Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest Management Component PDF Format - [855KB] See Also: Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest Management Component Annual Postseason Reports: Annual Postseason Report 2005-06 Fishing Season - Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest Management Component Annual Postseason Report 2004-05 Fishing Season - Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest Management Component Annual Postseason Report 2003-04 Fishing Season - Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest Management Component

Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest Management Component By Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound Indian Tribes March 1, 2004 Executive Summary 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. NOAA Sustainable Fisheries ESA web sites: NOAA/NMFS Sustainable fisheries For information on the ESA approval: Look under “Joint Resource Management Plans” then “final Decision Documents” To see documents relating to the FEIS: Follow the link for the “Final Environmental Impact Statement” 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.