Transcript Puget Sound Harvest Status of ESA and NEPA Review Susan Bishop

Puget Sound Harvest
Status of ESA and NEPA Review
Susan Bishop
Sustainable Fisheries Division
NOAA Fisheries
[email protected]
ESA Actions

Puget Sound chinook, Hood Canal summer-run
chum ESUs listed March, 1999

ESA Evaluations
1999: Biological opinion
– 2000: Biological opinion
– 2001-2002: 4(d) application (Limit 6), NEPA
NMFS concluded that actions “…would not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and
recovery…”
–

2001 Harvest Plan Challenged

Lawsuit on 2001-2002 4(d) approval
–
–

Process: NEPA, ESA biological opinion
Substance: Harvest Approach
Settlement agreement reached
Terms of Settlement

2003
–
–
–

One year 4(d) application
One year biological opinion
Environmental Assessment
2004
–
–
–
Multi-year 4(d) application
Multi-year biological opinion
Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives for NEPA Analysis

Determined from:
–
–
–




Settlement agreement
Public scoping
Internal scoping
Proposed Action (EA and EIS)
Escapement goal management (EIS)
Escapement goal management; population level; terminal
only fisheries (EA, EIS)
No take of listed Puget Sound chinook (EA, EIS)
Basis of Alternatives
Fulfill terms of settlement agreement
 Reasonable range of alternatives
 Focused on alternatives to general harvest
management framework
 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

Abundance thresholds
–
Critical: maintain population stability
triggers additional fishery restriction
–
Upper:
abundance with negligible risk of extinction
measured under current habitat conditions

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
Proportion of adult population harvested
Hypothetical Puget Sound Chinook Stock
Recovered
Rebuilding
Extreme low
abundance
Max. fishery
restrictions
Max. 30%
harvest
Number of Spawners
Low abundance threshold
Max. ?%
harvest
Recovery
is achieved
Habitat
productivity
& capacity
Current estimate
of habitat
increases
productivity & capacity
NEPA Analysis

Will





Evaluate harvest
effects
General framework
Broad scale look
ESU level assessment
Provide information
for other processes

Won’t
• Watershed specific
• Other H scenarios
• Fine level tuning
Opportunities for Input
2003 RMP final determination pending
 Public scoping for EIS has already occurred
 Public review and comment

–
–

DEIS
Proposed determination on 2004 RMP
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
Comment closed
2003 Harvest
Package Final
Final EIS
45d Public comment
5/15
summer/03
2004 Harvest Plan Development
fall/03
Address public
comment, revise
30d
cooling off
winter/04
5/04
2004 Harvest Plan Review and Revision
4(d) Evaluation and Determination
Biological Opinion
Harvest Plan to
NMFS
2004 Fisheries
Open
Integration
4(d) rule requires monitoring, review,
evaluation
 Section 7 requires re-initiation upon
substantial new information
 RMPs evaluated so far include adaptive
management processes
