Last updated on 17 October 2016

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Oncorhynchus kisutch

SPECIES NAME(s)

Coho salmon

COMMON NAMES

coho salmon, silver salmon


ANALYSIS

No related analysis

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 8

Managers Compliance:

≥ 8

Fishers Compliance:

≥ 8

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

≥ 8

Future Health:

≥ 8


RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS

1. Work actively to address and close out conditions placed upon the certification of the fishery in the agreed timeframe.
2. Report achievements publicly to share progress with buyers.

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN

1. Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met.
2. Express your support to help meet conditions that may be at a government/regulatory level (where applicable). 


FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • Alaska salmon:

    MSC Recertified

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

DISTRICT MANAGEMENT UNIT FLAG COUNTRY FISHING GEAR
Annette Islands Reserve Alaska United States Drift gillnets
Set gillnets (anchored)
Trolling lines
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Alaska United States Drift gillnets
Fish wheel
Set gillnets (anchored)
Bristol Bay Alaska United States Drift gillnets
Set gillnets (anchored)
Cook Inlet Alaska United States Drift gillnets
Set gillnets (anchored)
Copper-Bering Alaska United States Drift gillnets
Prince William Sound Alaska United States Drift gillnets
Purse seines
Set gillnets (anchored)
Southeast Alaska Alaska/PSC United States Trolling lines
Westward Alaska Alaska United States Drift gillnets
Purse seines
Set gillnets (anchored)

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 13 August 2013

RECOMMENDATIONS
Cook Inlet

Last updated on 3 December 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators

1. Work actively to address and close out conditions placed upon the certification of the fishery in the agreed timeframe.
2. Report achievements publicly to share progress with buyers.

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain

1. Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met.
2. Express your support to help meet conditions that may be at a government/regulatory level (where applicable). 

1.STOCK STATUS

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

FishSource Scores

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

Click on the score to see subscores

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is ≥ 8.

Coho salmon in Lower Cook inlet are only occasionally targeted in fisheries, and there are no escapement goals for those stocks (SCS 2007). In Upper Cook Inlet (UCI), commercial harvests are influenced to a large extent by sockeye salmon management objectives (Lafferty et al. 2007). Coho salmon escapement goals have undergone periodic scientific review within the managing agency (Fair et al. 2007; Hausbrouck and Edmundson 2007; Fair et al. 2010). As for many coho salmon stocks throughout the state of Alaska, escapement data are limited and stock specific harvest data are lacking for Cook Inlet area stocks (SCS 2007). Because of these limitations, stocks are managed to achieve sustainable escapement goals (SEGs) rather than maximum sustainable yield These goals are generally associated with some partial measure of abundance applied to representative indicator stocks. Only a small set of substocks in UCI is monitored for escapement, but there is some evidence that these “surrogates” are significantly correlated with escapement trends of other stocks in their vicinity (Hasbrouck and Edmundson 2007). Cook Inlet coho salmon are managed as stock aggregates in harvests, and it is unclear how well substock components are represented in these groupings (SCS 2007). However, there is historical information on run timing and distribution to guide time and area management, as well as various indicators of run strength on which to base in-season management decisions (Lafferty et al. 2007). These as well as relatively low estimated harvests rates for Cook Inlet coho salmon stocks may limit the potential for adverse consequences resulting from coarse-scale stock units, unknown escapement abundance, and lack of stock identification in mixed harvests (Lafferty 2007; SCS 2007).

Click on the score to see subscores

×

Management Responsiveness Subscores

×

Adequacy of Data Subscores

STOCK HEALTH:

Click on the score to see subscores

Click on the score to see subscores

×

Stock Status Subscores

×

Hatchery Impacts Subscores

Choose Stock:
To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
No data available for hatchery releases
No data available for hatchery releases
To see data for escapement, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for stock status, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for hatchery impacts, please view this site on a desktop.
DATA NOTES

Scores appearing at the region level reflect the range of scores for the district profiles in the region for each of the five FishSource scoring criteria.  District profiles are scored according to the complete FishSource salmon scoring method, which can be downloaded here. A summary of the method’s scoring criteria for district profiles follows below (for the Alaska/PSC troll fishery component, scroll further to see a slightly modified set of criteria applied to mixture pool fisheries).

The FishSource sustainability criteria as applied to salmon: Criterion 1. Management Responsiveness (Is the management strategy precautionary?) 1.1 Over the last decade, has fisheries management exhibited in-season responsiveness to stock status? 1.2 Has fisheries management responded appropriately over the last 15 years when/if the stock has failed to meet management objectives and/or maintain yields? 1.3 Has management exhibited responsiveness to concerns regarding the conservation and restoration of the stock’s essential freshwater, estuarine and coastal habitats during the last ten years? Criterion 2. Management Guidelines (Do the managers follow scientific advice?) Have appropriate escapement goals or operational equivalents been developed and implemented for the fishery’s wild stocks? Criterion 3. Adequacy of Data (Do fishers comply?) 3.1 Is a portion of harvest attributable to illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing, resulting in official harvest data that is lower than the actual catch? 3.2 Is the fishery’s harvest adequately and accurately measured and reported? 3.3 Has escapement been adequately and accurately measured and publicly reported? Criterion 4. Stock Status (Is the fish stock healthy?) 4.1 Have escapement measures for the fishery’s wild stocks been maintained above escapement goals or thresholds, or have harvest rates been below the target harvest rates? 4.2 Has the catch trend been level or increasing over a 15-year period? Criterion 5. Are hatcheries or other enhancement activities negatively affecting wild stocks? (Will the fish stock be healthy in the future?) 5.0 Do hatcheries account for 10% or less of the fishery’s total production, or are hatchery-produced fish not in substantial contact with wild salmon? If “no,” then the following sub-criteria are analyzed: 5.1 Are managers able to manage for the (wild) stocks in a fishery that also contains hatchery stocks of salmon? 5.2 Is there a low quantity of hatchery strays in the escapement throughout the freshwater habitat of the wild stock, and is hatchery straying quantified by means of a technically sound data collection and analysis? 5.3 Over the past 10 years, have hatchery strays, hatchery out-plants, or any returning hatchery-produced fish been intentionally allowed to mix with the wild stock during spawning? 5.4 Are there active and effective policies that (1) establish objectives for the conservation of wild salmon, (2) put into place operational systems that limit hatchery impacts on wild stocks, (3) grant sufficient oversight and authority over individual hatchery programs to management agencies, and (4) establish a hatchery evaluation system that monitors the performance of individual hatcheries against wild salmon conservation objectives?

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

SELECT MSC

NAME

Alaska salmon

STATUS

MSC Recertified on 1 September 2000

SCORES

Principle Level Scores:

Unit of Certification Principle Score
Southeast Alaska Principle 1 – Target Species 80.7
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 81.0
Principle 3 – Management System 91.5
Yakutat Principle 1 – Target Species 97.1
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 83.7
Principle 3 – Management System 96.5
Prince William Sound

Principle 1 – Target Species

83.5

Principle 2 - Ecosystem 86.0
Principle 3 – Management System 91.5
Copper/Bering Districts Principle 1 – Target Species 82.4
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 85.7
Principle 3 – Management System 91.5
Lower Cook Inlet Principle 1 – Target Species 91.0
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 86.0
Principle 3 – Management System 89.5
Upper Cook Inlet Principle 1 – Target Species 94.3
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 85.7
Principle 3 – Management System 91.5
Bristol Bay Principle 1 – Target Species 98.9
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.3
Principle 3 – Management System 96.5
Yukon River Principle 1 – Target Species 91.7
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.3
Principle 3 – Management System 96.5
Kuskokwim Principle 1 – Target Species 91.2
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.3
Principle 3 – Management System 96.5
Kotzebue Principle 1 – Target Species 88.3
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.7
Principle 3 – Management System 96.5
Norton Sound Principle 1 – Target Species 84.2
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.3
Principle 3 – Management System 96.5
Kodiak Principle 1 – Target Species 82.5
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 85.3
Principle 3 – Management System 91.5
Chignik Principle 1 – Target Species 87.1
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.7
Principle 3 – Management System 96.5
Peninsula/Aleutian Islands Principle 1 – Target Species 97.4
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 87.3
Principle 3 – Management System 96.5

Certification Type: Silver

Sources

References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Coho salmon - Alaska, Cook Inlet, Alaska, United States, Set gillnets (anchored)

    comments powered by Disqus