1 / 13

Puget Sound Harvest

Puget Sound Harvest. Status of ESA and NEPA Review Susan Bishop Sustainable Fisheries Division NOAA Fisheries susan.bishop@noaa.gov. ESA Actions. Puget Sound chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum ESUs listed March, 1999 ESA Evaluations 1999: Biological opinion

raheem
Télécharger la présentation

Puget Sound Harvest

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Puget Sound Harvest Status of ESA and NEPA Review Susan Bishop Sustainable Fisheries Division NOAA Fisheries susan.bishop@noaa.gov

  2. 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…”

  3. 2001 Harvest Plan Challenged • Lawsuit on 2001-2002 4(d) approval • Process: NEPA, ESA biological opinion • Substance: Harvest Approach • Settlement agreement reached

  4. 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

  5. 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)

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

  7. 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

  8. 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

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

  10. 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 NEPA Analysis

  11. 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

  12. Schedule for Completion of 2004 RMP EIS Harvest Plan Implemented DEIS published for public review Comment closed 2003 Harvest Package Final Final EIS 30d cooling off Address public comment, revise 45d Public comment 5/15 summer/03 fall/03 winter/04 5/04 2004 Harvest Plan Development 2004 Harvest Plan Review and Revision 4(d) Evaluation and Determination Biological Opinion Harvest Plan to NMFS 2004 Fisheries Open

  13. 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

More Related