years. Optimum escapement levels of 20 to 30 thousand fish have not be achieved on the Bolshaya in over a decade. Significant levels of illegal harvest on the Bolshaya have apparently exacerbated the decline of this stock. Similarly, Chinook escapements have been declining in the Vorovskaya River over the last decade. Sport and traditional fishing pressure for Chinook salmon has been high in these


areas and is increasing. Spawning escapements in recent years have averaged about 4 thousand fish which is thought to be insufficient for maintaining optimum production and the growing demand for licenses. KamchatNIRO estimates that the optimal escapement for the Vorovskaya River is in the range of 8-12 thousand spawners. Declines in Chinook salmon abundance have been documented throughout the northern Pacific and are apparently related to unfavorable environmental conditions in the ocean.

In contrast, Chinook stocks in other western Kamchatka Rivers have been increasing or maintaining high production in recent years. In recent years, a significant increase of spawning escapement has been observed in the Kol, Kikhchik and Pymta Rivers. The Chinook escapement in the Opala River has been consistently high over the past 10 years. Because of this, KamchatNIRO expects Chinook salmon stocks to rebound in the next few years (Shevlyakov 2014). Chinook status is somewhat better in the Opala and Kikhchik rivers where optimum spawning escapement numbers are 5,000 to 7,500 and 3,000 to 5,000, respectively. Chinook salmon habitat is very limited in the Ozernaya River and is insufficient to support a significant population.

Masu salmon

Masu (cherry) salmon occur in some southern Kamchatka streams which represent the northern distribution of their range. The Opala River supports a small population of masu salmon. Adults typically return to freshwater from March through May at three or four years of age and spend the summer in freshwater before moving to headwaters to spawn in September and October (Groot and Margolis 1991). In western Kamchatka streams, adults average about 46 cm in length and 1.4 kg in weight. Fecundity averages about 2,200 eggs. Spawning occurs primarily in groundwater and spring fed streams or brooks. Adults feed actively while in freshwater. Juveniles typically rear in freshwater for one year before migrating to the sea in the spring and early summer. Due to their run timing in spring, masu salmon are not harvested in significant numbers by the commercial salmon fishery.

3.4.3 ETP Species For the purposes of this assessment, endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) species are those that are recognized by national legislation and/or binding international agreements (e.g., CITES) to which jurisdictions controlling the assessed fishery are party. In this case, national legislation provides for protection of ETP species identified in the Russian Federation Red Data Book, also known simply as the Red Book. The Red Book is based largely on the International Union for Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), which formally designates protected species subject to enhanced regulatory protection. Related natural conservation legislation was adopted in 1980s-1990s, including laws for protection of natural environment and fauna, natural (wildlife) areas under special protection, along with a number of various decrees by the Russian Federation Government. These regulations established conservation priorities for the Red Book’s rare fauna and flora species and liabilities for damage inflicted to the species and their habitats.

The only red listed species present in this area are steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). These as well as a number of other fish, marine mammals and birds are also discussed briefly below. Although no ongoing observer program exists for the fisheries, federal scientists, managers, and inspectors regularly visit the fishing sites and processing plants throughout the season. Over the course of many years of fishing operations, none of these species have been observed to sustain adverse impacts from the fishery. The fishing authorities have determined that the fishery has such low impacts that it requires no specific data collection on interactions with ETP species.

Steelhead

Steelhead are a sea-run form of rainbow trout present in large rivers of Western Kamchatka from the Bolshaya River and northward. Both resident and anadromous (sea run) life histories occur in the same systems and are demographically and genetically related.


Steelhead may reach 10-12 kg but are typically half that size. Kamchatka steelhead enter rivers in September-November, i.e. later than main fishing season of Pacific salmon. Steelhead spawn in May and June after overwintering in freshwater. Spawning may be broadly distributed in rivers and streams. Unlike salmon, not all steelhead adults die after spawning. Adults may reach twelve years of age and spawn repeatedly over their lifespan. Juvenile steelhead may rear in streams for one to several years before migrating to sea.

Steelhead are largely protected from significant harvest in the commercial salmon fishery because run timing of adults falls outside the fishing period. Emigration timing of adults and juveniles occurs prior to beginning of the fishing season.

Marine Mammals and Birds

Information on population abundance of Kamchatka marine mammals is well documented in the scientific literature (Burkanov 1986, 1988; Lagerev 1988; Kosygin et al. 1986). Spotted seals (larga) and sea lions feed largely on fish and are the most likely to be encountered in or around fishing gear.

Steller sea lions are included in the Red book of Kamchatka (2006), and hunting them is illegal. This species inhabits the coast of western Kamchatka year-round, but its distribution and abundance changes seasonally. Approximately 2,500 sea lions gather in a rookery on Sivuchiy Cape during winter before dispersing generally northward during the spring and summer. Small groups or individual sea lions are occasionally observed in the fishing area in the summer. Sea lions sometimes enter the traps where they feed on salmon. Large males sometimes damage nets to predate on salmon.

Other seals are abundant in the area and are frequently observed around the marine trapnets. The most numerous species in the Russian Far East is spotted seal or larga. This species is found in local waters year-round. Large numbers gather in rookeries along the western coast of Kamchatka from February until mid-March. These seals concentrate near estuaries and capes to feed almost exclusively on salmon during salmon spawning runs. There are no official statistics on the impact of commercial fishing on larga seals, but restricted catches are allocated to local peoples to maintain their traditional way of life. However, seals frequently enter marine net traps, eat or damage fish, and then freely leave the nets. Beach seines do not normally affect marine mammals. Take of seals and sea lions is illegal as is the possession of firearms on boats. However, seals are regarded as a nuisance by fishers. KamchatNIRO scientists report that fisherman drive off sea lions from nets by making noise. Firearms may be carried on vessels for personal use and to scare bears. While shooting seals is illegal, it is reportedly an occasional practice.

Other animals present in the area include killer whales, white whales, sea eagles, and cormorants. There was no mention by government officials or fishing industry representatives of other sea mammals or sea birds captured or killed by fishing gear. The passive nature of the fixed trap net gear substantially reduces opportunities for encounters with marine mammals or birds. Beach seines do not normally encounter or affect marine mammals.

3.4.4 Habitats Fishing activities with traps and beach seines do not have a significant long-term impact on habitat. Any effects of stationary trap construction or operation are localized and temporary. The traps are anchored to the sea bottom with large plastic bags full of sand. Permits are required to dig sand, and anchors are removed at the end of the fishing season. Net leads and wings are weighted to rest on the bottom, but trap boxes constructed on steel frames are constructed on floats and do not contact the bottom where mechanical damage to benthic organisms might occur. KamchatNIRO scientists report no harmful effect on bottom flora or fauna. Assessments of this gear in other regions (e.g. Iturup and Sakhalin) have also shown minimal impacts.


Beach seines used in the river and estuary may be dragged along the bottom, but any impact is minor and temporary. The river bottom is comprised of gravel and cobble that is regularly redistributed by flood flows. It is not known whether beach seine sites are physically graded during low water as has sometimes been the case in the Ozernaya River.

3.4.5 Ecosystem Structure and Function The salmon life cycle encompasses a vast ecosystem including natal rivers and lakes, the near-shore ocean, and the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. Salmon migrate across large areas of the North Pacific Ocean that provide major feeding habitats for various salmon stocks originating from Asia and North America (Myers et al. 2009; Urawa et al. 2009). Juveniles gain over 90% of their biomass in the ocean before maturing and returning to freshwater to spawn (Groot and Margolis 1991). Ecosystem effects of salmon harvest and enhancement can be significant.

Marine-derived nutrients from salmon carcasses can have a significant impact on freshwater communities as well as communities in the interface between freshwater and terrestrial environments. The flux of salmon biomass entering fresh water from the ocean can be massive (Gende et al. 2002). It is known that these nutrients form a base for the development of zooplankton in coastal areas, which serve as food for young salmon. In the case of sockeye salmon, these nutrients may also help feed juveniles rearing in lakes. Russian scientists estimate that each pink salmon carcass is 0.5% organic phosphorus (Kizevetter 1971), and in dominant pink salmon years, carcasses provide a large amount of nutrients available to the ecosystem. For example, KamchatNIRO has estimated that the pink salmon run in 1994 contributed about 110,000 mt of carcasses or 550 mt of organic phosphorus to the ecosystem (Shevlyakov 2014). Some dead fish drift to the sea, but the rest remain in the floodplains of the rivers, where within a year carcasses are transformed into organic material that is incorporated into the food chain.

Removal of Pacific salmon by the fishery has consequences for river ecosystems. The relationships between salmon and the population dynamics of their terrestrial predators have been well documented (Gende et al. 2002). Potentially, the most serious of them is the reduction of food for predatory animals and birds, which feed on spawning salmon to a considerable extent. The following animals depend on salmon in their diet: brown bear (Ursus arctos), Kamchatka fox (Vulpes vulpes), sable (Martes zibellina), ermine (Mustela erminea kaneii), mink (Mustela vison), Steller’s sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus), Pacific seagull (Larus schistisagus), whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) and many other mammals and birds. On the other hand, active fishery management might also help stabilize returns by reducing the occurrence of excessively large escapements that can depress future returns under some conditions.

3.5 Principle Three: Management system background The current Russian Federation became independent of the former Soviet Union in 1991. As a federation, it consists of numerous jurisdictions with various levels of autonomy. The legal system is based on civil law system with judicial review of legislative acts. The fisheries management consists of complex levels of authority for management and research, with final decisions centralized in Moscow. The Federal Agency for Fisheries is governed directly by the government of Russia and is the ultimate authority, reviewing recommendations passed up from the local level and passing directives back, as described in the next section.

3.5.1 Management Structure Management of Kamchatka salmon fisheries is administered by Federal and Regional governmental agencies. The Kamchatka Krai, which includes Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous Okrug, is the subject of the Russian Federation and is a part of the Far Eastern Federal Region (Okrug). The Krai is under the direction and control of the Government of the


Russian Federation. Russian fisheries are managed and controlled by the Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) of the Russian Federation, which is located in Moscow and also represented by a local office in Kamchatka. Operational management of all activities is performed by the Governor of the Kamchatsky Krai.

Federal governance

Federal Fishery Agency

The Federal Fishery Agency (FAR) (Федеральное агентство по рыболовству or Federal'noe Agentstvo po Rybolovstvu, http://fish.gov.ru) is an executive authority of the Russian Federation, established by the Presidential Decree No. 724 issued 05.12.2008, by converting the pre-existing Russian Federation State Committee for Fisheries (Rossrybolovstvo). The President issued the Decree No. 863 on 12.30.2008, which established that FAR reports directly to the Government of Russian Federation. The Russian Federation Government Decree of 06.11.2008 No. 444 approved the current Regulations governing the FAR’s operations.

FAR interacts with various agencies at the federal level while controlling its territorial departments. It is responsible for oversight of departments under its jurisdiction, defining the rules and the annual Total Available Catches (TAC) or recommended catches (for those species which are not under TAC regulation, like Pacific salmon), and also defining the areas of fisheries. FAR also conducts communication and coordination with foreign government agencies, international committees and international organizations on issues of fisheries, policy and technical programs related to the application of innovative technologies in the fisheries complex, and preparation of federal and agency-level reports on the fishing industry.

The head of FAR supervises deputies and departments, which are responsible for the management of the fishing fleet, protection and rational use of resources, and reproduction of marine resources and their habitats. FAR is also responsible for monitoring water resources and stocks of commercial species, and for controlling the distribution of TAC/recommended catch among the users. FAR also provides social services relating to fisheries, conducts research and engineering projects, directs federal fishing vessel and fishing ports, and controls the activity of artificial breeding.

Northeastern Territorial Administration of FAR

FAR has territorial departments in all regions of the Russian Federation, which have been created in order to accelerate the implementation of many of the functions of the FAR on the level of Russian Federation subjects. The Northeastern Territorial Administration of FAR (SVTU) (Северо-восточное территоральное управление ФАР, СВТУ) is the local management and enforcement arm of FAR for the Kamchatka Krai and is located in the city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. SVTU has final approval of fishing concessions and in-season fishery management regulation actions (opening and closing fisheries). They give fishing companies permission to harvest, monitor fishing companies and processors to ensure regulation compliance, and patrol streams to reduce poaching activities. SVTU posts all approved management decisions of the Anadromous Fish Commission on its website.

Federal Fishery Research Institutes

FAR includes a network of scientific research organizations conducting both applied and basic research in accordance with the program titled “Scientific and engineering support of Russia’s fishing industry.” The Federal Agency of Fisheries has 15 scientific-research organizations under its direct supervision, nine of which are marine scientific research institutes; they are assigned to appropriate regions on a legal basis and are responsible for the state-level monitoring of stocks and additional resources, and for rational and efficient usage of the bio-resources. The above-mentioned scientific research institutes have a legal status as federal state unitary enterprises. Their activities are regulated by the charters


approved by FAR. The All-Russia Institute for Fisheries Research and Oceanography VNIRO (Всероссийский научно-исследовательский институт Рыбололовства и Океанографии, ВНИРО or Vserossiiskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva i okeanografii) of Moscow is the head institute of fishery related research.

Research for the Pacific aquatic biological resources is conducted by the following scientific regional research institutes: TINRO-Center (Vladivostok) (Тихоокеанский научно-исследовательский институт Рыбололовства и Океанографии, ТИНРО-Центр or Tikhookeanslii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva I okeanografii) with branches in Khabarovsk and Anadyr; MagadanNIRO (Magadan) (Магаданский научно-исследовательский институт рыбного хозяйства и океанографии, МагаданНИРО or Magadanskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva I okeanografii), KamchatNIRO (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky) (Камчатский научно-исследовательский институт рыбного хозяйства и океанографии, KamchatNIRO or Kamchatskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva I okeanografii) and SakhNIRO (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk) (Сахалинский научно-исследовательский институт рыбного хозяйства и океанографии, СахНИРО or Sakhalinskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institute rybolovstva I okeanografii). Study of aquatic biological resources of the Arctic, northern Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Black Sea, Azov Sea, Caspian Sea and internal freshwater bodies is performed by other territorial institutions. KamchatNIRO conducts research of marine and freshwater resources in the Kamchatka region to monitor the status of commercial species, including salmon, and prepares annual forecasts of commercial species and proposes potential catch volumes. Each October, KamchatNIRO issues forecasts for recommended catches of salmon for the next season. The forecast is developed based on the number of salmon required for optimal filling of the spawning grounds (i.e. optimal spawning escapement), the number of juveniles produced in natural spawning grounds (based on sampling of juveniles in the sea and their survivorship there), and numbers of juveniles released from hatcheries (taking into account their survivorship in the sea).

Annual forecasts by KamchatNIRO of potential catch are sent to TINRO-Centre where they are approved in the special Salmon Scientific Council and then sent to VNIRO, which examines and approves the forecast from the Scientific Council. Following the adoption of the forecast, VNIRO sends it to the FAR for approval. Approved forecasts are the basis for the fishery management in the region.

Northeastern Rybvod (SevvostRybvod)

SevvostRybvod (Севвострыбвод) is directly managed by the Federal Fisheries Agency. SevvostRybvod does not occupy as important a role in management of salmon fisheries in Kamchatka as, for instance, the analogous structure, SakhRybvod, in Sakhalin. This is because artificial reproduction in Kamchatka is not as significant as in the Sakhalin-Kuril region. SVTU controls hatchery permitting and management in the Kamchatka Krai. Sevvostrybvod operates five hatcheries in Kamchatka, including two on the Western coast of the Peninsula (Bolshaya river basin).

The Federal Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation encompassing the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Ecology & Natural Resources Use (Rosprirodnadzor; Росприроднадзор) is the federal agency responsible for enforcement and control. It is also responsible for State supervision of usage and protection of water bodies, wildlife and their habitats, federal level wildlife preserves, and environmental protection status.

Federal Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision (Rosselkhoznadzor)

Rosselkhoznadzor (Россельхознадзор) is the Federal enforcement and control agency for biological resources under the Russian Ministry of Agriculture. Responsibilities include accounting for and analysis of violations of technical regulations and other regulatory documentation; supervision of compliance with Russian Federation laws by the state


agencies, local government, and the public; supervision of marine fishery ports and vessels, and administration of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

In total, activities of any enterprise operating on rivers are controlled by 14 different State commissions, but their role is not as significant as those described above.

Public Council for FAR

FAR Policies and Regulation of fisheries are created by a consultative process. In 2008, FAR created the Public Council (PC) (Общественный совет по рыболовству), which facilitates public discussions of accepted and proposed regulations. The PC is composed of a wide range of fishermen associations, environmental institutions, environmental services, the World Wildlife Fund and other interested community organizations. In the consultative process the PC is joined by government agencies and territorial Association of Fishermen, fisheries departments and offices of subjects of Russian Federation. The government policies are finally adopted and implemented following discussions between the PC and the interested parties on the proposed policies.

Far East Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council (FESFC)

The Far East Scientific Commercial Fisheries Council, FESFC (Дальневосточный Рыбопромысловый Совет) is an independent council that includes representatives from the Federal Fisheries Agency, scientific research institutes, non-profit commercial associations of commercial fisheries, minority peoples of the North and Russian Far East, and the union of the pool of professional fishers. FESFC personnel are approved by FAR based on the recommendations of the Russian Federation territorial subjects. However, half of the FESFC members must be from scientific, conservation-oriented, or natural resource agencies. The council has the authority to engage other competent authorities or interested stakeholders as needed, contingent upon votes of approval from its members. Meetings are held in Vladivostok at least twice a year. The FESFC meetings can be attended by all interested parties, where they may express their opinions and participate in the discussions. Central to the responsibilities of the FESFC is the compilation of scientific information concerning the management of marine bio-resources in the Russian Far East for submission to the Federal Fisheries Agency for final approval. In addition, the FESFC reviews and submits recommendations on fisheries regulations, construction of fish hatcheries, and the distribution of quota among its subjects.

Regional Governance

The current management system is regulated by the federal law “On Fishery and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources,” which was amended in 2008 to reflect changes regarding harvest of anadromous fish in inland waters and territorial seas of the Russian Federation (Article 291 of the Federal Law of December 20 2004 № 166-FZ). This law gave the government the authority to assign fishery sections to individual lease holders for up to 20 years, and salmon fisheries management was entrusted to the regional executive authorities. The current system is regionally-based and is much more responsive and effective than the previous system, which was based on Total Allowable Catch allocations and centralized fishery management decisions in Moscow. The current system is widely viewed as an improvement for fisheries management because it can react more quickly to changes in run strength. In addition, fishing companies no longer have an incentive to under-report their catch because management is based on achieving spawning escapement rather than on the quota limitations of a TAC.

Ministry of Fisheries of Kamchatka Krai

Under the new management system, the regional government has responsibility for in-season management of fisheries, although SVTU has final approval. The Kamchatka Ministry of Fisheries is responsible for establishing and operating the Commission on the


Regulation of Harvesting (catch) of Anadromous Fishes (AFC) and providing information on the fishery (such as catch and escapement data collected by KamchatNIRO).

Commission on the Regulation of Harvesting Anadromous Fishes (Anadromous Fish Commission)

The AFC (Комиссия по регулированию вылова (добычи) анадромных видов рыб) has the responsibility for the distribution of recommended yearly catch of salmon among users and identifying areas of commercial, recreational, and traditional (indigenous) fishing. The AFC was established by regional authorities in 2008 to implement management changes required under new federal regulations. The AFC is chaired by the regional governor and consists of stakeholders from government, industry and other interested parties. These include representatives from Federal executive bodies, including the federal security and environmental protection authorities, as well as representatives of the regional government, federal government, public associations, consolidations of legal entities (associations and unions), and scientific organizations. AFC members are suggested by the Governor and approved by the Territorial Administration of FAR (SVTU).

Upon the request of companies, the AFC establishes the recommended catch for a management unit area and accepts applications from the users for specific catch volumes, each of which cannot exceed the total recommended catch for the management unit. The recommended catch is authorized by FAR and accounts for optimal spawning escapements broodstock requirements for hatcheries, and quotas for sport and traditional fishing. The AFC meets regularly and makes in-season fishery management decisions. Based on reports of escapements to the spawning grounds, the AFC makes operational decisions on the time and duration of fishing. For example, the AFC may close the fishery when escapements appear insufficient, or increase quotas to harvest excess spawners and prevent overfilling of spawning grounds. The AFC’s decisions are made through discussions and consultations with stakeholders. All meetings are open to the public. All decisions of AFCs on fisheries management are subject to final approval by the Territorial Administrations of FAR. Meeting minutes and decisions are posted on the Territorial Administration website (http://www.terkamfish.ru).

3.5.2 Preseason Management The local research fisheries institution, KamchatNIRO, plays a key role in producing fishery forecasts. The forecasts use a regression model of parental abundance versus and numbers of progeny produced using Ricker, Sheppard and other models. The basis for forecasts are data obtained by commercial fishery observers, surveys of number of spawners entering rivers (visual surveys conducted by foot or aerial methods, hydroacoustic techniques, mark-recapture, etc.), data on downstream migration of juveniles, and data from trawls of out-migrating juveniles (Figure 15). Catch data are available for the Bolshaya River starting in 1934. In 1945, a KamchatNIRO research station began operating on the Bystraya River, which is a tributary of the Bolshaya River. This year marked the beginning of regular fishery-oriented research in this area. In general, most of data used for forecasts is available starting in 1957.


Figure 15. Main stages of issuing of the forecast (recommended catch) of Pacific salmon (Rassadnikov 2006).

The recommended catch is calculated for each season as the difference between the estimated total number of returning fish and the target number of spawners, taking into account the total area of spawning grounds in the district and the optimal density of spawners, which varies by river and species. At higher than optimal spawning densities, there may be declines in the number of recruits per spawner due to density dependent effects such as resorption of gonads and destruction of previously constructed redds by fish spawning later in the season (redd superimposition). One such overescapement event occurred in northwestern Kamchatka in 1983, when a huge number of spawners entered the rivers because fishing companies had insufficient capacity to substantially reduce the escapement. As a result, mortality of progeny was very high, and the next generation had low returns. Since this period, odd-year pink salmon have remained at low abundances, and even-year pink salmon have been dominant.

Given that dynamics of populations in the same geographic area are usually synchronous, several reference populations are studied in greater detail at fish monitoring stations, and then the forecast for the reference population is extrapolated to the entire area. One of these stations is located on the Bolshaya River. In the downstream part of the Opala and Kikhchik Rivers there are seasonal stations where KamchatNIRO collects data from commercial catches. The proportion of the total catch produced by each population in the area is considered constant and is determined based on long-term fisheries and research data.

The initial forecast provided by the local research team must be approved on several different levels (Figure 16). First, the Research Council of KamchatNIRO approves the forecast. Then KamchatNIRO sends the annual forecast to the TINRO-Center, which summarizes the forecasts from all regional NIROs (Research Institutes for Fishery and Oceanography). Forecasts are discussed by the Far East Salmon Council (FESC) within the TINRO-center, which coordinates salmon research and forecasts in the Far Eastern basin. FESC decides the final forecast of predicted catch and sends the forecast to VNIRO. Due to rejection of a TAC-based management system, approval by the State Ecological Expertise has been excluded from the process. This makes the process more quick and transparent but potentially less precautionary. During the period of approval, discussion with


stakeholders takes place with active participation of representatives from fisherycompanies, local administrations and federal ministries. On the basis of this forecast, FAR approves the recommended annual catch for each fishery subzone. The pre-season forecast is used primarily for planning purposes and may also be used to establish quotas for some non-commercial fisheries.

Figure 16. Procedures for issuing the Pacific salmon recommended catch (Rassadnikov 2006).

Accuracy of salmon run forecasts in Western Kamchatka varies among species. Between 1993 and 2009, the post-season run estimates on average were within 73% of the pink, 16% for chum, 14% for sockeye, 34% for coho and 101% for Chinook salmon forecasts.

3.5.3 In-season process Each coastal set net or river beach seine is served by a crew of fishermen. The crew leaders report directly to the company’s directors. Each crew keeps a fishing log according to the template specified by the FAR. This log records:

• coordinates of the fishing parcel; • daily catch (in mt); • species composition and by-catch;

Each company submits information on the catch volumes and species composition to SVTU daily, and the data are then summarized and reported to the AFC.

The AFC opens and closes fishery times and areas based on estimates of harvest and escapement relative to expectations and objectives (Figure 17). To allow a sufficient number of fish to enter the spawning grounds, the management system closes fishing on certain days (passing days). This system creates a “moving window” for fish to safely approach the spawning grounds (Shevlyakov et al. 2011). Passing days are used regularly in the river (typically two to three days per week). If the spawning escapement is not sufficient, additional passing days are implemented as needed. Decisions on when to open and close the fishery are the responsibility of AFC and are based on the recommendations of KamchatNIRO.


Figure 17. In-season management of the Pacific salmon fishery.

The approved annual recommended catch may be adjusted by AFC based on in-season information on the number of the salmon approaching the fishing areas and spawning grounds. In order to facilitate adjustments, KamchatNIRO monitors the dynamics of catches and biological indicators of salmon in the main fishing areas, migration routes and spawning areas. The monitoring results are used for developing operational guidelines on salmon fishing.

Since 2009 regulations of salmon fisheries were changed not only by the introduction of 20-year leases for fishing parcels, but also by the switch from a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) system to an “Olympic system” of management. As a result, fisheries management became less complicated, and more decisions are being made at the local level.

In Kamchatka, the “Olympic system” was first introduced in 2010. The main principles of this management model are the following:

• determination of each management unit as group of geographically proximate fishing parcels (usually including both sea and river parcels) inhabited by salmon populations with similar biology;

• self-dependence of users in terms of use their gear. In particular, they are not obliged to use all of their gear depending on the situation;

• user-defined quotas, which may be as large as the total quota for the management unit determined by AFC. The companies report their catches to SVTU on daily basis. After the sum of catches by all fishing companies reaches the total quota for the management unit, tfishing is terminated unless AFC decides to increase the quota.

The main advantage of this management system is the opportunity for users to plan their own fishing operations and freely compete with each other. Moreover, it reduces incentives to under-report catches since users are not limited by individual quotas.

Disadvantages are possible exceeding of the quota allocated for the management unit. Because individual companies can have permits to catch up to the total quota, it is the


responsibility of management to make sure the total quota is not exceeded. There have been cases where several companies fishing the same river have had combined catches exceeding the total quota (Shevlyakov 2014). Also, companies may over-report catches (claiming they caught more than the actual catch) in order to hide illegally obtained caviar.

3.5.4 Enforcement SVTU controls the compliance with the law and rules of fishing. SVTU contains a total of 10 departments, including the department of state control, supervision and protection of aquatic resources and habitats with enforcement functions. The department consists of 7 fish protection inspector squads, which are located in every administrative region of Kamchatka Oblast. The fishing area assessed in this report is in the territory of the Ust-Bolsheretsk district department. The level of resource protection depends on the season. During the fishing season, in addition to the usual 6 inspectors, groups of up to 15 inspectors are created. SVTU has responded to concerns of bribery and corruption of enforcement officers by monitoring agents through undercover surveillance and monitoring changes in officer life styles; encouraging reporting by competitors and other parties; and by increasing penalties (including fines and job loss) for convictions. SVTU reports that corruption cases have declined to about one per year, with none in 2013.

SVTU reports that illegal fishing by fishing companies has diminished to low levels since the introduction of the Olympic System and the removal of specific quotas for individual companies. Sanctions on companies are severe, including fines and loss of fishing privileges (cancellation of leases), which reduce incentives to fish illegally or launder illegal roe. SVTU stated that over-reporting of catches for the purposes of hiding purchases of illegal roe have not been detected, and that information obtained from tax inspectors is used to compare roe production with reported fish quantities. As the amount of illegal fishing and misreporting by fishing companies has decreased, the dominant component of illegal fishing comes from poachers from outside the region and from residents, including indigenous people. Most poaching occurs along the Bolshaya River, as a road provides access to much of the river. Shevlyakov (2013) estimated that criminal poaching represents 5-10% of legal catch reported in Kamchatka and traditional poaching represents 3-5%, for a likely range of 8-15%.

Vityaz-Avto and Delta are not currently involved in any legal disputes.

IUU Fishing

During the (political and economic) crisis in the 1990s, many local residents lost their jobs and started fishing illegally to support their families. Due to the high sales prices and ease of transporting caviar, poachers typically stripped the eggs from the females and left the carcasses along the stream bank. As a result, the poaching industry became one of the leading factors influencing salmon population dynamics.

KamchatNIRO quantified the level of poaching from 2005-2012 by studying the areas and time periods where poachers were concentrated, their organizational structure and poaching methods (including differences in methods among lakes and different types of rivers), and official information from enforcement efforts (Zaporozhets et al. 2007, 2007a, 2008). To collect this information they used anonymous polling methods among the local populations, as well as interviews with law enforcement and fishery inspection agencies.

They determined that the best indicator of illegal fishing on salmon populations was the quantitative change in the ratio of males to females from the mouth of the river to the spawning areas. This is because poachers target females to get caviar and tend to release the males that are in spawning condition as they have little value. Poachers selectively catch females on the shallow spawning grounds and dress them to get caviar. As a result, the number of spawning females may differ significantly from the estimated numbers obtained from ichthyological research in the lower reaches of the rivers (data from biological assays) and from aerial surveys.


These studies have shown that poaching of some species has removed 70% or more of the fish entering the river. During the 2000-2006 period, the illegal catch of salmon averaged about 75% of the total runs of fish entering river mouths. This percentage does not include pink salmon; poaching is estimated to remove about 15% of the in-river pink salmon run. Similarly the illegal salmon catch during the 2007-2009 period accounted for 70 to 85% of in-river runs, or 3-19 thousand mt of salmon.

A number of recent changes are believed to have decreased incentives for illegal fishing. These included legislative initiatives that established new regulations for fishing companies which: 1) allowed companies to obtain the long-term fishing parcel permits in 2008, ending management for TAC (total allowable catches) for Pacific salmon fishing that required extensive procedures to approve changes to catch; and 2) the introduction of “the Olympic system” in 2009 (Vinnikov et al. 2012). With these innovations, legitimate fishing companies are no longer limited by individual quotas for salmon. Instead catches are regulated by the total quota for the fishery that is controlled by regulatory measures and resolutions of the Anadromous Fish Commission. Because of these changes, industrial overfishing has ceased to exist, which has reduced illegal catch volumes (Shevlyakov 2013). Illegal catches of Chinook salmon have remained at levels close to those in previous years, but for other species it has sharply decreased. For example in 2012, the percent of chum salmon illegally caught amounted to 9%, and the percent of illegal caught sockeye salmon dropped to 14% (from runs). The total illegal catch of salmon, excluding pink salmon, dropped to 1-3 thousand mt.

At the same time, legislative initiatives were adopted between 2009-2013 that established fishing rights for indigenous people. In 2009, document №631-p decreed the Kamchatka territory to be a traditional place of living for indigenous peoples of the North and allowed them to fish for personal consumption without written permits\documents. Without written documents, it is impossible to evaluate the level of salmon harvest in these communities. Fishing is undoubtedly important for supporting the traditional lifestyle of the indigenous population, but catches are also used for financial gain, and the unreported catch is likely many times the reported catch volume. This creates significant uncertainty in the assessment of salmon populations in basins near traditional indigenous communities in the region (Shevlyakov 2013), such as the Vorovskaya River basin (parcel # 684).

The Ozernaya, Koshegochek, Golygina, Opala, Kol and Vorovskaya Rivers are located far away from main roads and are not as accessible as other rivers of Western Kamchatka such as the Bolshaya River. These rivers lack fishing parcels for traditional (indigenous) fishing, except for one parcel in the Vorovskaya basin). There are some parcels for sport fishing and amateur fishing by rod and reel only. This limits poaching because it is impossible to combine sport and amateur fishing with criminal\illegal net fishing. The only exception is in the Vorovskaya River, where there are two parcels designated for sport and amateur fishing with net fishing gear. These two parcels were created to provide local people with the opportunity to fish for personal consumption. Fishing companies regularly patrol these rivers to reduce illegal salmon fishing. The relationship between the two fishing companies located on the Ozernaya River is regulated by a Fisheries Association. KamchatNIRO believes that the influence of poaching on this river is minimal.

Some of the rivers along the western coast, such as the Kol River, are crossed in the middle reaches by the road serving the natural gas pipeline. This improves access to spawning areas by poaching groups. However, aerial surveys have observed only 2-3 groups of poachers drifting down the river on inflatable boats with nets. Thus, the level of poaching is believed to be limited. Also, numbers of spawning fish observed near the pipeline road and bridge crossings did not appear to be substantially reduced by poaching. KamchatNIRO therefore assumes that the illegal catch in the Kol River is not significant.

3.5.7 Research plan


Until mid-1990’s, the studies of salmon in the Far East Russian Federation were performed according to the complex target program “Salmon,” which was controlled by the former Committee on Fisheries of the Russian Federation (Federal Agency for Fishery). Starting in the mid-1980s, studies were organized into 5-year programs that considered basin-wide and, to some extent, ecosystem-wide approaches. With the participation of regional NIROs, the TINRO-center developed “The concept of the Far East basin program for the complex study of Pacific Salmon for the period 2006-2010” in 2005, and the program was approved by Rosrybolovstvo (now FAR). Following a similar concept, TINRO-center has developed the “Far East basin program for complex study of Pacific Salmon for the period 2007-2012”.

Following the centralization of fisheries research by FAR in 2009, VNIRO developed a comprehensive research program for fisheries of the Russian Federation for 2010-2014 named “Scientific support and monitoring of conservation of reproduction and rational usage of resources of the fisheries base”. Within that program the “Far East basin program of complex study of Pacific Salmon for the period 2010-2014” was adopted, and research directions were preserved. The TINRO-center develops an annual program of complex research of Pacific Salmon, and regional institutes, including KamchatNIRO, develop their own annual research salmon programs. All annual programs are approved by FAR.

The Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala and Ozernaya Rivers have been monitored for decades. KamchatNIRO personnel conduct biological sampling in the basins of these rivers at either permanent or seasonal research stations (Shevlyakov 2014). All species of Pacific salmon are monitored. Typically 100 fish of each species are sampled during the beginning, middle and end of the spawning migration (3x100 fish for each species). In addition, sampling of the commercial catch is regularly conducted. Aerial surveys of the spawning grounds are conducted in all rivers to estimate numbers of spawning fish.

In addition the Opala River has special equipment for ecosystem monitoring within the framework of a multilateral research program titled ‘Environment-forming role of anadromous fish in the formation of the ecosystems of river and lake basins of the Far East’. The ultimate goal of this program is to quantify relationships between the biomass of spawning anadromous fish and ecosystems of rivers, lakes and estuaries of the Far East.

Research objectives aimed at solving fishery issues are as follows:

• To evaluate the drivers of ecosystem productivity and diversity in the context of varying biological input from anadromous fish.

• To highlight the role and contribution of different sources of biogenic components (e.g. anadromous fish, underground sources) to the productivity and diversity of ecosystems.

• To study the role of marine-derived nutrients in the productivity of freshwater ecosystems in as related to fluctuations in climate and anadromous fish abundance.

• To identify periodic cycles of Pacific salmon abundance and relate abundances to the productivity of ecosystems and input of marine-derived nutrients.

• To optimize salmon forecast methods.

• To develop methods for rational use of the Pacific salmon stock, taking salmon population and ecosystem productivity into account.

3.5.8 International Management Russia is party to the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, and a member of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC). The Commission promotes the conservation of anadromous fish in the Convention area, which includes the waters of the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas north of 33 degrees latitude and beyond the 200 mile zones of the coastal states. The Commission requires member states to:


• Prohibit directed fishing for anadromous fish in the Convention Area.

• Minimize the incidental taking of anadromous fish to the maximum extent possible.

• Prohibit retention of anadromous fish caught incidentally in fisheries targeting non-anadromous fish.

The Convention authorizes research fishing for anadromous fish on the high seas if such research is consistent with the NPAFC science program. The parties conduct joint research programs that include exchange of information. The parties have an obligation to enforce the provisions of the Convention.

It is difficult to assess overall effectiveness of fishery management system in Russia, but generalized economic indicators provide some information. Kauffman et al. (2013) reviewed governance indicators of numerous countries for the period 1996-2012 for the World Bank. Governance indicators follow a normal distribution where percentile rank varies from 0 to 100, and a score of 50 reflects the average. The analysis concluded that Russia scores at lower than mean levels, with most indicator scores ranging from 20 to 40. Thus fishery management can potentially be improved.

4. Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Assessment methodologies used The MSC standard of reference used for this assessment is version 1.3, which was released in January 2013. The reporting template of this report is the MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template V1.1, released on October 31, 2013.

The Assessment Tree used for the Western Kamchatka salmon fishery was based on the Default Assessment tree prepared by MRAG Americas for the Narody-Severa Bolsheretsk salmon fishery assessment. The indicators, issues, and elements were edited to more closely match the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3, but to remain as close as practicable to the assessment tree used in recent salmon assessments.

Please note that no enhancement activities occur for the salmon stocks under assessment in the Western Kamchatka fishery, although hatcheries occur in the region (Bolshaya River). The modified assessment tree has performance indicators for stock complexes of salmon that typically include a mixture of local and non-local stocks of the same species. The unit of assessment will include sockeye, chum, pink, and coho salmon fisheries in the Vorovskaya, Kol, Opala, Golygina and Koshegochek Rivers and chum, pink, and coho salmon fisheries in the Ozernaya River. The intent is that all salmon stocks harvested by these companies will be eligible for certification or inclusion in a fishery improvement project (FIP) as long as all performance indicators are met, and non-target stocks meet the requirements for inseparable and practicably inseparable stocks.

For the purposes of this pre-assessment, all pink, chum, coho and sockeye salmon caught in the Western Kamchatka fishery are considered to be target stocks. This includes local salmon stocks of these species produced naturally in rivers that are in and adjacent to the unit of assessment.

4.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment This pre-assessment was primarily a desk-review of information provided by the client and KamchatNIRO regarding the fishery. Denis Semenov with WWF Kamchatka relayed requests for information to the clients and responses to the assessors. Written materials were translated into English.


In addition, Randy Ericksen and Denis Semenov met with Eugeny Shevlyakov, the Deputy Director of KamchatNIRO, in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka on July 28, 2014 to gather additional information on the fishery.

4.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment The following key stakeholders should be consulted during a full assessment:

• WWF Russia • Wild Salmon Center • Andrey Pyatko, Watershed Council and Kamchatka Sport Fishing Association • Association of Fishery Enterprises of the Ozernovsky Region • Other fishing companies operating in the same area as the clients:

• “Ozernovsky Region fish-canning factory 55” JSC • Sole proprietor\ individual businessman “Vazikov” • Fishing Artel “Kolkhoz Krasnyi Truzhenik” • “Alyk” Ltd • “Kholkam” Ltd • Fishing Artel “Narody Severa” Ltd • “STIMUL” Ltd.

4.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries The unit of certification of this fishery overlaps with the unit of certification for the Narody-Severa Bolsheretsk (NSB) salmon fishery currently under MSC Assessment. Specifically pink, chum and sockeye salmon from the Opala River are currently being assessed. The Ozernaya sockeye salmon fishery fished by Vityaz-Avto and Delta is currently MSC certified, but this species is not included in the unit of assessment for the Ozernaya in this pre-assessment.

Thus, harmonization with the NSB fishery will likely be necessary. This will require using the same assessment tree as the NSB fishery, or receiving a variance from MSC in accordance with CR Annex CI.

5. Traceability (issues relevant to chain of custody certification)

5.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further chains of custody Under the MSC program, each processor must also be certified to make the claim that products come from a certified fishery and can carry the MSC logo. The chain of custody would be examined and documented to the extent possible for the client during the MSC Assessment. Salmon landed from authorized fishing parcels by fishing companies within the client group are eligible to enter further chain of custody. Chain of custody begins at delivery of salmon to a processing facility in the client group, or at a point of change in ownership of the fish. Any companies buying from processing facilities that receive certified product are required to have chain of custody certification for further sale and distribution. To use the MSC logo, subsequent links in the distribution chain must enter into a separate chain of custody certification that proves they can track the salmon product to a chain of custody holder.


6. Preliminary evaluation of the fishery 6.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree During the analysis of this fishery, MSC published an update of the Fisheries Certification Requirements including a new default standard for the assessment of enhanced salmon fisheries. This new default standard will apply to all salmon fisheries entering MSC assessment effective April 1, 2015.

6.1.1 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) In general, there is sufficient data for the fishery (although not all information has been provided to date). However, the assessment of retained species outcome is somewhat limited by the lack of stock status information on char species. If the fishery decides to pursue MSC certification, the CAB may wish to consider the RBF for this indicator.

6.2 Evaluation of the fishery The following performance indicators (PIs) were not expected to meet the 60 level: Odd-year pink salmon: 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4. These PIs received red scores because there was no information provided to indicate there was an escapement target or limit reference point established for this stock. In addition, the information available from NPAFC suggests that runs have been declining in recent years. Odd-year pink salmon are caught incidental to target species, but there was no evidence provided of measures for protecting the population from declining to a level that would impair recruitment. All species: 3.2.4: Scoring element b for the 60 level requires that “research results are available to interested parties”. The fact that the client was unable to acquire salmon escapement data from KamchatNIRO despite numerous requests suggests that this level would not be achieved. The following Principle One PIs were not expected to meet the 80 level: Chum, sockeye and coho: 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4. These PIs received yellow scores because there was insufficient justification provided for the escapement target for these stocks In addition, the information available from NPAFC suggests that escapements have been below the escapement targets for chum and coho in recent years, and escapement information was not provided for sockeye salmon to evaluate management performance. Even-year pink: 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4. These PIs received yellow scores because the Olympic management system is relatively new, and KamchatNIRO acknowledges that some problems with exceeding the TAC have occurred. In addition, uncertainties exist due to reductions in aerial escapement monitoring and unknown removals due to poaching in recent years. The following Principle Two PIs were not expected to meet the 80 level: Retained species: 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3. These PIs received yellow scores due to insufficient information needed to evaluate fishery impacts on char stocks. Bycatch species: 2.2.1, 2.2.2 These PIs received yellow scores because more information is needed to evaluate fishery impacts on Chinook stocks. ETP species: 2.3.2, 2.3.3 These PIs received yellow scores because more information is needed to evaluate fishery impacts on steelhead stocks. The following Principle Three PIs were not expected to meet the 80 level: Governance and Policy: 3.1.3. This PI received a yellow score because evidence was not provided that clear long-term management objectives were explicitly stated within management policy.


Fishery Specific Management System: 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.5. These PIs received yellow scores for a variety of reasons including, lack of external review of the management system, lack of transparency, lack of adequate enforcement. The number of indicators ranked yellow under Principles 2 and 3 could result in Principle scores less than 80 needed for certification for any of the species. In addition, Principle 1 scores less than 80 are nearly certain for odd-year pink, chum, sockeye and coho salmon.

6.2.1 Other issues specific to this fishery None identified.


6.3 Summary of likely PI scoring levels Key to Likely scoring level in Table 6.3 Information suggests fishery is not likely to reach SG60 and therefore would fail on this PI <60

Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may need a condition for this PI 60-79

Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI ≥80

Table 6.3. Summary of pre-assessment scoring

Prin-ciple Component PI # Performance Indicator

Likely scoring level Even-pink

Odd- pink Chum Sock-

eye Coho

1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status ≥80 <60 60-79 60-79 60-79 1.1.2 Reference points ≥80 <60 60-79 60-79 60-79 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding NA NA NA NA NA

Management 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 60-79 <60 60-79 60-79 60-79 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and

tools ≥80 <60 60-79 60-79 60-79

1.2.3 Information and monitoring 60-79 60-79 60-79 60-79 60-79 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 60-79 <60 60-79 60-79 60-79

Enhancement

1.3.1 Enhancement outcome ≥80 1.3.2 Enhancement management ≥80 1.3.3 Enhancement information ≥80

2 Retained species

2.1.1 Outcome 60-79 2.1.2 Management 60-79 2.1.3 Information 60-79

Bycatch species

2.2.1 Outcome 60-79 2.2.2 Management 60-79 2.2.3 Information ≥80

ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome ≥80 2.3.2 Management 60-79 2.3.3 Information 60-79

Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome ≥80 2.4.2 Management ≥80 2.4.3 Information ≥80

Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome ≥80 2.5.2 Management ≥80 2.5.3 Information ≥80

3 Governance and Policy

3.1.1 Legal and customary framework

≥80

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

≥80

3.1.3 Long term objectives ≥80 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable

fishing ≥80

Fishery specific management system

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 60-79 3.2.2 Decision making processes 60-79 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement 60-79 3.2.4 Research plan <60 3.2.5 Management performance

evaluation 60-79


References Brenner, R.E., S.D. Moffitt and W.S. Grant. 2012. Straying of hatchery salmon in Prince

William Sound, Alaska. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Published online (DOI 10.1007/s10641-012-9975-7).

Bugaev V.F. 1995. Asian sockeye (freshwater period of life, the structure of local populations, population dynamics) // M: Kolos. 464 S.

Burkanov V.N. 1986. Distribution and numbers of largha seals off the coast of Kamchatka in August 1985 // research on marine mammals of the Northern Pacific ocean in 1984-1985, M: VNIRO, C. 45-50.

Burkanov V.N. 1988. Modern state of the resources of marine mammals in Kamchatka // Rational use of bioresources Kamchatka shelf. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky: far Eastern book. publishing house, Kamchatka separation. S 138-176.

Degtev A.I., E.A. Shevlyakov, K.M. Small and V.A. Dubinin. 2012. Experience of quantitative evaluation of juveniles and manufacturers of Pacific salmon hydroacoustic method on the migration routes in freshwater bodies, " Izv. TINRO. So 170. C. 113-135.

Esin E.V., Leman V.N., Y.V. Sorokin, Chalov S.R. 2012. Population consequences of abundant approach of pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha to the North-East coast of Kamchatka in 2009 // Neirokhirurgii. ichthyology. So 52. № 4. C. 446-455.

Gende, S. M., R. T. Edwards, M. F Willson, and M. S. Wipfli 2002. Pacific Salmon in Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems. BioScience 52:917-928.

Groot, C. and L. Margolis 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada). UBC Press.

Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M, 2013. Worldwide Governance Indicators. The World Bank Group. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home

Kizevetter I.V. 1971. Technological and chemical characteristics of commercial fish of the Pacific rim. Vladivostok: Palizdar, 298 C.

Kosygin, G.M., A.M. Trukhin, V.N. Burkanov, and A.I. Makhnyr. 1986. Rookeries of seals on the shores of the Okhotsk sea // Scientific research works on marine mammals of the Northern Pacific ocean in 1984-1985 M: VNIRO, C. 60-70.

Krokhin, E.M. and F.W. Krogius 1937. Essay Bolshaya River basin and the salmon spawning grounds that are situated in it, Izv. TINRO. So 9. 158 S.

Lagerev, S.R. 1988. The results of aviation examination of the coastal rookeries of seals in the sea of Okhotsk in 1986 // Scientific research works on marine mammals of the Northern Pacific ocean in 1986-1987, M: VNIRO, C. 80-89.

Leman V.N. and E.V. Esin. 2008. Illustrated key of salmonid fishes of Kamchatka. Moscow, Izdatelstvo VNIRO.

MRAG Americas, Inc. 2012. Public certification report: Ozernaya sockeye salmon fishery. Available: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/ozernaya_river_sockeye_salmon/assessment-downloads-1/20120904_PCR_SAL281.pdf .

Myers, K. W., R. V. Walker, N. D. Davis, J. L. Armstrong, and M. Kaeriyama. 2009. High seas distribution, biology, and ecology of Arctic–Yukon–Kuskokwim salmon: direct information from high seas tagging experiments, 1954–2006. Pages 201–239 in C. C. Krueger and C. E. Zimmerman, editors. Pacific Salmon: ecology and management of western Alaska’s populations. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 70, Bethesda, Maryland.

North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC). 2012. International workshop on explanations for the high abundance of pink and chum salmon and future trends. NPAFC Technical Report No. 8.

Ostroumov A.G. 1964. Experience in the application of airborne techniques to estimate the coverage of spawning salmon // Salmon farm in the Far East. M: Nauka, S 90-99.

Rassadnikov O.A. 2006. Forecasted and actual catch of salmon in the Far eastern basin in 1993-2006. Bulleten N 1 Realizatsii ”KontseptsiiDdalnevostochnoi Basseinovoie


programmy izuchenia tikhookeanskikh lososei”. Izdatelstvo TINRO-Tsentr. Vladivostok.

Red data book of Kamchatka. 2006. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka: Kamchatka printing house. Publishing house, So 1. 272 S.

Sandercock, F. K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395 to 446 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Semko R.S. Reserves zapadnosibirsky salmon and their commercial use // Izvestia TINRO. 1954. So 41. C. 3-109.

Shevlyakov E.A. 2013. Structure and dynamics of illegal coastal fishing of Pacific salmon in Kamchatka region in modern period // fisheries. No. 2. C. 58-65.

Shevlyakov E.A. 2014. Report on contract #1/1 and #1/2 from 30.12.2013. Theme; Scientific support of the process of certification according to MSC standards of “Vityaz-Avto” Ltd and “Delta” Ltd.

Shevlyakov E.A. and A.V. Maslov. 2011. River defining the reproduction of Pacific salmon in Kamchatka, as benchmarks for the evaluation of filling spawning Fund, Izv. TINRO. T. C. 114-139.

Shevlyakov E.A. and L.O. Zavarina. 2004. To the question about the features of population dynamics and methods of forecasting of chum salmon stock (Oncorchynchus keta) (Western Kamchatka) / / Research of aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-Western Pacific ocean: Proceedings. scientific works. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky: KamchatNIRO, Vol. 7. C. 181-186.

Shevlyakov, E.A., V.A. Dubynin and A. Bugaev. 2011. Improving environmental responsibility of the resource: practical recommendations for implementing principles of sustainable fishery based on voluntary environmental standards for MSC certification. Federal Agency for Fisheries, Kamchatka Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography. Report to the World Wildlife Federation (Project WWF19/RU007020/GLM). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

Shevlyakov E.A. 2006. Management of Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus in the Kamchatka region taking into account the specifics multispecies fishery // Problems of fisheries. So 7. №1(25). C. 22-41.

Urawa, S., S. Sato, P.A. Crane, B. Agler, R. Josephson, and T. Azumaya. 2009. Stock-specific ocean distribution and migration of chum salmon in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean. N. Pac. Anadr. Fish Comm. Bull. 5: 131-146.

Vinnikov A.V., E.A. Shevlyakov, L.I. Grohotov, E.V. Vinnikova, Y.A. Denisov and A.V. Tatarinov. 2012. Peculiarities of application of the Olympic system fishing of Pacific salmon on the basin principle in the Kamchatka territory in 2010 // Research of aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-Western part of the Pacific ocean. Sat. nauch. Tr. Kamchatka. Scientific research Institute of fish. household and Oceanography. Vol. 26. Part 2. C. 43-46.

Zaporozhets O.M, E.A. Shevlyakov and G.V. Zaporozhets. 2007. Analysis of the population dynamics of Kamchatka salmon in the XX-XXI centuries with regard to their legal and illegal seizure // Bulletin №2 implementation of the "Concept of the far Eastern basin of the program of study of Pacific salmon". Publishing house: Vladivostok.

Zaporozhets O.M, E.A. Shevlyakov and G.V. Zaporozhets. 2008. Population dynamics of Kamchatka salmon with regard to their legal and illegal seizures, Izv. TINRO. So 153. C. 109-134.

Zaporozhets O.M, E.A. Shevlyakov, G.V. Zaporozhets and N. Antonov. 2007a. The possibility of using data on illegal fishing of Pacific salmon for the real evaluation of their stocks // Neirokhirurgii. fishing. So 8. no. 3 (31). C. 471-483.

Zavarina L.O. 2009. Trends of changes in the number of chum salmon (South-Western Kamchatka) and the dynamics of its biological indicators of // the Preservation of biodiversity of Kamchatka and adjacent seas. Proceedings of the X international scientific conference. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, November 17-18, 2009 C. 76-79.


Zavarina L.O. 2010. About the dynamics of biological indicators and trends of changes in the number of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) R. Large (South-Western Kamchatka) // Research of aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-Western part of the Pacific ocean. Vol. 18. C. 38-57.

Zavarina L.O. 2011. Biological structure and trends of changes in the number of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) of the Big thieves (Western Kamchatka) // Research of aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-Western part of the Pacific ocean. Vol. 23. C. 5-17.

Zhivotovsky, L.A. 2010. Studies in genetic structure of Pacific Salmon populations in the Russian Far East with use of microsattellite markers. NPAFC Doc. 1274. 14 pp.


Annex 1. Provisional evaluation of the fishery against the Performance Indicators Table A1

Definition of scoring ranges for PI outcome estimates

Shading to be used

Instructions for filling ‘Likely Scoring Level’ cell

Information suggests fishery is not likely to meet the SG60 scoring issues.

Fail (<60)

Add either text (pass/pass with condition/fail) or the numerical range (<60/60-79/≥80) appropriate to the estimated outcome to the cell. Shade the cell of each PI evaluation table with the colour which represents the estimated PI score.

Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may not meet all of the scoring issues at SG80. A condition may therefore be needed.

Pass with Condition (60-79)

Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI. Fishery may meet one or more scoring issues at SG100 level.

Pass (≥80)


Pre-assessment evaluation tables Principle 1 Even-year Pink Salmon

Component Outcome

PI 1.1.1- Stock status

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

a. Stock status

It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

b. Stock status in relation to target reference point

The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Justification/Rationale

a. Pink salmon comprise the vast majority of the commercial salmon catch in Western Kamchatka during even years, and annual runs have been stable at high levels or increasing since 1994. This suggests that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. b. Limited escapement data suggests that even-year escapements of pink salmon have been fluctuating around the target reference point in recent years.

RBF Required? (! /" /)

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

≥80

Component Outcome

PI 1.1.2 Reference points

Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock


a. Appropriate-ness of reference

Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice

Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated.


points appropriate for the species category.

b. Level of limit reference point

The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity.

The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues.

c. Level of target reference point

The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome.

The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty.

d. Low trophic level species target reference point

For key low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock.


a. Russian managers believe that Western pink salmon stocks do not home precisely to their native streams but to the region as a whole. Given this information, they have set an aggregate escapement goal for Western Kamchatka. b. Limit reference points for salmon are not determined in Russia. However, MSC proposes setting a minimum stock threshold as 50% of the lower escapement goal as the operational equivalent to the LRP. This level should be well above the point where recruitment would be impaired. c. The escapement target range of 40 to 50 million even-year pink salmon to Western Kamchatka is based on a Sheppard’s spawner-recruit analysis of MSY (maximum sustainable yield). d. Salmon are not considered a key low trophic level species.



≥80

Component Outcome

PI 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe.



a. Rebuilding strategy design

Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies, which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place.

Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place.

Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe.

b. Rebuilding timeframes

A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.


The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the depleted stock.

c. Rebuilding evaluation

Monitoring is in place to determine whether the rebuilding strategies are effective in rebuilding the stock within the specified timeframe.

There is evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe.


Even-year pink salmon are not depleted.



NA

Component Harvest strategy (management)

PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy

There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place



a. Harvest strategy design

The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.

The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.

b. Harvest strategy evaluation

The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument.

The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives.

The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

c. Harvest strategy monitoring

Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

d. Harvest strategy review

The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.


a. The harvest strategy involves establishment of fishing seasons, scheduled passing days of no fishing to limit exploitation rates and distribute escapement throughout the season, and in-season monitoring of harvest, species composition, biological indicators, and spawning escapements. In-season fishery management is based on monitoring information. All of these elements are used toward achieving management goals. b. The current harvest strategy has been in place only since 2010 and has not been fully tested under a wide range of conditions that include the inherent variability in abundance and run timing of salmon. In particular it is not clear whether the system has been challenged by an interval of low pink salmon productivity. In addition, the total combined fishing quota permitted to fishing companies can, and often does, exceed the TAC for a species and region. Thus the burden has shifted to the fishery managers to closely monitor the catch and close the fishery before the TAC is reached. KamchatNIRO acknowledges that there have been cases where the TAC has been exceeded (Shevlyakov 2014). c. There is monitoring in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 60-79

Component Harvest strategy

PI 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place



a. Harvest control rules design and application

Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached.

Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.


b. Harvest control rules account for uncertainty

The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties.

The design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range of uncertainties.

c. Harvest control rules evaluation

There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation.

Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.

Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.


a. Harvest control rules are clearly stated. Government agencies set a total catch quota for the management area, and fishing companies with fishing parcels in the area apply to catch a portion of the quota. Companies report catches daily, and aerial surveys are used to monitor pink salmon escapements in-season. The Anadromous Fish Commission opens and closes fishing based on this information to achieve management goals. b. Uncertainties in the implementation of harvest control rules are primarily related to run strength and timing. While run forecasts are made based on brood year escapements and recent production patterns, recommended harvest levels based on these forecasts are utilized primarily as preseason planning tools. Once the fishing season begins, management to control exploitation rates is based on in-season data. c. Escapements distributed around escapement goals provide evidence that harvest control rules are effective for even-year pink salmon, at least during the current period of high productivity. It remains to be seen whether harvest control rules will be adequate to control exploitation during poor runs or extended periods of reduced productivity.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) ≥80


PI 1.2.3 Information / monitoring

Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy



a. Range of information

Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy.

A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available.

b. Monitoring Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. c.Comprehe-

nsiveness of information

There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.


a. A large amount of information is collected to support the harvest strategy. This includes extensive data on stock abundance and productivity, fishing effort and catch, and other data on biological characteristics of the run, run timing, spawning distribution, and spawning escapement. Budget cuts have reduced the number of aerial surveys and streams included in the escapement monitoring. Escapement monitoring is not as comprehensive as it was in the past but is sufficient for management purposes. b. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. c. Illegal harvest is a significant problem in Kamchatka. KamchatNIRO has conducted assessments on the scale of illegal harvest demonstrating that poaching can substantially impact spawning escapements. These assessments suggest that industrial levels of poaching have been largely eliminated by changes in the management system. However, illegal harvest remains a significant issue due to activities by the local populace and reported abuses of the indigenous permitting system.


Component Harvest Strategy

PI 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status

There is an adequate assessment of the stock status.



a. Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule.

The assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery.

b. Assessment approach

The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points.

c. Uncertainty in the assessment

The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty.

The assessment takes uncertainty into account.

The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

d. Evaluation of assessment

The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

e. Peer review of assessment

The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review.

The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed.


a. KamchatNIRO has collected escapement survey information for pink salmon rivers via aerial surveys since the 1950s. However, escapement data by river has not been provided for this pre-assessment, so it is unclear if escapements should be evaluated by river for this unit of assessment. Other information on harvest and biological characteristics suggests that assessment by river is appropriate for the stock and harvest control rule. b. The assessment estimates stock status relative to the escapement goal range. c. The stock assessment has identified and considers major sources of uncertainty, including environmentally-driven variability in productivity, normal annual variability in run timing and distribution, heterogeneity in productivity of major stock subcomponents, and effects of reduced sampling effort to estimate spawning escapements. However, it is not clear that the assessment fully takes these uncertainties into account. Stock status assessments are subject to substantial uncertainty due to reliance on peak counts and index areas for major stocks. Standardized aerial surveys have been much reduced over the years due to limitations in resources, and the current survey intensity may not be adequate to avoid significant imprecision or bias in escapement estimates during any given year due to abnormal run timing or fish distribution. d. It has not been demonstrated that the assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. e. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review, but it is not clear that it has been externally peer reviewed.



Enhancement Components – (Relevant to all stocks under consideration)

Component Outcome

PI 1.3.1- Enhancement outcomes

Enhancement activities do not negatively impact wild stocks or substitute for a stock rebuilding strategy.


a. Impacts to wild stocks

It is likely that the enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity of wild stocks based on reasonable estimates of likely proportions of hatchery-origin fish in the natural spawning escapement (e.g., it is likely that hatchery- origin spawners occur in a small proportion of the natural spawning populations/locations and that they represent a small fraction of the total natural spawning escapement).

It is highly likely that the enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity of wild stocks, based on appropriate levels of marking and monitoring to reliably estimate proportions of hatchery-origin fish in the natural spawning escapement (e.g., it is highly likely that hatchery-origin spawners occur in a small proportion of the natural spawning populations/locations and that they represent a small proportion of the total natural spawning escapement for individual spawning populations).

There is a high degree of certainty that the enhancement activities do not have significant negative impacts on the local adaptation, reproductive performance and productivity of wild stocks, based on appropriate levels of marking and monitoring to reliably estimate proportions of hatchery origin fish in the natural spawning escapement.

b. Use of enhancement for stock rebuilding.

Enhancement activities are not routinely used as a stock rebuilding strategy but may be temporarily in place as a conservation measure to preserve or restore wild diversity threatened by human or natural impacts.

Enhancement activities are not used as a stock rebuilding strategy

There is no salmon enhancement program within expected straying distances of the natural spawning areas, which periodic monitoring has verified.


There are no hatcheries located on any of the rivers considered under this pre-assessment. The closest hatcheries are on the Bolshaya River located over 50 km north of the Opala River. Studies in Alaska have found high hatchery stray rates for pink and chum salmon within 50 km of hatchery release sites (Brenner et al. 2012). In addition, pink salmon are not produced in either of the two Bolshaya hatcheries. Therefore, no salmon enhancement programs are within the expected straying distances of the natural spawning areas covered under this pre-assessment; however, we are not aware of any periodic monitoring that confirms this. There is a high-degree of certainty that enhancement activities do not negatively impact the wild stocks in these rivers.




≥80

Component Outcome

PI 1.3.2 Enhancement management

Effective enhancement and fishery strategies are in place to address effects of enhancement activities on wild stock status.


a. Enhancement management effectiveness

Practices and protocols are in place and considered likely to protect wild stocks from significant detrimental impacts of enhancement, based on plausible argument.

There is a strategy in place and confidence that the strategy will protect wild stocks from significant detrimental impacts of enhancement, based on evidence that the strategy is effectively achieving the outcome metrics used to define these minimum impacts (e.g., related to verifying and achieving acceptable proportions of hatchery-origin fish in the natural spawning escapement).

There is a comprehensive strategy in place and clear evidence for successful protection of wild stocks from significant detrimental impacts of enhancement.


The lack of hatcheries located within 50km of rivers covered under this pre-assessment suggests there is a strategy in place and high confidence that the strategy will protect wild stocks from detrimental impacts of enhancement.



≥80

Component Outcome

PI 1.3.3 Enhancement Information

Relevant information is collected and assessments are adequate to determine the effect of enhancement activities on wild stock status.



a. Available information

Some relevant information is available on the contribution of enhanced fish to the harvest and escapement of the wild stock.

Sufficient relevant information is available on the contribution of enhanced fish to the harvest and escapement of the wild stock.

A comprehensive range of relevant information is available on the contribution of enhanced fish to the harvest and escapement of the wild stock.

b. Assessment of impacts

The effect of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity are taken into account.

The assessment includes estimates of the impacts of enhancement activities on wild stock status, productivity and diversity.

The assessment is appropriate and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the effects of any enhancement activities on the wild stock status, productivity and diversity.


No salmon hatcheries are located in the proposed certification units.



≥80


Principle 1 Odd-year Pink Salmon

Component Outcome




a. Stock status








Pink salmon are not targeted by the Western Kamchatka commercial fishery during odd years, so any catches are incidental to directed fisheries for other species. Very little information was provided on the status of odd-year pink salmon stocks for this pre-assessment. No information was provided on odd-year escapements or pink salmon escapement targets during odd-years. Information available from the NPAFC suggests that odd-year pink salmon runs have been trending downwards since 2005 (Figure 2 bottom), and escapements have been less than 50% of the stated lower goal for even-year pink salmon. Based on the available information we cannot conclude that the stock is likely above the point where recruitment would be impaired.



<60

Component Outcome




a. Appropriate-ness of reference points

Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category.


b. Level of limit

The limit reference point is set above the level at which



reference point

there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity.

there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues.







No information was provided regarding reference points for odd-year pink salmon.



<60

Component Outcome

















KamchatNIRO acknowledges that odd-year pink salmon shifted from being the dominant stock after a massive escapement event in 1983 over-filled the spawning grounds. This reportedly resulted in very poor returns in 1985, and even-year stocks have dominated ever since. KamchatNIRO does not officially classify odd-year pink salmon as depleted and has not provided a formal rebuilding plan. However, escapement data obtained through NPAFC indicate that odd-year escapements have not reached 50% of the lower escapement target for even-year pink salmon, the operational equivalent to the limit reference point. By definition, this would classify odd-year pink salmon stocks as depleted.



<60



















There does not appear to be a clear harvest strategy for odd-year pink salmon. During odd-years, pink salmon are caught incidental to other species, so catches are determined by harvest strategies for targeted species.

Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) <60


















There was no information provided on harvest control rules used to manage odd-year pink salmon. During odd-years, pink salmon are caught incidental to other species, so catches are determined by harvest strategies for targeted species.












All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and


c.Comprehe-nsiveness of information


management to this uncertainty.


a. Some relevant information on odd-year pink salmon is collected to support the harvest strategy for target species. This includes data on stock abundance, fishing effort and catch, and other data on biological characteristics of the run, such as run timing, spawning distribution, and spawning escapement. b. Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored, and at least catch information is monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. c. Illegal harvest is a significant problem in Kamchatka. KamchatNIRO has conducted assessments of the scale of illegal harvest demonstrating that poaching can substantially impact spawning escapements. These assessments suggest that industrial levels of poaching have been largely eliminated by changes in the management system. However, illegal harvest remains a significant issue due to activities by the local populace and reported abuses of the indigenous permitting system.






















We were not provided escapement information or escapement targets specific to odd-year pink salmon. Without evidence of escapement targets the fishery cannot pass this PI.



Principle 1 Chum Salmon

Component Outcome




a. Stock status








a. Chum salmon is the second most commercially significant salmon species in Western Kamchatka (excluding Ozernaya sockeye salmon). Annual runs have been generally increasing since the 1980s (Figure 6). This suggests that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. b. Although annual runs have been increasing, the information provided indicates that chum salmon harvest rates are high (approaching 90%, Figure 6). Limited escapement data available from the NPAFC suggests that chum salmon escapements have been below 800,000 (minimum aggregate escapement threshold) since 2007 (Figure 7). Assuming this is the target reference point (TRP) for chum salmon, they have been below, not fluctuating around, the TRP.



60-79

Component Outcome







b. Level of The limit reference point is The limit reference point is


limit reference point

set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity.

set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues.







a. Russian managers believe that chum salmon production is more related to pink salmon escapement than chum salmon escapements. They suggest that a minimum aggregate escapement threshold of 800,000 chum salmon for Western Kamchatka is sufficient to provide optimal seeding to spawning areas. This appears to be based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate to the species rather than a target that can be estimated. b. Limit reference points for salmon are not determined in Russia. However, MSC proposes setting a minimum stock threshold as 50% of the lower escapement goal as the operational equivalent to the LRP. This level should be well above the point where recruitment would be impaired. c. It is not clear whether the minimum aggregate escapement threshold of 800,000 to Western Kamchatka is sufficient to provide for MSY. d. Salmon are not considered a key low trophic level species.



60-79

Component Outcome

















Chum salmon are not depleted.



NA



















a. The harvest strategy involves establishing fishing seasons, scheduled passing days of no fishing to limit exploitation rates and distribute escapement throughout the season, and in-season monitoring of harvest, species composition, biological indicators, and spawning escapements. In-season fishery management is based on monitoring information. These elements combined are expected to help fishery managers meet management goals. b. The current harvest strategy has been in place only since 2010 and has not been fully tested under a wide range of conditions that include the inherent variability in abundance and run timing of salmon. Evidence was not provided that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. c. There is monitoring in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.



















a. Harvest control rules are clearly stated. Government agencies set a total catch quota for the management area, and fishing companies with fishing parcels in the area apply to catch a portion of the quota. Companies report catches daily, and aerial surveys are used to monitor chum salmon escapements in-season. The Anadromous Fish Commission opens and closes fishing based on this information to achieve management goals. b. Main uncertainties in the implementation of harvest control rules are primarily related to run strength and timing. While run forecasts are made based on brood year escapements and recent production patterns, recommended harvest levels based on these forecasts are utilized primarily as preseason planning tools. Once the fishing season begins, management to control exploitation rates is based on in-season data. c. Evidence was not available showing that the tools in use are effective in achieving exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.

















a. A large amount of information is collected to support the harvest strategy. This includes extensive data on stock abundance and productivity, fishing effort and catch, and other data on biological characteristics of the run, run timing, spawning distribution, and spawning escapement. Budget cuts have reduced the number of aerial surveys and streams included in the escapement monitoring. Escapement monitoring is not as comprehensive as it was in the past but is sufficient for management purposes. b. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. c. Illegal harvest is a significant problem in Kamchatka. KamchatNIRO has conducted assessments on the scale of illegal harvest demonstrating that poaching can substantially impact spawning escapements. These assessments suggest that industrial levels of poaching have been largely eliminated by changes in the management system. However, illegal harvest remains a significant issue due to activities by the local populace and reported abuses of the indigenous permitting system.






















a. KamchatNIRO has collected escapement survey information for chum salmon rivers via aerial surveys since the 1950s. However, escapement data by river has not been provided for this pre-assessment, so it is unclear if escapements should be evaluated by river for this unit of assessment. Other information on harvest and biological characteristics suggest that assessment by river is appropriate for the stock and harvest control rule. b. The assessment apparently estimates stock status relative to the escapement goal range. However, this information was not provided to the assessment team. c. The stock assessment has identified and considers major sources of uncertainty, including environmentally-driven variability in productivity, normal annual variability in run timing and distribution, heterogeneity in productivity of major stock subcomponents, and effects of reduced sampling effort to estimate spawning escapements. However, it is not clear that the assessment fully takes these uncertainties into account. Stock status assessments are subject to substantial uncertainty due to reliance on peak counts and index areas for major stocks. Standardized aerial surveys have been much reduced over the years due to limitations in resources and the current survey intensity may not be adequate to avoid significant imprecision or bias in escapement estimates during any given year due to abnormal run timing or fish distribution. d. It has not been demonstrated that the assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. e. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review, but it is not clear that it has been externally peer reviewed.



Principle 1 Sockeye Salmon

Component Outcome




a. Stock status








a. Sockeye salmon are not targeted in the rivers covered under this pre-assessment (Ozernaya sockeye salmon are already MSC certified). No escapement data for these rivers was provided, but KamchatNIRO indicated that populations are stable. This would indicate that it is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. b. Escapement targets were provided, but without escapement data we could not verify where the stocks were relative to the TRP.



60-79

Component Outcome







b. Level of limit




reference point









a. Escapement targets were provided for relevant rivers covered in this pre-assessment; however, no justification or explanation was provided on how these targets were derived. Therefore, we assume they were based on justifiable or reasonable practice. b. Limit reference points for salmon are not determined in Russia. However, MSC proposes setting a minimum stock threshold as 50% of the lower escapement goal as the operational equivalent to the LRP. This level should be well above the point where recruitment would be impaired. c. No information was provided on how the sockeye salmon targets were derived. More information is needed to verify if they are consistent with MSY. d. Salmon are not considered a key low trophic level species.



60-79

Component Outcome

















Sockeye salmon are not depleted.



NA



















a. Sockeye are caught incidental to other species in these rivers (excluding Ozernaya). Management indicates that populations are stable, so specific management actions are not needed although no evidence was provided to verify this statement. b. The current harvest strategy has been in place only since 2010 and has not been fully tested under a wide range of conditions that include the inherent variability in abundance and run timing of salmon. Evidence was not provided that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. c. There is monitoring in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working, but again no evidence was provided to support this.



















a. Harvest control rules are clearly stated for target species. Government agencies set a total catch quota for the management area, and fishing companies with fishing parcels in the area apply to catch a portion of the quota. Companies report catches daily, and aerial surveys are used to monitor chum salmon escapements in-season. The Anadromous Fish Commission opens and closes fishing based on this information to achieve management goals. However, it is not clear if the fishery is managed specifically to meet sockeye escapement targets. b. Uncertainties in the implementation of harvest control rules are primarily related to run strength and timing of target species. While run forecasts are made based on brood year escapements and recent production patterns, recommended harvest levels based on these forecasts are utilized primarily as preseason planning tools. Once the fishing season begins, management to control exploitation rates is based on in-season data. c. Evidence was not available that the tools in use are effective in achieving exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules

















a. A large amount of information is collected to support the harvest strategy. This includes extensive data on stock abundance and productivity, fishing effort and catch, and other data on biological characteristics of the run, such as run timing, spawning distribution, and spawning escapement. Budget cuts have reduced the number of aerial surveys and streams included in the escapement monitoring. Escapement monitoring is not as comprehensive as it was in the past and does not adequately cover the latter part of the run but is sufficient for management purposes. b. Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. c. Illegal harvest is a significant problem in Kamchatka. KamchatNIRO has conducted assessments of the scale of illegal harvest demonstrating that poaching can substantially impact spawning escapements. These assessments suggest that industrial levels of poaching have been largely eliminated by changes in the management system. However, illegal harvest remains a significant issue due to activities by the local populace and reported abuses of the indigenous permitting system.






















a. KamchatNIRO has collected escapement information for sockeye salmon rivers since the 1950s. However, most of this data has been collected in the Ozernaya system, and escapement data for other sockeye systems has not been provided for this pre-assessment to date, so it is unclear if escapements should be evaluated by river for this unit of assessment. Other information on harvest and biological characteristics suggest that assessment by river is appropriate for the stock and harvest control rule. b. The assessment apparently estimates stock status relative to the escapement goal, but this information was not provided. c. The stock assessment has identified and considers major sources of uncertainty including environmentally-driven variability in productivity, normal annual variability in run timing and distribution, heterogeneity in productivity of major stock subcomponents, and effects of reduced sampling effort to estimate spawning escapements. However, it is not clear that the assessment fully takes these uncertainties into account. Stock status assessments are subject to substantial uncertainty due to reliance on peak counts and index areas for major stocks. Standardized aerial surveys have been much reduced over the years due to limitations in resources and the current survey intensity may not be adequate to avoid significant imprecision or bias in escapement estimates during any given year due to abnormal run timing or fish distribution. d. It has not been demonstrated that the assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. e. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review, but it is not clear that it has beenexternally peer reviewed.



Principle 1 Coho Salmon

Component Outcome




a. Stock status








a. Coho salmon support significant commercial salmon in some rivers in Western Kamchatka. Annual runs have been stable at high levels or increasing during the past decade. This suggests that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. b. An aggregate escapement target for Western Kamchatka was provided, but escapement data was only provided for individual rivers. Information available from the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission suggests that escapements have been below the target reference point since 2010 (Figure 11).



60-79

Component Outcome







b. Level of limit




reference point









a. Russian managers have set an aggregate escapement goal range for coho salmon in Western Kamchatka. However, there was no explanation for why an aggregate escapement goal is appropriate for coho salmon rather than escapement goals for individual rivers. b. Limit reference points for salmon are not determined in Russia. However, MSC proposes setting a minimum stock threshold as 50% of the lower escapement goal as the operational equivalent to the LRP. This level should be well above the point where recruitment would be impaired. c. The escapement target range of 300 to 550 thousand coho salmon to Western Kamchatka is based on a Sheppard’s spawner-recruit analysis of MSY. d. Salmon are not considered a key low trophic level species.



60-79

Component Outcome

















Coho salmon are not depleted.



NA



















a. The harvest strategy involves establishing fishing seasons, scheduled passing days of no fishing to limit exploitation rates and distribute escapement throughout the season, and in-season monitoring of harvest, species composition, biological indicators, and spawning escapements. In-season fishery management is based on this information. These elements combined are expected to help fishery managers meet management goals. b. The current harvest strategy has been in place only since 2010 and may not have been fully tested under a wide range of conditions that include the inherent variability in abundance and run timing of salmon. Available evidence suggests that the harvest strategy under the new system may have difficulty achieving its objectives. c. There is monitoring in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.



















a. Harvest control rules are clearly stated for target species. Government agencies set a total catch quota for the management area, and fishing companies with fishing parcels in the area apply to catch a portion of the quota. Companies report catches daily, and aerial surveys are used to monitor coho salmon escapements inseason. The Anadromous Fish Commission opens and closes fishing based on this information to achieve management goals. Despite these measures, available evidence suggests coho escapements have not met escapement targets since 2009. b. Uncertainties in the implementation of harvest control rules are primarily related to run strength and extended migration timing. While run forecasts are made based on brood year escapements and recent production patterns, recommended harvest levels based on these forecasts are utilized primarily as preseason planning tools. Once the fishing season begins, management to control exploitation rates is based on in-season data. c. There is some evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.

















a. A large amount of information is collected to support the harvest strategy. This includes extensive data on stock abundance and productivity, fishing effort and catch, and other data on biological characteristics of the run such as run timing, spawning distribution, and spawning escapement. Budget cuts have reduced the number of aerial surveys and streams included in the escapement monitoring. Escapement monitoring is not as comprehensive as it was in the past but is likely sufficient for management purposes. b. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. c. Illegal harvest is a significant problem in Kamchatka. KamchatNIRO has conducted assessments on the scale of illegal harvest demonstrating that poaching can substantially impact spawning escapements. These assessments suggest that industrial levels of poaching have been largely eliminated by changes in the management system. However, illegal harvest remains a significant issue due to activities by the local populace and reported abuses of the indigenous permitting system.






















a. KamchatNIRO has collected escapement survey information for coho salmon rivers via aerial surveys since the 1950s. However, escapement monitoring does not extend through the entire coho spawning season, so it is unclear if escapements should be evaluated by river for this unit of assessment. Other information on harvest and biological characteristics suggest that assessment by river is appropriate for the stock and harvest control rule. b. The assessment estimates stock status relative to the escapement goal range. c. The stock assessment has identified and considers major sources of uncertainty including environmentally-driven variability in productivity, normal annual variability in run timing and distribution, heterogeneity in productivity of major stock subcomponents, and effects of reduced sampling effort to estimate spawning escapements. However, it is not clear that the assessment fully takes these uncertainties into account. Stock status assessments are subject to substantial uncertainty due to reliance on peak counts and index areas for major stocks. Standardized aerial surveys have been much reduced over the years due to limitations in resources and the current survey intensity may not be adequate to avoid significant imprecision or bias in escapement estimates during any given year due to abnormal run timing or fish distribution. d. It has not been demonstrated that the assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. e. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review, but it is not clear that it has been externally peer reviewed..



Principle 2

Component Retained Species

PI 2.1.1 Outcome Status

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species.


a. Retained species stock status

Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits. If not, go to scoring issue c below.

Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. If not, go to scoring issue c below.

There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference points.

b. Target reference points

Target reference points are defined for retained species.

c. Recovery and rebuilding

If main retained species are outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species.

If main retained species are outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

d. Measures if poorly understood

If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.


Char is the main retained species in this fishery. Chinook salmon will be evaluated under the criteria for bycatch because commercial harvest is currently banned and has been since 2010. However, Chinook caught in the sport fishery may be retained.

a. On average, char catches comprised about 3% or less of landings from about 2000 to present, though recent harvest rates have been higher and were about 8% or higher for the Vorovskaya, Kohl, and Opala rivers in 2013. Data for char abundances were not provided, but populations reportedly have been stable or increasing.

RBF required? (! /")

! Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

60-79



PI 2.1.2 Management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species.


a. Management strategy in place

There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding.

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species.

b. Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

c. Management strategy implementation

There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully.

d. Management strategy evidence of success

There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.

e. Shark finning (only score if the retained species is a shark)

It is likely that shark fining is not taking place.

It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place.

There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place.



a. Char are subject to fishery management, and catch data are monitored. However, fewer data are collected for char than for the more commercially important salmon species.

b. Management measures need to be described to determine confidence in whether strategies will work.

c. If population abundances are stable as reported, there is some evidence that char management is successful. However, catch-independent abundance data should be provided to confirm stock status.



PI 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species.


a. Information quality

Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery.

Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery.

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations.

b. Information adequacy for assessment of stocks

Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits.

Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits.

Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty.

c. Information adequacy for management strategy

Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species.

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species.

Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

d. Monitoring Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy)

Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species.



a. Some qualitative data on char catches were provided. Since about 2000, char have made up less than 5% of the total annual salmon catches in the Vorovskaya, Kohl, Opala, and Ozernaya rivers on average. However, recent catches have been higher.

b. There is not sufficient information to quantitatively assess status of the char stock in relation to biological limits, or if there is information, it has not been provided. Management indicates that char stocks are stable but no information was provided to verify this.

c. Char abundances are reportedly stable or increasing, but supporting data need to be provided. d. Data appear to be collected annually and should continue to be collected.

NOTE: When RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1, scoring issue b. (text in brackets above) should not be scored.


60-79

Component Bycatch Species


The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups.


a. Bycatch species stock status

Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits. If not, go to scoring issue b below

Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits If not, go to scoring issue b below

There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits.

b. Recovery and rebuilding

If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

c. Measures if poorly understood

If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.



Chinook salmon is the main bycatch species in this fishery. Although Chinook have not historically made up a large proportion (> 5%) of catches, their vulnerability to overharvest is a concern. Other bycatch species include codfish (Gadidae), flatfish (Platichthysstellatus), smelt (Osmerus spp.), and cottids (Cottidae), but available evidence suggests that bycatch rates are below 5%. If discarded, cottids and flatfish probably survive because they are very resistant to handling. Flounders are generally found alive and then released. Masu salmon may be encountered, but their relatively late run timing likely keeps bycatch rates low.

a. Chinook populations are likely not within biologically based limits. Escapements have been stable

in the Kohl and Opala rivers but appear to be declining in the Vorovskaya River, where recreational fishing and illegal harvest may be more concentrated. Chinook do not occur in large numbers in the Ozernaya River. Commercial bycatch volumes for Chinook have shown a decreasing trend for odd years in the Vorovskaya River and for even years in the Opala River.

b. Commercial fishing of Chinook salmon has been banned since 2010, and any Chinook caught may not be retained. This strategy is expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. However, no information was provided on the number of Chinook salmon incidentally caught in this fishery.


x Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail)

60-79


PI 2.2.2 Management Strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations.



There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery.

There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising bycatch.


The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved.

Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.






There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.


a. Commercial harvest of Chinook salmon has been banned since 2010 due to low abundances. These measures are in place to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery.

b. These measures are considered likely to work based on plausible argument. c. There was no documentation verifying that Chinook salmon are discarded when caught, or that

they survive after being released.



PI 2.2.3 Information/monitoring

Information on the nature and amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch.



Qualitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery.

Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery.

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations.

b. Information adequacy for assessment of stocks

Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits.

Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits.

Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty.


Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch.

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species.

Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective.


d. Monitoring Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species.


a. Some quantitative Information on catches and spawning escapements are collected for Chinook salmon.

b. These data are sufficient for evaluating biological status of Chinook stocks, and indeed they show that Vorovskaya River Chinook may be declining in abundance.

c. The information is adequate for showing whether management strategies are having intended effects.

d. Data are collected annually and should continue to be collected.

NOTE: When RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1, scoring issue b. (text in brackets above) need not be scored.


≥80

Component ETP Species


The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species.


a. Fishery effects within limits

Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.

The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.

There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.

b. Direct effects

Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.

Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.

There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species.

c. Indirect effects

Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.

There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species.



a. The main ETP species encountered in this area are anadromous Kamchatka steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Both species are listed in the Red Book of the Kamchatka Krai, and harvest/hunting is prohibited. Kamchatka steelhead do not appear to be caught frequently in these fisheries because their migration timing does not overlap the fishery, but documentation is needed. Sea lions sometimes enter nets to eat fish but are driven away by yelling and/or knocking of oars.

b. Because harvest/hunting is prohibited, commercial fisheries are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to these ETP species.

c. Indirect effects, such as habitat and ecosystem effects, are also unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.




The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species.



There are measures in place that minimise mortality of ETP species, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species.


The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species).

There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved.

The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully.


There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully.


d. There is evidence that the




The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species.

Management strategy evidence of success

strategy is achieving its objective.


a. Harvest of Kamchatka steelhead is prohibited, and it is illegal to hunt and kill Steller sea lions. b. Prohibition of harvest is likely an effective strategy for minimizing negative fishery impacts on ETP

species. c. Evidence of successful strategy implementation is needed for both steelhead and Steller sea

lions. This might include logs of any steelhead captured by the fishery and released, or records of encounters with sea lions.




Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - information for the development of the management strategy; - information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.



Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species.

Sufficient information is available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species.

Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty.

b. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species.

Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species.

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species.


Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species

Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP

Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality




Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - information for the development of the management strategy; - information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

species and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.


a. No information on fishery encounter rates with ETP species was provided. Data are needed to quantitatively estimate fishery impacts. However, information is sufficient to qualitatively evaluate the fishery impacts on ETP species.

b. Information is sufficient to broadly understand whether the fishery is a threat to recovery of ETP species.

c. Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species.


Component Habitats


The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function.


a. Habitat status

The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.


a. The fishing companies use coastal trap nets and beach seines. Trap nets are set perpendicularly to the sea coastline. Some damage to the bottom communities can occur while anchoring the nets, but this damage is reportedly minor and localized. Beach seines in river mouths may damage bottom habitat, but effects are localized since seining tends to be conducted in the same location each year. Thus, it is highly unlikely that fishing activities cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function.



≥80


Component Habitats


There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types.



There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above.

There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types.


The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved.

Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved.





There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.


a. Management strategies minimize fishery impacts on habitat because the gear types used have minor impacts.


Component Habitats


Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types.

Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100


Component Habitats


Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types.

issues


There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery.

The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery.

The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types.

b. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear

Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully.

c. Monitoring Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured.


a. Habitat vulnerability to fishing gear is fairly well known. Evaluation of these gear types in other Russian regions (such as Iturup and Sakhalin) has suggested they have minimal habitat impacts.

b. There is reliable information on the timing and location of fishing gear. c. Fishing gear placement is monitored each year.


Component Ecosystem


The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function.


a. Ecosystem The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the


Component Ecosystem


The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function.

status to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.


a. Removal of salmon may affect salmon predators such as brown bears and eagles, but there is no evidence that abundances of these predators are significantly declining. Salmon removals may also lower nutrient input into aquatic ecosystems, which would be expected to have a cascading effect on salmon population productivity. However, available data suggest that current escapement levels are adequate for maintaining productivity, because most salmon runs, perhaps excepting odd-year pink salmon, are not declining.



≥80

Component Ecosystem


There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.



There are measures in place, if necessary.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary,

There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place.

b. Management strategy design

The measures take into account the potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem.

The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.

The strategy, which consists of a plan, contains measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements


of the ecosystem. This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm.

c. Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems).

The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems).

The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved.

d. Management strategy implementation

There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully.

There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.


a. There is no explicit strategy for minimizing fishery impacts on ecosystem function and structure. However, current fishery impacts on the ecosystem are highly likely to be low due to the gear type and harvest levels.


Component Ecosystem


There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.



Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity).

Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.


b. Investigation of fishery impacts

Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but have not been investigated in detail.

Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail.

Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in detail.

c. Understand-ing of component functions

The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known

The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood.

d. Information relevance

Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

e. Monitoring Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.


a. The Ozernaya, Vorovskaya, Kohl, and Opala rivers have been monitored for many years, and biological research stations are located on the Kohl River and Kuril Lake, which drains to the ocean via the Ozernaya River.

b. Several research projects on ecosystem impacts of commercial fishing are currently underway. For example in the Opala River, there is a project that aims to identify quantitative relationships between spawning salmon biomass and ecosystem productivity.

c. The main functions of ecosystem components have been studied and are fairly well understood. d. Sufficient data are collected to allow for inference of fishery impacts on the ecosystem. e. Monitoring programs will likely continue collecting sufficient fishery and ecosystem data.



Principle 3

Component Governance and Policy

PI 3.1.1 Legal and/or customary framework

The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.


a. Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

There is an effective national legal system and a framework for cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

There is an effective national legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

There is an effective national legal system and binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

b. Resolution of disputes

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system.

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery.

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective.

d. Respect for rights

The management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.

The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.

The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.



a. The management system exists within an appropriate legal framework and operates according to Russian laws and regulations, such as the Water Resources Code.

b. There is a mechanism for resolving legal challenges, as demonstrated by an example described in the MSC public certification report for Ozernaya sockeye salmon. A fishing company initiated legal proceedings against SVTU regarding SVTU’s determination of the company’s fish processing capacity, which affected their ability to obtain desirable fishing parcels. The accusations were investigated but eventually dismissed.

c. The federal law on indigenous peoples of the Far North applies to the management system to ensure traditional fisheries and livelihoods. In accordance with the law, every district establishes fishing sites for indigenous peoples. The Kamchatka Krai government established an allocation for indigenous peoples of 100 kg of aquatic biological resources per person per year.



PI 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibili-ties

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties.


a. Roles and responsibility-es

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction.

b. Consultation processes

The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used.

c. Participation

The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.



PI 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibili-ties

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties.


a. Organizations involved in management have been identified and roles/responsibilities are well defined.

b. The management pre-season and in-season process includes steps where different stakeholders can offer input and influence the results. Recommended catch volumes can be changed using abundance information obtained during the fishing season.

c. The consultation process provides opportunities for interested and affected parties to be involved.



PI 3.1.3 Long term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach.


a. Objectives

Long term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy.

Clear long term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy.

Clear long term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy


The over-arching fisheries and resource regulations cited earlier in this report lay out long-term objectives and long-term goals for the salmon fisheries of the Russian Far East. Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy. However, objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are not always required by management policy.




PI 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing

The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.


a. Incentives The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2.

The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise.

The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices.


a. The Olympic management system apparently reduces incentives to under- or mis-report catches by eliminating individual TACs. Management also provides incentives for maintaining salmon abundances by issuing 20-year leases of fishing parcels. There is some evidence that incentives are appropriate. For example, fishing companies contribute to protection of fishery resources through anti-poaching patrols and education programs.


Component Fishery- specific management system

PI 3.2.1 Fishery- specific objectives

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.


a. Objectives Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery’s management system.

Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.

Well defined and measurable short and long term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.




PI 3.2.1 Fishery- specific objectives

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

a. Quota setting procedures show there is a short-term objective of maintaining adequate spawning escapement, and the presence of long-term objectives is supported by ongoing salmon research. However, explicit objectives have not yet been provided.



PI 3.2.2 Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives.


a. Decision-making processes

There are some decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

b. Responsive-ness of decision-making processes

Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions.

Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

c. Use of precautionary approach

Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

d. Accountability and

Some information on fishery performance and management

Information on fishery performance and management action is

Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders provides comprehensive



PI 3.2.2 Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives.

transparency of management system and decision making process

action is generally available on request to stakeholders

available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring evaluation and review activity.

information on fishery performance and management actions and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

e. Approach to disputes

Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery

The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges.

The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges.


a. The management system has established decision-making processes for setting allowable catches.

b. Decision-making processes respond to fishery monitoring in an adaptive manner, but estimation of allowable catches or processing capacity for individual companies is not always transparent.

c. Based on the fishery research projects being conducted, it seems likely that management is taking a precautionary approach.

d. Information on fishery performance and management actions may be requested but is not readily accessible.

e. The management system appears to comply with judicial decisions. Likely Scoring Level (pass/pass with condition/fail) 60-79


PI 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with.


a. MCS Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive



PI 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with.

implementa-tion

surveillance mechanisms exist, are implemented in the fishery under assessment and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective.

surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

b. Sanctions Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence.

c. Compliance

Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

d. Systematic non-compliance

There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.


a. The fishery is monitored by the state fisheries inspection (SVTU). Fishing companies also help patrol against poaching in some areas. There is a reasonable expectation the MCS system is effective at ensuring fishery compliance with regulations.

b. Fishers that violate regulations can be fined and there is some evidence that these fines are applied. However, it is not clear how consistently they are applied.

c. Estimates of poaching activity suggest that illegal fishing activities have decreased since implementation of the Olympic system, but local poaching is still a problem. Commercial fishing companies tend to comply with regulations, but compliance could be more clearly documented.



PI 3.2.4 Research plan

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management.



PI 3.2.4 Research plan

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management.


a. Research plan

Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

b. Research results

Research results are available to interested parties.

Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

Research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available.


a. The Vorovskaya, Kohl, Opala, and Ozernaya rivers have been monitored for an extended time, and biological sampling of salmon occurs periodically. Descriptions of some of the research projects were provided.

b. Plans for dissemination of research results are unclear. However, we were told that salmon escapement data cannot be shared with outside parties. This suggests that results are not available to interested parties.



PI 3.2.5 Monitoring and management performance evaluation

There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.


a. Evaluation coverage

The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system.

The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system.

The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system.

b. Internal The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific



PI 3.2.5 Monitoring and management performance evaluation

There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.

and/or external review

management system is subject to occasional internal review.

management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.

management system is subject to regular internal and external review.


a. Different government organizations interact to review allowable catch forecasts and fishery management performance.

b. It is unclear whether there is any sort of formalized process for external review.


pre-assessment for western kamchatka salmon fishery · spawning on the western coast of kamchatka...

Documents