Analysis of West Coast Groundfish 

Fisheries for the 2017 Biological Opinion 

on Endangered Species Act-listed Salmon 

Sean E. Matson and Daniel L. Erickson

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-7

November 2018

ii

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries 

for the 2017 Biological Opinion on Endangered 

Species Act-listed Salmon 

Sean E. Matson and Daniel L. Erickson

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-7

November 2018

U.S. Department of Commerce

Wilbur Ross, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RDML Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D. USN Ret., Acting Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii

Recommended citation:

Matson, Sean E. and Erickson, Daniel L. 2018. Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for the 

2017 Biological Opinion on Endangered Species Act-listed Salmon, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OSF-7, 108 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

Sustainable Fisheries Division, West Coast Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115

Or online at:

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resources/all-publications
Executive Summary

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018 

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-1

Executive Summary

This analysis addresses the groundfish trawl and non-trawl sectors and their impacts on salmon bycatch, 

in support of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) salmon consultation for the groundfish fishery. While 

effects on Chinook salmon bycatch by the non-whiting trawl sector are emphasized, impacts on salmon 

(e.g., coho salmon and Chinook salmon) are also analyzed for the non-trawl groundfish sectors (both 

recreational and commercial) and the whiting trawl sector. 

The assumed fishery conditions were described in the April 2017 Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council, PFMC) motion for the recommended proposed action for consultation (Table ES-1), which 

specified expected future groundfish attainment by species and sector, either as functions of recent 

attainment (e.g., 75 percent or more of its allocations from 2014 to 2016 would be achieved) or recent 

catch (e.g., 2014 to 2016 harvest levels in trawl fisheries would likely continue). We examined the 

Chinook salmon bycatch associated with the proposed action and additional scenarios to provide further 

context in assessing the results of implementing the Council motion. As part of the Council’s motion, the 

Council recommended evaluating projected Chinook salmon bycatch relative to an annual guideline of 

5,500 fish, or the sum of that guideline, plus a reserve (3,500 fish), for a total of 9,000 fish. Access to the 

reserve may be available to any sector that exceeds its recommended guideline, so there is no guarantee 

that a specific sector would be granted access to any or all of the reserve during a given year (e.g., the 

reserve could be taken by a different sector).

Under the proposed action, Chinook salmon projections were made under assumptions of increased 

groundfish attainment and removal of the trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) in waters off 

Oregon and California (Table ES-1). The proposed action for non-whiting fisheries was based on 

Alternative 2B(1) of the March 2017 Alternatives Document (NMFS 2017), with some modifications. 

Assumptions about future attainment of groundfish harvest in the proposed action (Table ES-1 and Table 

ES-2) is optimistic compared with recent catches. Such optimistic projections could lead to 

overestimating Chinook salmon bycatch should future groundfish catch numbers decline.
Executive Summary

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018 

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-2

Table ES-1. Summary of Council motion from April 2017 PFMC meeting (Agenda Item F.3, Council 

Action, April 2017). Alternatives 1A and 2B(1) were provided at the March 2017 PFMC 

meeting (NMFS 2017). 

Description of fisheries Whiting: 

Alternative 1A

(NMFS 2017)

• Recent conditions will continue, including historical geographic 

footprint of the fisheries.

• Includes a more substantial tribal fishery than observed in recent 

years with broader participation.

Non-Whiting: 

Alternative 2B(1)

(NMFS 2017)

• RCA is open to trawl fishing (see RCA definition below).

• Geographic distribution of the fleet/harvest is similar to that prior 

to trawl rationalization and reflects recent bycatch rates.

• Midwater yellowtail/widow rockfish fishery conducted in a 

manner similar to historical patterns when such a fishery took 

place. 

• Retain Selective Flatfish Trawl Gear (SFFT) requirements 

shoreward of the RCA in 2017.

RCA Consistent with the Council’s PPA (November 2016 Council Meeting; see Geographic Extent 

in Overview).

Estimated Harvest 

Level/Model Threshold

Whiting: Entire United States total allowable catch (TAC) achieved; up to 500k metric tons 

(mt) of TAC into the future

Estimated Harvest Levels

At-sea total allocations and set-aside harvested.

IFQ allocations for sablefish, petrale, lingcod, shortspine and longspine, and overfished 

rockfish species fully harvested.

IFQ of other stocks which had 75 percent or more attainment in 2014 to 2016 will be 

achieved.

IFQ of 2014 to 2016 harvest levels for canary rockfish, widow rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, 

and chilipepper rockfish will be taken by shoreside whiting and bottom trawl; remainder will 

be harvested in the midwater non-whiting trawl.

IFQ: All other groundfish stocks, harvest levels for 2014 to 2916 will continue.

Limited entry fixed gear (LEFG), open access fixed gear (OAFG), recreational fishery 

allocations, harvest guidelines, and harvest levels will likely continue.

Chinook Bycatch 

Management Guidelines

Whiting: 11,000 

Chinook salmon

Bottom trawl, mid-water non-whiting, LEFG, OAFG, and recreational: 

5,500 Chinook salmon

Chinook Bycatch Reserve

3,500 Chinook bycatch

Assess three possible scenarios of maximum effect to analyze the impact of the reserve on 

listed salmon:

a) Assume reserve taken entirely by whiting.

b) Assume reserve taken entirely by non-whiting bottom trawl.

c) Assume reserve taken entirely by non-whiting midwater trawl.

Exempted Fishing Permit

2017: 

• Bottom trawl1 north of 42 N. latitude

• No minimum mesh size requirement for bottom trawl vessels

• SFFT gear not required shoreward of the RCA.

• Chinook salmon bycatch harvest guideline of 3,500 fish (counted toward the 5,500 

Chinook salmon threshold above) 

EFP terminated if 3,500 Chinook salmon harvest guideline (or 800 Chinook salmon prior to 

May 15th) attained so that participating vessels would have to comply with the SFFT gear 

requirement.

2018: Considered the advisory body comments, reports, and discussions occurring on this 

issue in April 2017 (see Appendix C).

 

1 The motion refers to a mid-water non-whiting trawl fishery EFP, but the description actually refers to the EFP in 

place at the time for bottom-trawl vessels only. The EFP also includes a sub-guideline of 800 Chinook salmon only 

allowed to be taken prior to May 15th.
Executive Summary

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for the 2017 November 2018

Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-3

Table ES-2. Components of groundfish catch conditions used in the model (retained mt) by species, IFQ gear type and target, their calculation 

and relevant assumptions, under the April 2017 Council motion. Projected landings and relevant assumptions are shown ( agg.=

aggregated (NW bottom and mid-water trawl); avg.=average; NW=non-whiting; attain=attainment). Catch and landings (retained 

catch) are expressed in metric tons.

IFQ species category Area

2018 SB 

trawl 

allocation Assumption

Avg. 

2014-2016 

IFQ 

attain.

Council 

assumed 

2018 catch

Agg. 

2014-

2016 NW 

reten

rate

Council 

assumed 

2018 

landings

2016 p (IFQ trawl) Projected landings

Bottom 

trawl 

proportion

landed

Mid-water 

NW 

proportion

landed

Bottom 

trawl

Midwater 

NW

Arrowtooth flounder Coastwide 10,992.6 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.497 5464.2 0.757 4,136.4 0.989 0.000 4,092.40 0.17

Bocaccio rockfish South of 40°10' N. lat. 283.3 100% attainment 0.365 283.3 0.986 279.4 1.000 0.000 279.44 0.00

Canary rockfish Coastwide 1,014.1 100% attainment 0.592 1014.1 0.996 1,009.8 0.383 0.289 386.48 292.03

Chilipepper rockfish South of 40°10' N. lat. 1,845.8 100% attainment 0.171 1845.8 0.929 1,714.7 1.000 0.000 1,714.75 0.00

Cowcod South of 40°10' N. lat. 1.4 100% attainment 0.222 1.4 0.995 1.4 1.000 0.000 1.39 0.00

Darkblotched rockfish Coastwide 518.4 100% attainment 0.400 518.4 0.949 491.9 0.869 0.000 427.12 0.01

Dover sole Coastwide 45,981.0 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.195 8955.4 0.990 8,863.0 1.000 0.000 8,862.30 0.00

English sole Coastwide 6,953.0 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.046 319.8 0.772 246.9 1.000 0.000 246.88 0.02

Lingcod North of 40°10' N. lat. 1,259.3 100% attainment 0.204 1259.3 0.924 1,163.4 0.967 0.002 1,067.61 2.13

Lingcod South of 40°10' N. lat. 510.8 100% attainment 0.056 510.8 0.762 389.1 1.000 0.000 388.99 0.00

Longspine thornyhead North of 34°27’ N. lat. 2,560.2 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.330 844.7 0.968 817.9 1.000 0.000 817.84 0.00

Minor Shelf Rockfish North of 40°10’ N. lat. 1,146.8 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.043 49.3 0.675 33.3 0.715 0.050 23.80 1.67

Minor Shelf Rockfish South of 40°10’ N. lat. 192.4 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.063 12.1 0.218 2.7 1.000 0.000 2.65 0.00

Minor Slope Rockfish North of 40°10' N. lat. 1,268.0 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.184 232.7 0.896 208.5 0.675 0.000 139.90 0.00

Minor Slope Rockfish South of 40°10' N. lat. 433.9 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.181 78.5 0.968 76.0 1.000 0.000 74.71 0.00

Other Flatfish Coastwide 6,349.3 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.148 941.5 0.781 735.4 0.992 0.000 729.44 0.02

Pacific cod Coastwide 1,031.4 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.295 304.7 0.998 304.2 1.000 0.000 304.10 0.01

Pacific ocean perch North of 40°10' N. lat. 198.3 100% attainment 0.407 198.3 0.982 194.6 0.486 0.000 94.56 0.01

Pacific whiting Coastwide NA Avg. 2014-2016 landed NA NA 0.992 NA 0.000 0.001 44.75 50.51

Petrale sole Coastwide 2,628.5 100% attainment 0.969 2628.5 0.992 2,608.2 1.000 0.000 2,608.09 0.01

Sablefish North of 36° N. lat. 2,521.9 100% attainment 0.968 2521.9 0.983 2,479.8 0.996 0.000 1,799.43 0.07
Executive Summary

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for the 2017 November 2018

Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-4

IFQ species category Area

2018 SB 

trawl 

allocation Assumption

Avg. 

2014-2016 

IFQ 

attain.

Council 

assumed 

2018 catch

Agg. 

2014-

2016 NW 

reten

rate

Council 

assumed 

2018 

landings

2016 p (IFQ trawl) Projected landings

Bottom 

trawl 

proportion

landed

Mid-water 

NW 

proportion

landed

Bottom 

trawl

Midwater 

NW

Sablefish South of 36° N. lat. 814.4 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.270 219.8 0.968 212.8 1.000 0.000 17.29 0.00

Shortspine thornyhead North of 34°27' N. lat. 1,537.0 100% attainment 0.477 1537.0 0.987 1,517.8 0.984 0.000 1,492.18 0.00

Shortspine thornyhead South of 34°27' N. lat. 50.0 100% attainment 0.037 50.0 0.896 44.8 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

Splitnose rockfish South of 40°10' N. lat. 1,662.8 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.023 37.6 0.204 7.7 1.000 0.000 7.66 0.00

Starry flounder Coastwide 630.9 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.015 9.4 0.921 8.7 1.000 0.000 8.65 0.00

Widow rockfish Coastwide 10,661.5 100% attainment 0.607 10661.5 0.994 10,601.8 0.008 0.707 80.57 7,493.02

Yelloweye rockfish Coastwide 1.1 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.046 0.1 0.987 0.0 1.000 0.000 0.04 0.00

Yellowtail rockfish North of 40°10' N. lat. 4,075.4 100% attainment 0.324 4075.4 0.999 4,072.7 0.095 0.478 386.03 1,945.33

Sum IFQ species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26,099.07 9,785.02

Non-IFQ groundfish NA NA Avg. 2014-2016 landed NA NA NA NA NA NA 786.76 19.12

Sum all groundfish NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26,885.83 9,804.14
Executive Summary

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-5

Since few data exist that directly reflect the proposed action (e.g., the observer program started the same 

year that darkblotched conservation areas were implemented and one year before initiation of RCA), we 

analyzed two historical datasets from the 1980s and 1990s to explore the uncertainty of catch that may 

accrue should RCAs become open. However, we affirmed that using the current information represented 

in Alternative 2B(1), which is consistent with the Council action, would better reflect operation of the 

fishery going forward. Although the historical datasets provide some direct observations of Chinook 

salmon bycatch within the portion of the current RCA to be removed, there is substantial uncertainty in 

the bycatch projections using data from 1980s and 1990s (or early 2000s), due to substantial changes 

within the fishery since that period. As such, analyses using historical data were included only to explore 

uncertainty and interannual variation. This information is detailed in Appendix A.

For the proposed action, which includes the Council’s PPA of opening the RCA south of Washington 

(Agenda Item F.4, Council Action, November 2016), we concluded that the current individual fishing 

quota (IFQ) management system, management tools, bycatch avoidance incentives, and near-real time 

catch data would likely result in larger groundfish catches but lower salmon bycatch rates, which is 

consistent with the assumptions in Alternative 2B(1). Under this assumption, recent West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) bycatch rates would remain similar, whether the RCA off 

Oregon and California would remain in place or would be removed. Incentives and improved efficiencies 

associated with the catch share program, along with near-real-time, 100 percent monitoring and data 

reporting, would enable IFQ fishermen to make selective choices regarding where, when, and how to fish 

to increase catch of target species while minimizing bycatch. In addition, the Council could reimplement 

the boundaries of the trawl RCA or institute block closures in specific areas to reduce impacts on salmon 

if bycatch rates were to become noticeably high. These tools were not available to managers or fishermen 

in the 1980s and 1990s. Finally, the catch share program and the vessel buyback program have resulted in 

significant fleet consolidation. These programs, combined with improved efficiencies, have resulted in 

increased catch per unit of effort of groundfish species with fewer trips and tows, which may in turn

reduce salmon encounters.

We evaluated the 80th percentile of the distribution of simulated catches using WCGOP data from 2012 

to 2016. For ESA-listed species, our goal was to assess the range of bycatch that would occur in most 

circumstances. Our analysis indicates the bycatch associated with the 80th percentile would encompass 

the range of bycatch that would occur under most situations, except those generally associated with 

uncommon extreme catch events (ECEs). The estimates reflect the pattern in the data for most hauls to 

catch either zero or a handful of Chinook salmon, while a few of those hauls would catch an intermediate 

amount. Finally, a very small number of hauls and vessels would catch a comparatively very large amount 
Executive Summary

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-6

of Chinook, on the order of 100 or more fish, and these ECEs would tend to occur as “lightning strikes,” 

once to a few times per year. Model projections indicate that, based on the description of the fisheries in 

the Council’s proposed action, 80 percent of the time, Chinook salmon bycatch by non-whiting midwater 

and bottom trawl vessels would equal fewer than 4,580 fish (Table ES-3). These projections are lower 

than the Council’s recommended guideline for the non-whiting fishery of 5,500 fish, they consider the 

Council’s PPA of opening the RCA off the coast of Oregon and California, and they assume increased 

groundfish landings (i.e., higher attainment than currently observed). Use of the 80th percentile itself was 

requested by the consultation team after review of the analytical results. Use of risk-averse quantiles and 

probabilities for marine fisheries and conservation is established in the literature (Gerrodette et al. 2002; 

Wade 1998; Crowder and Murowski 1998; Stohs 2015), the choice of which quantile is informed by the 

data itself and amount of risk tolerance for the taxon at hand.

Table ES-3. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch (number) by 

commercial non-whiting trawl gear types (bottom and mid-water), assuming groundfish 

harvest levels (= model thresholds; Table 1-2) and fishery conditions (Table 1-1) under 

the Council’s proposed action. Mean values were provided for comparison. Bycatch 

projections were rounded. Note: 404 Chinook salmon were also projected for non-trawl 

groundfish fisheries (commercial and recreational; see Section 3.1.3). Source: West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program data.

Quantiles

Chinook salmon projected bycatch (number)

Bottom trawla/ Midwater trawl

Bottom and 

midwater trawl 

(total)

Min 73 289 362

0.01 165 331 496

0.05 307 355 662

0.25 483 1,155 1,637

0.50 638 1,722 2,360

0.75 1,555 2,684 4,238

0.80 1,642 2,938 4,580

0.85 1,726 8,149 9,875

0.95 1,971 9,085 11,056

0.99 2,339 9,777 12,116

Max 3,290 11,184 14,474

Mean 960 2,898 3,858

a/Bottom trawl (0.80th quantile) + non-trawl bycatch (404) = 2,046 Chinook salmon
Executive Summary

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-7

The non-whiting midwater trawl gear shows a stronger potential than bottom trawl gear to take higher 

bycatch and to exhibit higher uncertainty on the low and high ends of the salmon bycatch. This is shown 

by the uncertainty generated by the model. Although the data show strong year effects in Chinook salmon 

bycatch for both gear types, non-whiting midwater trawl shows the most disparate distribution of 

predicted bycatch for the same quantiles and the highest bycatch rates of the two gear types.

Based on results of the simulation analysis, it is possible (but unlikely) that the non-whiting trawl fishery 

may periodically have to use the reserve in the case of ECEs or if the bycatch rates are higher than 

anticipated. Nearshore fixed gear is the primary commercial non-trawl fishery that encounters salmon 

(primarily Chinook salmon). 

The nearshore, fixed gear bycatch of salmon was considered negligible in previous biological opinions, 

and we reassess in this document. Although ocean recreational bottomfish (groundfish) fisheries 

encounter salmon, mortality of these salmon are included as part of the preseason salmon package. They 

also count in modeling (for salmon) if caught during the recreational salmon season. These fish have been 

included in biological opinions on the salmon fisheries and, therefore, are not included as part of this 

analysis. However, salmon caught (and released) outside of the salmon season are not included as part of 

the impacts associated with salmon fisheries and are unaddressed by other biological opinions; this 

mortality is evaluated in this document. In addition, a long-leader, midwater recreational groundfish 

fishery at depths greater than 40 fathoms may take place off Oregon from April through September in 

2018. Potential salmon bycatch within this long-leader fishery is described and included in the estimates 

of overall non-trawl bycatch.

The Council requested an analysis of potential use of the Chinook salmon bycatch reserve (3,500 Chinook

salmon) that could be provided to any sector, if needed. This reserve would be available to either the 

whiting or non-whiting sector, in addition to the proposed action that would set guidelines of 5,500 

Chinook salmon for the non-whiting trawl sector and 11,000 Chinook salmon for the whiting sectors 

(Appendix B). 

We explored the idea of producing model-based estimates across all sectors to assess the probability of 

multiple sectors needing to access the reserve at the same time, but some issues made this approach 

unfeasible. In addition, there were no apparent or significant relationships in bycatch of Chinook salmon 

between whiting and non-whiting sectors. The only significant correlation occurred within each sector

type, based on fishing target (e.g., between shorebased whiting and at-sea whiting, and between nonwhiting midwater trawl and bottom trawl). Although the reserve analysis could not be formally modeled 

using bootstrap simulations, comparisons of results were possible based on the projections and associated 

quantiles produced by simulations shown in this paper for the non-whiting trawl sector and in Appendix 
Executive Summary

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-8

B, from the April 2017 Meeting, for whiting sectors. Under the assumption that the at-sea whiting fleet 

fishes mostly in the northern areas (Appendix B, from the April 2017 Meeting), results demonstrate that 

the whiting sector or the non-whiting sector would be unlikely to exceed its Chinook salmon guideline 

(with or without a reserve) at the 80th percentile. In other words, for the northern distribution of the at-sea 

whiting fleet, if one sector had to use its reserve, the other sector would most likely not be impacted. 

However, if the at-sea whiting sectors shifted their distribution to more southern areas, where Chinook 

salmon bycatch is highest, then there would be a much higher likelihood that whiting sectors could 

surpass both their guideline and the reserve without management actions to address the Chinook bycatch 

under provisions of the proposed action. 

In five of six scenarios examined where the at-sea whiting fleet fished solely in the southern area, the 

whiting and non-whiting sectors combined could exceed the 20,000 Chinook salmon guideline, plus the 

reserve for the whole trawl fishery. This could occur even though the non-whiting trawl fleet would likely 

remain within its 5,500 Chinook guideline (under the 80th percentile). 

Although both the whiting and non-whiting sectors show the potential for periodic high bycatch years, 

they have shown a pattern of doing so in either the whiting sector or the non-whiting sector, but not both 

at the same time, over the relatively long period from 2002 to 2016. Continuation of this historical pattern 

would make management of Chinook salmon bycatch remaining within the reserve capacity more likely.

To evaluate these potential outcomes, consistent with the Council’s proposed action, we assessed the 

anticipated overall bycatch if the whiting fleet were to use the full reserve, the bottom-trawl sector were to 

use the full reserve and, finally, if the mid-water non-whiting sector were to use the full reserve.

Also included in the proposed action is an exempted fishing permit (EFP) being considered for 2018 that 

would lift various trawl gear restrictions (Appendix C). The Council recommended that the 2018 EFP 

would include the following:

1. An exemption to the requirement to use selective flatfish trawl gear shoreward of the RCA 

and north of 42° N. latitude

2. An exemption to the minimum mesh size requirements for both bottom trawl and midwater 

trawl gear

3. An exemption to the prohibition on non-whiting midwater trawling prior to May 15th in all 

areas (seaward, within, and shoreward of the RCA) north of 40°10' N. latitude

4. An exemption to the prohibition on midwater trawling within the RCA south of 40°10ꞌ N. 

latitude
Executive Summary

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon ES-9

Additional exemptions are shown in Appendix C, Considerations for the 2017 and 2018 Trawl Gear 

Exempted Fishing Permits. The Chinook salmon bycatch from the EFP would accrue to the 5,500-fish 

guideline for the non-whiting fishery (i.e., is part of that guideline, and not in addition to it).

In 2017, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) initiated a trawl gear EFP for bottom trawl 

vessels. The 2017 EFP is operating with fewer exemptions than the Council recommended for the 2018 

EFP (Appendix D). Preliminary catch and bycatch results from the 2017 trawl gear EFP are shown in 

Appendix C. Considerations for the 2017 and 2018 Trawl Gear Exempted Fishing Permits. The purpose 

of these EFPs (2017 and 2018) is to evaluate and better understand bycatch associated with lifting certain 

trawl restrictions while allowing vessels to increase efficiency (and increase catch) when targeting rebuilt 

species (e.g., widow rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, and chilipepper rockfish).

Various Chinook salmon bycatch harvest guidelines are included in the 2017 trawl gear EFP and the 

proposed 2018 trawl gear EFP to keep bycatch within Council-recommended harvest guidelines and to 

minimize impacts on southern Chinook and coho salmon ESUs. Conclusions shown in Appendix C. 

Considerations for the 2017 and 2018 Trawl Gear Exempted Fishing Permits are as follows: 

1. Future EFP salmon bycatch will likely remain within the general non-whiting projections and 

are not in addition to them.

2. The EFP has harvest guidelines that would limit potential impacts on Chinook salmon.

3. Non-whiting mid-water trawl effort within the trawl RCA would likely occur south of 42° N 

latitude prior to May 15th (it is already permitted after May 15th) and south of 40°10' N 

latitude before and after May 15th (within the current boundaries of the trawl RCA), but the 

proportion of effort relative to northern mid-water trawling effort would likely be lower than 

historically observed.
Table of Contents

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................ES-1

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................1-1

2 Methods.............................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Salmon bycatch by non-trawl groundfish fisheries....................................................................2-1

2.1.1 WCGOP commercial data..................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 State ocean recreational groundfish data............................................................................2-1

2.1.3 Long-leader midwater recreational groundfish data ..........................................................2-3

2.2 Methods used to project non-whiting trawl bycatch of Chinook salmon under future fishery and 

management conditions.........................................................................................................................2-3

2.3 Metrics applied to the trawl estimates of Chinook salmon bycatch...........................................2-5

2.4 Trawl model conditions, parameters, and assumptions .............................................................2-6

2.5 Impacts among sectors and gear types given full utilization of the reserve by a single gear type 

or sector..................................................................................................................................................2-8

3 Results...............................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Projections under future fishery and management conditions (Proposed Action).....................3-3

3.1.1 Commercial non-trawl groundfish fisheries.......................................................................3-3

3.1.2 Ocean recreational groundfish (bottomfish) fisheries........................................................3-4

3.1.3 Projected total salmon mortality in commercial and recreational non-trawl fisheries 

combined3-5

3.1.4 Non-whiting trawl sector ...................................................................................................3-6

3.2 Reserve analysis.........................................................................................................................3-9

3.2.1 Probability of more than one trawl sector needing access to the reserve...........................3-9

3.2.2 Impacts among trawl sectors and gear types given full utilization of the reserve by a single 

sector or 

gear type ..........................................................................................................................................3-13

4 Discussion..........................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Potential impacts of the 2018 trawl gear EFP............................................................................4-2

4.2 Projections and use of the reserve..............................................................................................4-3

5 References.........................................................................................................................................5-1

6 Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................6-1
Table of Contents

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon iii

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Summary of Council motion from April 2017 PFMC meeting (Agenda Item F.3, Council 

Action, April 2017). Alternatives 1A and 2B(1) were provided at the March 2017 PFMC 

meeting (NMFS 2017). ................................................................................................. ES-2

Table ES-2. Groundfish catch used in the model (retained mt) by species, IFQ gear type, and target. 

Projected landings and relevant assumptions are shown. Definitions: p=proportion; 

agg.=aggregate; avg.=average; NW=non-whiting; ret.=retention; attain=attainment ..ES-3

Table ES-3. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch (number) by 

commercial non-whiting trawl gear types (bottom and mid-water), assuming groundfish 

harvest levels (= model thresholds; Table 1-2) and fishery conditions (Table 1-1) under 

the Council’s proposed action. Mean values were provided for comparison. Bycatch 

projections were rounded. Note: 404 Chinook salmon were also projected for non-trawl 

groundfish fisheries (commercial and recreational; see Section 3.1.3). Source: West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program data. ............................................................................. ES-6

Table 1-1. Summary of Council motion from April 2017 PFMC meeting (Agenda Item F.3, Council 

Action, April 2017). Alternatives 1A and 2B(1) were provided at the March 2017 PFMC 

meeting (NMFS 2017). ....................................................................................................1-2

Table 1-2. Groundfish catch used in the model (retained mt) by species, IFQ gear type, and target. 

Projected landings and relevant assumptions are shown. Definitions: p=proportion; 

agg.=aggregate; avg.=average; NW=non-whiting; ret.=retention; attain=attainment .....1-3

Table 2-1. Groundfish landed (mt), Chinook salmon count (number) and bycatch rate using bottom 

trawl gear from 2012 to 2016 observed data. Observed (WCGOP) and electronically 

monitored data are combined; 2016 data are preliminary................................................2-7

Table 2-2. Groundfish landed (mt), Chinook salmon count (number), and bycatch rate using 

midwater trawl gear, from 2012 to 2016 observer data. Observed (WCGOP) and 

electronically monitored data are combined; 2016 data are preliminary.........................2-8

Table 3-1. Salmon mortality (number of fish) by species and fishing sector in the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fisheries, 2002 to 2015. Source: WCGOP (NWFSC 2017)..........................3-2

Table 3-2. Chinook and coho salmon mortality in ocean recreational groundfish fisheries and 

commercial groundfish non-trawl fisheries. ....................................................................3-4

Table 3-3. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch (number) by 

commercial non-whiting trawl gear types (bottom and mid-water), assuming groundfish 

harvest levels (= model thresholds; Table 3-2) and fishery conditions under the Council’s 

proposed action. This information is also shown in Figure 3-1. Mean values were 

provided for comparison. Bycatch projections were rounded. Note: 404 Chinook salmon 

were also projected for non-trawl groundfish fisheries (commercial and recreational; see 

Section 3.1.3). Source: West Coast Groundfish Observer Program data.........................3-8

Table 3-4. Chinook salmon bycatch by groundfish sector, gear type, and year. Source: West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program data (2002 to 2016). NA = no non-whiting midwater 

trawling occurred from 2002 to 2010. ...........................................................................3-11

Table 3-5 (a, b, c, d). Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch (count) 

by targeted whiting sectors, assuming average annual attainment (3-5a and 3-5c) or 100 

percent annual attainment (3-5b and 3-5d) for commercial (non-tribal) sectors. Data for 

at-sea whiting were blocked by their prominent latitudinal distribution. The at-sea fleet 
Table of Contents

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon iii

was described as northern (3-5a and 3-5b; 2008 to 2010 data) or southern (3-5c and 3-5d; 

2012 to 2016 data) (see Appendix B). Shoreside predictions used data from 2012 to 

2016. Source: Appendix B (3c, 3d, 4c, and 4d). ..........................................................3-14

Table 3-6. Chinook counts and quantiles assuming one sector (e.g. whiting or non-whiting) or one 

gear type within the non-whiting sector (i.e., midwater trawl or bottom trawl) receives 

and catches the entire reserve (= shaded cells).1 ............................................................3-17

Table 3-7. Chinook salmon counts and quantiles assuming one sector (e.g. whiting or non-whiting) 

or one gear type within the non-whiting sector (i.e., midwater trawl or bottom trawl) 

receives the entire reserve (= shaded cells). Definitions: NA = exceeds the maximum

quantile; Max = 3,290 Chinook salmon (shown in Table 3-3). Source: Appendix B...3-19

List of Figures

Figure 3-1. Model output for predicted distributions of Chinook salmon bycatch (count) and mean 

latitude (degrees), assuming groundfish catch thresholds and fishery conditions under the 

Council’s proposed action (Table 1-1;Table 1-2), for bottom trawl and non-whiting 

midwater trawl. Model thresholds for assumed groundfish catch were informed by the 

Council’s April motion (Table 1-1). Blue dashed line = mean, red dash = median, dotted 

lines = quantiles from Table 3-3 (0.01, 0.05, 0.25, 0.75, 0.95, and 0.99). Source: West 

Coast Observer Program data (2012 to 2016)..................................................................3-9

Figure 3-2. Chinook salmon bycatch by groundfish sector and year. Source: West Coast Groundfish 

Observer program data (2002 to 2016)..........................................................................3-12

Figure 3-3. Relationships in annual Chinook salmon bycatch among groundfish sectors. Sample 

correlations (r) and significance levels (p) are shown for each comparison. Source: West 

Coast Groundfish Observer Program (2002 to 2016). ...................................................3-13

List of Appendices

A Alternative methods for projecting Chinook salmon bycatch potential using historical databases 

under the Council’s preliminary preferred alternative (PPA) for rockfish conservation area (RCA)

B Analysis of Directed Commercial Whiting Sectors for the 2017 Salmon Biological Opinion under 

the Council’s Final Proposed Action, from the April 2017 Meeting

C Considerations for the 2017 and 2018 Trawl Gear Exempted Fishing Permits

D Template of the 2017 selective flatfish trawl EFP permit

E Council recommendations on issuance of exempted fishing permits

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACL Annual catch limit

BSIA Best scientific information available

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

ECE Extreme catch event

EDCP Enhanced Data Collection Project

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential fish habitat

EFHCA EFH conservation areas

EM Electronic monitoring

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily significant units

EFP Exempted fishing permit

GAP Groundfish Advisory Panel

GMT Groundfish Management Team

IFQ Individual fishing quota

LEFG Limited entry fixed gear

mt metric ton

MSC Marine Stewardship Council

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center

OAFG Open access fixed gear

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

PacFIN Pacific Fisheries Information Network

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council

POP Pacific Ocean perch

PPA Preliminary preferred alternative 

RCA Rockfish conservation area

SFFT Selective flatfish trawl

SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee

TAC Total allowable catch

VMS Vessel monitoring system

WCGOP West Coast Groundfish Observer Program

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Chapter 1. Introduction

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper provides projected salmon bycatch estimates for all sectors within the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery, but it focuses primarily on Chinook salmon bycatch in the non-whiting trawl sector. Although 

this paper focuses on Chinook salmon bycatch in the non-whiting trawl sector, additional information and 

analyses are provided for salmon bycatch in the whiting trawl sectors, as well as salmon bycatch in nontrawl sectors (commercial and recreational). These salmon bycatch projections are a component of the 

effects analysis for the Biological Opinion (BiOp) on listed salmon’s Evolutionarily Significant Units 

(ESUs) affected by the proposed action under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

We evaluated impacts on Chinook salmon in the non-whiting groundfish fisheries, based upon the motion 

recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) at the April 2017 meeting (Agenda 

Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017), which described the final proposed action for the consultation. Our 

analysis also considers input from the Groundfish Management Team (GMT) reports presented at the 

April 2017 Council meeting (Agenda Item F.3.a, Supplemental GMT Report 1, April 2017), the Scientific 

and Statistical Committee (SSC) report from the March Council 2017 meeting (Agenda Item I.1.a, 

Supplemental SSC Report, March 2017), follow-up conversations with members of the SSC and 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), and from a working subgroup of commercial fishery 

specialists from the Groundfish Management Team (GMT).2

For the non-whiting groundfish trawl sector, the proposed action is based largely on Alternative 2B(1) 

from “Alternatives for Salmon Bycatch Management in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries,”

presented at the March 2017 Council meeting (NMFS 2017), with additional conditions recommended by 

the Council at its April 2017 meeting (Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017). Those conditions 

are based on recent bycatch rates (2012 to 2016) encompassed in Alternative 2B(1) (Table 1-1). The 

Council further specified catch distributions among sectors and groundfish species for the near future

(Table 1-2). 

 

2 Jessi Doerpinghaus, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Patrick Mirick, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife.
Chapter 1. Introduction

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 1-2

Table 1-1. Summary of Council motion from April 2017 PFMC meeting (Agenda Item F.3, Council 

Action, April 2017). Alternatives 1A and 2B(1) were provided at the March 2017 PFMC 

meeting (NMFS 2017). 

Description of 

fisheries

Whiting: Alternative 1A

(NMFS 2017)

• Recent conditions will continue, including historical geographic 

footprint of the fisheries.

• Includes a more substantial tribal fishery than observed in recent 

years with broader participation.

Non-Whiting: Alternative 

2B(1)

(NMFS 2017)

• Rockfish Conservation Area is open to trawl fishing (see RCA 

definition below).

• Geographic distribution of the fleet/harvest is similar to that prior 

to trawl rationalization and reflects recent bycatch rates.

• Midwater yellowtail/widow rockfish fishery conducted in a manner 

similar to historical patterns when such a fishery took place. 

• Retain Selective Flatfish Trawl Gear (SFFT) requirements 

shoreward of the RCA in 2017.

RCA Consistent with the Council’s PPA (November 2016 Council Meeting; see Geographic Extent in 

Overview).

Estimated 

Harvest 

Level/Model 

Threshold

Whiting: Entire United States total allowable catch (TAC) achieved; up to 500k metric tons (mt) of TAC 

into the future

Estimated 

Harvest Levels

At-sea total allocations and set-aside harvested.

IFQ allocations for sablefish, petrale, lingcod, shortspine and longspine, and overfished rockfish species 

fully harvested.

IFQ of other stocks which had 75 percent or more attainment in 2014 to 2016 will be achieved.

IFQ of 2014 to 2016 harvest levels for canary rockfish, widow rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, and 

chilipepper rockfish will be taken by shoreside whiting and bottom trawl; remainder will be harvested in 

the midwater non-whiting trawl.

IFQ: All other groundfish stocks, harvest levels for 2014 to 2916 will continue.

Limited entry fixed gear (LEFG), open access fixed gear (OAFG), recreational fishery allocations, harvest 

guidelines, and harvest levels will likely continue.

Chinook 

Bycatch 

Management 

Guidelines

Whiting: 11,000 Chinook 

salmon

Bottom trawl, mid-water non-whiting, LEFG, OAFG, and recreational: 

5,500 Chinook salmon

Chinook 

Bycatch 

Reserve

3,500 Chinook bycatch

Assess three possible scenarios of maximum effect to analyze the impact of the reserve on listed salmon:

a) Assume reserve taken entirely by whiting.

b) Assume reserve taken entirely by non-whiting bottom trawl.

c) Assume reserve taken entirely by non-whiting midwater trawl.

Exempted 

Fishing Permit

2017: 

• Bottom trawl3 north of 42 N. latitude

• No minimum mesh size requirement for bottom trawl vessels

• SFFT gear not required shoreward of the RCA.

• Chinook salmon bycatch harvest guideline of 3,500 fish (counted toward the 5,500 Chinook salmon 

threshold above) 

EFP terminated if 3,500 Chinook salmon harvest guideline (or 800 Chinook salmon prior to May 15th) 

attained so that participating vessels would have to comply with the SFFT gear requirement.

2018: Considered the advisory body comments, reports, and discussions occurring on this issue in April 

2017 (see Appendix C).

 

3 The motion refers to a mid-water non-whiting trawl fishery EFP, but the description actually refers to the EFP for 

bottom-trawl vessels only in place at the time. The EFP also includes a sub-guideline of 800 Chinook salmon only 

allowed to be taken prior to May 15th.
Chapter 1. Introduction

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 1-3

Table 1-2. Components of groundfish catch conditions used in the model (retained mt) by species, IFQ gear type and target, their calculation 

and relevant assumptions, under the April 2017 Council motion. Projected landings and relevant assumptions are shown 

(p=proportion; agg.=aggregate; avg.=average; NW=non-whiting; ret.=retention; attain=attainment).

IFQ species category Area

2018 SB 

trawl 

allocation Assumption

Avg. 

2014-2016 

IFQ 

attain.

Council 

assumed 

2018 catch

Agg. 

2014-

2016 ret.

rate

Council 

assumed 

2018 ret. 

rate

2016 p (IFQ trawl) Projected landings

Bottom 

trawl p 

(landed)

Mid-water 

NW p 

(landed)

Bottom 

trawl

Midwater 

NW

Arrowtooth flounder Coastwide 10,992.6 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.497 5464.2 0.757 4,136.4 0.989 0.000 4,092.40 0.17

Bocaccio rockfish South of 40°10' N. lat. 283.3 100% attainment 0.365 283.3 0.986 279.4 1.000 0.000 279.44 0.00

Canary rockfish Coastwide 1,014.1 100% attainment 0.592 1014.1 0.996 1,009.8 0.383 0.289 386.48 292.03

Chilipepper rockfish South of 40°10' N. lat. 1,845.8 100% attainment 0.171 1845.8 0.929 1,714.7 1.000 0.000 1,714.75 0.00

Cowcod South of 40°10' N. lat. 1.4 100% attainment 0.222 1.4 0.995 1.4 1.000 0.000 1.39 0.00

Darkblotched rockfish Coastwide 518.4 100% attainment 0.400 518.4 0.949 491.9 0.869 0.000 427.12 0.01

Dover sole Coastwide 45,981.0 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.195 8955.4 0.990 8,863.0 1.000 0.000 8,862.30 0.00

English sole Coastwide 6,953.0 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.046 319.8 0.772 246.9 1.000 0.000 246.88 0.02

Lingcod North of 40°10' N. lat. 1,259.3 100% attainment 0.204 1259.3 0.924 1,163.4 0.967 0.002 1,067.61 2.13

Lingcod South of 40°10' N. lat. 510.8 100% attainment 0.056 510.8 0.762 389.1 1.000 0.000 388.99 0.00

Longspine thornyhead North of 34°27’ N. lat. 2,560.2 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.330 844.7 0.968 817.9 1.000 0.000 817.84 0.00

Minor Shelf Rockfish North of 40°10’ N. lat. 1,146.8 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.043 49.3 0.675 33.3 0.715 0.050 23.80 1.67

Minor Shelf Rockfish South of 40°10’ N. lat. 192.4 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.063 12.1 0.218 2.7 1.000 0.000 2.65 0.00

Minor Slope Rockfish North of 40°10' N. lat. 1,268.0 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.184 232.7 0.896 208.5 0.675 0.000 139.90 0.00

Minor Slope Rockfish South of 40°10' N. lat. 433.9 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.181 78.5 0.968 76.0 1.000 0.000 74.71 0.00

Other Flatfish Coastwide 6,349.3 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.148 941.5 0.781 735.4 0.992 0.000 729.44 0.02

Pacific cod Coastwide 1,031.4 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.295 304.7 0.998 304.2 1.000 0.000 304.10 0.01

Pacific ocean perch North of 40°10' N. lat. 198.3 100% attainment 0.407 198.3 0.982 194.6 0.486 0.000 94.56 0.01

Pacific whiting Coastwide NA Avg. 2014-2016 landed NA NA 0.992 NA 0.000 0.001 44.75 50.51

Petrale sole Coastwide 2,628.5 100% attainment 0.969 2628.5 0.992 2,608.2 1.000 0.000 2,608.09 0.01

Sablefish North of 36° N. lat. 2,521.9 100% attainment 0.968 2521.9 0.983 2,479.8 0.996 0.000 1,799.43 0.07

Sablefish South of 36° N. lat. 814.4 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.270 219.8 0.968 212.8 1.000 0.000 17.29 0.00
Chapter 1. Introduction

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 1-4

IFQ species category Area

2018 SB 

trawl 

allocation Assumption

Avg. 

2014-2016 

IFQ 

attain.

Council 

assumed 

2018 catch

Agg. 

2014-

2016 ret.

rate

Council 

assumed 

2018 ret. 

rate

2016 p (IFQ trawl) Projected landings

Bottom 

trawl p 

(landed)

Mid-water 

NW p 

(landed)

Bottom 

trawl

Midwater 

NW

Shortspine thornyhead North of 34°27' N. lat. 1,537.0 100% attainment 0.477 1537.0 0.987 1,517.8 0.984 0.000 1,492.18 0.00

Shortspine thornyhead South of 34°27' N. lat. 50.0 100% attainment 0.037 50.0 0.896 44.8 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

Splitnose rockfish South of 40°10' N. lat. 1,662.8 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.023 37.6 0.204 7.7 1.000 0.000 7.66 0.00

Starry flounder Coastwide 630.9 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.015 9.4 0.921 8.7 1.000 0.000 8.65 0.00

Widow rockfish Coastwide 10,661.5 100% attainment 0.607 10661.5 0.994 10,601.8 0.008 0.707 80.57 7,493.02

Yelloweye rockfish Coastwide 1.1 Avg. 2014-2016 attain. 0.046 0.1 0.987 0.0 1.000 0.000 0.04 0.00

Yellowtail rockfish North of 40°10' N. lat. 4,075.4 100% attainment 0.324 4075.4 0.999 4,072.7 0.095 0.478 386.03 1,945.33

Sum IFQ species NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26,099.07 9,785.02

Non-IFQ groundfish NA NA Avg. 2014-2016 landed NA NA NA NA NA NA 786.76 19.12

Sum all groundfish NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26,885.83 9,804.14
Chapter 1. Introduction

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 1-5

More detailed information regarding these conditions can be found in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2, as well as

in the Council’s motion (Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017).

Some conditions and assumptions that the Council recommended at its April 2017 meeting (Table 1-1) 

differ from the original conditions and assumptions in Alternative 2B(1) and Table 14 of the March 2017 

Alternatives Document (NMFS 2017) (e.g., level of groundfish catch). The Council proposed these 

differences based on its expectations for the future of the groundfish fishery, as well as on 

recommendations by the SSC (Agenda Item I.1.a, Supplemental SSC Report, March 2017) and the GMT 

(Agenda Item F.3.a, Supplemental GMT Report 1, April 2017) during the March and April 2017 Council 

meetings. Additionally, the analysis was updated, as recommended by the GMT, to include more recent 

data (2012 to 2016) from the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) than were available 

for the Alternatives Document (NMFS 2017). The statistical method used to generate the predictions in 

the analysis was changed, based on recommendations from the SSC (see Methods, Section 2). Catch 

assumptions the Council proposed (summarized in Table 1-1) were used, together with its recommended 

distribution among the two non-whiting trawl gear types (bottom and midwater trawl), and the catch 

assumptions were expressed as landings (Table 1-2). Finally, future fishery and management conditions 

under the proposed action would include higher attainment rates for groundfish species relative to current 

attainment rates and removal of the trawl RCAs off Oregon and California (Table 1-2). 

We assessed the Council’s proposed action for the non-whiting trawl sector (Table 1-1). However, there 

were limited data to inform what might occur if fishing were allowed, as envisioned in the proposed 

action, within the area previously closed by the trawl RCA. The WCGOP began collecting at-sea data in 

2002, which was the first year that darkblotched conservation areas were implemented, and one year 

before implementation of RCAs (NMFS 2014). Therefore, WCGOP data are limited prior to RCA 

implementation. 

We used two sources of data from the 1980s (Pikitch et al. 1988)4 and 1990s (Sampson 2002) from 

studies that included bottom trawl catches within the area of the current RCA to explore the potential 

uncertainty of bycatch in our analysis. However, bycatch projections using data from 1980s and 1990s

should be viewed with caution; much of the uncertainty relates to the applicability of using historical data 

to project bycatch for current or future fisheries. 

Significant changes have occurred over the past 20 to 30 years, and they may have reduced bycatch and 

bycatch rates substantially. These changes include the following:

 

4 Erickson and Pikitch (1994) provided caution against using their results to project salmon bycatch for years beyond 

1990.
Chapter 1. Introduction

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 1-6

• The vessel buyback program, which resulted in significant fleet consolidation, implementation of 

the catch shares program and a reduction in the number of species managed with trips limits

• Improved technologies, such as vessel monitoring systems (VMS)

• Enhanced incentives to avoid and reduce bycatch

• Improved and timely at-sea and shoreside catch monitoring (NMFS and PFMC 2017), including 

100 percent monitoring of all individual fishing quota (IFQ) species

As part of its November 2016 motion (Agenda Item F.4, Council Action, November 2016), the Council 

defined the PPA for modifications to the RCA and essential fish habitat (EFH) conservation areas 

(EFHCAs); that recommendation included removing the RCA in waters off Oregon and California. The 

EFH/RCA action alternative, described in the Agenda Item F.4.a, Project Team Report, identifies block 

closures as an accountability measure to limit the impacts on prohibited and protected species, including

Chinook salmon. The availability of these measures, together with the reasons described in the previous 

paragraph, support the Council’s basis for choosing Alternative 2B(1).

In addition to management measures (e.g., block closures) and incentives that may reduce bycatch of IFQ 

species through implementation of the catch shares program (PFMC 2010), the trawl industry has the 

additional incentive of reducing bycatch of all species to remain certified by the Marine Stewardship 

Council (MSC) (NMFS and PFMC 2017). The MSC certified the West Coast limited entry groundfish 

trawl fishery as sustainable in 2014 (MSC.org). Finally, it is unlikely that fishing strategies will change 

dramatically throughout the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), due to reasons shown above, and any

changes in distribution of effort and gear type could be strategic (i.e., to improve efficiency and maintain 

or reduce bycatch levels (see NMFS and PFMC 2017; see Agenda Item G.8 Attachment, March 2016). 

For example, fishing strategies and resulting bycatch rates for non-whiting midwater trawl (within, 

seaward, and shoreward of the trawl RCA) and for bottom trawl seaward of the RCA (e.g., targeting the 

Dover-sablefish-thornyhead complex) are not expected to change relative to current conditions; locations, 

gear, and strategies will likely be similar to current fishing methods. Although distribution of fishing 

effort may change for bottom trawl in the near future (e.g., new bottom trawl effort within what is 

currently the boundaries of the trawl RCA), fishermen may opt to use the selective flatfish trawl (SFFT) 

while targeting flatfish, whether within or shoreward of the RCA to avoid salmon, Pacific whiting, or 

other unwanted semi-pelagic species. Fishermen who target pelagic or semi-pelagic rockfish within the 

RCA or shoreward of the RCA may choose to do so with high-rise, hooded nets in the future, but they 

may also opt to install salmon excluder devices or select areas and times where Chinook salmon bycatch

may be low. The increased incentives (e.g., retaining MSC certification) combined with advancements in 
Chapter 1. Introduction

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 1-7

management, monitoring, and technology, would result in Chinook salmon bycatch and bycatch rates 

consistent with those under the proposed action. 

Exempted Fishing Permits: The Council’s description of the future of the groundfish fishery under the 

proposed action (Table 1-1) included EFPs in 2017 and 2018 (Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 

2017). The purpose of these EFPs is to allow vessels to target rockfish stocks more effectively on a pilot 

basis, while also gathering data and information that will help NMFS assess potential impacts of the 

Council’s recommended changes to the current trawl gear restrictions. A description of these EFPs, a 

summary of catch and bycatch for the 2017 EFP, and an analysis of potential impacts on salmon that may 

occur through implementation of the 2018 non-whiting midwater trawl EFP (allowing year-round and 

coastwide midwater trawling) are provided in Appendix C. Chinook salmon catch occurring in the EFPs 

is counted toward the 5,500 non-whiting guideline, as recommended by the Council under the proposed 

action.

Reserves: In April 2017, during discussion of the Council’s motion for the proposed action, Council 

members discussed the concept of a reserve to address concerns with one sector exceeding its guideline of 

Chinook salmon bycatch. The reserve is a specific amount of Chinook salmon bycatch that could be used 

by either the whiting or non-whiting sectors if they were to exceed their sector’s recommended guideline. 

The Council’s proposed action described a 3,500 Chinook salmon bycatch reserve (i.e., 3,500 Chinook 

salmon may be available to one or both fleets combined during a single year, not 3,500 Chinook salmon 

to each fleet during the same year). As emphasized in the Council motion, the reserve would not be an 

entitlement or a de facto increase in the guidelines, but a safety net to minimize disruption to the fishery 

where actions that were already actively being taken to reduce bycatch were insufficient.

In this analysis, we examined two questions regarding projected Chinook salmon bycatch under the 

proposed action. First, we examined the potential for the non-whiting trawl sector to meet the Council’s

recommended guideline (5,500 Chinook salmon) or exceed the sum of that guideline plus the reserve

(3,500 Chinook salmon, for a total of 9,000 Chinook salmon). The second was to examine impacts under 

the assumption that the entire reserve would be taken by a single sector (i.e., whiting or non-whiting) or a 

single gear type within a sector (i.e., non-whiting midwater trawl or bottom trawl). We also examined the 

potential for multiple sectors needing access to the reserve within the same year. 
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-1

2 METHODS

Detailed methods for the non-trawl data sources are shown in Section 2.1. Section 2.2, Section 2.3, and 

Section 2.4 focus on methods to project salmon bycatch in the non-whiting trawl fishery using the 

assumptions specified in the Council’s proposed action and described in Chapter 2 of this document. 

However, as noted above, to explore uncertainty in the non-whiting trawl estimates, we also estimated

future salmon bycatch using historical trawl data from the 1980s and 1990s in Appendix A. Methods that 

are shared between the analyses (e.g., analytical procedure) are provided within this section, whereas 

methods specific only to the historical databases are described in Appendix A.

2.1 Salmon bycatch by non-trawl groundfish fisheries

Projected salmon bycatch by non-trawl groundfish fisheries is based on estimates from three sources:

1. WCGOP bycatch tables for commercial fisheries during the period 2002-2015 (NWFSC 2017)

2. Washington, Oregon, and California state agency queries for recreational groundfish trips

3. A draft environmental assessment (EA) that provided estimates of potential bycatch from a longleader “midwater” recreational groundfish fishery that may occur off Oregon beginning in 2018 

(NMFS 2016c)

2.1.1 WCGOP commercial data

The WCGOP data (NWFSC 2017) used in this paper have been updated since the Salmon Bycatch Report 

(NMFS 2016b) was presented to the Council at the March 2017 meeting. Table 10 in that report was 

based on fewer years of data than were provided by the NWFSC (NWFSC 2017). The updated WCGOP 

data (NWFSC 2017) include some corrections relative to previous WCGOP bycatch reports and relative 

to Table 10 in NMFS 2016b. The WCGOP assumes salmon discard mortality to be 100 percent. Observer 

coverage for the non-trawl groundfish fisheries ranged from 5 percent to 8 percent for nearshore fixed 

gear, from 8 percent to 42 percent for sablefish-endorsed LEFG, from 1 percent to 13 percent for nonsablefish-endorsed LEFG, and from 1 percent to 7 percent for OAFG (Somers et al. 2016). Because 

salmon bycatch is sporadic, and sampling coverage is low for these fixed gear fisheries, non-retention 

mortality is difficult to estimate. A buffer was added to the final estimate of maximum salmon mortality 

projections for the non-trawl groundfish fisheries to account for this uncertainty. 

2.1.2 State ocean recreational groundfish data

State agencies report and account for salmon mortality occurring in ocean recreational groundfish 

fisheries during the open salmon season in pre-season salmon modeling for ocean salmon management, as 

well as in biological opinions on salmon fisheries. This salmon mortality is not shown here to avoid 
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-2

double-counting. Salmon caught and released by ocean groundfish recreational fisheries outside of the 

salmon season are included in the analysis of non-trawl impacts in this document because this mortality is

not accounted for in salmon fisheries or their associated biological opinions. The mortality is, therefore, a 

direct result of fisheries that are part of the proposed action. 

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) Ocean Salmon Project provided salmon 

bycatch estimates for a recreational skiff fishery, which takes place outside of the salmon season. Other 

encounters of salmon by California ocean groundfish recreational fisheries are rare (Jennifer Simon, 

CDFW, personal communication). Preliminary estimates of salmon encounters by ocean recreational 

bottomfish fisheries outside of the salmon season were also provided by the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Our data requests 

were submitted recently, providing little time for thorough quality assurance and quality control for these 

data queries. In addition, recreational sampling outside of the salmon season (i.e., during winter) is 

sporadic and covers fewer ports than summer sampling. As such, a buffer was included in the total nontrawl mortality estimates to account for this uncertainty.

A basic description of methods used to estimate salmon bycatch mortality by recreational groundfish 

fisheries is included for reference. Although regulations may vary by state, all have specific salmon 

retention requirements for ocean recreational groundfish fisheries, while salmon season is open. Under 

federal salmon regulations, any retained salmon must be caught on legal salmon sport gear for ocean 

salmon, must be caught during the salmon season, and gear must include no more than two single-point 

barbless hooks. Salmon incidentally caught with groundfish gear (e.g., barbed hooks) must be returned 

(discarded) unharmed whether during or outside of the salmon season. Once legally caught salmon are 

retained onboard a vessel during recreational groundfish trips, only legal salmon gear can be used on that 

vessel for the remainder of the trip. Some private anglers may use salmon-legal gear when fishing 

groundfish; if a salmon is caught using this gear, they can keep it and continue using only salmon-legal 

gear thereafter. Charter vessels may initially fish groundfish using legal groundfish gear. They can, 

however, opt to switch to salmon-legal gear and begin targeting salmon later in the trip if groundfish 

limits are attained, or if groundfish catch is poor, and they are in an area open to salmon angling.

Total salmon mortality calculations include different mortality rates applied to fish that are retained (i.e., 

100 percent), fish that are brought onboard but released (i.e., discard mortality), and fish that are hooked 

but not brought onboard the vessel (i.e., drop off mortality). Release mortality and drop-off mortality rates 

were derived after discussions with state groundfish and salmon managers/biologists and federal salmon 

biologists. These rates may differ from those the Council’s Salmon Technical Team used when modeling 

mortality for the directed recreational salmon fishery. 
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-3

For ocean groundfish recreational fisheries, we applied a 30 percent mortality rate to released salmon in 

waters off Oregon and Washington. For California, however, we applied a 59 percent mortality rate to 

released salmon, based on results shown by Grover et al. (2000) for “J” hook discard mortality. Drop-off 

mortality was estimated as five percent of all retained salmon during bottomfish-identified trips off 

Washington and Oregon. For California, drop-off mortality was estimated as five percent of landed and 

released salmon. 

2.1.3 Long-leader midwater recreational groundfish data

NMFS (2016c) provided an analysis of alternatives regarding a proposed action to authorize a midwater 

long-leader recreational fishery for healthy midwater rockfish species (e.g., yellowtail rockfish, Sebastes 

flavidus) in waters seaward of approximately 40 fathoms off the coast of Oregon (42°00' N. latitude to 

46°18' N. latitude) (NMFS 2016c). The proposed action would take place during the established Oregon 

recreational groundfish fishery, open from April to September, managed under the seasonal depth 

restriction framework. This proposed action is being considered for the 2018 recreational fishing season. 

The time/area block for this fishery is new. Therefore, salmon mortality in this proposed fishery is 

estimated in addition to mortality in the traditional Oregon recreational groundfish fishery; that mortality 

is already accounted for in pre-season salmon models.

Bycatch rates that may be applied to this proposed long-leader fishery were developed through EFPs that 

took place off Oregon between 2009 and 2011 (NMFS 2016c). Average bycatch rates for these EFPs 

were 0.0026 Chinook salmon per angler trip and 0.0289 coho salmon per angler trip (Lynn Mattes, 

ODFW, personal communication). NMFS projected that as many as 25,000 to 50,000 angler trips could 

be attained by this proposed fishery (NMFS 2016c). The maximum traditional recreational bottomfish 

trips off Oregon during recent years is approximately 100,000 (NMFS 2016c). Discussions between 

NMFS and ODFW staff concluded that 25,000 to 50,000 additional trips would likely be too high, given 

that fishermen would have to travel farther and use unfamiliar gear relative to the traditional recreational 

groundfish fishery. We concluded that approximately 15,000 annual long-leader trips, or 15 percent of the 

maximum traditional groundfish trips, would be a more likely maximum value for this analysis.

2.2 Methods used to project non-whiting trawl bycatch of Chinook salmon under future fishery 

and management conditions

The WCGOP provided data that included both total Chinook salmon counts and total combined retained 

groundfish weights (round, mt) from 2012 to 2016. Data from 2015 and 2016 were combined from both 

observed and electronically monitored (EM) trips. We use retained catch as a currency in the analysis 

because of its broad availability in historical data as landings on tickets, and in logbooks to help apportion 
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-4

effort between areas. It also enabled direct comparisons with analytical assumptions from the Alternatives 

Document (NMFS 2017) and the bycatch reports (e.g., NMFS 2016b) that were provided at the March

2017 Council meeting. 

We used the bootstrap method to project Chinook salmon bycatch under the Council’s proposed future 

conditions shown in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2. This method is a non-parametric simulation approach that 

builds empirical distributions of one or more specified statistics by resampling actual data within stated 

parameters. The Council has used this approach previously to estimate probabilities of exceeding bycatch 

harvest guidelines, to manage bycatch in the drift gill net fishery for swordfish, and to manage bycatch of 

rockfish in the whiting fishery (e.g., Agenda Item F.7.a, WDFW Report, September 2016). This method

circumvents shortcomings of parametric simulation approaches (such as Monte Carlo) that result from 

non-standard distributions typically seen in fishery data. Forcing an assumption of a particular 

distribution upon an analysis that does not fit the data well can introduce error (not easily predicted or 

corrected), which can have important consequences on analytical conclusions and downstream decision 

making. 

This analysis was conducted to evaluate likely Chinook salmon impacts compared to the 5,500 Chinook 

salmon bycatch guideline for the non-whiting sector (midwater and bottom trawls separately and 

combined), as well as an additional 3,500 fish reserve, for a total of 9,000 fish. These guidelines were part 

of the Council motion of the proposed action to manage Chinook salmon bycatch in the groundfish 

fishery (Table 1-2). 

We simulated thousands of fishing seasons, then randomly drawing many bottom trawl hauls with 

replacement, or randomly drawing non-whiting midwater trawl hauls without replacement. Year effects 

were explicitly considered in the model conditions (in agreement with SSC recommendations) by 

randomly selecting a year first, before drawing hauls from within that year, when simulating a season. We 

built cumulative tallies of target species (retained groundfish) versus bycatch (counts of Chinook salmon), 

and we evaluated those tallies against the Council’s proposed guidelines. We repeated this process 10,000 

times (for 10,000 simulated seasons) for each non-whiting trawl gear type. We compiled the results into 

distributions and calculated quantiles and measures of central tendency from those distributions. The 

quantiles can be used as reasonable approximations of probabilities under the implicit and explicit 

conditions and assumptions of a particular model run, and the input data that are resampled. 

We made projections separately for each gear type in the non-whiting fishery (i.e., bottom trawl and 

midwater trawl). We calculated the quantiles of the predicted distributions for each gear type, and then we 

summed those same quantiles across gear types to generate aggregate prediction statistics for the 

commercial non-whiting fishery.
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-5

2.3 Metrics applied to the trawl estimates of Chinook salmon bycatch

To assess impacts on listed species under ESA, we used the 80th percentile (= 0.80th quantile) for which 

Chinook salmon bycatch would be lower than or equal to in 80 percent of simulations (i.e., 80 percent of 

the time). Our goal was to assess the range of bycatch that would occur in most circumstances. The

analysis indicates bycatch associated with the 80th percentile would encompass the range of bycatch that 

would occur under most situations, except those generally associated with uncommon extreme catch 

events (ECEs). Based on the available information under the proposed action, we would expect Chinook 

salmon bycatch to be lower than this amount in almost all cases except for ECEs. For the purposes of 

ESA consultation, we wanted to assess what we could reasonably expect to occur in future years. At 

lower quantiles, the likelihood of exceeding the authorized take of listed salmon would increase 

substantially, which would not adequately describe the range of bycatch likely to occur under the 

proposed action, but would, therefore, likely require more frequent reinitiation of consultation and 

potential undue disruption of the fishery. Use of the 80th percentile itself was requested by the 

consultation team after review of the analytical results. Use of risk-averse quantiles and probabilities for 

marine fisheries and conservation is established in the literature (Gerrodette et al. 2002; Wade 1998; 

Crowder and Murowski 1998; Stohs 2015), the choice of which quantile is informed by the data itself and 

amount risk tolerance for the taxon at hand.

We also report the median and other typically used quantiles, as well as the mean of the distribution of; 

while this information is still useful in this analysis, the mean does not have a probability associated with 

it. However, the distance between the median5 (0.5 quantile) and the mean is useful for demonstrating the 

amount of skewness in a distribution. This comparison is useful for illustrating variance and the 

difference between potential outcomes. If the mean is far from the median, then there may be both very 

low and very high modes within the predicted distribution of bycatch. This would illustrate a strong year 

effect in the model input data and the potential for both low and high bycatch outcomes in the future, 

relative to normal distributions.

 

5 The median is frequently used in groundfish management as a risk-neutral point of reference, and it is defined as 

value or quantity lying at the midpoint of a frequency distribution of observed values or quantities, such that there is 

an equal probability of falling above or below it. It is provided here for the purpose of providing orientation to those 

familiar with its use in the groundfish fishery.
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-6

2.4 Trawl model conditions, parameters, and assumptions

We used the species- and gear-specific assumptions the Council recommended at the April 2017 meeting 

(Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017) to calculate model harvest guidelines for groundfish 

species, including IFQ and non-IFQ species. They reflect a mix of 100 percent attainment, average 

attainment over 2014 to 2016 for IFQ species categories, and average catch for Pacific whiting bycatch 

and non-IFQ species (Table 1-2). We applied those Council assumptions to 2018 IFQ sector allocations. 

We found that in aggregate, the Council-recommended assumptions about the future attainment of 

groundfish catch (Table 1-2) were similar to the model-based projections (Matson et al. 2017) for the 

Pacific Coast Individual Fishing Quota Program (IFQ) species categories in the 2017 to 2018 groundfish 

harvest specifications (aggregate amounts within less than one percent). Although the original motion 

described nearly identical assumptions to be applied both to 2017 and 2018 allocations, we limited our 

analysis to 2018 allocations because this ESA salmon consultation was targeted for completion near the 

end of 2017. Because our goal was to project bycatch counts of Chinook salmon and their latitudinal 

distributions, coincident with simulated seasons with defined amounts of groundfish retained catch, and 

assess those projections against the proposed thresholds, we did not impose bounds on the amount of 

Chinook salmon bycatch itself.

The confirmed intent of the Council was to use Alternative 2B(1), described in the March 2017 

Alternatives Document (NMFS 2017), and Table 1 of a GMT report submitted at the April 2017 Council 

meeting (Agenda Item F.3.a, Supplemental GMT Report 2, April 2017) (i.e., recent bycatch rates, 

historical effort, and use of lower bycatch rates associated with use of SFFT gear), but to modify the 

fishery footprint to reflect the Council’s PPA for the EFH/RCA action as described in November 2016

(Agenda Item F.4, Council Action, November 2016). The PPA was to retain the current RCA off

Washington and to eliminate the RCA off Oregon and California, but to retain the ability to use block 

area closures in the future. Block area closures would use combinations of management lines and depth 

contours in regulation to create borders for the block closures, if needed. The rationale for using current 

bycatch rates, even if the RCA were removed for the duration of the calendar year, was discussed at 

length in the introduction. It was shown that under the current management framework, technology, and 

monitoring, trawl gear users and the Council can respond to reduce bycatch rates in a timely manner, if 

needed. In addition, the design of the catch share program provides incentives to keep bycatch low 

(PFMC 2010). It is also likely that any changes in distribution of effort and gear type could be strategic 

(i.e., to improve efficiency and to maintain or reduce bycatch (NMFS and PFMC 2017; see Agenda Item 

G.8 Attachment, March 2016).
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-7

Bycatch rates and distributional assumptions used to inform Alternative 2B(1) from the March 2017 

Alternatives Document (NMFS 2017) were obtained from 2012 to 2014, which were the most recent 

available at that time (p. 63, March Alternatives Document). The GMT recommended adding more recent 

data that have since became available through 2016. Thus, the bottom trawl modeling for this exercise 

was designed based on the updated information used to inform Alternative 2B(1) from March. This 

adheres both to recommendations in the April Council motion (Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 

2017) and to GMT recommendations. The non-whiting midwater trawl bycatch estimates from 

Alternative 2B(1) were informed by 2014 and 2015. We updated these years from Alternative 2B(1) to 

the most recent data available, 2012 through 2016, which aligned with recommendations from both the 

Council in its motion and from the GMT. 

The data suggest that these are reasonable choices of data years based on groundfish harvest levels and 

Chinook salmon bycatch for bottom trawl and midwater trawl. For bottom trawl, 2012 to 2016 data 

provide a fairly balanced picture of Chinook salmon bycatch across the range from high to low, with two 

high years and three low years (Table 2-1). High Chinook salmon bycatch years (in this case three times

more bycatch than the low years) occur less frequently than low bycatch years. Effort and landings in the 

non-whiting midwater fishery have been trending upward over the past few years. For that reason, using 

only the most recent three years could be justified. However, addition of the most recent years indicated a 

different pattern. Using only the most recent years presents an imbalance with a bias toward high bycatch 

years in the input data for the model. The bycatch rates for 2014 and 2015 were quite high, but 2012 and 

2013 were moderate and 2016 was low (Table 2-2). For this reason, we used the same data range as the 

bottom trawl (2012 to 2016), which is better analytically justified than the shorter time span and would 

avoid spurious results stemming from sampling too few years.

Table 2-1. Groundfish landed (mt), Chinook salmon count (number) and bycatch rate using bottom 

trawl gear from 2012 to 2016 observed data. Observed (WCGOP) and electronically 

monitored data are combined; 2016 data are preliminary.

Year

Groundfish 

landed (mt)

Chinook count 

(Number) Bycatch rate

2012 17,026 305 0.0179

2013 18,715 323 0.0173

2014 15,876 984 0.0620

2015 15,942 996 0.0625

2016 16,456 371 0.0225
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-8

Table 2-2. Groundfish landed (mt), Chinook salmon count (number), and bycatch rate using 

midwater trawl gear, from 2012 to 2016 observer data. Observed (WCGOP) and 

electronically monitored data are combined; 2016 data are preliminary.

Year

Groundfish 

landed (mt)

Chinook count 

(Number)

Bycatch 

rate

2012 391 12 0.0307

2013 622 71 0.1142

2014 909 661 0.7272

2015 1,817 482 0.2653

2016 1,221 47 0.0385

2.5 Impacts among sectors and gear types given full utilization of the reserve by a single gear 

type or sector

A key component of the proposed action in assessing Chinook salmon bycatch was to evaluate the 

impacts of providing the entire reserve to a single sector (i.e., whiting versus non-whiting) or gear type 

(i.e., non-whiting midwater trawl versus bottom trawl) (Table 1-1). This was evaluated in two ways. First, 

correlations were evaluated among sectors and gear types to assess the likelihood that both sectors would 

need access to the reserve in the same year. Second, results from the bootstrap model runs were evaluated

to shape the reserve scenarios in the Council’s proposed action. Results of the bootstrap simulations for 

the non-whiting sectors are described in the body of this document; results for whiting sectors are

reported in Appendix B.

Chinook salmon bycatch in the whiting sector depends on northern versus southern distributions of the atsea whiting fleets and assumed whiting attainment rates (Appendix B). For this reserve analysis, we 

examined bycatch distribution under both full attainment (i.e., 100 percent attainment) and average annual 

attainment of whiting for at-sea and shoreside whiting fleets from 2008 to 2016 (Appendix B). We 

applied bootstrap modeling results showing (a) generally northern distribution of the at-sea whiting fleets 

for 2008 to 2010 data under full and average attainment (Table 3-5a and Table 3-5b) and (b) generally

southern distribution of the at-sea whiting fleets during 2012 to 2016 under full and average attainment

(Table 3-5c and Table 3-5d) (see Appendix B for more detail).

For this analysis, we applied the 0.80th quantile as the target reference point and evaluated whether 

projected catches at the 0.80th quantile would be equal to, less than, or higher than the guidelines (or 

guidelines plus reserve) shown under the Council’s motion of the proposed action. For cases where the 

projected catch at the 0.80th quantile was lower than the level of the guideline plus reserve, the projected 

catch was increased to equal that level, and the associated quantile was reported, consistent with the 
Chapter 2. Methods

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 2-9

direction provided in the proposed action. For example, if projected Chinook salmon catch for the whiting 

sector was 7,625 fish at the 0.80th quantile, then under the reserve scenario, the assumed catch would be 

increased to the guideline plus reserve (i.e., 14,500 Chinook) and the associated quantile would be applied 

(in this case a quantile much higher than 0.80). The catch-level for the remaining sectors (i.e., those 

sectors or gear types that would not receive the reserve) was reported at the 0.80th quantile. Likewise, for 

cases where the guideline plus reserve were assumed to be taken, if the projected catch at the 0.80th

quantile was higher than the guideline plus reserve, then the projected catch at the 0.80 percentile was 

shown. 

Distributing projected catch between gear types for the non-whiting sector was not straightforward, 

because the guidelines apply to the non-whiting sector as a whole. The method used to evaluate the 

projected catch of the non-whiting sector was similar to that of the whiting sector. However, distributing 

the catch between gear types within the non-whiting sector required an additional step when one gear type 

received the reserve, and the total projected catch of the non-whiting sector was lower than the Council 

proposed guideline plus reserve. The process for distributing this additional Chinook salmon was as 

follows: 

• For the non-whiting sector, projected Chinook salmon catches at the 0.80th quantile were 

distributed to bottom trawl and midwater trawl per results of the bootstrap analysis. 

• For cases where projected catches were lower than the guideline plus reserve, the amount 

remaining between (a) the guideline plus reserve (9,000 Chinook salmon) and (b) the sum of the 

projected catches at the 0.80th quartile for bottom trawl and midwater trawl combined was added 

to the non-whiting gear type that would receive the reserve. The associated quantile (or range of 

quantiles) was then provided for that higher total value. 

As was done for the whiting sector, the values associated with the 0.80th quantile were shown when they 

were (a) lower than the guideline, (b) higher than the guideline, or (c) higher than the guideline plus the 

reserve. 
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-1

3 RESULTS

Salmon bycatch in all commercial fisheries from 2002 to 2015 are shown in Table 3-1. These data were 

updated by WCGOP (NWFSC 2017) after the Salmon Bycatch Report (NMFS 2016b) was presented to 

the Council at the March 2017 meeting. Table 10 shown in NMFS 2016b was based on fewer years of 

data than are shown in Table 3-1. 

Supplementary information is included in Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix 

D.Appendix B provides detailed analyses for projecting Chinook salmon bycatch for the whiting sector, 

and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (NMFS 2016b) provided information on salmon 

interactions relative to the operations of the Pacific Coast groundfish.
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of the West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-2

Table 3-1. Salmon mortality (number of fish) by species and fishing sector in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries, 2002 to 2015. Source: 

WCGOP (NWFSC 2017).

Fishery Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Chinook 1,663 2,617 803 3,958 1,192 1,317 718 318 714 3,989 4,209 3,739 6,695 1,806

Coho 146 3 1 86 28 226 21 12 0 5 17 6 104 4

Chum 24 11 55 20 87 169 60 41 10 46 53 26 4 5

Pink 0 17 0 48 0 34 0 2 0 12 22 37 0 23

Sockeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Chinook 1,062 425 4,206 4,018 839 2,462 1,962 279 2,997 3,722 2,359 1,263 6,898 2,002

Coho 0 0 0 0 0 141 10 37 16 136 16 33 167 9

Chum 0 0 0 0 0 113 8 2 8 42 3 7 4 7

Pink 0 0 0 0 0 47 7 26 0 6,113 0 2 0 0

Sockeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

Chinook 1,004 3,413 3,743 3,980 1,931 2,400 696 2,145 678 828 17 1,014 45 3

Coho 23 191 207 344 3 107 21 57 5 28 0 78 0 0

Chum 51 9 11 2 24 8 11 11 1 23 0 5 0 0

Pink 0 3747 0 383 0 513 9 129 0 1087 0 5 0 0

Sockeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0

Chinook 14,501 16,433 1,758 808 67 194 449 304 282 175 304 323 984 996

Coho 24 32 66 5 0 13 0 0 31 19 27 49 18 3

Chum 14 38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pink 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0

Sockeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Midwater Chinook -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12 71 661 482

non-whiting Coho -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 12 7

Chum -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 1 0 5

Pink -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 0 0

Sockeye -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 0 0

Chinook 22 72 43 32 20 0 0 22 16 8 63 124 36 40

Coho 0 3 45 3 0 15 42 71 42 63 16 19 106 32

Chum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pink 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sockeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a/ Includes only the Pacific whiting fishery. Tribal non-whiting fishery values were not available

b/ Includes bycatch by vessels fishing under EFPs not already included in a sector count. The added Chinook bycatch by year under EFPs was 2002-22, 2003-51, 2004-3, 2014-1

Non-trawl 

gear b/ 

At-Sea 

whiting 

Shorebased 

whiting 

Tribal whiting 

a/

Bottom trawl
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-3

3.1 Projections under future fishery and management conditions (Proposed Action)

3.1.1 Commercial non-trawl groundfish fisheries

Salmon bycatch by federally managed commercial groundfish non-trawl fisheries are shown in Table 3-1

and Table 3-2. Chinook salmon bycatch by these fisheries ranged from 0 to 124 fish per year.

6 All 

Chinook salmon bycatch in the federally managed commercial fixed gear fisheries were taken by the 

commercial nearshore fishery north of 40o

10ꞌ N. latitude (Somers et al. 2014; NWFSC 2017). 

Coho salmon bycatch by commercial non-trawl groundfish fisheries ranged from 0 to 106 fish per year 

(Table 3-1; Table 3-2). Although most coho salmon were caught by the nearshore fixed gear fishery, 

some were also caught by LE sablefish hook and line and by catch share hook and line fisheries (NWFSC 

2017). No other salmon species were caught by commercial non-trawl groundfish fisheries.

The maximum annual estimated mortality for Chinook and coho salmon is shown in Table 3-2 Observer 

coverage is low on commercial non-trawl groundfish trips, especially nearshore groundfish trips where 

most salmon are caught (Somers et al. 2016). A buffer of 250 Chinook salmon and 250 coho salmon 

mortality is also shown in Table 3-2 to account for this uncertainty (as well as uncertainty in mortality 

estimates provided for recreational groundfish fisheries; see below).

 

6

Note that this maximum value was corrected since salmon bycatch was reported to the Council in March, 2017 (see 

above, NMFS 2016b)
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-4

Table 3-2. Chinook and coho salmon mortality in ocean recreational groundfish fisheries and 

commercial groundfish non-trawl fisheries.

3.1.2 Ocean recreational groundfish (bottomfish) fisheries

State agencies provided estimates of fishing-related salmon mortality associated with recreational 

groundfish fisheries. Salmon caught by California, Oregon, and Washington recreational groundfish 

fisheries during salmon seasons are accounted for in the assessment and recording of salmon impacts in 

salmon fisheries. Hence, we show “NA” for these ocean fisheries in Table 3-2.

The CDFW provided sampling data for ocean skiff recreational fisheries that take place outside of salmon 

seasons. Data were provided from 2012 to 2016. Mortality of discarded salmon by this fishery ranged 

from 0 to 17.78 Chinook salmon per year and from 0 to 5.7 coho salmon per year. The maximum annual 

estimate for Chinook and coho salmon (rounded) are shown in Table 3-2 for this California recreational 

fishery. The data for these recent years indicate that salmon contacts during California recreational 

groundfish fisheries are uncommon, likely due to distinct fishing locations and gear type. 

Anglers frequently report targeting salmon and groundfish species during the same trip when the seasons 

overlap, but differences in the species’ catch location, depth, and gear suggest anglers target and catch 

one species group at a time. Furthermore, regulatory gear and depth restrictions relative to each fishery 

Non-trawl groundfish fishery

Chinook salmon 

(number) 

Coho salmon 

(number)

Commercial non-trawla/ 124 106

OR long-leader recreationalb/ 12 130

CA recreational skiff fisheryc/ 18 8

WA ocean bottomfish fisheryd/ NA NA

OR ocean bottomfish fisheryd/ NA NA

CA ocean bottomfish fisheryd/ NA NA

Buffere/ 250 250

Total 404 494

a/Maxiumum catch from 2002-2015; 100% discard mortality assumed; Table 5.

b/Bycatch rates were calculated from 2009-2011 long-leader EFPs

c/Ocean recreational groundfish fisheries outside of salmon season; 2012-2016.

 Chinook salmon mortality ranged from 0 to 17.78 per year; Coho 0 to 5.7 per year 

d/Salmon catch by WA, OR, and CA ocean recreational groundfish fisheries is

 already accounted for in salmon pre-season modeling. Not reported here.

e/Buffer to account for OR and WA ocean recreational fisheries outside of

 the salmon season and uncertainty associated with commercial non-trawl

 estimates.

Species
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-5

may reduce incidence of true bycatch (e.g., barbless hooks are required while targeting salmon or with 

salmon onboard; there are groundfish depth-based restrictions). Although data are only readily available 

since 2012 to estimate salmon bycatch outside the open salmon season, we expect the bycatch pattern and 

magnitude were similar throughout the 2000s as these factors would have been primary drivers of salmon 

bycatch in those earlier years as well.

Preliminary salmon mortality estimates were provided for Oregon and Washington recreational 

groundfish fisheries during closed salmon seasons (see Section 5.1.2, Methods). Sampling during this 

period (e.g., winter months) is sporadic and covers only a few ports. Hence, there is higher uncertainty for 

winter estimates than summer estimates. The level of salmon contacts by recreational groundfish anglers 

outside of the salmon seasons off Oregon and Washington is likely low. For example, over a 16-year 

period off Oregon (2001 to 2016), a preliminary query for the November to February window (i.e., closed 

salmon season) showed that on average 47 Chinook salmon, 23 coho salmon, 14 steelhead salmon, and 4

unidentified salmonids were caught and released per year. Salmon contacts by the ocean recreational 

groundfish fishery off Washington were higher than off Oregon. Over the same 16-year period in 

Washington, a query during the closed salmon season (October through May) showed on average fewer 

than 150 Chinook salmon and 20 coho salmon were encountered annually. Because salmon caught 

outside of the salmon season would be released, a 30 percent mortality rate would be applied to all

encounters. A rough estimate of salmon release mortality off Oregon and Washington for the recreational 

groundfish fishery outside of the salmon season would therefore be 46 Chinook salmon, 1 coho salmon, 4 

steelhead salmon, and 1 unidentified salmon. This potential salmon mortality is accounted for in the 

buffer shown in Table 3-2. Regulations for a long-leader recreational fishery seaward of 40 fathoms off 

Oregon for both charter and private vessels are being considered for 2018 (NMFS 2016c). Maximum 

estimated salmon bycatch mortality for this potential fishery is 12 Chinook salmon and 130 coho salmon

(Table 3-2) (see Methods, Section 2).

3.1.3 Projected total salmon mortality in commercial and recreational non-trawl fisheries 

combined

The highest annual salmon mortality across non-trawl groundfish fisheries (recreational groundfish 

outside of salmon seasons and commercial non-trawl) was 404 Chinook salmon and 495 coho salmon per 

year (Table 3-2). A buffer was included in this estimate of maximum salmon mortality because salmon 

bycatch is sporadic, sampling coverage of commercial and recreational trips is low (i.e., not 100 percent),

and we could not estimate salmon bycatch in recreational fisheries outside of the salmon season for all 

states. 
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-6

3.1.4 Non-whiting trawl sector

Historical salmon bycatch in groundfish trawl fisheries is shown in Table 3-1. Among all salmon species, 

Chinook salmon catch numbers are highest in the trawl fisheries. Chinook salmon mortality was 901 to 

19,475 fish for non-tribal trawl fisheries (whiting and non-whiting sectors) from 2002 to 2015. Coho and 

chum salmon were also caught annually by all trawl fisheries combined during from 2002 to 2015, but at 

much lower numbers (Table 3-1). Pink salmon were caught sporadically; pink salmon catch in non-tribal 

trawl fisheries was fewer than 100 fish per year, with the exception of 2011 when 6,125 pink salmon were 

caught by non-tribal groundfish trawl fisheries. Sockeye salmon are rarely caught by any of the trawl 

fisheries. Salmon bycatch by tribal whiting fisheries is also shown in Table 3-1. Projections of Chinook 

salmon bycatch (Table 3-3) were made using the conditions and assumptions in the proposed action

(Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017), including assuming the current EFH area closures and 

other inherent characteristics of the IFQ fishery catch data between 2014 and 2016 (such as species 

composition) (Table 1-1; Table 1-2). 

The results indicate that, under the proposed action, projected Chinook salmon bycatch would fall below 

the guideline of 5,500 Chinook salmon for the non-whiting fleet in most cases; the 0.80th quantile

demonstrates that Chinook salmon bycatch would be less than or equal to 4,580 fish (Table 3-3). Other 

quantiles are provided in Table 3-3 for reference.

The potential need to access the non-whiting trawl reserve is indicated simply by the quantile associated 

with the Chinook salmon guideline (i.e., 5,500 fish). Under the proposed action (Table 1-1; Table 1-2), 

the approximate probability of exceeding the 5,500 Chinook salmon guideline in any one year by the 

bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl together lies between the 0.80th and 0.81st quantiles (Table 

3-3). This indicates that between 80 percent and 81 percent of the time, bycatch should be equal to or lie 

beneath the 5,500 Chinook salmon bycatch guideline. The probability that these two non-whiting gear 

types would meet or exceed 9,000 Chinook salmon (guideline plus reserve), also lies within these same 

quantiles. Specifically, both lie between the 0.80th and 0.81st quantiles (4,580 and 9,182 fish), due to the 

steep rise at the high end of the predicted bycatch distribution for the midwater trawl gear (and disparate 

bimodal distribution; Figure 3-1), as evidenced by the same quantiles given for each individual gear type 

(1,642 and 1,658 for bottom trawl, versus 2,938 and 7,525 for midwater trawl; Figure 3-1). This is due to 

high variance from strong year effects in the data for midwater trawl, particularly 2014 and 2015 versus 

other years in the range (Figure 3-1; Table 2-2). Therefore, the results indicate that most of the time, 

Chinook salmon bycatch in the non-whiting trawl fishery is expected to be below the 5,500 guideline, but 

bycatch could increase quickly, requiring access to the reserve and potential additional actions such that 

bycatch would not exceed the combined guideline and reserve.
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-7

The underlying distributions for the two non-whiting gear types are both multimodal due to strong year 

effects and explicit accommodation for this feature in the model (Appendix B). Bottom trawl projections 

show modes at approximately 500 and 1,500 Chinook salmon (Figure 3-1), at approximately the 0.25th

and 0.75th quantiles. This suggests that, under the proposed action, Chinook salmon bycatch would be 

expected to fall within the 500 to 1,500 fish bounds approximately 50 percent of the time. Projections for 

non-whiting midwater trawl show modes at approximately 300, 1,300, and 8,500 fish, illustrating a 

somewhat more chaotic picture (Figure 3-1). The middle 50 percent of the midwater distribution is 

captured between 1,155 and 2,684 fish. 

Non-whiting midwater bycatch rates tend to be higher and more variable than results shown for bottom 

trawl, and that is reflected in these predictions (Table 3-3; Figure 3-1). The number of hauls is also 

substantially lower for midwater trawl than bottom trawl, which plays a role in the uncertainty across 

quantiles. Bottom trawl projections showed a unimodal latitudinal distribution of predicted bycatch, while 

the midwater fishery showed a multimodal distribution (Figure 3-1).
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-8

Table 3-3. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch (number) by 

commercial non-whiting trawl gear types (bottom and mid-water), assuming groundfish 

harvest levels (= model thresholds; Table 3-2) and fishery conditions under the Council’s 

proposed action. This information is also shown in Figure 3-1. Mean values were 

provided for comparison. Bycatch projections were rounded. Note: 404 Chinook salmon 

were also projected for non-trawl groundfish fisheries (commercial and recreational; see

Section 3.1.3). Source: West Coast Groundfish Observer Program data.

Quantiles

Chinook salmon projected bycatch (number)

Bottom 

trawla/

Midwater 

trawl

Bottom and 

midwater trawl 

(total)

Min 73 289 362

0.01 165 331 496

0.05 307 355 662

0.25 483 1,155 1,637

0.50 638 1,722 2,360

0.75 1,555 2,684 4,238

0.80 1,642 2,938 4,580

0.85 1,726 8,149 9,875

0.95 1,971 9,085 11,056

0.99 2,339 9,777 12,116

Max 3,290 11,184 14,474

Mean 960 2,898 3,858

a/Bottom trawl (0.80th quantile) + non-trawl bycatch (404) = 2,046 Chinook salmon
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-9

Figure 3-1. Model output for predicted distributions of Chinook salmon bycatch (count) and mean 

latitude (degrees), assuming groundfish catch thresholds and fishery conditions under the 

Council’s proposed action (Table 1-1;Table 1-2), for bottom trawl and non-whiting 

midwater trawl. Model thresholds for assumed groundfish catch were informed by the 

Council’s April motion (Table 1-1). Blue dashed line = mean, red dash = median, dotted 

lines = quantiles from Table 3-3 (0.01, 0.05, 0.25, 0.75, 0.95, and 0.99). Model informed 

by data from West Coast Observer Program (2012 to 2016).

3.2 Reserve analysis

3.2.1 Probability of more than one trawl sector needing access to the reserve

We examined two questions regarding access to the reserve. One question dealt with the potential for the 

non-whiting sector to meet or exceed its recommended Chinook salmon bycatch guideline (5,500) and, 

therefore, need access to the reserve (3,500 fish), or to exceed the sum of that guideline plus the reserve

(9,000 Chinook total) (see Section 3.1). The other question dealt with the potential for multiple sectors 

(including the whiting sector) to need access to the reserve within the same year. We examined the 

distributions of predicted bycatch for the independent sector analyses, together with a longer time series 

of absolute bycatch and bycatch rate among the sectors, and we discussed the issues in terms of 
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-10

correlations among different sectors’ bycatch and the tendency (or lack thereof) for multiple sectors to 

need access to the reserve within the same year.

We explored the idea of producing model-based estimates across all sectors to assess the probability of 

multiple sectors needing to access the reserve at the same time, but three major issues complicated the

problem at hand. First, the projections for different sectors are informed by a different time series. 

Applying different time series to this type of analysis may result in confounding effects that cannot be 

isolated, such as the influence of different trends and factors within each of the different time series that 

may influence bycatch. This poses a barrier in terms of modeling multisector projections that are tied to 

each year, in that all sectors should share the same years. Even if the sectors were reduced to use the 

lowest range of common years, the estimates for those sectors in which input data had been trimmed 

would become different from those used in the document, and the multisector results would be irrelevant. 

Second, the at-sea sectors showed a strong latitudinal shift mid-time series in the data (2008 to 2016), so 

truncating these data would bias the estimates instead of reflecting the full range of fleet distribution. 

Third, by the nature of the question, it should be answered by using a long-term data set. Making longer 

range projections to inform probabilities of co-occurrence of high bycatch among different sectors would 

not be properly informed by a common set of four or five years of data.

The need for access to the reserve by multiple sectors at the same time was qualitatively evaluated using 

correlations of annual salmon bycatch between pairs of sectors. There were no apparent or significant 

relationships in annual bycatch of Chinook salmon between whiting and non-whiting sectors using data 

from 2002 to 2016 (Table 3-4; Figure 3-2; Figure 3-3). Significant correlations were observed within 

sectors, however (Figure 3-3). Significant relationships were found between shorebased whiting and atsea whiting (r = 0.538, p = 0.039) and between bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl (r = 0.930, p 

= 0.007). Relationships among other sectors were non-significant (p > 0.05). The at-sea and shoreside 

whiting sectors are covered within the same shared guideline of 11,000 Chinook salmon. Similarly, the 

two gear types within the non-whiting sector are covered by the same shared guideline of 5,500 fish. 

These results suggest a low likelihood of both whiting and non-whiting sectors exceeding their respective 

guidelines and needing access to the reserve within the same year.
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-11

Table 3-4. Chinook salmon bycatch by groundfish sector, gear type, and year. Source: West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program data (2002 to 2016). NA = no non-whiting midwater 

trawling occurred from 2002 to 2010.

Year At-sea whiting

Shorebased 

whiting Tribal whiting Bottom trawl

Midwater nonwhiting

2002 1,679 1,062 1,018 14,915 NA

2003 2,648 425 3,439 16,460 NA

2004 805 4,206 3,740 2,221 NA

2005 3,963 4,018 3,985 1,242 NA

2006 1,209 839 1,940 175 NA

2007 1,321 2,462 2,404 317 NA

2008 722 1,962 697 324 NA

2009 319 378 2,147 299 NA

2010 714 2,997 678 53 NA

2011 3,990 3,708 906 175 19

2012 4,232 2,264 17 299 69

2013 3,737 1,229 1,025 319 78

2014 6,685 6,637 154 963 799

2015 1,809 1,998 NA 997 482

2016 3,050 738 NA 371 47
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-12

Figure 3-2. Chinook salmon bycatch by groundfish sector and year. Source: West Coast Groundfish 

Observer program data (2002 to 2016).
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-13

Figure 3-3. Relationships in annual Chinook salmon bycatch among groundfish sectors. Sample 

correlations (r) and significance levels (p) are shown for each comparison. Source data: 

West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (2002 to 2016).

3.2.2 Impacts among trawl sectors and gear types given full utilization of the reserve by a single 

sector or gear type

The Council’s direction in its proposed action to evaluate impacts of one sector or gear type using the 

entire reserve (Table 1-1; Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017) was as follows:

“In the analysis of the reserve, analyze three scenarios such that the entire reserve is taken 

in the following fisheries in their status quo times and areas: 1) whiting, 2) bottom trawl, 

and 3) midwater non-whiting trawl.” 
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-14

This analysis could not be formally modeled using bootstrap simulations with all sectors included in the 

model, for reasons discussed in Section 3.2.1. However, projected bycatch by each sector, along with 

associated quantiles, can be inferred from data produced from simulations shown in Table 3-5. As such, 

this analysis should be considered a simple and blunt characterization of potential outcomes.

Table 3-5 (a, b, c, d). Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch (count) 

by targeted whiting sectors, assuming average annual attainment (3-5a and 3-5c) 

or 100 percent annual attainment (3-5b and 3-5d) for commercial (non-tribal) 

sectors. Data for at-sea whiting were blocked by their prominent latitudinal 

distribution. The at-sea fleet was described as northern (3-5a and 3-5b; 2008 to 

2010 data) or southern (3-5c and 3-5d; 2012 to 2016 data) (see Appendix B). 

Shoreside predictions used data from 2012 to 2016. Source: Appendix B. 

a. North at-sea scenario, 2008-2010 data; Average Attainment b. North at-sea scenario, 2008-2010 data; 100% Attainment

Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum

min 938 42 207 1,187 min 1,207 39 226 1,472

0.01 1,075 59 264 1,397 0.01 1,359 64 310 1,734

0.05 1,139 72 297 1,508 0.05 1,445 76 344 1,865

0.25 1,724 98 366 2,188 0.25 2,173 103 416 2,693

0.50 4,682 551 1,012 6,245 0.50 5,935 593 1,168 7,696

0.75 5,523 642 1,108 7,273 0.75 7,018 684 1,272 8,974

0.80 5,837 660 1,127 7,623 0.80 7,352 703 1,293 9,348

0.85 8,174 682 1,151 10,006 0.85 10,474 724 1,315 12,514

0.95 9,623 767 1,216 11,606 0.95 12,125 808 1,388 14,321

0.99 10,594 891 1,292 12,777 0.99 13,088 942 1,474 15,505

max 11,961 1,117 1,449 14,528 max 14,942 1,272 1,695 17,909

mean 4,506 440 831 5,777 mean 5,692 469 952 7,114

c. South at-sea scenario, 2012-2016 data; Average Attainment d. South at-sea scenario, 2012-2016 data; 100% Attainment

Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum

min 938 1,763 347 3,048 min 1,207 2,042 414 3,663

0.01 1,075 2,234 415 3,724 0.01 1,359 2,427 480 4,267

0.05 1,139 2,520 457 4,116 0.05 1,445 2,707 528 4,681

0.25 1,724 3,001 695 5,420 0.25 2,173 3,190 827 6,191

0.50 4,682 3,417 3,206 11,305 0.50 5,935 3,620 3,699 13,254

0.75 5,523 4,532 4,282 14,337 0.75 7,018 4,819 4,971 16,807

0.80 5,837 4,693 4,571 15,101 0.80 7,352 4,969 5,335 17,656

0.85 8,174 4,852 4,833 17,859 0.85 10,474 5,143 5,648 21,265

0.95 9,623 5,358 5,446 20,427 0.95 12,125 5,634 6,282 24,040

0.99 10,594 5,941 5,994 22,529 0.99 13,088 6,276 6,816 26,181

max 11,961 7,112 7,104 26,177 max 14,942 7,935 8,010 30,887

mean 4,506 3,734 2,745 10,985 mean 5,692 3,966 3,188 12,846
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-15

Under the proposed action for the non-whiting trawl sector (Table 1-1, Table 1-2), the maximum Chinook 

catch at the 0.80th quantile for bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater (1,642 Chinook salmon and 2,938

Chinook salmon, respectively) would total 4,580 Chinook salmon across all scenarios shown in Table 

3-6. Hence, there is greater than an 80 percent probability (80 percent to 81 percent) that the non-whiting 

sector would remain below the bycatch guideline of 5,500 Chinook salmon. If one of the non-whiting 

gear types were to catch the remaining Chinook salmon (beyond the amount shown at the 0.80th quantile) 

up to the sector guideline plus reserve (i.e., totaling 7,358 Chinook salmon for mid-water non-whiting 

trawl or 6,062 Chinook salmon for bottom trawl during different years; Table 3-6), then the probability 

that the non-whiting sector would remain at or below its sector guideline and reserve (9,000 Chinook)

would be between 80 percent and 81 percent.

Based on the simulations (see Figure 3-1), projected Chinook salmon catch by bottom trawl would likely 

never reach 6,062 fish, even though for the reserves analysis, we forced bottom trawl to achieve that 

amount (Table 3-6 and Table 3-7) to achieve Council’s guidance. The maximum catch by bottom trawl at 

the maximum quantile would be 3,290 Chinook salmon (Table 3-3). Hence, for cases where we assumed 

bottom trawl would need the reserve in Table 3-6 and Table 3-7 and, the associated quantile was reported 

as “NA.”

Footnotes in Table 3-6 and Table 3-7 show projected catch of Chinook salmon by federally managed nontrawl groundfish fisheries (see Section 3.1.1). For this analysis, we assumed that catch by non-trawl 

groundfish fisheries would not exceed 404 fish, and in most cases, would be much lower. Hence, the 

maximum bottom trawl, commercial fixed gear, and ocean recreational bycatch of Chinook salmon 

combined could reach 2,046 to 6,466 Chinook salmon under these reserve scenarios (Table 3-6; Table 

3-7), depending on whether bottom trawl took the entire reserve (which would be unlikely, as indicated

above) or remained at or below the catch level associated with the 0.80th quantile (Table 3-6a and Table 

3-6b). 

Projected bycatch of Chinook salmon by the whiting sector depends on the assumptions described in

Appendix B (see Table 3-6). These assumptions were (a) whether the distribution of fishing effort by the 

at-sea whiting fleet would fish northerly versus southerly and (b) whether annual whiting attainment 

would be assumed average or full (100 percent) for the whiting sectors.

For the northern distribution of the at-sea whiting fleet, it would be expected (at the 0.80th quantile) that

the whiting sector would catch no more than 7,623 Chinook salmon assuming average whiting attainment 

(Table 3-6a) or no more than 9,348 Chinook salmon assuming full whiting attainment (Table 3-6b). 

Therefore, the whiting sector would most likely remain lower than its proposed guideline of 11,000 

Chinook salmon regardless of the assumed whiting attainment level when fishing the northern 
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-16

distribution. Furthermore, these analyses show a 95 to 96 percent probability that the whiting sector 

would catch no more than its Chinook salmon guideline plus reserve, equaling 14,500 fish (Table 3-6b). 

This suggests there would be only a 4 percent to 5 percent probability that this sector would exceed 

14,500 Chinook salmon. In most cases under these scenarios, the whiting sector would catch many fewer 

than 11,000 Chinook salmon (Appendix B).

When combining whiting and non-whiting sector information under the assumption that the at-sea 

whiting fleet fished the northern areas (Appendix B), should one sector catch its entire Chinook salmon

guideline plus reserve under the proposed action, then there is at least an 80 percent probability that the 

other sector would remain at or below its guideline. This would occur despite the assumption of whiting 

attainment (Table 3-6a and Table 3-6b). 

Quantiles and distribution of Chinook salmon bycatch are much different for the whiting subsectors when 

the at-sea fleet shows a southern distribution of fishing effort (Table 3-6c and Table 3-6d) than when its

distribution is northern (Table 3-6a and Table 3-6b). If the at-sea whiting fleet fished the southern 

distribution described in Appendix B, then there would be an 80 percent probability that Chinook catch 

would be equal to or less than 15,101 fish (assuming average whiting attainment) or 17,656 fish 

(assuming 100 percent whiting attainment). In both cases, there would be greater than a 20 percent 

probability that the whiting sector could exceed its guideline plus reserve of 14,500 Chinook (Table 3-6c 

and Table 3-6d). 

If whiting and non-whiting sector information were combined under the assumption that the at-sea 

whiting fleet fished the southern areas (see Appendix B), there would be a less than 80 percent

probability that Chinook catch would be equal to or lower than the guideline plus reserve for all trawl 

sectors combined (=20,000 fish) for five of six combinations of projected catches (Table 3-6c and Table 

3-6d). Hence, in most cases, there would be greater than a 20 percent probability that Chinook catch by 

whiting and non-whiting sectors combined could exceed the Chinook harvest guideline and reserve for 

both sectors combined under the assumption of the southern distribution of effort (see Appendix B).

Table 3-7 provides a different perspective of projected Chinook catch assuming a southern distribution for

the at-sea whiting fleet. In this case, the probability of reaching the Chinook salmon bycatch guidelines

for the whiting and non-whiting trawl fisheries is evaluated. As shown above (Table 3-6), the probability 

that the non-whiting sector would catch less than or equal to its guideline or guideline plus reserve would 

be 80 percent or greater. However, the probability that the whiting sector would remain at or below its 

guideline or guideline plus reserve would be lower than 80 percent for all cases (Table 3-7). In the worstcase scenario, the probability that the whiting sector would remain below its guideline of 11,000 Chinook 

would be 25 percent to 50 percent and below its guideline plus reserve of 14,500 Chinook would be 60
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-17

percent to 61 percent (Table 3-7b). In these cases, additional management actions could be required to 

limit bycatch in the whiting fishery within its guideline or guideline plus reserve.

Table 3-6. Chinook counts and quantiles assuming one sector (e.g. whiting or non-whiting) or one 

gear type within the non-whiting sector (i.e., midwater trawl or bottom trawl) receives 

and catches the entire reserve (= shaded cells). Definitions: NA = exceeds the maximum 

possible quantile (Max = 3,290 Chinook salmon) shown in Table 3-3. 1

a. Scenario that includes NORTHERN distribution of at-sea whting and AVERAGE whiting attainment

Sector/Geartype

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Bottom trawl a/ 1,642 0.80 6,062 NA 1,642 0.80

Non-whiting MDT 7,358 0.80-0.81 2,938 0.80 2,938 0.80

Total (non-whiting sector) 9,000 0.80-0.81 9,000 0.80-0.81 4,580 0.80

Catcher/Processor (CP) 660 0.80 660 0.80 1,115

Mothership (MS) 1,127 0.80 1,127 0.80 1,446

Shoreside whiting (SS) 5,837 0.80 5,837 0.80 11,939

Total (whiting sector) 7,623 0.8 7,623 0.8 14,500

a/BT + non-trawl 2,046 6,466 2,046

10b. Scenario that includes NORTHERN distribution of at-sea whting and 100% whiting attainment

Sector/Geartype

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Bottom trawl a/ 1,642 0.80 6,062 NA 1,642 0.80

Non-whiting MDT 7,358 0.80-0.81 2,938 0.80 2,938 0.80

Total (non-whiting sector) 9,000 0.80-0.81 9,000 0.80-0.81 4,580 0.80

Catcher/Processor (CP) 703 0.80 703 0.80 824

Mothership (MS) 1,293 0.80 1,293 0.80 1,398

Shoreside whiting (SS) 7,352 0.80 7,352 0.80 12,278

Total (whiting sector) 9,348 0.80 9,348 0.80 14,500

a/BT + non-trawl 2,046 6,466 2,046

Sector and geartype recieiving the reserve shown by shaded cells

Sector and geartype recieiving the reserve shown by shaded cells

0.99-1.0

0.95-0.96
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-18

1. Quantiles were set at a minimum of 0.80 for this analysis; projected Chinook salmon bycatch associated with that quantile was

reported, based on simulation analyses. If salmon bycatch rates were high, and the guideline plus reserve would be exceeded at 

the 0.80th quantile, then projected catch at 0.80th quantile was reported (even if it exceeded the guideline plus reserve). If salmon 

bycatch rates were low, and bycatch would be less than the guideline plus reserve at the 0.80th quantile, then projected catches 

were increased until the guideline plus reserve was met; the associated quantile was then reported. Quantiles for predicted 

distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch by sector was described in Table 3-3for the non-whiting sector and in Table 

3-5for the whiting sectors.

NOTE: We assumed average annual attainment or 100 percent annual attainment for commercial (non-tribal) whiting sectors. 

The at-sea data were blocked by their prominent latitudinal distribution showing northern years (2008 to 2010) and southern 

years (2012 to 2016) (see Appendix B). Shoreside predictions used data from 2012-2016. Sum of bottom trawl and non-trawl 

groundfish (commercial and recreational) projections of Chinook salmon bycatch are shown as a footnote (404 Chinook salmon 

was assumed maximum bycatch for commercial fixed gear and recreational groundfish fisheries, including the potential longleader recreational fishery off Oregon, see Section 3.1.3). Source: Appendix B.

c. Scenario that includes SOUTHERN distribution of at-sea whiting fleets and AVERAGE whiting attainment

Sector/Geartype

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Bottom traw a/ 1,642 0.80 6,062 NA 1,642 0.80

Non-whiting MDT 7,358 0.80-0.81 2,938 0.80 2,938 0.80

Total (non-whiting sector) 9,000 0.80-0.81 9,000 0.80-0.81 4,580 0.80

Catcher/Processor (CP) 4,693 0.80 4,693 0.80 4,693 0.80

Mothership (MS) 4,571 0.80 4,571 0.80 4,571 0.80

Shoreside whiting (SS) 5,837 0.80 5,837 0.80 5,837 0.80

Total (whiting sector) 15,101 0.8 15,101 0.8 15,101 0.8

a/BT + non-trawl 2,046 6,466 2,046

d. Scenario that includes SOUTHERN distribution of at-sea whiting fleets and 100% whiting attainment

Sector/Geartype

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Bottom trawl a/ 1,642 0.80 6,062 NA 1,642 0.80

Non-whiting MDT 7,358 0.80-0.81 2,938 0.80 2,938 0.80

Total (non-whiting sector) 9,000 0.80-0.81 9,000 0.80-0.81 4,580 0.80

Catcher/Processor (CP) 4,969 0.80 4,969 0.80 4,969 0.80

Mothership (MS) 5,335 0.80 5,335 0.80 5,335 0.80

Shoreside whiting (SS) 7,352 0.80 7,352 0.80 7,352 0.80

Total (whiting sector) 17,656 0.8 17,656 0.8 17,656 0.8

a/BT + non-trawl 2,046 6,466 2,046

Sector and geartype recieiving the reserve shown by shaded cells

Sector and geartype recieiving the reserve shown by shaded cells
Chapter 3. Results

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 3-19

Table 3-7. Chinook salmon counts and quantiles assuming one sector (e.g., whiting or non-whiting) 

or one gear type within the non-whiting sector (i.e., midwater trawl or bottom trawl) 

receives the entire reserve (= shaded cells). Definitions: NA = exceeds the maximum 

quantile; Max = 3,290 Chinook salmon (shown in Table 3-3). Source: Appendix B.

1. Only southern distribution of the commercial (non-tribal) at-sea whiting fleet is shown (years 2012 to 2016) for both average 

attainment and 100 percent attainment (Appendix B). Total projected catch is capped at the guideline or guideline plus reserve; 

quantiles associated with the projected catch is shown. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch by 

sector were described by Table 3-3for non-whiting sector and Table 3-5for whiting sectors. Shoreside predictions used data from 

2012 to 2016. Sum of bottom trawl and non-trawl groundfish (commercial and recreational) projections of Chinook salmon 

bycatch are shown as a footnote (404 Chinook salmon were assumed maximum bycatch for commercial fixed gear and 

recreational groundfish fisheries, including the potential long-leader recreational fishery off Oregon, see Section 3.1.1).

a. Scenario that includes SOUTHERN distribution of at-sea whiting fleets and AVERAGE attainment.

 Also assumes the whiting catch is capped at either 11,000 or 14,500 Chinook (e.g., mitigation).

Sector/Geartype

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Bottom trawl (BT) /a 1,642 0.80 6,062 NA 1,642 0.80

Non-whiting MDT 7,358 0.80-0.81 2,938 0.80 2,938 0.80

Total (non-whiting sector) 9,000 0.80-0.81 9,000 0.80-0.81 4,580 0.80

Catcher/Processor (CP) 3,325 ~0.40-0.50 3,325 ~0.40-0.50 4,571 0.76-0.77

Mothership (MS) 3,119 ~0.40-0.50 3,119 ~0.40-0.50 4,345 0.76-0.77

Shoreside whiting (SS) 4,556 ~0.40-0.50 4,556 ~0.40-0.50 5,585 0.76-0.77

Total (whiting sector) 11,000 ~0.40-0.50 11,000 ~0.40-0.50 14,500 0.76-0.77

a/BT + non-trawl 2,046 6,466 2,046

b. Scenario that includes SOUTHERN distribution of at-sea whiting fleets and 100% attainment.

 Also assumes the whiting catch is capped at either 11,000 or 14,500 Chinook (e.g., mitigation).

Sector/Geartype

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Chinook 

count Quantile 

Bottom trawl /a 1,642 0.80 6,062 NA 1,642 0.80

Non-whiting MDT 7,358 0.80-0.81 2,938 0.80 2,938 0.80

Total (non-whiting sector) 9,000 0.80-0.81 9,000 0.80-0.81 4,580 0.80

Catcher/Processor (CP) 3,004 0.25-0.50 3,004 0.25-0.50 4,098 0.60-0.61

Mothership (MS) 3,070 0.25-0.50 3,070 0.25-0.50 4,197 0.60-0.61

Shoreside whiting (SS) 4,926 0.25-0.50 4,926 0.25-0.50 6,206 0.60-0.61

Total (whiting sector) 11,000 0.25-0.50 11,000 0.25-0.50 14,500 0.60-0.61

a/BT + non-trawl 2,046 6,466 2,046

Sector and geartype recieiving the reserve shown by shaded cells

Sector and geartype recieiving the reserve shown by shaded cells
Chapter 4. Discussion

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 4-1

4 DISCUSSION

Chinook salmon bycatch projections for non-whiting midwater trawl and bottom trawl fisheries, which 

were based on the proposed action (Table 1-1, Table 1-2), were within the bycatch guideline of 

5,500 Chinook salmon; annual bycatch was projected to be equal to or less than 4,580 Chinook salmon 

80 percent of the time (Table 3-5). These projections may be considered high or risk averse due to 

assumptions that were made regarding anticipated trawling effort and then were applied in the simulation 

model. 

Although assumptions about groundfish catch (Table 1-1, Table 1-2) by bottom trawl are considerably 

lower than the 1990s amounts assumed in Alternative 2B(1) in the March 2017 Alternatives Document 

(approximately 26,000 mt versus 41,000 mt respectively), the projected amount of groundfish catch may 

still be considered somewhat optimistic, given that recent annual groundfish catches (recent bottom trawl 

landings have remained near 16,000 mt). The attainment estimate shown in Table 1-2 for non-whiting 

midwater trawl (9,800 mt) is considerably higher than the assumed attainment estimate shown in the 

March 2017 Alternatives Document (1,500 mt) or by recent trawl landings (2015 and 2016 non-whiting 

midwater trawl landings have averaged 1,600 mt). However, these risk-averse projections may soon be 

plausible because several important constraining overfished stocks of rockfish have recently rebuilt, 

including canary rockfish. As such, there is justification for optimistic attainment levels for this fishery

because the past bycatch constraints of these species on target catch have been reduced.

Historical datasets were analyzed to evaluate uncertainty and potential interannual variation for the nonwhiting trawl fisheries (Appendix A). Chinook salmon bycatch shown by Pikitch et al. (1988) and 

Sampson (2002) was higher than shown herein. The Pikitch discard study and the EDCP study were both 

carried out during the trip-limit management era (pre-2011) and prior to the development of RCAs (pre2002). Prior to 2002, there was no mandatory at-sea monitoring and, subsequently, little individual 

accountability during the development of these historical databases. 

Differences in management, incentives, and technology between this current catch share program era and 

the historical trip-limit era may partly explain the lower bycatch projections shown in Table 3-3 relative 

to projections shown in Appendix A (i.e., projections using historical catch data). In addition, at the time 

of the Pikitch et al. (1988) discard study, commercial troll landings

(http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/background/document-library/historical-data-of-ocean-salmonfisheries/ and the bottom trawling effort (towing hours and number of vessels; PacFIN data) were among 

the highest on record. The EDCP study also took place during a period of high trawling effort. These 

additional factors could be responsible for higher bycatch estimates shown by these historical databases. 
Chapter 4. Discussion

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 4-2

It is likely that current management, current incentives (e.g., retention of MSC certification), and 

technological improvements (e.g., use of salmon excluder devices) may all lead to lower Chinook salmon 

bycatch relative to what was observed during the 1980s and 1990s. 

It is possible that bycatch rates by the non-whiting trawl fishery may be higher during some years than 

assumed for the development of Table 3-3 in this document; however, management and voluntary 

responses to reduce bycatch rates can be rapid, if needed. NMFS and the GMT currently have real-time 

(updated daily) observer and electronic monitoring data with Chinook salmon counts available by IFQ 

sector. Further, if those data reveal an impending conservation issue, WCGOP has indicated that it could

provide more granular data detailing Chinook salmon bycatch by area and depth, which would support 

quick inseason decision making for implementing specific block area closures. Additionally, between 

improved efficiencies, improved technologies (see Introduction), and open communication between the 

groundfish trawl fleet and the salmon troll fleet (see Appendix C), fishermen may exhibit an increased 

proactive approach, more so than has been observed in the past, to reduce their projected impacts on 

Chinook salmon. Finally, the goal of maintaining current aggregate bycatch rates could be accomplished 

by using the recommended system of block area closures, which could be implemented pre-season or 

inseason, “for groundfish and protected species (primarily salmon)” as specifically mentioned in the 

Council’s April motion (Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017).

4.1 Potential impacts of the 2018 trawl gear EFP 

The proposed action outlining the future of the groundfish fishery and management measures (Table 1-1) 

includes EFPs to provide for exempted trawl fisheries in 2017 and 2018 (Appendix C). In 2017, the 

Council recommended and NMFS approved a trawl gear EFP that provided exemptions to minimum 

mesh size requirements for bottom trawl and the requirement to use the selective flatfish trawl shoreward 

of the RCA and north of 42°N. latitude.

The Council, at its September 2017 meeting, recommended a new trawl gear EFP (or two separate EFPs)

for 2018, which carried over all the provisions from 2017 trawl gear EFP. The Council also recommended 

that NMFS consider extending the geographic scope of the EFP in 2018 and added additional elements, 

such as year-round non-whiting midwater trawling in all areas north of 40°10ꞌ N. latitude and non-whiting 

midwater trawling within the current boundaries of the RCA south of 40°10ꞌ N. latitude, year-round 

(Agenda Item E.4, Council Action, September 2017). 

While this analysis was not able to directly predict the impact of the EFP on salmon bycatch in 2018, the 

impacts would be included within the estimates shown for the non-whiting fishery as provided by the 

provisions of the EFP (Table 3-3). These estimates assume that the full allocation of most non-whiting 

groundfish species (including midwater species) would be taken; therefore, the salmon impacts would 
Chapter 4. Discussion

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 4-3

shift from the primary midwater fishery to the EFP. Furthermore, by design, NMFS could modify or close 

the EFP if the midwater bycatch harvest guideline of 800 were exceeded prior to May 15th (and would 

then reopen at the start of the primary season), or if the total of 3,547 Chinook salmon were taken by the 

EFP and midwater fishery combined. Furthermore, NMFS may close the proposed EFP south of 42° N.

latitude at any time should Chinook salmon catch exceed a harvest guideline of 80 fish.

Additional analyses were performed in Appendix C to evaluate impacts of extending the midwater trawl 

fishery south of 40°10' N. latitude (year-round) within the boundaries of the current trawl RCA. 

Conclusions are shown in Appendix C are as follows: 

1. Future EFP Chinook salmon bycatch will likely remain within the general non-whiting 

projections and are not in addition to them.

2. The EFP has harvest guidelines that would limit potential impacts.

3. Mid-water trawl effort (including within the RCA) would likely occur south of 42° N. latitude 

prior to May 15th and south of 40°10' N. latitude before and after May 15th (within the trawl 

RCA), but the proportion of effort relative to northern mid-water trawling effort would likely be 

lower than historically observed.

4.2 Projections and use of the reserve

One task within the reserve analysis was to evaluate the impacts on (a) non-whiting midwater trawl if 

bottom trawl used the entire reserve or (b) the impacts on bottom trawl if non-whiting midwater trawl 

used the entire reserve. This analysis was difficult for two reasons:

• Chinook salmon bycatch correlates significantly between bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater 

trawl (r = 0.930; Figure 3-3). Holding one gear type at a constant bycatch level that would be 

observed at the 0.80th quantile (i.e., non-whiting midwater trawl) while forcing the other gear 

type to take the remaining guideline plus reserve (i.e., bottom trawl) is likely realistic between 

sectors of different target type (one whiting sector versus one non-whiting sector), but not 

between two sectors with the same target type (i.e. at-sea vs shoreside IFQ whiting, or bottom 

trawl vs midwater trawl non-whiting). Bycatch would likely increase (or decrease) in tandem for 

whiting sectors, or for non-whiting sectors, but not between the two sector types.

• The maximum simulated catch by bottom trawl was 3,290 Chinook salmon (Table 3-3), which 

would be much lower than the assumed bycatch for bottom trawl when forced to reach the reserve

(6,062 Chinook salmon). 

These two caveats may cancel each other out, at some point. In other words, if Chinook salmon catch by 

bottom trawl reached the maximum level shown in Table 3-3, then catch by non-whiting midwater trawl 
Chapter 4. Discussion

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 4-4

would likely be higher than shown at the 0.80th quantile (i.e., greater than 2,938 Chinook salmon) in 

Table 3-6 and Table 3-7. The degree to which these two situations counter each other is uncertain.

The probabilities of exceeding the Chinook salmon bycatch guidelines for the Pacific whiting sectors 

under the proposed action for various conditions are shown in Appendix B. These conditions would 

include (a) whether the distribution of fishing effort was northerly versus southerly and (b) whether one 

would assume 100 percent whiting attainment or average whiting attainment. 

Projected Chinook salmon bycatch numbers for non-whiting and whiting fisheries were made over a 

variety of scenarios (Table 3-6 and Table 3-7). Results indicate that it is unlikely that any two sectors 

might exceed their bycatch guidelines described in the proposed action at the same time (Figure 3-2; 

Figure 3-3). Under any scenario, when the geographic distribution of the at-sea whiting fleet is most 

northerly, there is more than an 80 percent probability that the total Chinook salmon bycatch across 

sectors would be lower than the bycatch guideline plus the reserve amount; neither sector would 

negatively impact the other (Table 3-6a and Table 3-6b). However, if the at-sea whiting fleet were to fish 

primarily in its southern fishing areas, where Chinook salmon bycatch rates are higher (Table 3-5; 

Appendix B), there would be only a 25 percent to 50 percent probability that the whiting fleet would 

catch equal to or less than its 11,000 Chinook salmon guideline (depending on assumed attainment), and a 

60 percent to 77 percent chance that the whiting sectors would catch less than their bycatch guideline plus 

the reserve (14,500 Chinook salmon, depending on assumed attainment) (Table 3-7a and Table 3-7b). 

Hence, in five of six cases, there would be a greater than 20 percent probability that the Chinook salmon 

guideline plus reserve across sectors would be exceeded if the at-sea whiting fleet fished a southern 

distribution (Appendix B) throughout the year (Table 3-6c and Table 3-6d). 

The at-sea whiting sector has been under pressure in recent years to avoid Pacific Ocean perch (POP) and 

darkblotched rockfish, two overfished (or formerly overfished) species, for which densities and 

abundance are highest in northern waters. These species are managed using hard catch limits (hard caps) 

that are low and difficult for at-sea fleets to maintain. If either the mothership or catcher-processor

fisheries exceed their hard caps, then NMFS has the authority to close that fishery through regulations at

Codified Federal Regulations(CFR) §660.60(d). 

NMFS recently published a proposed rule for Amendment 21-3 which changes the management of 

darkblotched rockfish and POP allocations for the at-sea whiting sectors from hard bycatch limits to 

yields managed as set-asides (soft caps). This conversion to managing POP and darkblotched rockfish 

allocations as set-asides removes the regulatory requirement that NMFS take automatic action to close the 

mothership or catcher-processor sectors if their sector-specific allocations are exceeded.
Chapter 4. Discussion

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 4-5

In June 2016, the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, through publication of the 2017-2018 

Harvest Specifications and Management Measures Environmental Assessment (NMFS 2016a), a new offthe-top deduction, or “buffer.” The buffer provided specific amounts of yield that were deducted from the 

annual catch limits (ACLs) for canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, and POP to account for unforeseen 

catch events. This new management measure set the fishery limit (the catch amount from which the 

allocations were based) on the amount after the buffer was subtracted from the ACL. The result was an 

amount of yield for these three species that was unallocated at the start of the year, but which was held in 

reserve as a buffer. The full POP and darkblotched buffers were released to the at-sea whiting sector in 

2017 through an inseason action taken by NMFS (82 FR 31494). At the time of its creation, the buffer 

was purposefully limited to the 2017-2018 biennium. However, the Council will consider recommending 

buffers for the 2019-2020 biennium through Amendment 27 to the FMP (i.e., analyzed in the 2017-2018 

Harvest Specifications and Management Measures, NMFS 2016a). 

As a result of the two management actions shown above (i.e., for darkblotched rockfish and POP, the 

addition of potential buffers along with managing the at-sea allocations as set-asides), the whiting fishery 

footprint could emulate the northern distribution described in Appendix B more frequently. If both 

regulations are effective in 2018, and if the buffer is provided to the at-sea whiting fishery, then the fleet 

would probably follow the northern distribution model most often. In addition to this added flexibility for 

the at-sea whiting fleets, recent stock assessments show that both darkblotched rockfish and POP are no 

longer overfished (Wallace and Gertseva 2017; Wetzel et al. 2017). The Council adopted the 

darkblotched rockfish updated stock assessment at its June 2016 Council meeting (Decision Summary 

Document, PFMC, June 9-14, 2017). If both assessments are adopted by the Council, and if NMFS 

provides final approval and makes a best scientific information available (BSIA) determination, then the 

resulting higher ACLs would further increase the likelihood of attaining whiting allocations while 

reducing Chinook salmon impacts, due to increased flexibility for the at-sea fleet to increase fishing effort 

in areas with lowest Chinook salmon bycatch rates (e.g., the northern fishing area), if needed.
Chapter 5. References

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 5-1

5 REFERENCES

Crowder, L.B. and Murawski, S.A., 1998. Fisheries bycatch: implications for management. Fisheries, 

23(6), pp.8-17.

Davison, A.C. and Hinkley, D.V., 1997. Bootstrap methods and their application (Vol. 1). Cambridge 

university press.

Erickson, D.L. and E.K. Piktich. 1994. Incidental catch of Chinook salmon in commercial bottom trawls 

off the U.S. West Coast. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:550-563.

Gerrodette, T., Dayton, P.K., Macinko, S. and Fogarty, M.J., 2002. Precautionary management of marine 

fisheries: moving beyond burden of proof. Bulletin of Marine Science, 70(2), pp.657-668.

Grover, A.M., M.S. Mohr, and M.L. Palmer_Zwahlen. 2002. Hook-and-release mortality of Chinook 

salmon from drift mooching with circle hooks: management implications for California’s ocean 

sport fishery. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30:39-56.

Matson, S.E., Taylor, I.G., Gertseva, V.V. and Dorn, M.W., 2017. Novel catch projection model for a 

commercial groundfish catch shares fishery. Ecological modelling, 349, pp.51-61.

Mirick, P. 2013, Unpublished presentation. A simulation approach to setting Oregon recreational halibut 

seasons. 

Mirick, P., C. Niles and J. Doerpinghaus. 2015. Proposed bootstrap simulation method for analyzing 

rockfish bycatch in the at sea whiting sectors. Agenda Item I.4., Supplemental Attachment 9. 

November 2015. PFMC. http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/I4_Sup_Att9_AtSeaWhitingBootstrap_Nov2015BB.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Trawl rockfish conservation area (RCA) boundary 

modifications. Final Environmental Assessment. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast 

Region, Seattle, WA. February 2014. 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/nepa/groundfish/misc_ea/rca_ea_3_4_14.p

df

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016a. Amendment 27 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan and 2017-2018 Harvest Specifications and Management Measures. 

Final Environmental Assessment. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Seattle, 

WA. December 2016. http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/17-18-spex-final-ea03062017.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016b. Salmon bycatch in the Pacific coast groundfish 

fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service, Sustainable Fisheries Division, West Coast Region, 

Seattle, WA. October 2016. http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/I1a_NMFS_Rpt2_Bycatch_Summary_FinalPublicVersion_2016Update

d_Mar2017BB.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016c. Authorization of an Oregon recreational fishery for 

midwater groundfish species. Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. 
Chapter 5. References

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 5-2

http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/G5_Att1_DraftEA_ORmidwaterSport_MAR2016BB.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2017. Alternatives for salmon bycatch management in the 

Pacific coast groundfish fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, West Coast Region, Seattle, WA. March 2017. http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/I1a_NMFS_Rpt1_Alts_for_Salmon_Bycatch_Mgmt_inthe_Pacific_Coa

st_Groundfish_Fisheries_final_Mar2017BB.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2017. 

West coast groundfish trawl catch share program five-year review – Draft. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Seattle WA and Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland OR. August 

2017. http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/trailing-actions/publicreview-draft-of-the-groundfish-trawl-catch-share-program-five-year-review/.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). 2017. Observed and estimated total bycatch of salmon in 

the 2002-2015 U.S. west coast fisheries. Report Tables. 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, 

WA 98112. 

https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observation/xls/SalmonBycatch_Expanded_

2002-2015.xlsx

Pikitch, E.K., D.L. Erickson, and J.R. Wallace. 1988. An evaluation of the effectiveness of trip limits as a 

management tool. Northwest Alaska Fisheries Science Center Processed Report 88-21. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.

Sampson, D.B. 2002. Analysis of data from the at-sea data collection project. Final Report to the Oregon 

Trawl Commission. Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis, 

OR.

Somers, K. A.1, M.A. Bellman, J.E. Jannot, Y.W. Lee, J. McVeigh, V. Tuttle. 2014. Observed and 

estimated total bycatch of salmon in the 2002-2013 U.S. west coast fisheries. West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program. National Marine Fisheries Service, NWFSC, 2725 Montlake Blvd 

E., Seattle, WA 98112. 

https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observation/pdf/Salmon_Bycatch_Report_2

002-2013.pdf

Somers, K.A., J.E. Jannot, V. Tuttle, and J. McVeigh. 2016. FOS coverage rates, 2002-2016. Last 

updated: May 2017. NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC Observer Program, 2725 Montlake Blvd E., 

Seattle, WA 98112. 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observation/data_products/sector_products.cf

m#ob

Stohs, S.M. 2015. Bootstrap analysis to compare the operation of the drift gillnet fishery under hard caps 

alternatives. Agenda Item G.2.a. Supplemental NMFS Report 5. September 2015. PFMC. 

http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/G2a_SUP_NMFS_Rpt5_Bootstrap_SEPT2015BB.pdf

Wallace, J.R. and V. Gertseva. 2017. Status of the darkblotched rockfish resource off the continental U.S. 

Pacific coast in 2017 (Update of the 2015 assessment model). National Marine Fisheries Service, 
Chapter 5. References

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 5-3

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112. 

http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/F4_Att4_DBRK_2017_Assessment_Update_FullElectronicOnly_Jun2017BB.pdf

Wetzel, C.R., Cronin-Fine, L., and Johnson, K.F. 2017. Status of Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) 

along the US west coast in 2017. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 Ambassador Place 

NE, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220. http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/E8_Att3_POP_FullDoc_E-Only_SEPT2017BB.pdf
Chapter 6. Acknowledgments

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon 6-1

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge Jessi Doerpinghaus (WDFW), Patrick Mirick (ODFW), Karen Palmigiano 

(NMFS, WCR), Becky Renko (NMFS, WCR), Larrie LaVoy (NMFS, WCR), and Kayleigh Somers 

(NMFS. NWFSC) for their contributions to this analysis, including valuable data, insightful discussion, 

helpful review and editing, comments, and contributions to the text. Members of the West Coast 

Groundfish Observer Program went the extra mile to fulfill custom data requests with the absolute most 

recent data available. Susan Bishop provided invaluable guidance and edits. We also thank Jennifer 

Simon (CDFW, Ocean Salmon Project), Eric Schindler (ODFW, Marine Resources Program), and Wendy 

Beeghley (WDFW, Ocean Salmon Program) for providing ocean recreational groundfish data needed for 

this analysis, as well as guidance and better understanding of accounting for salmon caught by 

recreational groundfish fisheries. Heather Reed (WDFW), Andrew Klein (CDFW), and Patrick Mirick 

(ODFW) helped facilitate the discussions to obtain state recreational data. Mark Freeman (ODFW) 

provided the EDCP data and John Wallace (NMFS, NWFSC) provided the Pikitch et al. (1988) data. 

Christopher Biegel (NMFS, WCR) provided information needed to analyze potential impacts of the longleader midwater recreational groundfish fishery. Big thanks to Karen Cantillon and Ryan Scally for 

editing. 
Appendix A

Alternative methods for projecting Chinook salmon bycatch potential using 

historical databases under the Council’s preliminary preferred alternative 

(PPA) for rockfish conservation area (RCA)
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-1

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Bottom groundfish trawling has been prohibited within RCAs since 2003 (NMFS 2014). Bottom trawling 

was also first prohibited within darkblotched rockfish conservation areas in 2002. As such, WCGOP data 

includes few direct observations of salmon catch within the trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) by 

bottom groundfish trawlers, except for limited observations in 2002. The proposed action includes the 

possibility of opening portions of the current RCA to bottom trawling. Therefore, there is additional 

uncertainty in the bycatch rates and magnitude of the bycatch that could occur within the trawl RCA. For 

the reasons discussed in the main text (Introduction, Section 1), the use of bycatch rates and distribution 

in Alternative 2B(1) for the proposed action is supported. The purpose of showing this information is to 

explore that uncertainty and inform potential annual variability of Chinook salmon bycatch by groundfish 

trawls. Two historical databases utilized observers during voluntary trips to collect catch and discard data 

(including Chinook salmon) onboard limited entry groundfish trawlers during the pre-RCA era: (a) the 

Enhanced Data Collection Project (EDCP, 1995 to 1999) described by Sampson (2002), and (b) the 

“discard” study (1985 to 1987) described by Pikitch et al. (1988) and Erickson and Pikitch (1994). 

Erickson and Pikitch (1994) also projected Chinook salmon bycatch estimates and confidence intervals 

for the Oregon and Washington coasts.

In the Alternatives Document provided at the March, 2017 Council meeting (NMFS 2017), we applied 

salmon catch rates from the EDCP database to estimate 2018 salmon bycatch that may occur within the

current trawl RCA boundaries in waters off Oregon and California, in the event RCAs were removed as 

specified under the Council’s Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA) at the November 2016 meeting 

(Agenda Item F.4, Council Action, November 2016) as one possible scenario (Alternative 2B(2)). During 

the preparation of the March 2017 Alternatives Document, it was thought that the EDCP database was the 

only data available that directly collected salmon bycatch information within the current RCA area.

However, a second historical database assembled in the 1980s (i.e., Pikitch et al., 1988) was also 

available, and it included trawling effort and catch within and outside the area bounded by the current 

trawl RCA. In this section, we provide impacts estimated across a range of proportions. The estimates 

describe distribution of groundfish landings within and outside the area of the current trawl RCA to be 

removed under the Council’s November, 2016 PPA (Agenda Item F.4, Council Action, November 2016)

using both the EDCP database (Sampson 2002) and the Pikitch et al. (1988) database. 

As mentioned in Section 2, Introduction, and Section 5, Discussion, in the main document, we concluded 

that projecting current and future Chinook salmon bycatch using historical data would not necessarily 

reflect what we would expect to occur in the current fishery. Comments by the Groundfish Advisory 

Panel (GAP; e.g., Agenda Item I.1.a, Supplemental GAP Report, March 2017; Agenda Item F.3.a, 
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-2

Supplemental GAP Report, April 2017) and others suggested that historical groundfish landings data are 

not equivalent to modern landings due to differences in retention rates, increases in efficiency leading to 

increases in catch per unit of effort, dramatic changes in management and monitoring, and changes in 

incentives (or disincentives). Erickson and Pikitch (1994) also advised against using their data to project 

future catches for similar reasons. Projected Chinook salmon bycatch using historical databases is

provided within this appendix to explore uncertainty and to further illustrate interannual variability.

A.2. Methods

Historical data were provided in two studies that collected catch and discard information for most species 

(including Chinook salmon) onboard bottom trawl and midwater trawl vessels. The studies were 

conducted by Oregon State University during the 1980s (Pikitch et al. 1988; Erickson and Pikitch 1994) 

and by ODFW during 1990s (Enhanced Data Collection Program, EDCP; Sampson 2002). The Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) provided the Pikitch et al. (1988) discard data, and the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) provided the EDCP data. 

We used three data sources to inform the distribution of trawling effort. These data sources included 

coastwide trawl logbook data (source: Pacific Fisheries Information Network [PacFIN]), data from the 

EDCP study [for 1996 to 1998; Sampson 2002]), and data from the Pikitch et al. (1988) study (for 1985 to 

1987). The latter two sources were also used to inform the model-based predictions of Chinook salmon 

bycatch directly within the preliminary preferred alternative (PPA) under this analysis. We excluded 

current essential fish habitat closed areas (EFHCAs) from the analysis of historical data for better 

alignment with current data for that exercise.

The substantial changes in management and technology over time provide good reasons to avoid using 

historical data to project bycatch to current or future years (see Introduction, Section 1, of the main 

document). For example, Figure A-1 demonstrates that groundfish landings were somewhat constant from

2002 to the present, whereas effort (trips) declined throughout that period. Adjustments were possible to 

compensate for some of these effects within this analysis (i.e., less discard during IFQ relative to preIFQ), but not all of them. We chose to scale groundfish landings to reflect changes in retention rates by 

trawl vessels over time. Scaling landings is an approach that is tractable, well informed by the available 

data, and well justified by clear differences in groundfish retention rates between pre-IFQ and IFQ eras 

(on the order of approximately 20 percent). Development of a specific approach to address changes in 

catch per unit effort (CPUE) due to technological advances in fishing and behavior due to the additional 

freedom in when and how to fish (choice of weather, season, etc.) was a more complex and debatable 

task. Thus, it was not used here.
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-3

Figure A-1. Non-whiting limited entry trawl trips (number, bars) and pounds of groundfish landed 

(line) by year. Source: PacFIN.

We employed an adjustment to modeling historical groundfish landings based on the idea that they 

represent comparatively larger groundfish catch than is reflected on the fish ticket. Ratios relating old and 

new retention rates were used to scale down the harvest level (= model threshold; see Table 1-2 in the 

main document) at which the model stops accumulating groundfish and Chinook salmon and reports the 

distributions and quantiles. This implementation resulted in an equalization of the currency in bycatch 

rates, scaled up to the modern equivalent. 

The mean annual retention rate estimated for all groundfish species captured with bottom trawl, from 

observer data from 2012 to 2016 was 0.922 (S.D. = 0.0110). The mean annual retention rate estimated for 

the trawl RCA PPA area to be opened was 0.6981 (S.D. =0.0372) using Pikitch et al. (1988) data and

0.7513 (S.D. = 0.0720) using EDCP data. 

The groundfish model threshold deflation factor used for the Pikitch model run was 0.7565, and the value 

used for EDCP was 0.8149. Historical retention rates in the EDCP case, for example, are 81.5 percent of 

the modern IFQ-era rates.

A.3 Results

The subsections below detail results of the studies described by Pikitch et al. (1988) and the Sampson et 

al. (2002).
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-4

A.3.1 Chinook salmon bycatch predictions using Pikitch et al. (1988) data to estimate bottom 

trawl catch within the RCA areas to be opened

Pikitch et al. (1988) data showed a mean annual proportion of 0.256 of groundfish landings within the 

area recommended to be opened (std. dev. = 0.147) under the Council’s November, 2016 PPA (Agenda 

Item F.4, Council Action, November 2016). Using logbook data for the year 1987, the ratio of groundfish 

landed as a proportion of the total inside the area to be opened under the Council’s PPA was 0.0961. The 

logbook data may provide the most precise estimate, and likely the most accurate, given that it has the 

widest coastwide range, and it was estimated from approximately 30,000 hauls per year. The proportion 

calculated using logbook data was substantially lower than that provided by Pikitch et al. (1988) data. 

Oregon and Washington began submitting logbook data to PacFIN in 1987, representing the final year of 

the Pikitch et al. (1988) study. Our goal was to provide coastwide estimates of salmon bycatch; therefore,

we provided estimates for 1987 only when logbook data within the area showed approximately 

30,000 hauls per year across the three states. Although the estimate is only from one year, the sample size 

within the year is large, and it is coastwide. Compliance rates (percentage of logbooks reported to states) 

were low during this period (see Erickson and Pikitch 1994); this analysis assumes that compliance rates 

were similar both within and outside of areas defined by current RCA and would not affect our estimate 

of fleet distribution.

We averaged the 1987 logbook and study-derived proportions, for a value of 0.1761, and we used this to 

apportion groundfish landings between the two areas—within and outside the trawl RCA. We performed 

two model runs to inform the estimates seen in Table A-1 (1) the Pikitch et al. (1988) discard data for 

bottom trawl within the RCA to be opened and (2) WCGOP observer data for bottom trawl in the open 

areas and for midwater trawl in all areas. 

The 0.80th quantiles were 4,178 Chinook salmon for bottom trawl and 2,938 Chinook salmon for 

midwater trawl, totaling 7,116 (Table A-1). Therefore, the maximum Chinook salmon bycatch at the 

0.80th quantile was greater than the bycatch guideline for the non-whiting fishery under the Council’s 

proposed action (= 5,500 Chinook salmon). This suggests that access to some portion of the reserve could 

occur in some years. 

Estimates of Chinook salmon bycatch using these data were multimodal (Figure A-2) with strong year 

effects (Table A-2). Annual aggregate bycatch rates for the Pikitch et al. (1988) bottom trawl data (Table 

A-2) showed two low bycatch years and one high year. The high year was due to several hauls with 

relatively large numbers of Chinook salmon, rather than one or two extreme catch events.
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-5

Table A-1. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch (numbers of fish)

by commercial non-whiting trawl (bottom and mid-water), assuming groundfish harvest 

levels under the proposed action (= model thresholds; Table 1-2 in the main document), 

and the Council PPA for the RCA (bottom trawl effort distribution and bycatch 

predictions informed by Pikitch discard study data 1985 to 1987). 

Quantiles Bottom trawl 

(non-RCA)

Bottom trawl; 

new area 

(formerly 

RCA)

Bottom trawl

(total)

Midwater

trawl

Bottom and 

midwater 

trawl (total)

Min 66 28 94 289 382

0.01 120 40 160 331 490

0.05 241 46 287 355 643

0.25 401 58 459 1,155 1,614

0.5 544 370 914 1,722 2,636

0.75 1,292 2,684 3,975 2,684 6,659

0.80 1,362 2,806 4,178 2,938 7,116

0.85 1,436 2,915 4,352 8,149 12,500

0.95 1,663 3,171 4,833 9,085 13,918

0.99 1,977 3,447 5,424 9,777 15,200

Max 2,718 3,924 6,642 11,184 17,826

Mean 808 1,082 1,890 2,898 4,788

Note: Current, non-RCA bycatch predictions for bottom trawl informed by recent WCGOP data and non-whiting

midwater trawl were informed entirely by WCGOP data. Modeled groundfish thresholds were adjusted as 

described in the text, to account for differences in groundfish retention rates between eras. Bycatch 

projections were rounded.
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-6

Table A-2. Groundfish landed (unadjusted), Chinook salmon count, and Chinook salmon bycatch 

rate using bottom trawl gear, from the Pikitch et al. (1988) discard study, within the area 

to be opened to bottom trawl fishing under the Council’s PPA for the RCA. Decimal 

Chinook counts may result from estimation or expansion.

Year Groundfish 

landed (mt)

Chinook salmon 

(number)

Bycatch 

rate

1985 67.37 1 0.0148

1986 48.26 5 0.1036

1987 66.64 53.86 0.8082

Figure A-2. Model output for predicted distributions of Chinook salmon bycatch (count), and mean 

latitude (degrees), under the conditions specified under the proposed action, for 

groundfish bottom trawl. Modeled groundfish thresholds (Table 1-2, main document) 

were informed by the Council’s April motion (Table 1-1, main document). Bottom trawl 

effort distribution and bycatch predictions informed by Pikitch discard study data (1985

to 1987). Current, non-RCA bycatch predictions for bottom trawl informed by current 

WCGOP data. Blue dashed line = mean, red dash = median, dotted lines = quantiles from 

Table A-1 (excluding mean, min and max). Modeled-groundfish thresholds were adjusted 

as described in the text. 
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-7

A.3.2 Chinook salmon bycatch predictions using EDCP data to estimate bottom trawl catch within 

RCAs to be opened

Estimating groundfish effort distribution between areas using EDCP data (Sampson 2002) yielded a mean 

proportion of 0.1286 (standard deviation = 0.0802) groundfish landings within what would be the newly 

opened RCA (relative to the landings across all areas), under the Council’s PPA relative to total landings. 

Data from 1996 to 1998 were used for this analysis; 1995 and 1999 data were excluded from simulations 

due to small haul numbers within the RCA (i.e., 5 hauls in 1995 and 12 hauls in 1999).

Using logbook data from years 1996 to 1998 (= EDCP years), the average annual ratio of groundfish 

landed inside the area to be opened under the Council’s PPA, as a proportion of the total groundfish 

landed, was 0.1314, with a standard deviation of 0.0220. This is the most precise estimate, and likely the 

most accurate, given that it has the widest coastwide range, and it was estimated from approximately 

30,000 hauls per year. This proportion was nearly identical to the one estimated from EDCP data. To 

encompass data from different sources, we averaged the two nearly identical values to partition the 

groundfish landings (i.e., model-groundfish threshold) for the bottom trawl from Table 1-2 of the main 

document between the two areas. The value we used was 0.130. We made two separate model runs of the 

area-specific proportion (see above) of the model-groundfish threshold to estimate Chinook salmon 

bycatch from the two different data sources: (1) EDCP for bottom trawl within the RCA to be opened 

and (2) WCGOP observer data for bottom trawl in the other non-RCA areas and for non-whiting 

midwater trawl (all areas). 

Predicting Chinook salmon bycatch for bottom trawl within what would be the newly opened area under 

the PPA for the EFH/RCA action using historical data showed disparate potential outcomes. Bycatch rose 

steeply with increasing quantile (Table A-3). For example, the predicted maximum bycatch at the 0.80th

quantile was 15,144 Chinook, which would exceed the combined Chinook salmon bycatch guideline and 

reserve for the non-whiting trawl fishery (total of 9,000 Chinook salmon) under the Council’s proposed 

action. The mean was much higher than the median, due to pronounced year effects (i.e., high bycatch in 

1997) and relatively small sample sizes for the area within the RCA to be opened. Just 165 hauls among 

the three years used for bottom trawl fell within the area to be opened under the PPA for the EFH/RCA

action.

Estimates of Chinook salmon catch for this area were multimodal (Figure A-2). Strong EDCP year effects 

were largely due to high bycatch in 1997 within the PPA RCA area (Table A-4). Chinook salmon bycatch 

was high during 1997 but low during 1996 and 1998.
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-8

Table A-3. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook salmon bycatch (numbers of fish)

by commercial non-whiting trawl (bottom and mid-water), assuming groundfish harvest 

levels under the proposed action (= model thresholds; Table 1-2 of the main document), 

and the Council PPA for the RCA (bottom trawl effort distribution and bycatch 

predictions informed by EDCP data 1996 to 1998). 

Quantiles

Bottom trawl 

(non-RCA)

Bottom trawl; 

new area 

(formerly RCA)

Bottom trawl

(total)

Midwater

trawl

Bottom and 

midwater

trawl (total)

0.00 66 559 625 289 913

0.01 120 653 773 331 1,103

0.05 241 689 930 355 1,286

0.25 401 745 1,146 1,155 2,301

0.50 544 795 1,339 1,722 3,061

0.75 1,292 10,527 11,819 2,684 14,502

0.80 1,362 10,814 12,176 2,938 15,144

0.85 1,436 11,088 12,524 8,149 20,672

0.95 1,663 11,784 13,447 9,085 22,532

0.99 1,977 12,428 14,405 9,777 24,181

1.00 2,718 13,853 16,571 11,184 27,755

Mean 808 4,208 5,015 2,898 7,913

Note: Current, non-RCA bycatch predictions for bottom trawl were informed by current WCGOP data, and midwater trawl 

bycatch predictions were entirely informed by WCGOP data. Modeled groundfish thresholds were adjusted as 

described in the text, to account for differences in groundfish retention rates between eras. Bycatch estimates were 

rounded.

Table A-4. Groundfish landed (unadjusted), Chinook salmon count, and bycatch rate using bottom 

trawl gear from the EDCP study (Sampson 2002), within the area to be opened to trawl 

fishing under the Council’s PPA for the RCA. 

Year Groundfish 

landed (mt)

Chinook salmon 

(number)

Bycatch 

rate

1996 43.10 12 0.2784

1997 64.44 257 3.9879

1998 21.89 6 0.2741

Note the high Chinook salmon count and bycatch rate in 1997. This example of high interannual variability was due to many 

hauls with large numbers of Chinook salmon, rather than one or two extreme catch events.
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-9

Figure A-3. Model output for predicted distributions of Chinook salmon bycatch (count), and mean 

latitude (degrees), under the conditions specified proposed action, for groundfish bottom 

trawl. Modeled groundfish thresholds (Table 1-2, main document) were informed by the 

Council’s April motion (Table 1-1, main document). Bottom trawl effort distribution and 

bycatch predictions were informed by EDCP data (1996 to 1998). Current, non-RCA 

bycatch predictions for bottom trawl were informed by current WCGOP data. Blue 

dashed line = mean, red dash = median, dotted lines = quantiles from Table A-3

(excluding mean, min and max). Modeled-groundfish thresholds were adjusted as 

described in the text.

A.4 Discussion

Projections using Pikitch et al. (1988) data for the area to be opened under the Council PPA (Table A-1) 

were somewhat higher than those in Table 3-3 (main document), which used only observer data under 

recent fishery conditions. Predictions made using EDCP study data (Table A-3) were dramatically higher 

than those using Pikitch data (Table A-1), especially at the high end of the bycatch distribution, which 

highlights the large degree of interannual variability in Chinook salmon bycatch and bycatch rates 

(strong year effects), as well as calling attention to the era in which the data were collected and 

differences in fishery management measures and fishery behavior among eras. These differences 

between eras could have a substantial effect upon the results. 
Appendix A

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon A-10

All three data sources (Pikitch, EDCP, and WCGOP) show similarities in how Chinook salmon bycatch

varies among hauls, except that the EDCP operates at a much higher scale overall (i.e., bycatch rates were 

much higher than shown in the other databases). A common feature across data sets is that most hauls 

either catch zero to a handful of Chinook salmon, while a much smaller number of hauls catch an 

intermediate amount. Finally, a very small number of hauls catch a comparatively very large amount of 

Chinook, on the order of 100 or more fish, and these extreme bycatch events tend to occur as “lightning 

strikes,” once to a few times per year. 

The Pikitch et al. (1988) data and the EDCP data showed multimodal results with strong year effects (two 

low bycatch years and one high year, respectively). The importance of interannual variation in salmon 

bycatch by limited entry trawl vessels was described by Erickson and Pikitch (1994), who estimated 1986 

and 1987 Chinook salmon bycatch by bottom trawl vessels off Oregon and Washington at levels of 5,300 

and 7,601 fish. These bycatch estimates did not include catch by non-whiting midwater trawl and 

represent mean catches; the upper 95 percent confidence interval for 1987 was 21,683 Chinook salmon. 

At the time of the Pikitch et al. (1988) discard study, commercial salmon troll landings and bottom trawl 

effort (towing hours and number of vessels) were among the highest on record. The EDCP study also 

took place during a period of high trawling effort. The Pikitch discard study and the EDCP study were 

both carried out during the trip-limit management era and prior to the implementation of RCAs. There 

was no mandatory at-sea monitoring and, subsequently, little individual accountability during the 

development of these historical data. As such, using historical data to project current and future Chinook 

salmon bycatches is not advisable. The lower confidence in the use of these data to project catch of ESA 

species during modern times was described in the main body of this document, within this appendix, and 

by Erickson and Pikitch (1994). The purpose for providing projected bycatch information using the 

historical databases here is to explore the acknowledged uncertainty in the bycatch estimates and, further, 

to demonstrate the degree of interannual variation in Chinook salmon bycatch.
Appendix B

Analysis of Directed Commercial Whiting Sectors for the 2017 Salmon 

Biological Opinion under the Council’s Final Proposed Action, from the April 

2017 Meeting
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-1

B.1 Summary

We analyzed the directed commercial whiting sectors in the groundfish fishery to predict Chinook salmon 

bycatch in support of the biological opinion for listed runs under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 

assumed fishery conditions hinged upon the April 2017 Council motion, and we presented additional 

alternatives that deviated from the motion for a few factors that were highly influential upon variability in 

Chinook bycatch. This was done to bracket uncertainty in our predictions. 

We found that the level of attainment of the whiting TAC and sector allocations was influential upon 

projected bycatch. We included assumptions of both 100 percent attainment and average annual sector 

attainment to portray a more realistic range under the Council’s high total allowable catch (TAC)

assumption. 

Projections made using the average attainment assumption were likely more representative of future 

conditions. Alternatively, the combined assumptions of the highest whiting TAC ever, together with 

100 percent attainment, created what were likely unrealistically high estimates of Chinook bycatch. Also 

important was the latitudinal distribution of the fleet (particularly important to stock composition); a 

northern distribution was associated with much less bycatch than a southern one. These findings align 

with those of the March Alternatives Document.

Predicted distributions were multimodal, owing to strong year effects. The medians of those distributions 

ranged between 6,000 and 13,000 Chinook salmon according to different combinations of assumptions 

for whiting attainment, and fleet latitude.

B.2 Introduction

We conducted an analysis of the whiting sectors in the groundfish fishery to predict Chinook salmon 

bycatch in support of the biological opinion for listed runs under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We 

examined a range of scenarios for targeted whiting fisheries that hinged upon the motion carried by the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at the April 2017 meeting, which described the final 

proposed action for the state of the groundfish fishery in the near future. Our analysis also considers input 

from the Groundfish Management Team (GMT) from its statement at the April 2017 Council meeting, 

and from a working subgroup of commercial fishery specialists from the GMT. 

For the targeted whiting sectors, our analysis reexamines Alternative 1A from the Alternatives Document 

presented in the March 2017 meeting. We added more years of data and used a bootstrap simulation 

modeling approach, as suggested by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to project bycatch. 

Additionally, we produced projected alternative impacts estimates, depending upon the latitudinal 

distribution of Chinook bycatch in the commercial at-sea sectors (via predominantly northern versus 
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-2

southern effort and corresponding bycatch patterns). Previous analysis in the Alternatives Document 

indicated that latitude was an important factor in determining expected Chinook bycatch.

We assumed 100 percent attainment, along with a TAC level of 500,000 metric tons (mt), which were 

both recommended in the Council motion. We also assumed average annual attainment for each sector, 

which is representative of recent fishery performance, and likely more indicative of the future. Values for 

the United States portion of the Joint Canada/United States Whiting TAC are presented in Table B-1, 

along with sector allocations and attainment values for those allocations, over the past eight years, from 

2008 to 2016.

Table B-1. Annual values for the United States portion of the Joint Canada/United States Whiting 

TAC (mt), together with sector allocations and attainment values (percent) for those 

allocations, over the past eight years, from 2008 to 2016.

Year CP MS SS TAC CP MS SS

2008 93% 99% 85% 267,545 115,789 58,087 58,669

2009 98% 100% 100% 135,939 35,376 24,034 40,738

2010 102% 95% 95% 193,935 53,379 37,679 65,938

2011 95% 94% 97% 290,903 75,138 53,039 92,818

2012 99% 98% 95% 186,037 55,584 39,235 68,662

2013 98% 93% 99% 269,745 79,573 56,170 98,297

2014 100% 85% 77% 316,206 103,203 73,049 127,835

2015 68% 39% 46% 325,072 100,873 71,204 124,604

2016 95% 81% 60% 367,553 114,149 80,575 141,007

Average 94% 87% 79% 261,437 81,452 54,786 90,952

The Council recommended assuming that the TAC would be fully harvested, and this appears to be one 

reasonable alternative. However, lower attainment in recent years, including substantially lower 

attainment in 2015 across all whiting sectors (Table B-1) makes it prudent for us to include an alternative 

based on average annual attainment to consider major source of uncertainty that influences Chinook 

bycatch. 

B.3 Methods

B.3.1 General Methods

The bootstrap method employed here is a non-parametric simulation approach that builds empirical

distributions of one or more specified statistics by resampling actual data within stated parameters. It 

circumvents shortcomings of parametric simulation approaches (such as Monte Carlo and MCMC) that 

result from non-standard distributions typically seen in fishery data. Forcing an assumption of a particular 

distribution upon an analysis that does not fit the data well can introduce error (not easily predicted or 

corrected), which can have important consequences for conclusions and downstream decision making. 
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-3

A bootstrap simulation approach has been recently used in different fisheries within in the Council arena, 

although it was used at least as early as 2013 by ODFW staff to manage recreational halibut catch 

(Patrick Mirick, unpublished report). It was used to evaluate hard caps on bycatch of protected species in 

the drift gillnet fishery by Stohs (2015), and the GMT later adapted it to evaluate rockfish bycatch in the 

at-sea whiting fisheries (Mirick, Niles, and Doerpinghaus 2015). Mirick (2016, unpublished) also used it 

to evaluate uncertainty, accompanying a Chinook salmon bycatch projection made using a bycatch rate 

approach for the mid-water non-whiting trawl sector, which we referenced in the March Alternatives 

Document (NMFS 2017). 

In the March 2017 Alternatives Document, we examined a number of different potential scenarios among 

the various sectors, screening them using a straightforward method of 3 x 3 matrices, which combined 

ranges of interannual bycatch rates and retained catch estimates to produce biaxial matrices of predicted 

bycatch of Chinook salmon. Although that approach was time-efficient for screening many potential 

scenarios, and it was effective for comparing and summing groups of predictions informed by varying 

data content, the bootstrap approach painted a more detailed picture of the uncertainty in the predictions 

through distributions of possible outcomes.

The West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) provided data that included both total Chinook 

counts and total combined retained groundfish weights (round, mt), from 2011 to 2016. Data from 2016 

were combined from both observed and electronically monitored (EM) trips. At-sea data were queried 

from the NORPAC 4900 comprehensive table in the Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN)

database. 

The goal of the approach was to predict likely Chinook impacts for later evaluation in the biological 

opinion, compared with the 11,000-fish threshold and the 3,500-fish reserve proposed to manage Chinook 

bycatch in the whiting fishery. We accomplished this through simulating fishing seasons by randomly 

drawing many bottom trawl hauls with replacement; year effects were explicitly incorporated into the 

model conditions (in agreement with SSC recommendations) by randomly selecting a year first, before 

drawing hauls from within that year, when simulating a season.. We built cumulative tallies of target 

species (retained groundfish) versus bycatch (counts of Chinook salmon), and we evaluated those tallies 

against their respective caps. This process was repeated 10,000 times (for 10,000 simulated seasons), the 

results were aggregated into distributions, and the quantiles and measures of central tendency from those 

distributions were calculated. The quantiles can be used as reasonable approximations of probabilities 

under the implicit and explicit conditions and assumptions of a particular model run, as well as the input 

data used (Davidson and Hinkley 1997).
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-4

Separate projections were made for each whiting sector. The quantiles of the predicted distributions were 

calculated for each sector, then those same quantiles were summed across the three sectors to generate 

aggregate prediction statistics for the whole commercial directed whiting fishery.

B.3.2 Model Conditions, Parameters, and Assumptions

According to the Council’s recommendation, we assumed 100 percent attainment by each sector under a 

United States TAC of 500,000 mt. We allocated the TAC in accordance with current regulation and recent 

set-aside values. From the 500,000 mt TAC, we subtracted 17.5 percent for a tribal allocation 

(87,500 mt) and a 1,500 mt set-aside for research and incidental catch, resulting in a harvest guideline 

(HG) of 411,000 mt. From there, we allocated the HG among the three whiting sectors as follows: 

34 percent to catcher-processor (CP, 139,740 mt), 24 percent to mothership (MS, 98,640 mt), and 

42 percent to shorebased IFQ (SB, or SS, 172,620 mt). We adjusted each of these by the average annual 

retention rate over the modeled period, which resulted in very slightly reduced cap values (139,000, 

98,344, and 171930 mt, respectively). This produced model caps for the various sectors that are shown in 

Table B-2. 

We also produced a second set of hake catch caps for the model. Given that the average attainment of the 

commercial whiting sectors from 2008 to 2016 was generally lower than the Council’s recommendation 

of 100 percent (between 6 and 14 percent lower, Table B-1), we ran a second set of projections with caps 

informed by the average attainment values. This likely paints a more realistic picture of the near future, 

especially considering recent fishery performance over the past several years (2014 to 2016).

Since our goal was to estimate distributions of bycatch counts of Chinook salmon and their latitudinal 

distributions, coincident with simulated seasons with defined amounts of hake catch, we did not impose a 

cap on the amount of Chinook bycatch itself.
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-5

Table B-2. Specifications used to generate model caps (retained hake catch) among the whiting 

sectors (CP = catcher-processor; MS = mothership; SS = shoreside, part of the 

shorebased IFQ program), using assumptions of full attainment, and average annual 

attainment over the modeled periods (2008 to 2016 for at-sea, and 2011 to 2016 for 

shoreside whiting).

Specification

TAC and 

allocations 

set-asides

Allocations 

adjusted for 

retention rate

Retention 

rate

Allocations 

adjusted for 

retention and 

attainment

Attainment

TAC 500,000 NA NA NA NA

Tribal; 17.5% of TAC 87,500 NA NA NA NA

Research and inc. 1,500 NA NA NA NA

HG 411,000 NA NA NA NA

CP; 34% of HG 139,740 139,600 0.999 131,675 0.943

MS; 24% of HG 98,640 98,344 0.997 85,700 0.871

SS; 42% of HG 172,620 171,930 0.996 135,945 0.791

B.4 Results and discussion

The sections below present aggregate results and relevant discussion. They also present projections for 

northern and southern distributions of Chinook bycatch.

B.4.1 Aggregated Model Results among Sectors—Coastwide, All Years

We ran the model with the sector-specific whiting caps shown in Table B-2, and other parameters 

described in Section 3.2, Methods used to project non-whiting trawl bycatch of Chinook salmon under 

future fishery and management conditions. Results are included for the three commercial sectors, 

assuming full and average annual attainment, and three scenarios for latitudinal effort distribution of the 

at-sea fleets. 

Table B-3 shows projected distributions of Chinook bycatch under different assumptions for latitudinal 

fleet distributions, assuming full attainment of all commercial whiting sector allocations. Table B-4 shows 

the same, assuming average annual attainment from 2008 to 2016. We used the median of the distribution 

of simulated catch as the risk-neutral predictor of Chinook bycatch; by definition, there is an equal 

likelihood that the predicted value falls above or below it.

Within Table B-3, Table B-3.a shows projected bycatch distributions under a mixed latitudinal 

distribution of hake effort and Chinook bycatch; Table B-3.b and Table B-3.c show two versions of a 

northern pattern of fleet effort and Chinook bycatch which include 2008 to 2011, and 2008 to 2010, 

respectively. Table B-3.d shows predicted distributions for a southern pattern of fleet effort and Chinook 

bycatch, informed by 2012 to 2016. Table B-4 is structured in the same way (Table B-4.a, B-4b, B-4c, 

and B-4.d). Histograms showing the corresponding distributions for Tables 3 and 4 are shown in Figures 

B-1 and B-2.
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-6

The two most notable aspects of the results are (1) that the projected bycatch is substantially higher, under 

the assumption of 100 percent attainment, than under average attainment; (2) the distributions are 

multimodal. Projections under both attainment assumptions also follow the Council’s recommended 

assumption for a TAC value of 500,000 mt, which is higher than any TAC in United States history. This 

reflects the large interannual variation in Chinook bycatch seen in both the March Alternatives Document 

and in the accompanying Chinook bycatch report. It also suggests variable alternative outcomes in terms 

of both Chinook bycatch and the location of that bycatch. Some of the variation in both projected bycatch 

and location was removed by focusing on northern or southern years of input data for the projections (and 

attributed to variation in latitude, see Section 3.2, Methods used to project non-whiting trawl bycatch of 

Chinook salmon under future fishery and management conditions).

Each commercial sector in Figure B-1 (using all years, including those with all latitudinal fleet 

distributions) generally shows a trimodal distribution of bycatch, with a low (below 2,000), medium 

(between 2,000 and 4,000 for CP; between 4,000 and 8,000 in SS) and high mode (between 4,000 and 

6,500 in CP; 9,000 to 14,000 in SS), and a combined medium-high mode was seen in the MS sector 

(2,000 to 7,000 fish). Distributional patterns in bycatch are essentially the same in Figure B-2, but the 

estimated bycatch values themselves are notably lower, due to the average attainment assumption, rather 

than 100 percent attainment. The summed (among sectors) medians of predicted distributions ranged 

between approximately 6,000 and 13,000 Chinook according to different combinations of assumptions for 

whiting attainment and fleet latitude.

Regarding location, a range of mean seasonal latitude of 43 to 44.5 degrees N. latitude was the most 

frequent in the at-sea sectors, and the multimodal distributions generally trailed raggedly northward, 

except for a secondary high mode in the MS sector just north of 47 degrees N. latitude. In the shoreside 

sector, three relatively equally spaced modes were seen between 44 and 45.5 degrees N. latitude, and 

another somewhat lesser peak was seen near 47 degrees N. latitude. This applies to Figure B-1 and Figure 

B-2 under both attainment assumptions.

Assuming average annual whiting attainment, the estimated Chinook bycatch impacts are generally much 

lower than under the full attainment assumption. Tables B-4.a through B-4.d show those results. 
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-7

Tables B-3.a-d. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook bycatch by targeted whiting 

sector, assuming 100 percent attainment for commercial (non-tribal) sectors, with at-sea 

years blocked by their prominent latitudinal distribution (northern versus southern); with 

two alternative definitions of the northern years (2008 to 2011 versus 2008 to 2010), and 

one definition for southern years. Shoreside predictions used all years analyzed (2011 to 

2016).

a. Chinook, coastwide - all years

Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum

min 1,206.64 44.00 236.76 1,487.40

0.01 1,359.44 70.00 333.34 1,762.78

0.05 1,445.29 89.00 384.17 1,918.46

0.25 2,173.35 677.00 799.62 3,649.97

0.5 5,935.27 3,252.42 1,321.00 10,508.69

mean 5,692.16 2,914.61 2,366.46 10,973.22

0.75 7,017.66 4,709.64 3,938.92 15,666.23

0.95 12,124.68 5,681.82 5,929.15 23,735.64

0.99 13,088.32 6,205.49 6,605.21 25,899.02

max 14,941.94 7,261.34 7,956.60 30,159.87

b. Chinook, North at-sea scenario, 2008-2011 (North-1) c. Chinook, North at-sea scenario, 2008-2010 (2011 omitted, North 2)

Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum

min 1,206.64 42.00 253.17 1,501.82 min 1,206.64 39.00 226.17 1,471.82

0.01 1,359.44 65.00 315.00 1,739.43 0.01 1,359.44 63.99 310.17 1,733.60

0.05 1,445.29 79.00 351.76 1,876.05 0.05 1,445.29 76.00 344.17 1,865.46

0.25 2,173.35 395.52 899.86 3,468.73 0.25 2,173.35 103.00 416.17 2,692.52

0.5 5,935.27 654.00 1,237.10 7,826.37 0.5 5,935.27 592.52 1,168.00 7,695.79

mean 5,692.16 1,695.84 1,356.57 8,744.56 mean 5,692.16 469.33 952.33 7,113.82

0.75 7,017.66 4,310.30 1,813.05 13,141.01 0.75 7,017.66 684.00 1,272.00 8,973.66

0.95 12,124.68 5,705.55 2,805.03 20,635.26 0.95 12,124.68 808.39 1,388.00 14,321.06

0.99 13,088.32 6,227.34 3,136.03 22,451.69 0.99 13,088.32 942.08 1,474.33 15,504.73

max 14,941.94 7,591.24 3,787.04 26,320.21 max 14,941.94 1,272.10 1,695.11 17,909.14

d. Chinook, South at-sea scenario, 2012-2016

Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum

min 1,206.64 2,042.41 414.09 3,663.15

0.01 1,359.44 2,427.45 480.33 4,267.22

0.05 1,445.29 2,707.28 528.09 4,680.66

0.25 2,173.35 3,190.49 827.03 6,190.86

0.5 5,935.27 3,619.54 3,698.91 13,253.73

mean 5,692.16 3,966.00 3,187.98 12,846.14

0.75 7,017.66 4,818.84 4,970.60 16,807.10

0.95 12,124.68 5,634.02 6,281.57 24,040.26

0.99 13,088.32 6,276.37 6,816.39 26,181.07

max 14,941.94 7,934.84 8,010.28 30,887.05
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-8

Tables B-4.a-d. Quantiles for predicted distributions of annual Chinook bycatch by targeted whiting 

sector, assuming average annual attainment for commercial (non-tribal) sectors, with atsea years blocked by their prominent latitudinal distribution (northern versus southern); 

with two alternative definitions of the northern years (2008 to 2011 versus 2008 to 2010), 

and one definition for southern years. Shoreside predictions used all years analyzed (2011

to 2016).

a. Chinook, coastwide - all years

Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum

min 938.30 40.00 221.00 1,199.30

0.01 1,074.82 68.00 283.00 1,425.82

0.05 1,139.18 85.00 333.34 1,557.52

0.25 1,724.00 641.94 702.44 3,068.38

0.5 4,682.06 3,054.49 1,146.72 8,883.26

mean 4,506.41 2,757.93 2,036.28 9,300.61

0.75 5,522.98 4,456.08 3,373.42 13,352.49

0.95 9,623.15 5,350.91 5,178.88 20,152.94

0.99 10,594.09 5,924.88 5,772.16 22,291.13

max 11,961.42 6,822.83 7,019.56 25,803.81

b. Chinook, North at-sea scenario, 2008-2011 (North-1) c. Chinook, North at-sea scenario, 2008-2010 (2011 omitted, North 2)

Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum

min 938.30 41.00 199.00 1,178.30 min 938.30 42.00 206.59 1,186.89

0.01 1,074.82 61.99 266.34 1,403.15 0.01 1,074.82 59.00 263.59 1,397.41

0.05 1,139.18 74.00 302.00 1,515.18 0.05 1,139.18 72.00 296.59 1,507.77

0.25 1,724.00 127.00 446.07 2,297.07 0.25 1,724.00 98.00 365.76 2,187.76

0.5 4,682.06 611.60 1,078.66 6,372.33 0.5 4,682.06 551.00 1,012.00 6,245.06

mean 4,506.41 1,554.38 1,182.20 7,242.99 mean 4,506.41 439.65 831.29 5,777.34

0.75 5,522.98 910.59 1,691.28 8,124.85 0.75 5,522.98 642.00 1,108.00 7,272.98

0.95 9,623.15 5,363.90 2,469.15 17,456.19 0.95 9,623.15 767.00 1,216.00 11,606.15

0.99 10,594.09 5,904.86 2,739.05 19,238.00 0.99 10,594.09 891.40 1,292.00 12,777.49

max 11,961.42 7,140.54 3,276.00 22,377.96 max 11,961.42 1,117.38 1,449.00 14,527.80

d. Chinook, South at-sea scenario, 2012-2016

Quantiles Shoreside CP MS Sum

min 938.30 1,762.75 347.04 3,048.10

0.01 1,074.82 2,234.01 415.25 3,724.07

0.05 1,139.18 2,519.72 457.40 4,116.31

0.25 1,724.00 3,001.46 694.66 5,420.12

0.5 4,682.06 3,417.24 3,205.93 11,305.22

mean 4,506.41 3,733.68 2,745.15 10,985.23

0.75 5,522.98 4,532.01 4,281.80 14,336.79

0.95 9,623.15 5,357.85 5,445.56 20,426.55

0.99 10,594.09 5,940.68 5,993.80 22,528.56

max 11,961.42 7,111.83 7,104.18 26,177.43
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-9

Figure B-1. Projected distributions of Chinook bycatch representing annual coast-wide distributions 

of hake effort and Chinook bycatch, using 2008 to 2016 for at-sea sectors and 2011 to 

2016 for the shoreside sector, with model caps on hake catch informed by 100 percent 

attainment for each sector, applied to a hake TAC of 500,000 mt. Model output for 

predicted distributions of Chinook bycatch (count), and mean latitude (degrees), under 

the conditions specified for the final projected action, for the CP targeted whiting sector. 

Blue dashed line = mean, red dash = median, dotted lines = quantiles from Table B-1 

(excluding mean, minimum and maximum).
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-10

B.4.2 Projections for Northern and Southern Distributions of Chinook Bycatch

Over the period from 2008 to 2016, there have been both northern and southern distributional tendencies 

by year for Chinook bycatch in the at-sea sectors (Figure B-2 and B-3). In the March Alternatives 

Document, 2008 through 2011 were used to demonstrate a northern pattern, and 2012 through 2016 were 

used to show a southern pattern. The shorebased whiting sector however, has not shown a conspicuous 

pattern of northern or southern blocks over time. The overall latitudinal variation has also been noticeably 

lower in the shoreside sector (Figures B-2 and B-3 versus Figures B-4 and B-5) than the at-sea sectors.

Thus, we defined the northern option for the at-sea sectors as including 2011 in this analysis by default to 

remain consistent with the structure of the Alternatives Document. However, we made two sets of model 

runs for the at-sea sectors to examine potential differences between defining the northern block inclusive 

or exclusive of 2011. We retained the same definition of the southern option as in the Alternatives 

Document, and we did not look at alternatives to that definition.

Table B-4 shows the results. Figure B-7 shows the same estimates as histograms with overlain means, 

medians, and quantiles, as well as histograms of predicted Chinook catch latitude. Omission of 2011 from 

the data representing a northern fleet distribution did result in some notable differences in predicted 

bycatch. The mean and median Chinook catch were much higher when 2011 was included, particularly 

for the CP sector, and for the high end of the at-sea distributions (Tables B-3.b, B-3.c, B-4.b, and B-4.c). 

Mean latitude was roughly one degree further north with 2011 omitted as well (Figure B-7), and there was 

less overlap with the latitudinal range with the southern estimates presented in Figure B-8 and in Tables 

B-3.d and B-4.d. Thus, the “N2” alternative presents a more exaggerated northern assumption about fleet 

distribution and its reflection upon Chinook bycatch.
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-11

Figure B-2. Projected distributions of Chinook bycatch representing annual coast-wide distributions 

of hake effort and Chinook bycatch, using 2008 to 2016 for at-sea sectors and 2011 to 

2016 for the shoreside sector, with model caps on hake catch informed by average sector 

attainment over the years modeled, applied to a hake TAC of 500,000 mt. Model output 

for predicted distributions of Chinook bycatch (count), and mean latitude (degrees) under 

the conditions specified for the final projected action for the CP targeted whiting sector. 

Blue dashed line = mean, red dash = median, dotted lines = quantiles from Table B-1 

(excluding mean, min and max).
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-12

Figure B-3. Contour density plot showing patterns in Chinook-positive haul density by latitude and 

fishing depth, for combined at-sea sectors, for each year between 2008 and 2016.
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-13

Figure B-4. Box plot showing patterns in Chinook-positive haul density by latitude, for combined atsea sectors, for each year between 2008 and 2016.

Figure B-5. Contour density plot showing patterns in Chinook-positive haul density by latitude and 

fishing depth, for the shoreside hake sector, for each year between 2011 and 2016.
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-14

Figure B-6. Box plot showing patterns in Chinook-positive haul density by latitude, for the shoreside 

whiting sector, for each year between 2008 and 2016.
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-15

Figure B-7. Modeled predictions of annual Chinook bycatch in commercial at-sea, non-tribal whiting 

sectors, and mean latitude (assuming average annual whiting attainment). Years were 

blocked by their prominent latitudinal distribution, with two alternative definitions of the 

northern years (N1 = 2008 to 2011; N2 = 2008 to 2010) and one definition for southern 

years. Omission of 2011 from the northern block resulted in apparent removal of an 

intermediate bycatch mode and removal of a southern latitudinal mode, and less overlap.
Appendix B

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon B-16

Figure B-8. Model-estimated distributions for predictions of annual Chinook bycatch in commercial 

at-sea, non-tribal whiting sectors, and mean latitude, assuming average annual whiting 

attainment, and informed by years with southern fleet distribution (2012-2016).
Appendix C

Considerations for the 2017 and 2018 Trawl Gear Exempted Fishing Permits
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-1

The information in Appendix C presents summaries of the 2017 and 2018 trawl exempted fishing permit 

(EFP) fisheries. It also describes potential impacts of the EFPs on Chinook salmon. It includes discussion 

of the potential impact on salmon that could occur with implementation of the 2018 year-round, nonwhiting midwater trawl EFP.

C.1 Introduction

The proposed action for estimating Chinook salmon bycatch in support of the biological opinion includes 

a description of the perceived future of the groundfish fishery, as well as ongoing and potential future 

management measures (main document; Table 1-1; Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017). This 

description includes exempted fishing permits (EFPs) in 2017 and 2018 to allow vessels to target rockfish 

stocks more effectively on a pilot basis, while also gathering data and information that will help the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) assess potential impacts of the Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council’s (Council’s) recommended changes to the current trawl gear restrictions (Agenda Item G.8 

Attachment, March 2016; NMFS 2017). Both the 2017 and 2018 EFPs were in the Council’s final motion 

of recommendations for the proposed action for the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Salmon Consultation 

(Agenda Item F.3, Council Action, April 2017).

The 2017 EFP was initiated on February 24th, 2017 (Agenda Item F.8, Supplemental Attachment 2, June 

2017) and exempted certain bottom trawl regulations (Table C-1) north of 42°N latitude (see Appendix 

D). A new 2018 groundfish trawl EFP application was submitted at the June 2017 Council meeting to 

allow regulatory exemptions for both the bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl fleets beginning 

January 1, 2018 (Agenda Item F.8, Attachment 1, June 2017). This 2018 trawl EFP was modified and 

submitted as a supplemental document at the September 2017 Council meeting (Agenda Item E.4.a, 

Supplemental EFP Application 1, September 2017). The Council made final recommendations for the 

2018 EFP requirements and exemptions at the September 2017 Council meeting (Agenda Item E.4, 

Council Action, September 2017). 

The purpose of this appendix is threefold. First, this appendix provides a summary of both the 2017 and 

2018 trawl EFP fisheries. Second, the potential impacts of these EFPs on Chinook salmon bycatch are 

described here, or it is noted where they have been analyzed, (e.g., NMFS 2017). Third, an analysis 

examines the potential impacts on salmon that may occur through implementation of the 2018 year-round, 

non-whiting midwater trawl EFP with a focus on the area south of 42° N. latitude (see Agenda Item E.4, 

Council Action, September 2017; Agenda Item E.4.d, Supplemental Staff Report, September 2017)

(Appendix E). In addition to specific EFP harvest guidelines described in this appendix (below), the 

Chinook salmon bycatch that occurs in the EFPs will accrue to the non-whiting harvest guideline that was 

described in the main text of the document (Section 1, Introduction), consistent with the proposed action.
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-2

C.1.1 The 2017 EFP

In 2017, the Council recommended and NMFS implemented a trawl gear EFP that provided several 

exemptions for vessels fishing in the area shoreward of the trawl RCA and north of 42o N. latitude (Table 

C-1). The purpose of this EFP is to evaluate and better understand bycatch associated with providing gear 

exemptions that may allow vessels to more efficiently target widow, yellowtail, and canary rockfishes. 

Potential impacts of this EFP, including salmon impacts, were analyzed in an Environmental Assessment 

(NMFS 2017).

Table C-1. Exemptions in the 2017 trawl gear EFP.

1. The prohibition of a vessel using small footrope trawl gear (except selective flatfish gear) 

to fish for groundfish or have small footrope trawl gear (except selective flatfish gear) 

onboard while fishing north of 42° N. latitude and shoreward of the rockfish conservation 

area (RCA) defined at paragraph § 660.130(e) and at §§660.70 through 660.74 (§ 660.130 

(c)(2)). 

2. The requirement to use selective flatfish trawl north of 42° N. latitude and shoreward of the 

RCA defined at paragraph § 660.130(e) and at §§660.70 through 660.74 (§ 660.130 

(c)(2)(i)). 

3. The minimum mesh size for bottom trawl gear of 4.5 inches (§ 660.130(b)(2)). 

4. For vessels using electronic monitoring, the prohibition on retaining salmon and eulachon 

(§§ 660.12 (a)(1), 660.112(a)(2)(i), and 660.140(g)(1)). Salmon and eulachon must be 

retained until landing and disposed of after being documented by a catch monitor. Salmon 

must be disposed of in such a way as not to enter the commercial market. This exemption 

applies only to salmon and eulachon. Any incidentally caught marine mammal; seabird; sea 

turtle; other ESA-listed fish; large pelagic fish (6-ft or greater in length); Dungeness crab 

caught seaward of Washington or Oregon; or Pacific halibut must be discarded according 

to the Vessel Monitoring Plan and recorded in the vessel’s logbook.

5. The prohibition at § 660.12(a)(4) only as it relates to the above exemptions. 

In addition to these exemptions, the 2017 trawl gear EFP included several general terms and conditions 

that were required of the participants (Appendix D). Participants were required to abide by several gear 

restrictions, including use of gear that met the definition of bottom trawl, the definition of small footrope 

bottom trawl, and compliance with other bottom trawl restrictions. Participants were also prohibited from 

fishing in the Columbia River Salmon Conservation Zone. Participants were required to abide by all 

declaration and logbook requirements. Finally, participants were required to keep their Chinook salmon 

take within NMFS’ harvest guideline. NMFS set a harvest guideline of 3,547 Chinook salmon, of which 
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-3

no more than 800 could be taken before May 15th (i.e., the start of the primary whiting season). If the

cumulative take of Chinook salmon reached the 800-fish harvest guideline before May 15th, the EFP 

would be closed until May 15th. Upon reaching May 15th, the EFP would reopen with the start of the 

primary whiting season. At this point, non-whiting midwater trawl vessels would be able to start fishing 

and any Chinook salmon bycatch that they took would also be counted under the 3,547 Chinook salmon 

harvest guideline. 

C.1.2 Update of the 2017 EFP

A progress report for the 2017 EFP was provided at the September, 2017 Council meeting (Agenda Item 

E.4.b, Supplemental NMFS Report 1, September 2017). As of September 5, 2017, the 2017 EFP included 

nine trawl vessels that caught 2,123,796 pounds of groundfish, four Chinook salmon, and no coho salmon 

(Agenda Item E.4.b, Supplemental NMFS Report 1, September 2017). This report also showed that nonEFP boats (i.e., non-whiting midwater trawl vessels that began fishing after May 15th) caught few salmon 

(17 Chinook salmon and no coho salmon) while landing 6,990,764 pounds of groundfish.

To put these low bycatch rates in perspective, a comparison was made between Chinook salmon bycatch

rates by the 2017 trawl gear EFP (as of September 5, 2017) and bycatch rates by the commercial fishery 

during 2012-2016 (Table C-2). The geographic extent of these two datasets is not equal; data relative to 

the non-EFP bottom trawl fishery extended to southern California, whereas the EFP was restricted to an 

area north of 42o N. latitude. These commercial catches were presented in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 of the 

main document. The 2017 trawl gear EFP bycatch rates of Chinook salmon are considerably lower than 

the Chinook salmon bycatch rates for both non-EFP bottom trawl (4x to 15x lower by year) and for nonwhiting midwater trawl (7x to 175x lower by year) for 2012 to 2016 (Table C-2). The 2017 non-whiting 

midwater trawl fishery has also encountered less Chinook salmon bycatch relative to 2012 to 2016 (Table 

C-2). It is unclear if the lower bycatch rates from the 2017 EFP (and 2017 non-whiting midwater trawl) 

are due to low salmon abundance, an effort by industry to actively avoid areas where they may be more 

likely to encounter salmon, or a combination of those and other factors. 
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-4

Table C-2. Groundfish landings (mt), Chinook salmon bycatch (number), and bycatch rate for 

bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl for 2012 to 2016. 

Note: Comparisons were made between bycatch rates shown for the 2012 to 2016 non-whiting bottom trawl and midwater trawl fisheries relative 

to the 2017 trawl gear EFP as of September 5, 2017. Relative bycatch rates were also compared between the 2012 to 2016 non-whiting midwater 

trawl fishery and the 2017 non-whiting midwater trawl fishery.

C.1.3 2018 trawl gear and year-round midwater rockfish EFP

A revised trawl-gear and year-round coastwide midwater rockfish EFP application was submitted to the 

Council at its September 2017 meeting (Agenda Item E.4.a, Supplemental EFP Application 1, September 

2017). In addition to the elements and exemptions shown in Table C-3, Council recommendations for the 

2018 trawl gear EFP(s) (Agenda Item E.4, Council Action, September 2017; Agenda Item E.4.d, 

Supplemental Staff Report, September 2017) included the following:

1. A continuation of the 2017 trawl gear EFP with consideration of extending it into the area 

between 42° N. latitude and 40°10′ N. latitude after consideration of the 2018 preseason salmon 

stock abundance analysis (e.g., PFMC 2017) that is expected in March

2. Inclusion of an exemption to the minimum mesh size requirement and a change to how mesh size 

is measured

3. An exemption to the prohibition on multiple trawl gears onboard and fished on the same trip

4. An exemption to the requirement to stow a previous haul before another haul is brought onboard

5. An exemption for non-whiting midwater trawl vessels from the prohibition on fishing prior to

May 15th

Year

Groundfish 

landed 

(mt)

Chinook 

count

Commercial 

fishery 

bycatch rate 

(A)

2017 EFP 

bycatch 

rate 

(B)

2017 Nonwhiting 

midwater 

trawl 

bycatch 

rate 

(C)

Ratio of 

bycatch 

rates 

(A) / (B)

Ratio of 

bycatch 

rates 

(A) / (C)

2012 17,026 305 0.0179 4.3

2013 18,715 323 0.0173 4.2

2014 15,876 984 0.0620 14.9

2015 15,943 996 0.0625 15.0

2016 16,457 371 0.0225 5.4

2012 391 12 0.0307 7.4 5.7

2013 622 71 0.1142 27.5 21.3

2014 909 661 0.7270 175.1 135.6

2015 1,817 482 0.2653 63.9 49.5

2016 1,222 47 0.0385 9.3 7.2

Bottom 

trawl

Nonwhiting 

midwater 

trawl

0.0042

0.0042 0.0054
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-5

6. An allowance for midwater fishing within the RCA prior to May 15th, including the area south of 

40°10′ N latitude (Table C-3)

Additional details can be found in the Council’s September 2017 recommendations (Agenda Item E.4, 

Council Action, September 2017), in a summary report developed by NMFS, GMT, and Council staff at 

the September 2017 meeting (Agenda Item E.4.d, Supplemental Staff Report, September 2017) and in a 

letter from the Council office to NMFS, dated September 26, 2017 (Appendix E).

Table C-3. Council recommended elements for the 2018 trawl gear EFP. 

2017 Trawl Gear EFP Proposal 

Elements

2018 Trawl EFP Elements Recommended by the Council at the 

September 2017 meeting

Exemption to the requirement to use 

selective flatfish trawl gear north of 42o

N. latitude (50 CFR 660.130(c)(2))

Same

Not included. Exemption to the requirement to use selective flatfish trawl gear 

between 42o N. latitude and 40°10′ N. latitude (§660.130(c)(2)(i)) 

pending the results of the March 2018 salmon forecast

Exemption from the minimum mesh 

size of 4.5 inches for bottom trawl 

(§660.130(b)(2)) 

Same

Not included. Exemption from the minimum mesh size of 3 inches for midwater 

trawl (§660.130(b)(2))

Not included. Change the requirement for how mesh size is measured (§660.11(7)).

Not included. Exemption to the prohibition on bringing a new haul on board before a 

previous haul is stowed (§660.130)

Not included. Exemption to the prohibition of multiple gears onboard (would allow 

both midwater and bottom trawl gears to be carried onboard and 

fished on the same trip) (§660.130)

Not included. Exemption to the requirement for vessels targeting non-whiting 

species with midwater gear north of 40o

10′ N. latitude to only do so 

during the Pacific whiting primary season for the Pacific whiting IFQ 

fishery (§ 660.130(c)(3))

Not included. Exemption to the prohibition on operating a vessel with midwater 

groundfish trawl gear while targeting non-whiting inside the RCA 

outside of the Pacific whiting primary season (§660.130(e)(4)(i))

Not included. Exemption to the prohibition on operating a vessel with groundfish 

trawl gear onboard within the trawl RCA south of 40o

10′ N. latitude, 

except for continuous transit (§660.130(e)(4))

Note: Several elements recommended for the 2018 trawl gear EFP were first proposed in the trawl gear rulemaking package that was 

recommended by the Council at its March 2016 meeting.

Other Council-recommended exemptions to the elements shown in Table C-3 for the 2018 trawl EFP 

included several general terms and conditions that would be required of the participants. Participants 

would be required to abide by several gear restrictions, including use of gear that met the definition of 
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-6

bottom trawl and small footrope bottom trawl, as well as comply with all other bottom and midwater 

trawl restrictions currently in regulation. Participants would be prohibited from fishing in the Columbia 

River Salmon Conservation Zone and the Klamath Conservation Zone. Participants would be required to 

abide by all declaration and logbook requirements. EFP participants who elect to fish multiple gears 

during the same trip (i.e., midwater and bottom trawl) would be required to (a) declare the gear change 

while at sea prior to making the next set and (b) sort and stow the catch separately by gear type. Finally, 

all eulachon and salmon bycatch would have to be separated by haul and information on bycatch by haul 

and the gear configurations would have to be made available to NMFS. Additional recommended 

provisions not shown herein or in Table C-3, such as monitoring and catch-retention requirements, can be 

found in the September Council Action (Agenda Item E.4, Council Action, September 2017), the 

supplemental staff report (Agenda Item E.4.d, Supplemental Staff Report, September 2017), and in 

Appendix E.

All trawl EFP participants (north and south of 42° N. latitude) would be required to keep their Chinook 

salmon take within NMFS’ overall harvest guideline provided for the 2017 EFP. That harvest guideline

was set at 3,547 Chinook salmon, of which no more than 800 could be taken before May 15th (i.e., the

start of the primary whiting season). Should the cumulative take of Chinook salmon reach the 800-harvest

guideline before May 15th, the EFP would be closed until May 15th. Furthermore, an additional subharvest guideline was recommended by the Council at its September 2017 meeting for EFP participants 

fishing south of 42° N. latitude (Agenda Item E.4, Council Action, September 2017). South of 42° N.

latitude, the Council recommended a year-round sub-harvest guideline of 80 Chinook salmon for all trawl 

EFP participants combined (i.e., bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl EFPs). All EFP 

participation south of 42° N. latitude described in Table C-3 would be closed for the remainder of the year 

upon reaching the 80 Chinook salmon harvest guideline.

C.1.4 Midwater trawl components of the 2018 EFP south of 40o10ꞌ N latitude

Components of the EFP that allow for expansion of the midwater trawl fleet south of 40°10′ N. latitude

were not fully analyzed in the main document because the latitudinal range of available data for the nonwhiting midwater trawl fishery did not extend south of 44o N. latitude during 2012 to 2016. These 

sampling years were selected to calculate the mean latitudinal distributions shown in Figure 3-1 of the 

main document. The specific exemptions to the 2018 EFP were unknown at the time of that original 

analyses. As such, we discuss and analyze those 2018 EFP components within this appendix that were not 

analyzed in the main document. 

One of the Council’s recommendations for the 2018 trawl gear EFP includes an exemption to the 

prohibition on midwater trawling year-round within the RCA, including the area south of 40°10′ N.
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-7

latitude (Agenda Item E.4, Council Action, September 2017). Current regulations allow for midwater 

trawling beginning May 15th seaward, within, and shoreward of the RCA north of 40°10′ N. latitude. 

South of 40°10′ N. latitude, regulations prohibit all midwater groundfish trawling within and shoreward 

of the RCA (Agenda E.4.d, Supplemental Staff Report, September 2017).

We assumed that allowing fishing with midwater trawl gear outside of the primary whiting season (i.e., 

allowing midwater trawling from January 1st to May 15th) would not result in additional bycatch of 

Chinook salmon beyond that assessed in the main document. This assumption was made because all 

midwater vessels participating in the EFP would be bound by the 800 Chinook salmon sub-harvest 

guideline prior to May 15th (coastwide), and this sub-harvest guideline would count toward the coastwide 

bottom trawl and midwater trawl EFP harvest guideline of 3,547 Chinook salmon (Table C-4; Agenda 

Item E.4, Council Action, September 2017). Furthermore, bottom trawl and midwater trawl EFP 

participants fishing south of 42° N. latitude would be bound by the 80 Chinook salmon sub-harvest 

guideline for the entire year or the duration of the EFP. All EFP catch would accrue toward the nonwhiting overall Chinook salmon bycatch guideline under the Council’s proposed action (5,500 Chinook

salmon guideline and access to 3,500 reserve). All Chinook salmon harvest guidelines and sub-harvest 

guidelines (numbers of Chinook salmon) within the provisions of the trawl EFPs are included in the 

projected impacts shown in Table 3-3 of the main document.

Table C-4. Chinook salmon harvest guidelines and sub-harvest guidelines by gear, area, and time for 

the 2018 bottom trawl EFP and the 2018 year-round coastwide non-whiting midwater 

trawl EFP. All sub-harvest guidelines count toward the 3,547 Chinook salmon harvest 

guideline. BT = bottom trawl; MDT = midwater trawl.

Coastal area and gear type Period

Council-proposed harvest 

guideline or sub-harvest 

guideline

Harvest Guideline

Coastwide (BT and MDT EFP + non-EFP non-whiting 

midwater trawl)

January 1–December 31 3,547 Chinook salmon 

Sub-Harvest Guideline

Coastwide (BT and MDT EFP) January 1–May 15 800 Chinook salmon

South of 42° N latitude (BT and MDT EFP) January 1–December 31 80 Chinook salmon

Projected Chinook salmon catches shown in Table 3-3 of the main document were made under the 

assumption of 100 percent attainment of all midwater species allocated to the non-whiting sector (main 

document, Table 1-2). This includes those midwater species that would be targeted in the 2018 midwater 
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-8

trawl EFP (including southern species such as chilipepper rockfish). Therefore, we can assume that any 

take of Chinook salmon associated with the implementation of the 2018 trawl gear EFP (in numbers) 

would be expected to fall within the range analyzed for the non-whiting fishery shown in the main 

document (Table 3-3). 

Two analytical components are necessary to project Chinook salmon impacts under the 2018 EFP (Table 

C-3). First, a projection of Chinook salmon bycatch (numbers) by the 2018 EFP must be known. As 

discussed above, the Council’s motion includes a sub-harvest guideline of 80 Chinook salmon for all EFP 

participants south of 42° N. latitude for the entire year (Table C-4; Appendix C). Hence, the maximum 

impact in terms of the number of Chinook salmon caught south of 42° N. latitude would be known (less 

than or equal to 80 fish). The second and undefined component for this analysis is the potential change in 

the geographic distribution of non-whiting midwater trawling effort north and south 40°10′ N. latitude for 

the midwater EFP participants. Midwater trawling within the RCA south of 40°10′ N. latitude has been 

prohibited for more than a decade. In addition, the latitudinal distribution of recent non-whiting midwater 

trawl effort shown in the main document (Figure C-1) is north of 42o N. latitude (i.e., there has been no 

non-whiting midwater trawling south of 42o N. latitude since the inception of the catch shares program). 

Impacts of non-whiting midwater trawling effort (see Table 3-3 of the main document) were estimated 

using data from 2012 to 2016, consistent with the Council direction to use bycatch rates and distribution 

prescribed by the modified 2B(1) scenario for the proposed action (see Table 1-1 of the main document). 

Hence, additional information is needed to project the spatial distribution of non-whiting midwater trawl 

fishing under the 2018 proposed EFP. This information is needed to estimate impacts to specific 

evolutionarily significant units (ESUs).

C.1.5 Methods – latitudinal distribution of non-whiting midwater trawl effort under the 2018 EFP

Canary rockfish, widow rockfish, and the southern stock of bocaccio rockfish were declared overfished in 

2000, 2001, and 1999, respectively (PFMC 2016). Darkblotched rockfish was also declared overfished in 

2002 (PFMC 2016). These overfished determinations led to the implementation of the darkblotched 

rockfish conservation area in 2002 and the trawl RCA in 2003 (NMFS 2014), as well as even more 

restrictive trip limits relative to previous years (and midwater trawl prohibitions) that impacted or 

eliminated catch of these species or associated species (e.g., chilipepper and yellowtail rockfish) using 

midwater trawl gear. For this analysis, the period prior to 2000 will be referred to as the “less-restrictive

period.” Even though other species were declared overfished or depleted prior to 2000, such as Pacific 

Ocean perch (POP), the impacts of those species on midwater trawling were relatively smaller than the 

impacts of overfished declarations on more pelagic species (such as widow rockfish).
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-9

Limited targeting of widow and yellowtail rockfish by non-whiting midwater trawl was reinitiated shortly 

after the inception of the catch shares program in 2011 (Pacific Fisheries Information Network [PacFIN]). 

However, because canary rockfish and widow rockfish were still overfished, few non-whiting midwater 

trips were made off Oregon or Washington (none was conducted off California; PacFIN). Canary and 

widow rockfish have since been declared rebuilt based on 2015 stock assessments (PFMC 2016). As a 

result, annual catch limits (ACLs) and trawl harvest guidelines have increase dramatically for some of 

these species that constrained midwater trawling (Table C-5).

Table C-5. Annual trawl allocations (metric tons [mt]) of rockfish species encountered by nonwhiting midwater trawl fisheries. 

Species 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Bocaccio 261 75 79 82 85 302 283

Canary 35 53 54 57 59 1,061 1,061

Widow 491 1,284 1,284 1,711 1,711 12,094 11,318

Chilipepper 1,331 1,100 1,067 4,893 4,677 1,921 1,846

Yellowtail 3,407 3,235 3,239 1,203 1,196 4,546 4,375

Note: Allocations in the above table are rounded to the nearest mt.

Because pelagic or semi-pelagic species such as canary rockfish and widow rockfish have recovered

(Table C-5), historical geographic distributions of non-whiting midwater trawling effort (the pre-RCA 

and less-restrictive period, i.e., before 2000) could inform assumptions about the geographic distribution 

of midwater trawling effort under the 2018 Council recommended EFP; it could be the best predictor of

how the fishery may look going forward. This distribution can be compared to recent geographic 

distributions of midwater trawling (i.e., 2012 to 2015) to test this assumption. The latitudinal distribution 

of non-whiting midwater trawling effort (tows) is shown annually from 1987 to 2001 (historical 

distribution) and from 2012 to 2015 (recent distribution) (Table C-1). The historical period (1987 to 

2001) was selected because (a) Oregon and Washington began submitting logbooks to PacFIN in 1987 

and (b) management impacts of overfished species declarations would become clear in 2002 or earlier 

(e.g., due to the implementation of trawl RCA and increased restrictions on catch limits).

Historical latitudinal distributions of midwater fishing effort were estimated using trawl logbook data 

obtained from PacFIN. The data were filtered to (a) identify non-whiting midwater trawl sets and (b) to 
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-10

eliminate errors such as incorrect gear identification or unlikely latitude entries. Filters applied to these 

data were as follows:

• Delete unreasonable latitudes (i.e., off Canada or Mexico) and unrecorded latitudes.

• Include only gear identified as midwater trawl (i.e., GRID=MDT).

• Delete all hauls where the identified target was Pacific whiting (i.e., where PACFIN_TARGET = 

PWHT).

• Delete all hauls where Pacific whiting catch was greater than 50 percent of the total adjusted 

catch weight.

• Delete all hauls where pelagic species catch was less than 50 percent of the total adjusted catch 

weight. Pelagic species were defined as widow rockfish (WDW1 and WDOW), yellowtail 

rockfish (YTR1 and YTRK), bank rockfish (BNK1 and BANK), chilipepper rockfish (CLP2 and 

CHL1), canary rockfish (CNR1 and CNRY), and unidentified rockfish (URCK).

C.1.5 Results – Latitudinal distribution

Figure C-1 shows the latitudinal distribution of non-whiting midwater hauls from 1987 to 2001 (“lessrestrictive period”) and 2012 to 2015 (recent years). The 2016 logbook data was unavailable on PacFIN at 

the time of this analysis. Prior to 2002, the distribution of midwater trawl hauls (including outliers) 

ranged from 34o N. latitude to the United States/Canadian border. Excluding the outliers, however, the 

minimum latitude of non-whiting midwater hauls prior to 2002 was approximately 40° N. latitude or 

greater, except during 1993 and 2001. The lower quantiles prior to 2001 were consistently near 44o N.

latitude, except 1998, where the lower quantile was near 46° N. latitude. The historical values suggest 

that, in most cases, the distributions were relatively similar across years. There were cases, however, that 

did not fit the general historical pattern (i.e., 1993 and 1998). In addition, the latitudinal distribution in 

2001 extended much farther south than the other historical distributions. This may be due to increasingly 

restrictive management measures, especially north of 40o

10ꞌ N. latitude, due to overfished species 

declarations (e.g., canary rockfish; PFMC 2002). The most appropriate range of years to project future 

latitudinal distributions of the midwater trawl fleet would, therefore, be 1987 to 2000.

The historical latitudinal range of non-whiting trawl effort extends farther south than the southernmost 

range observed during recent IFQ years (2012 to 2015), where the minimum value (including and 

excluding outliers) was approximately 44o N. latitude (Figure C-1). Median values (50th percentile) were 

often somewhat similar between historical and recent periods (Figure C-1). This is likely due to the higher 

non-whiting midwater fishing effort (number of vessels and hauls) off Oregon and Washington relative to 

California, even when midwater fishing was allowed within the RCA area south of 40°10′ N. latitude. 
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-11

Even during the historical periods (pre-2001), almost all fishing effort south of 40°10′ N. latitude is 

shown as outliers in Figure C-1 (the exception being 1993). 

Figure C-1. Box plots showing latitudinal effort (tows) by non-whiting midwater trawl during the less 

restrictive era (1987 to 2000, with 2001 included as a transition year) and during recent 

years (2012 to 2015). These plots show median (dark line within the boxes), upper 

quartile (upper box; 25 percent of the data are greater than that value), lower quartile 

(lower box; 25 percent of the data are less than that value), maximum value (upper 

whisker; greatest value, excluding outliers), minimum value (lower whisker; least value, 

excluding outliers), and outliers (less than or more than 1.5 times the lower or upper 

quartiles, respectively). Source: Trawl logbook data from PacFIN.

C.1.6 Discussion and conclusions

The general conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that future bottom trawl and non-whiting 

midwater trawl EFP Chinook salmon bycatch would likely be within the general non-whiting projections 

shown in Table 3-3 the main document, and are not in addition to them. Two components are required to 

project Chinook salmon impacts by the trawl EFP. The first is estimating Chinook salmon bycatch 

(counts) that might be attributed to the EFP fishery. Since these EFPs include harvest guidelines, the 

maximum likely bycatch by the EFP holders (bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl) would be 

known and would fall within Council’s recommended Chinook salmon harvest guidelines and within the 

range analyzed in the main document. 
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-12

EFP bycatch also counts toward the proposed action guideline for non-whiting trawl (i.e., included in the 

limit of 5,500 Chinook salmon coastwide, not in addition to it). As such, it is unlikely that the EFPs 

would result in a greater Chinook salmon bycatch than that analyzed in the main document (Table 3-3).

Nor would it result in bycatch exceeding the guidelines in the proposed action (see the main document) 

because the EFPs have bycatch limits (i.e., harvest guidelines) that would limit potential impacts. For 

example, the EFPs south of 42° N. latitude are limited to 80 Chinook salmon. Once a harvest guideline or 

sub-harvest guideline is met, all of the trawl gear EFPs south of 42° N. latitude would be closed for the 

rest of the year. An EFP-termination clause is also provided for total Chinook salmon catch across all 

EFPs coastwide (i.e., 3,547 fish) (see Table C-1), which falls within the projected impacts in Table 3-3 in 

the main document.

The second component is understanding the likely geographical distribution of the Chinook salmon

bycatch so that estimated impacts on individual ESUs can be determined. The latitudinal range for the 

bottom-trawl fishery analyzed in the main document encompasses the latitudinal range included in the 

EFP. Thus, impacts on specific ESUs would be similar for bottom trawl between EFP-caught Chinook 

salmon and those caught outside of the EFP. Expansion of the non-whiting midwater trawl fishery south 

of 40°10′ N. latitude within the RCA was, however, outside the latitudinal range of recent data and 

required additional analysis within this appendix.

The latitudinal distribution of non-whiting midwater trawling effort was estimated for the southern

expansion of the midwater EFP. Although we expect some additional midwater trawling south of 42° N.

latitude for EFP participants, the increased effort would likely be minimal relative to non-whiting 

midwater trawling effort north of 42° N. latitude, based on historical distributions of fishing effort 

(Figure C-1). In addition, NMFS plans to limit EFP participation in this southern area, which would 

further reduce impacts south of 42° N. latitude. The Council-recommended harvest guidelines and low 

expectation of EFP effort in the southern area would, therefore, limit the relative impact to southern ESUs 

under the trawl EFP.

It’s unlikely that 2018 fishing effort south of 40°10′ N. latitude will precisely match the latitudinal 

distribution shown in Figure C-1 prior to 2001. The southerly shift in effort would likely be less than that 

shown in Figure C-1 because processing abilities off California have been drastically reduced, and the 

vessel buyback program significantly reduced trawling effort in the southern range relative to this 

historical time period (PFMC and NMFS 2017). Even though processing capabilities south of 42o N.

latitude are lower than prior to 2000, fish may be shipped from ports with no processors to the north to

process them. Hence, although midwater trawling effort would likely occur under this EFP in the southern 
Appendix C

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon C-13

waters, applying the relative geographic distribution shown in Figure C-1 would provide a maximum 

expectation for the distribution of southern effort.

C.1.6 References

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2017. Exempted fishing permit program for an experimental 

midwater rockfish fishery – An Environmental Assessment. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

West Coast Region, Seattle, WA 98115.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2002. Status of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery 

through 2001 and acceptable biological catches for 2002: stock assessment and fishery 

evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, 

Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/SAFE_July_2002.pdf

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2016. Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery: 

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/SAFE_Dec2016_02_28_2017.pdf

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2017. Preseason Report I: Stock Abundance Analysis and 

Environmental Assessment Part 1 for 2017 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations. (Document 

prepared for the Council and its advisory entities.) Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 

NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384.

http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/background/document-library/historical-data-of-ocean-salmonfisheries/
Appendix D

Template of the 2017 selective flatfish trawl EFP permit
Appendix D

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon D-1
Appendix D

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon D-2
Appendix D

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon D-3
Appendix D

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon D-4
Appendix D

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon D-5
Appendix D

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon D-6
Appendix D

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon D-7
Appendix E

Council recommendations on issuance of exempted fishing permits
Appendix E

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon E-1
Appendix E

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon E-2
Appendix E

Analysis of West Coast Groundfish Fisheries for November 2018

the 2017 Biological Opinion on ESA-listed Salmon E-3