Puget Sound Harvest Status of ESA and NEPA Review Susan Bishop Sustainable Fisheries Division NOAA Fisheries

ESA Actions u Puget Sound chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum ESUs listed March, 1999 u ESA Evaluations – 1999: Biological opinion – 2000: Biological opinion – : 4(d) application (Limit 6), NEPA u NMFS concluded that actions “…would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery…”

2001 Harvest Plan Challenged u Lawsuit on (d) approval – Process: NEPA, ESA biological opinion – Substance: Harvest Approach u Settlement agreement reached

Terms of Settlement u 2003 – One year 4(d) application – One year biological opinion – Environmental Assessment u 2004 – Multi-year 4(d) application – Multi-year biological opinion – Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives for NEPA Analysis u Determined from: – Settlement agreement – Public scoping – Internal scoping u Proposed Action (EA and EIS) u Escapement goal management (EIS) u Escapement goal management; population level; terminal only fisheries (EA, EIS) u No take of listed Puget Sound chinook (EA, EIS)

Basis of Alternatives u Fulfill terms of settlement agreement u Reasonable range of alternatives u Focused on alternatives to general harvest management framework u Harvest-centric

Proposed Action  Uses a mixture of exploitation rates and escapement thresholds  Accounts for all fishing-related impacts across all fisheries  Incorporates uncertainty in data & the environment, & minimizes risk  Harvest objectives updated with changing environmental and habitat conditions

Proposed Action objectives u Abundance thresholds – Critical: maintain population stability triggers additional fishery restriction – Upper:abundance with negligible risk of extinction measured under current habitat conditions u Exploitation rates – Based on abundance thresholds or recent years with stable escapements – 2 steps:rebuilding rates above critical threshold minimum regime below critical threshold – Incorporates error and uncertainty

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Plan Hypothetical Puget Sound Chinook Stock Proportion of adult population harvested Rebuilding Extreme low abundance Max. ?% harvest Max. 30% harvest Max. fishery restrictions Recovered Low abundance threshold Current estimate of habitat productivity & capacity Number of Spawners Habitat productivity & capacity increases Recovery is achieved

NEPA Analysis u Will  Evaluate harvest effects  General framework  Broad scale look  ESU level assessment  Provide information for other processes u Won’t Watershed specific Other H scenarios Fine level tuning

Opportunities for Input u 2003 RMP final determination pending u Public scoping for EIS has already occurred u Public review and comment – DEIS – Proposed determination on 2004 RMP u General input opportunities, but not as collaborative a process as Shared Strategy

Schedule for Completion of 2004 RMP EIS Harvest Plan Implemented DEIS published for public review 5/15 summer/03fall/03 winter/04 5/ Harvest Package Final 45d Public comment 2004 Harvest Plan Development Address public comment, revise Final EIS 30d cooling off Comment closed Harvest Plan to NMFS 2004 Harvest Plan Review and Revision 4(d) Evaluation and Determination Biological Opinion 2004 Fisheries Open

Integration u 4(d) rule requires monitoring, review, evaluation u Section 7 requires re-initiation upon substantial new information u RMPs evaluated so far include adaptive management processes