|
March 1, 2004
National Marine Fisheries Service APPROVAL
of Harvest Management Plan for 2005-2010
WDFW and the Puget Sound Indian Tribes have completed a multi-year
plan for management of Puget Sound Chinook, listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The "Comprehensive
Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook - Harvest Management Component"
has been approved by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 4(d)
ESA.
NMFS evaluated the joint resource management plan (RMP) for harvest
of Puget Sound chinook salmon provided by the Puget Sound Treaty
Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and under sections
4(d) and 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS issued an Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) providing their analysis of the impacts
of the plan on salmon and other factors in the environment. Following
the EIS, an Evaluation
and Recommended Determination (ERD) was drafted, issued for public
comment, and finalized. Pursuant to the FEIS and ERD, NMFS
made decisions related to the three different review paths underway.
A Record
of Decision (ROD) documents the NOAA decision relating to
the FEIS. A Section
7 Biological Opinion (BiOp) was also completed in consultation
with other federal agencies affected by the proposed action. Finally,
a Decisional
Memorandum relating to the fundamental ESA compliance mechanism
– section 4(d) limit 6 – was completed, and a federal
register notice filed notifying of the completion of this
process. The Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan
has been approved by NMFS under section 4(d)(6) ESA for the period
from May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2010.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) analyzes implementation
of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan (RMP).
The RMP regulates commercial, recreational, ceremonial, and subsistence
salmon fisheries potentially affecting the listed Puget Sound Chinook
Evolutionarily Significant Unit within the marine and freshwater
areas of Puget Sound. The FEIS examines the effects of various harvest
management strategies on a range of issues including fish species,
economics, federal treaty trust responsibilities, subsistence and
wildlife. |
This Harvest Management Plan
outlines objectives that will guide the Washington co-managers in planning
annual harvest regimes, as they affect listed Puget Sound chinook salmon,
for management years 2004 - 2009. These objectives include total or Southern
U.S. exploitation rate ceilings, and / or spawning escapement goals, for
each of fifteen management units. This Plan describes the technical derivation
of these objectives, and how these guidelines are applied to annual harvest
planning.
The Plan guides the implementation
of fisheries in Washington, under the co-managers' jurisdiction, but it
considers the total harvest impacts of all fisheries, including those
in Alaska and British Columbia, to assure that conservation objectives
for Puget Sound management units are achieved. Accounting of total fishery-related
mortality includes incidental harvest in fisheries directed at other salmon
species, and non-landed chinook mortality.
The fundamental intent of the
Plan is to enable harvest of strong, productive stocks of chinook, and
other salmon species, and to minimize harvest of weak or critically depressed
chinook stocks. However, the Puget Sound ESU currently includes many weak
populations. Providing adequate conservation of weak stocks will necessitate
foregoing some harvestable surplus of stronger stocks.
The rebuilding exploitation
rate (RER) objectives stated for management units (Table 1) are ceilings,
not annual target rates. The objective for annual, pre-season fishery
planning is to develop a fishing regime that will exert exploitation rates
that do not exceed the objectives established for each management unit.
For the immediate future, annual target rates that emerge from pre-season
planning will, for many management units, fall well below their respective
ceiling rates. While management units are rebuilding, annual harvest objectives
will intentionally be conservative, even for relatively strong and productive
populations.
To insure that the diversity
of genetic traits and ecological adaptation expressed by all populations
in the ESU is protected, low abundance thresholds are specified (Table
1). These thresholds are intentionally set above the level at which a
population may become demographically unstable, or subject to loss of
genetic integrity. If abundance (i.e., escapement) is forecast to fall
to or below this threshold, harvest impacts will be further constrained,
by Critical Exploitation Rate Ceilings, so that escapement will exceed
the low abundance threshold or the ceiling rate is not exceeded.
Rebuilding exploitation rates
are based on the most current and best available information on the recent
and current productivity of each management unit. Quantification of recent
productivity (i.e., recruitment and survival) is subject to uncertainty
and bias. The implementation of harvest regimes is subject to management
error. The derivation of RERs considers specifically these sources of
uncertainty and error, and manages the consequent risk that harvest rates
will exceed appropriate levels. The productivity of each management unit
will be periodically re-assessed, and harvest objectives modified as necessary,
so they reflect current status.
Management
Unit |
RER |
Upper
Management
Threshold |
Low
Abundance
Threshold |
| Nooksack 1 |
Under
development |
4,000 |
|
| |
North Fork |
2,000 |
1,000 |
| South Fork |
2,000 |
1,000 |
| Skagit
summer / fall |
50% |
14,500 |
4,800 |
| |
Upper Skagit
summer |
|
8,434 |
2,200 |
| Sauk summer |
|
1,926 |
400 |
| Lower Skagit
fall |
|
4,140 |
900 |
| Skagit
spring |
38% |
2,000 |
576 |
| |
Upper Sauk |
|
986 |
130 |
| Cascade |
|
440 |
170 |
| Siuattle |
|
574 |
170 |
| Stillaguamish 1 |
25% |
900 |
650 |
| |
North Fork summer |
|
600 |
500 |
| South Fork &
MS fall |
|
300 |
N/A |
| Snohomish 1 |
21% |
4,600 |
2,800 |
| |
Skykomish |
|
3,600 |
1,745 |
| Snoqualmie |
|
1,000 |
521 |
| Lake
Washington |
15%
PT SUS |
|
|
| |
Cedar River 1 |
|
1,200 |
200 |
| Green |
15%
PT SUS |
5,800 |
1,800 |
| White
River spring |
20% |
1,000 |
200 |
| Puyallup
fall |
50% |
|
500 |
| |
South Prairie
Creek |
|
500 |
|
| Nisqually |
|
1,100 |
|
| Skokomish |
15%
PT SUS |
3,650
aggregate
1,650 natural |
1,300
aggregate
800 natural |
| Mid-Hood
Canal |
15%
PT SUS |
750 |
400 |
| Dungeness |
10%
SUS |
925 |
500 |
| Elwha |
10%
SUS |
2,900 |
1,000 |
| Western
JDF |
10%
SUS |
850 |
500 |
| 1
thesholds expressed as natural-origin spawners |
This Plan is being considered
by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), for approval under the conservation standards
of the Endangered Species Act. Criteria for exemption of state / tribal
resource management plans from prohibition of the 'take' of listed species,
are contained under Limit 6 of the salmon 4(d) Rule (50 CFR 223:42476).
The 4(d) criteria advocate that harvest should not impede the recovery
of populations, whose abundance exceeds their critical threshold, from
increasing, and that populations with critically low abundance be guarded
against further decline, such that harvest will not significantly reduce
the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU. This Plan assures
that the abundance of all populations will increase, if habitat conditions
improve to support increased productivity, and that the harvest will be
conducted more conservatively than required by the ESA. |
