Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Region

with Assistance from the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes

and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

December 2004
For information, please contact:

Susan Bishop, NMFS: 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.

 Seattle, WA 98115-0070

 susan.bishop@noaa.gov

 (206) 526-4587

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Region

with Assistance from the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes

and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

December 2004

Volume 1
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest i December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table of Contents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1-1 

2.0 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED........................................................................................2-1 

2.1 Number of Comments Received .............................................................................................................2-1 

2.2 Process for Responding to Comments....................................................................................................2-1 

2.3 Range of Comments ...............................................................................................................................2-1 

3.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS..............................................................3-1 

3.1 Summary of Changes Made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement............................................3-1 

3.2 Letters of Comment and Responses.......................................................................................................3-4 

Sam Wright (SW) Letter of Comment......................................................................................................3-5 

Response to Comments Received from Sam Wright (SW) ...............................................................3-6 

Native Fish Society (NFS) Letter of Comment ......................................................................................3-43 

Response to Comments Received from Native Fish Society (NFS) ...............................................3-44 

Washington Trout (WT) Letter of Comment ..........................................................................................3-52 

Response to Comments Received from Washington Trout (WT)...................................................3-53 

Puget Sound Anglers, North Olympic Peninsula Chapter (PSA) Letter of Comment............................3-72 

Response to Comments Received from Puget Sound Anglers, 

North Olympic Peninsula Chapter (PSA) .............................................................................3-73 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Letter of Comment ................................................................3-74 

Response to Comments Received from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ......................3-75 

List of Tables 

Table 3-1. Major changes made in Final EIS Volume 2 in response to public comments received on the 

Draft EIS: Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan (NMFS, April 2004). ......3-2 

Table 3-2. Natural-origin or natural escapement for Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, 1990 to 

2003............................................................................................................................................3-10 

List of Figures 

Figure 3-1. Marine survival of Puget Sound fall chinook salmon: Brood Years 1971-98...............................3-19 

 Introduction

Section 1 – Introduction 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

2 The Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3 (DEIS) was made available for a 45-day public comment period on April 16, 2004 (69 FR 20609). The 

4 comment period was extended for one month to July 1, 2004 (69 FR 32547) in direct response to a 

5 request from the public. This resulted in a total comment period of 78 days. In addition to the Federal 

6 Register announcement, comments were also solicited via: 1) an announcement on the National Marine 

7 Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northwest Region web site; 2) an email notification to western Washington 

8 news agencies and various federal, state, tribal, and local jurisdictions; 3) postcards and letters mailed 

9 directly to individuals and organizations included on a public notification mailing list. Several other 

10 agencies and organizations, such as, Shared Strategy, and the Washington Department of Fish & 

11 Wildlife (WDFW), also provided notification through their web sites and newsletters. 

12 This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was generated in response to updated information 

13 and public comments received by NMFS pertaining to the public review draft of the Puget Sound 

14 Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan DEIS, dated April 2004. The FEIS consists of two 

15 volumes. 

16 Volume 1: 

17 Section 1.0 Introduction 

18 Section 2.0 Overview of Public Comments Received 

19 Section 3.0 Public Comments and NMFS’ Responses 

20 Final EIS Volume 2 is the revised Draft EIS as modified in response to public comments or updated 

21 information. 

 Overview of Public Comments Received

Section 2 − Overview of Public Comments Received 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 2.0 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED 

2 This section provides an overview of the public comments that were submitted following the public 

3 comment period, held May 1 to July 1, 2004. 

4 2.1 Number of Comments Received 

5 A total of five letters of comment were received by NMFS pertaining to the DEIS and Resource 

6 Management Plan (RMP): one from a government agency, three from public organizations, and one 

7 from an individual citizen. Several of the comments and suggestions were incorporated into the DEIS 

8 (FEIS Volume 2). This volume of the FEIS (Volume 1) contains copies of the letters of comment, 

9 followed by NMFS’ responses to the comments. 

10 2.2 Process for Responding to Comments 

11 The comments received ranged from detailed scientific comments, to expressions of opinion on various 

12 issues, to comments that were essentially expressions of preference for different alternatives. Specific 

13 comments were identified and read by the appropriate resource specialists and NMFS, who prepared 

14 individual detailed responses. These comments and their associated responses are provided in Section 3 

15 of FEIS Volume 1. Suggestions that were incorporated into the DEIS are indicated in the response to 

16 comments. The revisions are provided in FEIS Volume 2, Revised Draft EIS. Revisions were made by 

17 striking out old text and underlining updated or new text (unless otherwise noted). 

18 The letters of comment are listed by page number in the FEIS Volume 1 Table of Contents. Each 

19 comment letter is followed by the response to comments in that letter. To see how comments were 

20 addressed, refer first to the letter of interest, and then to the numbers in the margins of the comment 

21 letter. The margin numbers direct the reader to the associated response with the same number. 

22 2.3 Range of Comments 

23 Although relatively few letters of comment were received, comments ranged from general suggestions 

24 for additional alternatives to detailed technical comments. Following is a general summary of the 

25 comments received: 

26 1. Concern that the range of alternatives evaluated in the DEIS was too narrow and suggestions for 

27 additional alternatives: 

28 • More liberal harvest regime 

29 • Tribal-only fisheries regime 

30 • Tribal-only pre-terminal and tribal/non-tribal terminal fisheries regime 

31 • Fixed escapement goals with incidental-only levels below goal regime 
Section 2 − Overview of Public Comments Received 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 • Fisheries regime similar to that used for Oregon Coast coho 

2 • Changes in hatchery production, including no hatchery augmentation 

3 • Reduced harvest, including specifically in Canadian fisheries 

4 • Use of selective gear. 

5 2. Request for discussion of different methods and locations for tribal harvest. 

6 3. Request to broaden the scope of the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. 

7 4. Request for discussion of methods and techniques to limit mortalities in sport and mixed-stock 

8 fisheries in order to reduce overall mortality on Puget Sound chinook salmon. 

9 5. Disagreement with derivation of harvest management objectives and standards. 

10 6. Detailed technical comments about the data or assumptions used to evaluate alternatives or to 

11 derive harvest management objectives or standards. 

12 7. Disagreement with the range of abundances and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries in the scenarios used 

13 to evaluate the alternatives. 

14 8. Concern regarding the treatment of management precision either in the alternatives evaluated or 

15 in suggested additional alternatives. 

16 9. Disagreement with the bases for which the tribal-only and no hatchery augmentation alternatives 

17 suggested during public scoping were eliminated. 

18 10. Support for the analysis in the DEIS and the choice of the Preferred Alternative. 

19 11. Request for estimation of costs associated from any delay in delisting under the ESA from 

20 implementation of the Preferred Alternative. 

21 12. Request for estimation of benefits and costs associated with alternative uses of human and 

22 financial resources resulting from adoption of harvest regimes that are less resource-intensive 

23 than the Preferred Alternative. 

24 13. Request for economic analysis associated with non-use of the fish resource or costs associated 

25 with production of fish harvested (hatchery production), or fisheries management. 

26 14. Request for exploration of objectives and processes that change the hatchery reliance practices. 

27 15. Request for greater discussion of habitat effects in Puget Sound, integration of habitat and 

28 hatchery actions, and the influence of habitat on the derivation of harvest management objectives 

29 and standards. 

30 16. Concern that the Proposed Action does not meet the stated purpose because it does not conserve 

31 the productivity, abundance, and diversity of some populations of Puget Sound chinook salmon 

32 in the ESU. 

33 17. Suggest revision to the DEIS to reflect application to the 2005 to 2009 fishing seasons rather than 

34 the 2004 to 2009 fishing seasons because of delay in completing the EIS. 

35 18. Disagreement with the identification of Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) as the No Action 

36 Alternative. 

37 19. Suggest that the alternatives do not need to meet all the elements of the Purpose and Need. 

38 20. Concern over the choice of Alternative 1 rather than the Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

39 as the Preferred Alternative. 
Public Comments and

Response to Public Comments

Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

2 This section contains the letters of comment received on the Draft EIS, and the response to comments. 

3 One element of the response to comments was to revise the DEIS circulated for public comment in 

4 April 2004, to add clarifications warranted by the comments, and/or to provide additional updated 

5 information. Changes made to the Draft EIS are summarized in Subsection 3.1. The letters of comment 

6 and response to comments are reproduced in full in Subsection 3.2. 

7 3.1 Summary of Changes Made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

8 Table 3-1 summarizes key changes that were made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

9 (DEIS) in response to public comment or as a result of updated information. The table summary does 

10 not identify all changes made; it describes changes in wording that affect content, intent, and 

11 explanations of commitments contained in the DEIS or in response to specific public comment. The 

12 most extensive changes were related to the discussion of Fish (Subsections 3.3 and 4.3) and Wildlife 

13 (3.8). Changes were also made for editorial reasons for purposes of clarification; these are not included 

14 in Table 3-1. The location of text modifications is denoted by subsection where the text appeared in the 

15 DEIS distributed for public comment (April 2004). 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3-1. Major changes made in Final EIS volume 2 in response to public comments received on the 

2 Draft EIS: Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan (NMFS, April 2004).

DEIS Section Page1 Response to 

Comment Summary of Changes Made to the DEIS 

1.1 1-1 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

1.2 1-3 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

1.4 1-4 EPA-13A Include language explaining that an ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion had been 

conducted on the 2004 fishing season. 

1.4 1-4 EPA-1 Clarify importance of Limit 6 criteria to the Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action. 

1.4 1-4 EPA-13A Revise language to note the revision of the settlement agreement between 

Washington Trout and NMFS to reflect the Section 7 consultation on the 2004 

fishing season. 

1.6 Recreational 

Fisheries 

1-23 SW-28 Correct recreational chinook salmon catch numbers in text to correspond with 

Figure 1.6-4. 

1.8.2 1-27 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

1.9 1-27 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

1.12 1-33 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

2.1 2-1 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

2.2 2-2 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

2.2.2 2-3 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

2.3.1 2-6 EPA-10 Revise language to clarify that the Proposed Action would manage mixed-stock 

fisheries for the harvest management objective of the weakest management unit 

in the fishery. 

2.3.1 2-6 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

3.1 3-1 Workgroup Clarify that document also addressed SEPA issues of relevance. 

3.3.1.1 3-15 EPA-8 Provide a broader overview of habitat activities affecting listed salmon in Puget 

Sound. 

3.3.5 3-81 Workgroup Update information on derelict fishing gear removal in Puget Sound. 

3.3.6 3-82 Workgroup Update references and add more discussion on terrestrial effects. 

3.7.3 3-155 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

3.7.5 3-156 EPA-16 Correct calculation of minority representation by county in Table 3.7-2. 

3.8.1 3-160 Workgroup Update text. 

4.2.2 4-4 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.2.3 4-5 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.2.3.1 4-5 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.2.3.2 4-6 EPA-6 Delete language referencing Appendix B for details on Canadian fishing regimes 

and the basis of the maximum northern fisheries scenario. This information is 

included in Subsections 1.6 and 4.2 of the DEIS. 

4.2.3.2 4-6 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

 

1

 Page number found in public review draft of the EIS, dated April 2004. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

DEIS Section Page1 Response to 

Comment Summary of Changes Made to the DEIS 

4.3.1.1 

Impacts to Hood 

Canal and Strait of 

Juan de Fuca 

Summer Chum 

4-9 Workgroup Correct escapement figures in text and Tables 4.3-7a through 4.3-7d. 

4.3.1.2 Impacts to 

Hood Canal and 

Strait of Juan de 

Fuca Summer 

Chum 

4-21 Workgroup Correct comparison of Alternative 2 to Alternative (Scenario B) corrected in text 

and Tables 4.3-8a through 4.3-8d. 

4.3.1.3 4-24 Workgroup Catch figures corrected in text and Tables 4.3-9a through 4.3-9d. 

4.3.1.3 4-24 Workgroup Correct Alternative 3 comparison to Alternative (Scenario B) in text and Tables 

4.3-9a through 4.3-9d. 

4.3.1.4 4-27 Workgroup Correct catch figures corrected in text and Tables 4.3-10a through 4.3-10d. 

4.3.6 4-76 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.3.6.1 4-77 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.3.6.2 4-81 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.3.6.3 4-83 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.3.7.1 4-84 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.3.8.1 4-100 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

4.3.8.1 4-100 SW-15, 16, 32, 

WT-32 

Expand discussion to provide more detail on the robustness of the different 

alternatives to management error. 

4.6 4-131 SW-7 Information is insufficient to assess economic effects of potential delay in 

recovery of some Puget Sound Chinook populations. 

4.6 4-131 NFS-12 Information is insufficient to assess the potential effects of implementing the 

different alternatives on non-use values. 

4.8.1 4-182 Workgroup Expand description on effects of derelict fishing gear. 

4.8.2.2 4-189 Workgroup Update text. 

4.8.3 4-190 Workgroup Expand description on effects of derelict fishing gear. 

4.8.4.1 4-193 Workgroup Add reference to biological opinions and incidental take permits for marbled 

murrelets for Puget Sound salmon fisheries. 

4.8.5 4-194 Workgroup Identify several terrestrial wildlife species with strong consistent links to salmon 

as prey species. 

4.9 4-206 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

5.1 5-2 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

5.2.2 5-10 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

Appendix C2 C-5 EPA-8 Add explanation for how harvest standards change with changing environmental 

conditions. 

Appendix C3 C-15 EPA-13A Change duration of Proposed Action from 2004−2009 to 2005−2009. 

1 1 Page number found in public review draft of the EIS, dated April 2004. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 4 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.2 Letters of Comment and Responses 

2 NMFS received five letters of comment on the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management 

3 Plan Draft EIS (April 2004): one from a government agency, three from public organizations, and one 

4 from an individual. 

5 Each letter of comment and attachments (if any) are reproduced in this subsection, along with 

6 responses prepared by NMFS and/or appropriate resource specialists. For clarity in associating 

7 responses with specific comments, numbers have been applied in the margins of each letter of 

8 comment, delineating the paragraph or portion of a paragraph for which a response was prepared. All 

9 responses follow each letter of comment, numbered to correspond to these margin numbers. 
 

 

Sam Wright (SW) 

Letter of Comment 











Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 6 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SAM WRIGHT (SW) 

2 SW-1A-1I. 

3 The commentor proposed to present a new alternative, “Alternative 1A”, for comparison to DEIS 

4 Alternative 1. However, the commentor did not provide the detailed information necessary to analyze 

5 the new alternative, such as: 1) a description of Alternative 1A; or 2) a list of the features (objectives, 

6 implementation steps, criteria, etc.) of Alternative 1A. He has, however, provided some description of 

7 general components of Alternative 1A throughout his letter of comment. NMFS has identified these 

8 comments as components to the suggested alternative, and provided responses here for ease of 

9 understanding. Given the following information, NMFS concludes that the suggested alternative 

10 (Alternative 1A) is not technically feasible to evaluate or implement within the available time of the 

11 Proposed Action. 

12 SW-1A 

13 The primary fishery impact assessment tool used for Puget Sound Chinook is the Fishery Regulation 

14 Assessment Model (FRAM). The FRAM estimates fishery-related mortality on two-year-old to five15 year-old fish in a single fishing year (May – April) associated with coastal Washington and Puget 

16 Sound marine and freshwater fisheries, and fisheries in Alaska and British Columbia. FRAM assesses 

17 the fishing mortality on several age classes in a single fishing year. Brood year or cohort-based models 

18 generally account for fishing mortality on a single-year class over four or five fishing years. FRAM is 

19 designed to inform annual pre-season harvest management planning. Brood-year models are usually 

20 used for post-season assessment of fishing mortality on a specific cohort. The fishery assessment model 

21 used by the Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) of the Pacific Salmon Commission has the ability to 

22 estimate exploitation rates on either a fishing-year or brood-year basis. Results from this model have 

23 shown that annual exploitation rates calculated from the fishing year model will be approximately 

24 equal to brood-year exploitation rates when averaged over the appropriate period. Modifying FRAM to 

25 calculate brood-year-based exploitation rates would benefit post-season analysis, but could easily take 

26 three or more years to complete the extensive rewriting of programming code, debugging and model27 run trials needed. Therefore, the necessary modifications to the management tools probably would not 

28 be completed in time for implementation during the period of the Proposed Action (2005–2009). In 

29 addition, use of a brood-year-based FRAM in pre-season fishery assessment is limited because of the 

30 nature of the annual management process. 

31 During the pre-season management process, forecasts for the abundance of age three- to five-year-old 

32 chinook salmon are developed as inputs to the FRAM. For some Puget Sound stocks such as Skagit 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 7 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 summer/fall chinook, these forecasts are age specific, for others they are based on an average assuming 

2 that maturing fish are all four years old. Age specific forecasts are preferred, and are generally used 

3 when historical data is adequate to do so. The age-specific forecasts can incorporate any abnormally 

4 high or low production years. FRAM estimates fisheries mortality and escapement for the proposed 

5 fisheries on each age class, from age 2 “jacks” to age three- to five-year-old adults. The number of age 

6 three- to five-year adults projected to escape to the spawning grounds establishes the status of each 

7 stock in a given fishery management year. If annual forecasts detect weak brood years, and, over time, 

8 brood-year exploitation rates approximate fishing-year rates, and post season analysis can identify and 

9 track weak brood years, there does not appear to be a clear benefit to moving to brood-year 

10 management for annual planning, given the added management complexity and technical resources 

11 required by such an approach. 

12 SW-1B 

13 The commentor provides no guidance regarding what an acceptable level of valid incidental catch 

14 would be against which to evaluate the different alternatives (40 CFR 1503.3), or to assess whether it 

15 would be consistent with the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. The magnitude of catch could 

16 vary greatly from year to year, and may or may not be consistent with levels of harvest compatible with 

17 the resource needs of individual Puget Sound Chinook populations. 

18 SW-1C 

19 Comment noted. 

20 SW-1D 

21 Comment noted. NMFS observes that the definition of valid incidental catches identified in this 

22 comment differs from the definition under SW-1B, and there is no definition for what would constitute 

23 a “valid test fishery” or “critical ceremonial, subsistence and research (test fishing) uses.” Also see the 

24 response to SW-1B. 

25 SW-1E 

26 See response to comment SW-1B. It is explicitly stated in this comment that the commentor’s proposed 

27 alternative does not define the limit of valid incidental catch, but that the limit would be whatever had 

28 been determined to be the total of valid incidental catches for that year. 

29 SW-1F 

30 Since the sex ratio and the number of eggs per female (fecundity) differ by fish size and age, the 

31 number of eggs in the gravel will differ depending on the age structure of the escapement. In Columbia 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 8 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 River wild chinook populations, females comprise about 10 to 15 percent of the three-year-old mature 

2 run. Puget Sound wild Chinook probably have a similar low female contribution as maturing three year 

3 olds. Historical spawning ground age composition and sex ratio information is lacking in many areas 

4 and minimal in others. For many areas, it would be very speculative to convert historical spawning 

5 ground estimates to numbers of fish by age and sex. Abnormally high or low survival years for any of 

6 the age three- to five-year-old classes will influence the population status for that year, and to a degree, 

7 the number of eggs laid. For example, poor production/survival for the 2003 brood year would begin to 

8 influence the adult returns expected in the 2006 management year as three-year-old fish. However, if 

9 three-year-old maturing adults were ignored in the spawning escapement estimate because of their low 

10 female/egg contribution, then an abnormally low production year like 2003 would not be considered in 

11 the stock status and fisheries assessment for 2006. (Also see comment and response to comment SW12 1A requesting brood-year-based management.) Of course, the converse could occur with a favorable 

13 production year for returning three-year-old age-class. For a typical Puget Sound chinook salmon 

14 population, the influence on the total adult return would likely be largest in 2007 as four-year-olds. The 

15 modeling tools that have been developed, such as FRAM, and the management criteria that have been 

16 established are dependent on the quality and resolution of the historical information. For annual pre17 season fisheries management, using estimates from FRAM of age three- to five-year-olds as a measure 

18 of spawning escapement and stock status represents a compromise between the available historical 

19 information and our understanding of Puget Sound chinook life histories and genetic diversity. 

20 Also see responses to comments SW-9 and SW-18. 

21 SW-1G 

22 See response to comment SW-1F. 

23 SW-1H 

24 See response to comments SW-1A and SW-1F. 

25 SW-1I 

26 There is not enough detail provided in these comments to determine whether the implementation of 

27 Alternative 1A (recommended by the commentor) would give equally-high priority or protection to all 

28 Category 1 and 2 populations. Also see responses to comments SW-1B and SW-19. 

29 Regardless of what criteria are used to measure stock status in any particular year, it is likely that at 

30 least one Puget Sound chinook stock will not achieve its management unit escapement objectives 

31 during the period of the Proposed Action (2005–2009). Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 1), 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 9 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 impacts to stocks in poorest or critical status are more constrained by managing for a critical 

2 exploitation rate ceiling (CERC). The CERC was developed from modeling a minimum fishery regime 

3 that represents the “minimum level of fishing that allows some exercise of those [treaty] rights, and 

4 demonstrates their commitment to contribute... to the recovery of Puget Sound chinook salmon to 

5 levels that would satisfy their treaty rights” and the allowance for some reasonable harvest of non-listed 

6 salmon by Treaty Indian and non-Indian fishers (WDFW and PSIT 2004). The general approach in the 

7 Proposed Action is to establish exploitation rates ceilings that correspond to varying stock status levels, 

8 and allow the pre-season management process to determine the structure of the fisheries. 

9 SW-2 

10 The 2003 hatchery contribution data for the Cedar River escapement was unavailable at the time the 

11 DEIS was written, and NMFS believes that a single year of data is insufficient on which to base 

12 modeling assumptions. However, as more information is available, all the alternatives include adaptive 

13 management provisions that would require revision of key parameters based on new information. The 

14 lack of hatchery contribution to natural spawning estimates is still the case for the majority of Puget 

15 Sound chinook salmon populations. Where sufficient information on abundance and productivity was 

16 available to develop harvest standards (i.e., Nooksack early, Snohomish, Green River, Skagit and 

17 Stillaguamish), NMFS used these standards to evaluate the environmental consequences of the 

18 alternatives. 

19 SW-3 

20 The 2003 escapement information for Puget Sound chinook salmon was not available at the time the 

21 DEIS was written. Table 3-2 summarizes Puget Sound chinook salmon escapement by population and 

22 year, which includes the 2003 escapement information. Inclusion of the observed 2003 escapement 

23 data would have changed the trends in two of the 22 populations in the Puget Sound chinook salmon 

24 ESU for which data are available. Estimates of natural-origin escapement in 2003 are not yet available 

25 for the Skykomish or Snoqualmie chinook salmon populations. Recent abundance trends for the Upper 

26 Sauk spring and South Fork Stillaguamish populations would have changed from stable to decreasing 

27 since March 1999 when the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) was listed. 

28 Abundance and exploitation rate data for 2003 is unavailable at this time to determine why 2003 

29 escapements were lower in several areas than in recent years. It could be due to lower abundance than 

30 in years previous or higher harvest in Canadian or southern U.S. fisheries than expected, or a 

31 combination of several factors. The 2003 escapement information, however, would not have changed 

32 the Environmental Consequences analysis in the DEIS, which was based on other data sources. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 10 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3-2. Natural-origin or natural escapement for Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, 1990 to 2003. 

Management Unit Population 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack South Fork Nooksack 

142 

6 

136 

444 

87 

357 

403 345 

58 

444 285 159 

113 

26 87 

421 175 246 

353 210 143 

223 121 102 

128 

39 89 

255 

91 

164 

Skagit Summer/Fall 

Natural Spawners: Upper Skagit River 1

Lower Sauk River 1

Lower Skagit River 1

16,792 11,793 

1,294 3,705 

5,824 3,656 

658 

1,510 

7,348 5,548 

469 

1,331 

5,801 4,654 

205 942 

5,549 4,565 

100 884 

6,877 5,948 

263 666 

10,613 

7,989 1,103 1,521 

4,872 4,168 

295 409 

14,609 11,761 

460 

2,388 

4,924 3,586 

295 

1,043 

1613

3

Skagit Spring 

Natural Spawners: Upper Sauk River 1

Suiattle River 1

Upper Cascade River 1

1,511 

557 685 269 

1,346 

747 464 135 

986 580 201 205 

783 323 292 168 

470 130 167 173 

855 190 440 225 

1,051 

408 435 208 

1,041 

305 428 308 

1,086 

290 473 323 

471 180 208 

83 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River S.F. Stillaguamish River 

701 434 267 

1,279 

978 301 

716 422 294 

725 380 345 

743 456 287 

654 431 223 

935 684 251 

839 613 226 

863 615 248 

767 514 253 

1

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

3,662 2,551 1,111 

2,447 1,951 

496 

2,242 1,642 

600 

3,190 

942 

2,248 

2,039 1,478 

561 

1,252 1,144 

108 

2,379 1,719 

660 

3,517 1,696 1,821 

2,919 1,500 1,419 

2,430 1,382 1,048 

211

Lake Washington Natural Spawners: 

Cedar River 1, 2

Sammamish River 3

787 469 318 

661 508 153 

790 525 265 

245 156 

89 

888 452 436 

930 681 249 

336 303 

33 

294 227 

67 

697 432 265 

778 241 537 

Green River Natural Spawners: 

Duwamish-Green River 7,035 10,548 5,267 2,476 4,078 7,939 6,026 9,967 7,300 6 9,100 6 6
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 11 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Management Unit Population 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20

White River Natural Spawners: 

White River 275 194 406 409 392 605 628 402 316 553 1

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 4

S. Prairie Creek Index Area 4

3,515 

- 

1,702 

- 

3,034 1,999 

- 

1,328 

798 

2,344 1,408 

2,111 1,268 

1,110 

667 

1,711 1,028 

1,988 1,430 

1

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 

Nisqually River 994 953 106 1,655 1,730 817 606 340 834 1,399 1

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 642 1,719 825 960 657 1,398 995 452 1,177 6 1,692 6 

Mid-Hood Canal Natural Spawners 

Mid-Hood Canal Tributaries: - 86 96 112 384 103 - - 287 762 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 310 163 158 43 65 163 183 50 110 75 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 

Elwha River 6, 2,956 3,361 1,222 1,562 1,216 1,150 1,608 2,517 2,358 1,602 1

ESU Total 39,964 29,240 26,284 19,457 20,887 25,610 27,773 26,380 36,238 27,326 36

1 1 The majority are natural-origin spawner. 2 2 The escapement estimates for the Cedar River are based on an expansion of a live count of fish. However, Cedar River redd counts sugg

3 live count may be a conservative estimate of the total escapement (P. Hage, Muckleshoot Tribe, e-mail to S. Bishop, NMFS, February 10

3 4 Does not include escapement into the Upper Cottage Lake Creek, which has been surveyed since 1998. Surveys of the Upper Cottage L

5 fish (S. Foley, WDFW, pers. com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, February 19, 2004). Escapement counts also do not include spawners in Issaq6 to be primarily Issaquah Hatchery returns (N. Sands, NMFS, e-mail to S. Bishop, NMFS, February 26, 2004). Therefore, escapeme7 conservative estimate of the total Sammamish River population’s escapement. 

4 8 The area surveyed for the South Prairie Creek index increased from 1.5 to 12.5 stream miles in 1994. 5 9 Escapement is considered in-river gross escapement plus hatchery voluntary escapement minus pre-spawning mortality. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 12 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 SW-4 

2 NMFS understands that this is a principle of the commentor’s alternative; i.e., it is a key assumption of 

3 the commentor’s alternative that if listed chinook needed to meet a valid spawning escapement 

4 objective are allowed to escape and spawn naturally, the net benefits derived from their progeny will, 

5 on average, be significantly greater than if the same fish had been immediately harvested. However, 

6 NMFS would need to be certain that this was a realistic assumption if the alternative was determined to 

7 be reasonable to analyze. The meaning of this comment is not clear as to whether the commentor is 

8 referring to economic, social, or biological benefits, and no information is provided to support the 

9 statement that the net benefits would be significantly better. NMFS also notes that the commentor does 

10 not propose that all listed chinook salmon below the spawning escapement objective be allowed to 

11 escape and spawn naturally (see comments SW-1B and SW-1E). 

12 The goal of the Proposed Action is to exceed the upper threshold 80 percent of the time (more if 

13 productivity improves). Fisheries directed on naturally-produced chinook salmon are not expected to 

14 occur during implementation of the Proposed Action, because the abundance is not expected to be 

15 sufficient as defined under the terms of the Proposed Action except in a few areas expected to have 

16 large hatchery returns. The commentor has indicated he does not object to the harvest of hatchery17 produced chinook salmon (see comments SW-1B, SW-9, SW-11). Therefore, the total benefits from 

18 the harvest of chinook occur primarily from the harvest of salmon species other than chinook salmon 

19 during which chinook are caught incidentally. In this context of benefits, it is not true to say that the 

20 future net benefits from not harvesting any component of the chinook return would be greater than the 

21 present benefits of harvest, because those present benefits are from the harvest of other species, not 

22 Chinook salmon. As shown by the evaluation of Alternatives 2 and 3 which use a fixed-escapement 

23 goal approach, these approaches would be expected to preclude most Puget Sound salmon fisheries 

24 given the range of abundances reasonably expected through 2009, providing very little net economic or 

25 social benefit from the additional escapement (see DEIS Subsection 4.6).

26 Under the biological interpretation of benefits, assuming a population is below the escapement 

27 associated with Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY)(the upper threshold referred in the comment), and 

28 that its spawner-recruit relationship is defined by a Beverton-Holt curve, then NMFS agrees that 

29 forgoing harvest now will allow the population to reach its upper threshold (as defined by MSY) in a 

30 shorter time period; however, it may not generate significantly greater benefits than would occur with 

31 some level of harvest. For this EIS, the only populations that were expected to achieve their viable 

32 escapement thresholds without fishing (Alternative 4), but not achieve their viable thresholds under the 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 13 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Proposed Action were the Skokomish; the South Fork Stillaguamish and Upper Skagit summer run 

2 under the low abundance scenarios; and the Lower Sauk summer run under the high abundance 

3 scenarios (DEIS Table 4.3-5). Of these, the difference in expected Skokomish escapement between the 

4 Proposed Action and its viable threshold (1,250) was 11 to 39 spawning adults. The difference in 

5 expected South Fork Stillaguamish escapement between the Proposed Action and its viable threshold 

6 (300) was <1 to 7 spawning adults. The difference in expected Upper Skagit escapement between the 

7 Proposed Action and its viable threshold (7,454) was 700 to 1,100 spawning adults. The difference in 

8 expected Lower Sauk escapement between the Proposed Action and its viable threshold (681) was 61 

9 to 93 spawning adults (DEIS Tables 4.3.7a through 4.3.10d). The South Fork Stillaguamish, Upper 

10 Skagit and Lower Sauk populations have associated NMFS-derived RERs that NMFS uses as harvest 

11 standards to evaluate the impact of proposed harvest actions on the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. One of 

12 the RER criteria is that escapement exceed the viable threshold at least 80 percent of the time at the end 

13 of 25 years. Both the South Fork Stillaguamish and the Upper Skagit summer run populations are 

14 anticipated to meet their RERs under all scenarios for both the Proposed Action and the no-fishing 

15 alternative. The same is true of the Lower Sauk population (except Scenario B, when abundance and 

16 northern fisheries are at high levels). The differences in escapement between the Proposed Action and 

17 the commentor’s suggested Alternative 1A would be even less, or perhaps none, because the 

18 commentor also proposes some level of harvest below the upper escapement threshold to accommodate 

19 “valid incidental catch.” 

20 SW-5 

21 Alternative 1A is not well-enough defined for NMFS to comment on its prospective performance 

22 relative to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)(see responses to comments SW 1A-1H). However, by 

23 compiling statements scattered throughout Mr. Wright’s comments, it appears that both Alternatives 1 

24 and 1A have the same basic management strategy (i.e., incidental impacts only, unless the escapement 

25 level of the target run is projected to exceed an upper threshold), with the following differences: 

26 a) Alternative 1A has no ceiling on incidental catches; whereas, under Alternative 1, incidental 

27 catches cannot exceed a ceiling exploitation rate 

28 b) Alternative 1A variously defines “incidental” catch as that taken in only “valid” test, research, 

29 and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries; in fisheries targeting marked hatchery adults; or as the 

30 “surplus production from other salmonid resources.” 

31 Alternative 1 defines “incidental” as any fishery in which catches of harvestable fish 

32 predominate. Directed fisheries are those where encounters with listed chinook exceed 

33 encounters with unlisted chinook salmon. Directed fisheries, with the exception of fisheries for 

34 ceremonial and subsistence or research purposes, are not allowed under the Proposed Action 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 14 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 unless the number of spawners from listed Chinook salmon populations consistently exceeds the 

2 Upper Management Threshold and exploitation rates are consistently less than the Rebuilding 

3 Exploitation Rate (RER) ceilings (Section 5 of WDFW and PSIT 2004). In actual application, 

4 almost all fisheries that have been conducted under Alternative 1-type management have been 

5 composed overwhelmingly of harvestable fish, and might therefore also qualify as “incidental” 

6 under Alternative 1A depending on which definition of valid incidental catch was used. So the 

7 only practical difference between these definitions might be that Alternative 1A could potentially 

8 allow fisheries in circumstances where Alternative 1 would not (e.g., chinook populations 

9 without harvestable surplus make up more than 50% of the impacts). 

10 c) Escapement objectives under Alternative 1A would apply only to management units; there would 

11 be no escapement criteria applied to separate populations; and 

12 d) Alternative 1A lacks Low Abundance Thresholds, which, under Alternative 1, are lower 

13 escapement thresholds, applied to both management units and populations, below which the 

14 exploitation rate ceilings in southern U.S. fisheries are further reduced. 

15 e) Alternative 1 uses a mixture of escapement goal and exploitation rate management objectives. 

16 Thus, it appears that the management strategies are similar, although Alternative 1A could be less 

17 restrictive, and potentially allow more aggressive fishing, than under Alternative 1, depending on how 

18 incidental catch levels were defined. 

19 NMFS has preliminarily found that the implementation of fisheries under the Proposed Action, some of 

20 which would result in some populations not achieving their Upper Management Threshold within the 

21 duration of the Proposed Action (2005–2009), can be conducted without jeopardizing the Puget Sound 

22 Chinook ESU. Furthermore, in some well-documented cases; e.g., Nooksack early and Stillaguamish 

23 summer chinook salmon, further reduction in exploitation rate has resulted in no or very limited 

24 increases in natural production because of limitations in the freshwater and marine environments. 

25 Recovery of the ESU will require both increases in productivity as well as numbers of spawners. 

26 SW-6 

27 See responses to comments SW-4 and SW-30. In addition, the DEIS acknowledges that the Proposed 

28 Action might reduce the probability of achieving the viable escapement threshold for some populations 

29 in the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. However, while NMFS evaluates the effects of proposed harvest 

30 actions on individual populations, it must make its determination on the risk to the ESU in total. This 

31 determination accepts that not all populations in the Puget Sound Chinook ESU will share the same 

32 level of risk. In selecting its Preferred Alternative, NMFS must give consideration to economic, 

33 technical, and other factors, as well as environmental factors (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions 4a). 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 15 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 NMFS accepts that the commentor does not agree with using the model results in reaching his 

2 conclusions. However, NMFS must use the best available science in reaching its conclusion, and the 

3 model results currently represent the best available science. 

4 SW-7 

5 NMFS acknowledges that the listing and recovery of species under the ESA imposes costs on taxpayers 

6 and consumers. As described in an economic study of Snake River salmon recovery (Huppert and 

7 Fluharty 1995), these costs include not only budgetary costs of the public agencies involved in recovery 

8 efforts, but also the opportunities costs (i.e., value foregone) associated with restrictions on land use 

9 activities such as mining, irrigated agriculture, and recreation and on other productive activities (e.g., 

10 hydropower generation). 

11 As presented in the DEIS Fish section (Tables 4.3-7 through 4.3-10), implementing Alternative 1 

12 (Proposed Action) could delay the recovery of some listed chinook salmon populations in Puget Sound 

13 when compared with a no-harvest baseline. However, the effect that implementing Alternative 1 would 

14 have on the recovery period affecting the de-listing of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU cannot be 

15 determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. The harvest of Puget Sound chinook salmon is 

16 only one of many factors that affect recovery, and the incremental effect of harvest cannot be 

17 accurately isolated. Consequently, the extent to which the period of recovery is delayed cannot be 

18 determined, nor can it be determined whether the delay in the recovery of several populations within 

19 the multi-population Puget Sound Chinook ESU would affect the time in which the ESU would be de20 listed. NMFS has indicated that not all populations within the ESU would need to be at equally low risk 

21 in order to determine that the ESU was sufficiently recovered to be de-listed, and that there are 

22 probably multiple recovery scenarios. 

23 To acknowledge that implementing Alternative 1 might extend the period of recovery for Puget Sound 

24 chinook and potentially impose additional costs to taxpayers and consumers, the Environmental 

25 Consequences section, Economic Activity and Value (Subsection 4.6) has been modified (see FEIS 

26 Volume 2, Revised Draft EIS). NMFS considers this acknowledgement to be a conservative position. 

27 SW-8 

28 The best available information has been used to develop the escapement thresholds and account for 

29 demographic and genetic concerns. For some populations, low abundance thresholds are equal to or 

30 greater than the historic spawner numbers from which the population produced greater than one-return31 per-spawner. In that sense, the empirical evidence shows that the populations in question rebounded 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 16 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 from these levels. Derivation of the Low Abundance Thresholds in the Proposed Action is detailed in 

2 Appendix A of the Proposed Action (produced in DEIS Appendix A). They are intended to define 

3 escapement thresholds well above the point of population instability precisely because of the 

4 uncertainties. Derivation of the critical and viable escapement thresholds used by NMFS in its 

5 evaluation of the alternatives is described in DEIS Appendix C2. 

6 The commentor’s remarks argue for the minimum threshold to be determined on a population-by7 population basis, and considering the life history strategies and local conditions that would contribute 

8 to depensation. NMFS agrees. Determination of the population size at which depensatory mortality 

9 manifests is highly specific to each population and its habitat. NMFS also agrees that depensatory 

10 effects can be manifested at population sizes larger than some of the critical escapement thresholds 

11 used by NMFS (DEIS Subsection 4.3.1, Threatened and Endangered Fish Species). That is why NMFS 

12 has used population-specific information on demographic and genetic effects where available, and 

13 guidance from the scientific literature where it is unavailable, in deriving its critical thresholds. NMFS 

14 has also incorporated error in its derivations to account for uncertainties in the data around these 

15 effects. NMFS’ critical escapement thresholds range from 200 to 1,650, and the viable escapement 

16 thresholds from 300 to 7,454 reflecting the differences among Puget Sound chinook salmon 

17 populations in size, habitat conditions and life history strategies. Re-examination of abundance 

18 thresholds would occur through “adaptive management” under any of the alternatives. 

19 Without intervention, populations may not be able to recover from very low abundances, or may lose 

20 genetic integrity. The critical escapement threshold represents the point below which the possibility of 

21 rebuilding declines significantly, and is therefore informative to managers in evaluating the status of 

22 populations and the robustness of proposed management approaches (Feiberg 2004; McElhaney et al.

23 2000). Most of the low abundance thresholds in the Proposed Action are above the critical escapement 

24 thresholds defined by NMFS in order to minimize the chance that escapements would approach critical 

25 levels. The simulation models that NMFS uses to derive the RER standards used to evaluate of the 

26 Proposed Action allow extinction to occur at very low abundance levels in order to simulate potential 

27 real-world outcomes. The RER is the exploitation rate that is associated with a low probability of a 

28 specific population falling below its critical escapement threshold (<5%) and a high probability (80%) 

29 of exceeding its viable escapement threshold based on the model simulations. The RER is determined 

30 by the most constraining of these two criteria, not solely on remaining above the critical escapement 

31 threshold. In most cases, it is the probability of exceeding the viable escapement threshold that 

32 determines the RER, not the critical escapement criterion. Escapement thresholds and the RERs would 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 17 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 be revised as additional information becomes available and provide a better view of how populations 

2 actually respond at low abundances. 

3 As explained in response to comment SW-5, directed fisheries, with the exception of fisheries for 

4 ceremonial and subsistence or research purposes, are not allowed under the Proposed Action unless the 

5 number of spawners from listed chinook salmon populations consistently exceeds the Upper 

6 Management Threshold and exploitation rates are consistently less than the Rebuilding Exploitation 

7 Rate (RER) ceilings (Section 5 of the Proposed Action found in DEIS Appendix A, and DEIS 

8 Subsection 2.3.1). 

9 Also see response to comment SW-4.

10 SW-9 

11 It is true that three-year-old females are not a large part of the spawning population, but they do 

12 contribute. Available information indicates that three-year-old spawners comprise, on average, a minor 

13 proportion of Puget Sound natural-origin spawning populations in each year (8 to 20%) (PSTRT 2003a, 

14 PSTRT 2003b; PSTRT 2003c; PSTRT 2003d; PSTRTe; PSTRT 2003f; PSTRT 2003g). However, the 

15 proportion of three-year-old spawners can vary substantially from year to year, comprising up to 42 

16 percent of the spawning population (PSTRT 2003e) in any year, depending on the survival of each of 

17 the brood years contributing to that years’ escapement. (Chinook salmon return to spawn at multiple 

18 ages, so escapement in any year is usually comprised of 3, 4, and 5 year old spawners.) In 10 years of 

19 broodstock collections in the Upper Skagit, during which 386 female spawners have been collected, 13 

20 were age-three females (slightly more than 1 per year, or 3.4% of the total). The mean fecundity of 

21 these females was 5,300 (range 2,700 to 7,400), and their length range was 64 centimeters to 85 

22 centimeters, of which only two were less than 75 centimeters, and eight were in the 82 centimeter to 85 

23 centimeter range. In five years of broodstock collections in the Lower Skagit, during which we’ve 

24 collected 144 female spawners, 13 were age-three females (12 of these were collected in 2003), or 9 

25 percent of the total. Their mean fecundity was 5,500 (range 3,300 to 7,100), and their mean length was 

26 85 centimeters (range 80 centimeters to 105 centimeters) (personal communication with Bob Hayman, 

27 Skagit Systems Cooperation, Salmon Recovery Planner, August 6, 2004). The fact that three-year-old 

28 female spawners continue to consistently contribute to spawning populations, although in low 

29 percentages, together with their substantial size and fecundity, suggests that they are an important 

30 segment of diversity expressed by the species and at certain times, when environmental conditions 

31 change suddenly, may be essential to maintaining the viability of the population. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 18 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 For these reasons, NMFS sees no reason to exclude three-year-old females from its development of 

2 population harvest standards; evaluation of the performance of the alternatives in the DEIS, or 

3 assessment of fishing regime performance in the future. As additional information becomes available 

4 on age contribution, sex ratio and other biological characteristics, all the alternatives evaluated in the 

5 DEIS would use this information to revise key parameters, assumptions, and harvest objectives through 

6 the use of adaptive management. 

7 Also see responses to comments SW-1A, SW-1F and SW-20. 

8 SW-10 

9 All alternatives in the DEIS were evaluated under the same conditions because each was evaluated 

10 against the same assumptions of abundance and the same environmental variables that influenced that 

11 abundance. Therefore, the results from the comparison of alternatives in the DEIS were the result of the 

12 management approach represented by the alternative and not the environmental conditions. Trends in 

13 escapement are the result of change in both environmental conditions and management. The DEIS 

14 acknowledged that there is a possibility that abundances could change during implementation of the 

15 Proposed Action from those observed in recent years due to changes in marine or freshwater 

16 environmental conditions (see DEIS Subsection 4.2.3, Scenarios for Alternatives). In response, NMFS 

17 evaluated a reduced abundance scenario based on observations of the period 1990 through 1999, for 

18 which average, aggregate abundance of all Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks was approximately 30 

19 percent lower than that of 2003 (DEIS Appendix C3). It should be noted that data on marine survival 

20 for Puget Sound chinook populations indicate marine survival has not increased for these populations 

21 as has been observed for some Columbia River chinook salmon populations (see Figure 3-1) (brood 

22 year 1998 includes adult chinook returning through 2003) (personal communication with Dell 

23 Simmons, NMFS, 2003). The evaluation also examined scenarios where Canadian fisheries were 

24 managed near the limits of the current chinook annex of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (see DEIS 

25 Subsection 4.2, Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis). 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 19 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3-1. Marine survival of Puget Sound fall chinook salmon: Brood Years 1971–98. 

Marine Survival

Puget Sound Fall Chinook

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

Brood Year

Survival Index

2 

3 The modeling on which NMFS based its harvest standards (RERs) and many of the exploitation rate 

4 objectives in Alternative 1 included times of both poor and good freshwater and marine survival. In 

5 fact, the average marine survivals in the model simulations were equal to the average observed in a 

6 recent period that had the lowest marine survivals in the database. Given that, escapements should be 

7 even better if the average marine survival over the next 25 years reverts to the long-term average that 

8 included times of better marine conditions (Figure 3-1). 

9 The proposed resource management plan provided to NMFS by the co-managers indicates the harvest 

10 management objectives in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) were designed to maintain Puget Sound 

11 chinook salmon populations so that they will be able to withstand the poor freshwater and marine 

12 survival conditions that occur, and also be able to respond rapidly to improved conditions. For 

13 example, the requirement of many of the RERs to meet or exceed the upper threshold means that, on 

14 average, escapements will be above that threshold at the end of the rebuilding period. By allocating 

15 more fish to escapement, as opposed to harvest, the stocks have a better chance to be as strong as 

16 possible if the offspring of large escapements, like those seen in recent years for some populations, are 

17 faced with poor freshwater and marine conditions. So returns in future times of poor marine survival 

18 should be greater than they would have been if such an approach was not in place in times of good 

19 marine survival. 

20 See also responses to comments SW-1A (second paragraph regarding pre-season forecast ability to 

21 detect strength of brood years), and SW-27. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 20 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 SW-11 

2 Seiler et al. (2002a and 2003a) have shown strong correlation between egg-to-smolt survival and flow. 

3 Major flood events provide the extremes, but it is not only the 100-year floods that depress survival. 

4 For example, the limiting effects of degraded or lost habitat on estuarine survival have been particularly 

5 well-documented in the Skagit (Beamer et al. 2003a and b). Until the causes for scouring flows in the 

6 Skagit can be identified and mitigated, each year has about an equal probability of suffering disastrous 

7 egg-to-migrant survival. Skagit flows during the last 8 years (1996–2004) have actually been average, 

8 when compared to flows since 1940. Marine survival rates may be less influential on overall survival in 

9 those instances, but depending on whether marine survival is lower or higher than average, can 

10 exacerbate or mitigate poor freshwater survival conditions in the number of subsequent adult spawners 

11 that return. This would not be accounted for by reliance on smolt trap data alone to predict survival. 

12 Both marine and freshwater survival are important to consider in forecasting abundance and in 

13 evaluating the robustness of Puget Sound chinook salmon populations to changes in their environment. 

14 The relative influence of the two varies among populations and over time. Both are explicitly 

15 considered in the derivation of the Skagit RERs (see DEIS Appendix C2, and Appendix A in the 

16 RMP). For example, the derivation of RERs for the Upper Sauk and Suiattle spring chinook salmon 

17 populations indicated that marine survival was not influential in the relationship between spawners and 

18 recruits for the Suiattle population, but did influence the relationship for the Upper Sauk population 

19 (Skagit RER Workgroup 2003). 

20 Moreover, the objectives in Alternative 1 were not determined by assuming only recent-year 

21 environmental conditions as assumed by the commentor. To establish the Skagit objectives, flows back 

22 to 1972 were incorporated in the modeling (Skagit Management Unit Profile, in DEIS Appendix A) – 

23 this time period included flows with a 31-year recurrence interval (1975), two 16-year recurrence 

24 intervals (1979 and 1980), a 70-year recurrence interval (1990), and a 47-year recurrence interval 

25 (1995); i.e., a wide range of flow levels. Marine survival was modeled to vary cyclically, according to 

26 the variation observed across 13 brood years for summer/fall runs, and across 17 brood years for Skagit 

27 spring runs (personal communication with Bob Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative, Salmon 

28 Recovery Planner, August 6, 2004). Thus, the possibility that floods like those of 1990 and 1995 would 

29 occur occasionally (such as occurred in 2003), or that marine survival might decrease, was accounted 

30 for in the development of the objectives in the Proposed Action and in the choice of abundance 

31 scenarios against which to evaluate the alternatives in the DEIS. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 21 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Research (Mantua et al.1997) also supports the importance of marine survival effects on Pacific 

2 salmonids. Because of our inability to forecast marine survival and the large effect it may have, we 

3 have assumed low marine survival conditions in developing the RERs used by NMFS to evaluate the 

4 performance of the alternatives in the DEIS. In recognition of interannual variability in marine survival, 

5 NMFS incorporated error in these parameters into its derivation of RERs (NMFS 2000). Clearly, this is 

6 a conservative approach, providing additional escapement in good marine-survival years. 

7 Also see responses to comments SW-8 and SW-27. 

8 SW-12 

9 The commentor stated that the RERs are “generally based on exploitation rates observed in the late 

10 1990s.” That is only true for those populations where data were unavailable or inadequate to derive 

11 exploitation rate management objectives based on spawner-recruit relationships. Where data were 

12 adequate, RERs were derived from spawner-recruit relationships that used data on exploitation rates as 

13 far back as the early 1980s. 

14 See also responses to comments SW-10, SW-11, and SW-23. 

15 SW-13 

16 A cornerstone of chinook and coho salmon management along the entire Pacific coast is the reliance of 

17 coded-wire-tagged (CWT) hatchery production to represent the behavior, migration, and vulnerability 

18 to harvest of associated wild salmon production. There are no on-going wild stock CWT programs on 

19 Puget Sound chinook. Initial efforts at tagging wild Puget Sound chinook stocks resulted in few 

20 recoveries and high tagging mortality rates, because wild chinook salmon juveniles emigrate at such a 

21 small size. Analysis of long-term exploitation and productivity trends must use existing CWT hatchery 

22 programs to represent the diversity of life histories of Puget Sound wild chinook. For the near term, 

23 CWT data from hatchery fish will have to suffice for much of the analysis and assessment of fishery 

24 impacts. For the long term, other stock identification methods may need to be developed to fill in data 

25 gaps and provide a better measure of wild stock impact assessment. 

26 There is also some support for the use of hatchery surrogates to represent associated wild production 

27 and to represent unrelated populations. While Puget Sound summer and fall chinook salmon CWT 

28 hatchery stocks may have very different terminal harvest rates, and some differences in marine 

29 distribution, their total pre-terminal exploitation rates are very close to each other, and it is therefore 

30 believed that their mean is an acceptable approximation of the pre-terminal exploitation rate on other 

31 Puget Sound summer and fall chinook salmon populations that do not have associated CWT hatchery 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 22 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 production, including Skagit summer/fall runs (personal communication with Jim Scott, WDFW, 

2 Senior Research Scientist, 2000). The spawner-recruit parameters generated from the CWT hatchery 

3 stock data track very closely to those estimated independently from Skagit-specific habitat analyses 

4 (personal communication with Bob Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative, Salmon Recovery Planner, 

5 August 6 2004). This independent assessment provides support for the validity of these estimates. 

6 In the development of some population-specific RERs, the co-managers (and NMFS) have used other 

7 types of information to estimate fishery-related mortality on populations that do not have an associated 

8 coded-wire-tagged hatchery indicator stock, if they judged that this information could better represent 

9 the population of interest. For example, recognition of the differences in terminal fishery patterns 

10 between chinook salmon returning to the Stillaguamish and Snohomish Rivers led the co-managers to 

11 estimate exploitation rates for the Snohomish chinook population based on a terminal area run 

12 reconstruction of catch and escapement of Snohomish chinook salmon rather than the Stillaguamish 

13 chinook hatchery indicator stock (Snohomish RER Workgroup 2003). However, this method may not 

14 be appropriate to other areas. Absent this type of information, the use of indicator stocks is the best 

15 available information. 

16 One correction needs to be made in the commentor’s information. Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon 

17 exploitation rates are not computed from Samish data; however, confusion is understandable. Skagit 

18 summer/fall chinook salmon marine survival indices are computed from Samish chinook data. 

19 However, the distribution data for Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon used for annual harvest planning 

20 and post-fishing season review is derived from limited tagging of Skagit hatchery and wild stocks that 

21 was done in the late 1970s.

22 SW-14 

23 Enumeration of natural spawners can be improved in a few areas of Puget Sound, and the co-managers 

24 are pursuing those improvements (see RMP Appendix E in DEIS Appendix A). These enumeration 

25 problems have been consistent through time. Spawning escapement estimates upon which current 

26 impacts assessments rely have not improved enough in the past 15 years such that calculated 

27 exploitation rates would be biased. Some work has been done to verify assumptions in current methods, 

28 but alternative methods, which in some cases have produced higher estimates of escapement, are not 

29 yet accepted for management use. 

30 Historical fisheries exploitation rate histories are calculated from CWT data from “indicator stocks” 

31 (indicate the distribution, status and mortality of associated wild stocks) that are selected for accuracy 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 23 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 standards, including the ability to completely account for escapement of tagged fish and all fishery 

2 impacts. The PSC Chinook Technical Committee examines these data carefully for sampling errors, 

3 and if flaws are identified for these indicator CWT groups, then the time series is reduced to ensure 

4 comparability of the data. If CWT data are found to be biased, those indicator CWT groups are not 

5 used to estimate exploitation rates. See the Pacific Salmon Commission’s Chinook Technical 

6 Committee report TCChinook 93-2 for a description of methods used in calculating and comparing 

7 exploitation rates. 

8 SW-15 

9 The commentor’s description of management for the Nisqually and Skokomish Chinook salmon 

10 populations is incorrect. For the Skokomish River population, the 3,650 and the 10,529 figures include 

11 combined river and hatchery escapement. The Nisqually and Skokomish populations have been 

12 managed to achieve natural escapement as a primary management objective only since 2000. The DEIS 

13 acknowledges the possibility of escapements exceeding (or falling below) the escapement goal in some 

14 years due to management imprecision, although this is not the intent of a fixed-goal harvest 

15 management approach (DEIS Subsection 2.3.2, Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management). 

16 However, the degree to which escapement deviates from the threshold varies from year to year 

17 depending on the management decisions and error in forecasted abundance. Therefore, for the purposes 

18 of the DEIS analyses, populations that were managed for escapement thresholds were treated the same 

19 across alternatives with fisheries modeled to harvest all chinook salmon in excess of the escapement 

20 goals (DEIS Subsection 2.3.1-3, Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo). 

21 The co-managers have not implemented an exploitation rate approach to management under the 

22 Proposed Action for the purpose implied by the author. A major objective of the Puget Sound Resource 

23 Management Plan is to pass “additional” spawners to the spawning grounds in high-abundance years – 

24 something that would not occur under fixed-escapement goal management (personal communication 

25 with Teresa Scott, WDFW, Natural Resource Policy Analyst, and Will Beattie, NWIFC, Conservation 

26 Planning Coordinator, July 30, 2004). These additional spawners can take advantage of newly-restored 

27 and expanded habitat provided through recovery actions in the other “H” sectors and favorable 

28 environmental conditions. Because the Proposed Action provides for additional spawners, over the long 

29 term, the managers’ Rebuilding Exploitation Rate ceilings provide a natural rebuilding potential as 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 24 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

habitat conditions and capacity improve (see responses to comments SW-10 and EPA-8)2 1 . 

2 Additionally, exploitation rates are advantageous for management applications where forecast 

3 abundance has a high degree of uncertainty (Feiberg 2004, and FEIS Volume 2, Subsection 4.3.8.1, 

4 Indirect Effects). 

5 Exploitation rates used in managing Puget Sound fisheries have another important advantage over the 

6 alternative fixed-escapement goal approach. Exploitation rates are used to define fishing limits and 

7 management goals in northern fisheries managed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST), therefore 

8 providing needed compatibility among the coastwide management jurisdiction. 

9 SW-16 

10 NMFS’ RERs are designed to achieve a high probability of exceeding an upper escapement threshold 

11 and a low probability of declining below the critical escapement threshold within a specified time 

12 period; i.e., the resultant numbers of fish referred to by the commentor. The derivation of RERs 

13 incorporates many conservative assumptions (lower than current marine survival, robust to 

14 management error, no consideration of the conservative effect of the response to critical status) to 

15 achieve precision in both the RER and the desired achievement of the escapement thresholds (DEIS 

16 Appendix C2; NMFS 2000; Nooksack RER Workgroup 2003; Skagit RER Workgroup 2003). FEIS 

17 Volume 2, Subsection 4.3.8 (Indirect and Cumulative Effects) compares in more detail exploitation rate 

18 and escapement goal approaches. 

19 SW-17 

20 There is uncertainty about MSY escapement levels for Puget Sound chinook salmon, as for many other 

21 fish species. Indeed, these levels change with conditions of marine survival, and habitat and population 

22 productivity. For management units that are managed for RERs under the Proposed Action, spawner23 recruit functions have been estimated as accurately and conservatively as possible given the best 

24 available information. No one method, neither adult spawner-to-migrant nor adult spawner-to-adult 

25 spawner relationships, can be relied upon solely to define population performance (productivity), or to 

26 precisely define management objectives. It is not clear what the advantage of Alternative 1A over 

27 Alternative 1 would be, given that, according to the commentor, they appear to share the same key 

28 uncertainty (spawner escapement goal under Alternative 1A, upper abundance threshold under 

 

2

 Given the short duration of the Proposed Action (2005–2009), favorable freshwater and marine environmental 

conditions will be more influential in increasing subsequent production from higher escapements than habitat 

improvements from implementation of the Proposed Action. The effects of habitat restoration are expected to be 

realized over a period of decades. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 25 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Alternative 1). Either method would “quickly improve as information becomes available.” The contrast 

2 with management of sockeye and chum is inappropriate because both species are harvested both in pre3 terminal and terminal fisheries – the accuracy of catch statistics is the same regardless of species. 

4 Evaluation of management imprecision among the different alternatives is only one of the biological 

5 factors on which NMFS relied in choosing its Preferred Alternatives. All alternatives were also 

6 evaluated in terms of the resulting exploitation rates, escapements and achievement of population 

7 harvest standards. Management error is not incorporated in modeling any of the alternatives, including 

8 the Proposed Action. In this way, the alternatives are treated exactly the same in the DEIS analyses. 

9 Also see response to comment WT-33. 

10 SW-18 

11 The commentor reported that juvenile research on the Skagit indicates that the current chinook salmon 

12 smolt capacity of the Skagit River appears to be five to six million freshwater smolts, which have been 

13 produced by adult escapements ranging from 15,600 to 20,700, while lower escapements (5,400 to 

14 11,700) have produced fewer smolts (1.5 to 4 million). Indeed, the Skagit summer/fall viable 

15 escapement thresholds proposed in Alternative 1 are consistent with these capacity numbers (VET = 

16 14,500 for summer/falls, and VET = 2,000 for springs; total is 16,500, which is within the range 

17 between 15,600 to 20,700). However, these threshold numbers are buffered for management error, and 

18 are actually significantly greater than the levels that would maximize harvestable surplus if 

19 management precision was perfect. The commentor may be unaware that, while the Skagit River has 

20 been able to produce up to six million total fingerling chinook smolts, it has only been able to produce 

21 about 2 to 2.5 million parr migrant chinook smolts, and this parr migrant capacity has been achieved 

22 with lower escapements, in the 8,000 to 12,000 range. Because parr migrants are the only chinook 

23 salmon life history type that has thus far been documented in the adult returns, it might be concluded 

24 that, under current conditions and perfect management precision, the adult chinook salmon capacity of 

25 the Skagit River can be achieved with spawning escapements in the 8,000 to 12,000 range. Moreover, 

26 juvenile chinook salmon rearing capacity in the tidal delta habitat (further downstream from where the 

27 freshwater smolts are estimated) appears to approach capacity at a density of about 12,000 

28 smolts/hectare blind channel, which has also been achieved with escapements in the 8,000 to 12,000 

29 range (personal communication with Bob Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative, Salmon Recovery 

30 Planner, August 6, 2004). Research is continuing, particularly in pocket estuary habitat (which may 

31 have potential for fry migrants), but the results to-date indicate that the viable escapement thresholds 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 26 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 proposed for Skagit River management units in Alternative 1 are indeed conservative, precautionary, 

2 standards.

3 SW-19 

4 The commentor is correct that the DEIS treats Canadian interceptions as though they are a “given” that 

5 must be accounted for in the U.S. domestic fisheries management planning process. That is a necessary 

6 assumption until a different arrangement is negotiated with Canada. However, the commentor 

7 oversimplifies the relationship of the two countries’ interceptions and as to how the balance is arrived, 

8 by essentially implying that the number and species of each party’s interceptions are merely currency 

9 that can be readily exchanged between the two countries by decision of their respective federal 

10 governments, and that the “exchange” begins with neither party intercepting fish originating in the 

11 other country. The realities are different. Both countries have depressed stocks of concern, and it is a 

12 given that each would prefer that the other country intercept fewer of them. However, both countries 

13 also have long-established fisheries that involve interceptions. A party’s desire to reduce the other 

14 country’s interceptions does not in itself lead to a mandate by either of the parties’ federal governments 

15 to “trade away” fish that are intercepted in that country’s other domestic fisheries. In fact, the ability of 

16 both countries to effectuate such trade-offs is constrained by the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, 

17 their respective internal decision making processes (e.g., on the U.S. side, by the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

18 Act), and by their respective interests in protecting their own existing fisheries. Nonetheless, it is quite 

19 possible that, when the terms of the existing fishing arrangements under the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

20 expire after 2008 and 2010, the parties’ priorities will have changed. Their respective resource needs 

21 and other priorities may change relative to those that existed in 1999, which are reflected in the current 

22 arrangements, thus leading them to develop different provisions that, in turn, will have to be reflected 

23 in their respective domestic management processes. That is why the duration of the Proposed Action in 

24 the DEIS coincides with the negotiation of a new Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement in 2009. Until then, 

25 the DEIS must take into account the terms of the existing Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement when 

26 evaluating alternatives within the scope of the Proposed Action; i.e., steelhead net and salmon fisheries 

27 within Puget Sound. 

28 In the final statement in this comment, the commentor suggests that Alternative 1 is concerned only 

29 with preservation of the ESU. The Puget Sound Chinook ESU, not the component, individual 

30 populations, is the primary focus of NMFS’ evaluation of the impacts of the Proposed Action and its 

31 alternatives under the ESA. The determination that NMFS must make under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) 

32 Rule is that the proposed action will not “...appreciably reduce the survival or recovery of the affected 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 27 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 threatened ESUs....” (65 FR 42422). However, in doing so, NMFS considers the status and distribution 

2 of the populations within the ESU. In conducting this evaluation, NMFS takes into account the 

3 recommendations of the Puget Sound TRT, which is charged with identifying the biological 

4 characteristics of a recovered ESU as part of developing delisting and recovery criteria. The TRT’s 

5 preliminary recommendation is that any ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to 

6 four viable chinook salmon populations in each of five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

7 depending on the historical life history and biological characteristics of populations in each region. 

8 NMFS has evaluated the co-managers plan using the best available information regarding the 

9 expectation of conditions over the proposed duration of the plan (2005–2009), and evaluated the 

10 outcome against NMFS’ standards for listed Puget Sound chinook salmon and the TRT’s. NMFS’ has 

11 concluded in its 4(d) evaluation and in a biological opinion under section 7 of the ESA that the 2005–

12 2009 co-managers’ Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan would not pose 

13 jeopardy to the Puget Sound Chinook ESU guidance (NMFS 2004a; NMFS 2004b). 

14 SW-20 

15 See response to comments SW-1A, SW-1F and SW-9. 

16 SW-21 

17 The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team has preliminarily delineated 22 chinook salmon 

18 populations that are currently extant within Puget Sound (PSTRT 2004). It is expected that as an 

19 outcome of the recovery planning process, a subset of the 22 extant populations will be managed for 

20 recovery to viable, self-sustaining levels. Included among the 22 delineated populations are the two 

21 chinook salmon populations originating from the Cedar River and from the North Lake Washington 

22 tributaries. Both of the populations identified in the Lake Washington watershed are fall-run fish that 

23 are similar in genetic characteristics (Marshall et al. 1995), adult return and spawn timing (SaSI 2003), 

24 and juvenile out-migrant size and timing (Seiler et al. 2003b) to other fall chinook salmon populations 

25 within the mid- and south Puget Sound sub-regions, including the Green River. Like other fall-run 

26 chinook salmon populations in the region, the two Lake Washington watershed chinook populations 

27 have an ocean-rearing life history strategy, emigrating seaward as 0+ age fish. Similar to fall-run 

28 populations in the Skagit, Duwamish-Green, and Deschutes Rivers (Seiler et al 2001; Seiler et al

29 2002a; Seiler et al 2002b; Fuss 2003), the annual emigration timing for the Lake Washington 

30 populations is bimodal, with an early peak for fry emigrants and a later peak for smolt emigrants (Seiler 

31 et al. 2003). Fry emigrants leaving the rivers and streams January through March rear in Lake 

32 Washington and Lake Sammamish to a size where survival in seawater is possible. They then emigrate 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 28 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 seaward as smolts in May through July, similar in emigration timing to other fall-run chinook smolt 

2 populations in Puget Sound. The extent of use of the lakes for rearing by the emigrating smolt 

3 component from the Cedar River and North Lake Washington tributaries is unknown, but June-July 

4 chinook smolt emigration peak at the Ballard Locks suggests that rearing is not prolonged. The 

5 proportions of fry and smolts in the total migration into the lake varies between years and streams as a 

6 function of several variables, including flow and stream gradient. In the higher-gradient Cedar River, 

7 most juvenile chinook emigrate as fry, with flow at the time of emergence having a strong positive 

8 effect on the fry emigration. WDFW biologists studying chinook juvenile emigration behavior in the 

9 Cedar River believe that fry collected in downstream migrant traps are not really migrating, but are 

10 being flushed downstream in years when flows are spiking during fry emergence. There is a therefore 

11 the potential that, rather than reflecting a genetic predisposition and a unique population trait, lake 

12 rearing may be a happenstance response to adverse environmental conditions in the Cedar River. It is 

13 highly likely that emerging fry are being involuntarily flushed out of the Cedar River, arriving in Lake 

14 Washington where they may rear to smolt size prior to emigrating seaward, like other fall-run chinook 

15 salmon sub-yearling populations in the early summer. 

16 An additional consideration is that data collected in 2003 show that a substantial proportion of the total 

17 adult chinook escapements into Lake Washington tributaries, including the Cedar River and North 

18 Lake Washington tributaries, were stray Green River lineage hatchery fish (Burton et al., 2004). This 

19 last year was the first in which most four-year-old hatchery-origin fall chinook adults returning to 

20 spawn in the area were mass-marked with an adipose fin clip, allowing for determinations of the 

21 natural population abundance “masking” effect attendant with hatchery fish straying. Given long22 standing hatchery fall chinook production in the watershed (Issaquah Hatchery has operated since 

23 1937), non-native hatchery fall chinook straying within the watershed has likely occurred for decades. 

24 The Puget Sound TRT has provided initial guidelines for recovery for the number and distribution of 

25 populations within the listed Puget Sound Chinook ESU (PSTRT 2002a). NMFS has used that 

26 guidance in its assessment of the effects of the Proposed Action on the recovery of the ESU as the best 

27 available information on this subject. That guidance includes the Cedar River and Lake Washington 

28 populations in a group of five late-type populations in the South Puget Sound region of the Puget 

29 Sound ESU, and suggests that two to four viable populations within each region representing the range 

30 of life-history types is necessary for a recovered ESU. While NMFS evaluates the effects of proposed 

31 harvest actions on individual populations, it must make its determination on the risk to the ESU in total. 

32 The DEIS recognizes the documented and likely similarities between the Cedar River and North Lake 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 29 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Washington, and other mid- and south Sound region fall-run chinook salmon populations when 

2 considering ESU-wide ramifications of the proposed harvest management framework. However, it was 

3 not an intention to subordinate preservation and recovery needs for the individual Lake Washington 

4 watershed chinook salmon populations through the evaluation. Instead, the intent was to factor risks to 

5 the ESU if abundances of those populations were adversely affected by the proposed harvest actions. 

6 The DEIS concludes that the risk of extinction to the Puget Sound Chinook ESU is not increased by the 

7 potential for harvest impacts to the Lake Washington watershed chinook salmon populations over the 

8 plan’s five-year duration when those populations are near their critical thresholds. NMFS believes that 

9 implementation of the Resource Management Plan will not preclude management options for recovery 

10 of the Lake Washington chinook salmon populations that could be adopted as an outcome of the 

11 recovery planning process. 

12 SW-22 

13 Comment noted; however, no analysis or data is provided to support this conclusion. 

14 SW-23 

15 The commentor states that “Skagit River chinook enjoyed a very fortunate string of seven consecutive 

16 brood years (1996-2002) in which incubating eggs were not seriously impacted by high flood flows.” 

17 In actuality, flows in the Skagit River since 1996 have not been unusual or particularly “fortuitous.” 

18 Since 1940, the median peak daily flow at Mount Vernon during chinook incubation has been 61,000 

19 cubic feet per second. In the 8 years since 1996, four years have had lower peak flows, and four years 

20 have had higher peak flows. In other words, flows have been average; thus, the success the commentor 

21 noted for Alternative 1 (SW-10) during recent years occurred under average flow conditions. 

22 Of an estimated 45.3 million eggs deposited in 1990, only about 500,000 smolts survived to migrate 

23 from the Skagit River, a survival rate of about 1.2 percent. Ironically, the 1990 brood resulted from a 

24 recent record chinook spawning escapement of more than 18,000. The 1995 brood egg deposition was 

25 estimated at 19.6 million, yet only 3.8 percent, or 700,000, survived to migrate. These survivals 

26 contrast with an average (non-flood-year) egg-to-migrant survival of about 13 percent. The fact that we 

27 have smolt estimates for the Skagit River that reflect disastrous freshwater survival is clear evidence 

28 that we have the capability to predict low abundance in advance of significant fishing mortality. The 30 

29 percent reduction in abundance scenarios are based on years that include the significant flood events of 

30 1990 and 1995, specifically in recognition that abundance might differ from that seen in recent years. A 

31 preliminary analysis of the projected abundance from the 2003 brood year indicates it should be within 

32 the 30 percent reduction scenario analyzed in the DEIS (see response to comment SW-27). NMFS 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 30 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 recognized that in this modeling, exercise conservative assumptions were made and there was always 

2 the possibility that in any individual year the results could be different than the range of possibilities 

3 considered. If impacts under the implementation of the Proposed Action are greater then expected, 

4 NMFS can withdraw the ESA 4(d) Rule determination or ask the co-managers to adjust fisheries to 

5 reduce impacts. 

6 It is incorrect to say that immature fish would not be “managed” under the Proposed Action, since 

7 management under the Proposed Action does consider the age of fish harvested in each fishery. Indeed, 

8 fishing periods for fisheries targeting sub-adult chinook salmon have varied each year since 2001, 

9 showing that managers are consciously examining the sub-adult impacts during that period. It is true to 

10 say that mature fish from the 2003 brood will be managed in 2007; it is not valid to assume that 

11 management in 2005 and 2006 will not be responsive to the 2003 brood. The complexity of 

12 implementing brood management, even if the required data and models were available, makes it 

13 impractical in the context of annual fishery season setting. A comparison of exploitation rates on 

14 brood-year and calendar bases indicate that there is not an appreciable difference in management 

15 outcome over the long term. Also see responses to comments SW-1A and SW-1F. 

16 Regarding the statement requesting that surplus production for harvest be shown to exist before 

17 directed, non-selective fisheries are allowed – directed fisheries are not anticipated through the duration 

18 of the Proposed Action except for a few populations where large returns of hatchery adults are 

19 expected. Also see response to comment SW-8 and SW-30. 

20 Finally, many of the commentor’s points provide evidence that habitat condition, not spawner 

21 abundance, is the primary limiting factor in the Skagit River. It is also possible that “weak brood” 

22 management, as suggested by the comment, would likely result in consistent overescapement and 

23 increased compensatory mortality, particularly in systems that are clearly shown to be habitat-limited. 

24 SW-24 

25 When the Puget Sound Chinook ESU was listed as threatened in 1999, habitat loss, degradation, and 

26 blockage, and past over-exploitation in fisheries were identified as the primary factors for decline of 

27 regional populations (64 FR 14308, March 24, 1999). The concerns identified in association with 

28 hatchery effects in the NMFS final listing determination document for the ESU were widespread 

29 production of hatchery chinook salmon and the inability to differentiate hatchery and natural-origin 

30 chinook salmon in natural spawning areas. The abundance of unmarked hatchery fish masked the status 

31 of natural populations, complicating assessment of natural population abundance, survival and 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 31 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 productivity. It is correct that five hatchery populations were determined to be essential for recovery of 

2 the ESU and protected under ESA provisions with natural-origin populations. It is incorrect that all 

3 hatchery populations, listed and unlisted, are now uniformly considered to have significant beneficial 

4 effects on ESU recovery. NMFS has proposed in its updated status review for the ESU that hatchery 

5 chinook populations located in chinook salmon watersheds that are no more than moderately divergent 

6 from natural chinook populations within the ESU also be ESA-listed and protected (69 FR 33102, June 

7 14, 2004). These additional hatchery populations were considered in the updated status review for their 

8 contribution to the conservation of the ESU in extinction risk assessments. These hatchery populations, 

9 and other hatchery stocks not proposed for ESA listing, were also evaluated for potential risks to the 

10 viability of natural chinook salmon populations. Listed and non-listed hatchery chinook salmon 

11 straying into other watersheds is not considered a beneficial effect by NMFS, and hatchery operational 

12 measures are being implemented by the co-managers to lessen straying levels (WDFW and PSTT 

13 2004). These and other adjustments in hatchery practices within the ESU will be evaluated in other, on14 going ESA and NEPA review processes administered by NMFS. Included in these evaluations will be 

15 effects of hatchery programs on recovery of the listed chinook salmon ESU. Explanations regarding the 

16 scientific rationale for NMFS’ proposed Hatchery Listing Policy and the updated salmon population 

17 status review findings based on application of the Policy are outside the scope of the DEIS. Information 

18 regarding the scientific basis for these documents may be found through the NMFS Northwest region 

19 web-site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/AlseaResponse /20040528 /index.html. 

20 The potential beneficial and adverse effects of artificial programs are described in DEIS Subsection 

21 3.3.8.1, Hatchery-Related Fishery Effects on Salmon: Straying and Overfishing. The fishery-related 

22 effects are evaluated in Subsection 4.3.7, Effects of Hatchery-Origin Chinook on Natural-Spawning 

23 Chinook Salmon. Specifically, the DEIS states on page 4-90, “...to the extent that increases in the 

24 contribution of hatchery-origin adults on the natural spawning grounds increase risks such as predation 

25 on naturally-produced salmon, or competition with naturally-produced salmon for food, and rearing 

26 and spawning areas, a reduction in the contribution of hatchery-origin adults on the natural spawning 

27 grounds would be considered a beneficial effect. Information is not currently available to determine 

28 with certainty what levels of hatchery contribution to naturally-spawning Chinook salmon populations 

29 in Puget Sound result in what levels of risk or benefit....for the purpose of this analysis, a reduction in 

30 hatchery contribution will be considered a benefit...” 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 32 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 SW-25 

2 NMFS declines to include the reference offered in this comment in its evaluation. The findings are 

3 probably not applicable to nearly all hatchery chinook populations in Puget Sound (Dungeness was the 

4 lone captive brood program). Reduced adult size, egg size and spawning fitness have been indicated in 

5 other studies for captive brood fish (usually farmed salmon) (personal communication with Tim Tynan, 

6 NMFS, Fisheries Biologist, July 26, 2004). Captive brood fish have the highest level of intervention of 

7 any “hatchery”" produced fish (since they are held in captivity for their entire lives). They would, 

8 therefore, be expected to exhibit the highest domestication effects. About 95 percent of chinook salmon 

9 reared in Puget Sound hatcheries are released as sub-yearlings. Captivity in the hatchery environment 

10 for these fish amounts to about 5 percent of their life cycle, assuming adults return primarily as four 

11 year olds. 

12 The patterns in the study are primarily driven by some years in the early 1990s, where egg size and 

13 fecundity decreased. These were years when ocean productivity conditions were very low, and affected 

14 coho and chinook salmon size and survival. The patterns of decreased egg size may in fact be real, but 

15 it is not clear that hatchery practices are the cause or that it would be applicable to Puget Sound 

16 chinook salmon populations. The potential effects of hatchery practices on the fecundity, egg size, and 

17 reproductive fitness are outside the scope of this Proposed Action, but will be examined in an EIS that 

18 NMFS is conducting on the effects of proposed Puget Sound hatchery programs on listed Puget Sound 

19 chinook salmon. 

20 SW-26 

21 The Puget Sound TRT has provided initial guidelines for recovery for the number and distribution of 

22 populations within the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (PSTRT 2002a). NMFS has used that guidance in its 

23 assessment of the effects of the Proposed Action on the recovery of the ESU as the best available 

24 information on this subject. The guidance recognizes the diversity of the chinook salmon populations in 

25 the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. The guidance defines five geographical regions within the ESU and the 

26 need to protect two to four populations within each region, representing the range of life history types 

27 in each region. Application of the TRT guidance would not result in protection of only a single chinook 

28 salmon population within the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. 

29 SW-27 

30 The commentor states that the 2003 flood event, which likely had impacts comparable to those of the 

31 1990 flood event, could cause a 14-fold reduction in smolt abundance in a particular year, and that, 

32 because the DEIS only analyzed a 30 percent reduction in abundance from 2003 levels, “the entire 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 33 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 analysis in the DEIS has already become obsolete for the 6-year period in question.” The source of the 

2 30 percent reduction is the calculation that overall average abundance in the early-to-mid-1990s, during 

3 which Puget Sound chinook experienced both low marine survival and two major flood events, was 

4 approximately 30 percent less than the average forecasted abundance during 2001–2003 (DEIS 

5 Subsection 4.2.3.1, Abundance). The 30 percent reduction is therefore applicable to the average adult 

6 abundance over a 5-year period, not to the reduction in abundance possible for smolts in one single 

7 year. In terms of the effect that the 2003 flood might have on average adult abundance over the five8 year period of the plan, if it is assumed that the 2003 brood year has the same survival rate as the 1990 

9 brood year, and that all other brood survival rates vary randomly according to those observed from 

10 1987–2001, the median expected spawning escapement of Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon over the 

11 5-year time period would be 16,000 adults, and the median terminal run size would be 17,200 adults 

12 (personal communication with Bob Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative, May 10, 2004). In contrast, 

13 if it is assumed that the brood year 2003 return rate also varies randomly (i.e., ignore the flood), the 

14 median escapement would be 17,000 adults, and the median terminal run size would be 18,400 adults. 

15 Thus, the expected affect of the 2003 flood would be a reduction in average abundance of only 6.5 

16 percent (personal communication with Bob Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative, Salmon Recovery 

17 Planner, August 6, 2004). This is well within the 30 percent reduction in average abundance analyzed 

18 in the DEIS. 

19 Moreover, if return rates are not varied, and it is assumed that mean return rates apply for every brood 

20 except that of 2003 (for which the 1990 rates would apply), the calculated mean escapement, 21,284, is 

21 only an 8 percent reduction from the mean escapement that would be projected if mean return rates 

22 were used for every year (personal communication with Bob Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative, 

23 May 10, 2004), which is also well within the 30 percent reduction analyzed in the DEIS. 

24 This is not to belittle the effects of the 2003 flood on individual years; however, it also should not be 

25 forgotten that chinook salmon mature at multiple ages, and that strong returns from adjacent broods can 

26 mitigate to some extent the impact on a single brood. If we assume 1990 return rates for brood year 

27 2003, and mean return rates for all other broods, and that 2003 FRAM exploitation rates apply in odd 

28 years and 2004 rates apply in even years, then the expected Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon 

29 escapement in fishing year 2007 would be about 12,000 adults (personal communication with Bob 

30 Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative, May 10, 2004). This is considerably lower than the numbers 

31 projected for the other years, but is considerably higher than a 14-fold decrease. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 34 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Research supports the importance of cycles of marine survival on Pacific salmonids (Mantua et 

2 al.1997). Because of our inability to forecast marine survival and the large effect it may have, low 

3 marine survival conditions have been assumed in developing the RERs used by NMFS to evaluate the 

4 performance of the alternatives in the DEIS. In recognition of interannual variability in marine survival, 

5 NMFS incorporated error in these parameters into its derivation of RERs (NMFS 2000). This is a 

6 conservative approach, providing additional escapement in good marine-survival years. 

7 SW-28 

8 NMFS, in cooperation with the co-managers, has modeled the anticipated impacts of implementation of 

9 the Proposed Action and its alternatives. The 2003 forecasted abundance and a 30 percent reduction 

10 from that level for all populations were modeled as the range of Puget Sound chinook salmon 

11 abundance likely to occur over the duration of the Proposed Action (2005–2009). The reduced 

12 abundance condition was based on observations of the period 1990 through 1999 (DEIS Appendix C3) 

13 that included years with significant flood events; e.g., 1990, 1995, similar to that of 2003 (Seiler et al. 

14 2000). This range of modeled abundance is considered conservative. Given the general trend of stable 

15 to increasing abundance, it is likely that if the actual abundance in the next five years falls outside this 

16 range, the actual abundance would most likely be greater. 

17 NMFS recognized that in this modeling exercise, conservative assumptions were made, and that there 

18 was always the possibility that in any individual year the results could be different then the range of 

19 possibilities considered. If impacts under implementation of the Proposed Action are greater then 

20 expected, NMFS can withdraw the ESA 4(d) Rule determination or ask the co-managers to adjust 

21 fisheries to reduce impacts. 

22 See responses to comments SW-23 and SW-27. 

23 SW-29 

24 The commentor is correct that 1997 incidental chinook catch in the Marine Catch Area 7/7A sockeye 

25 fishery was anomalous, but incorrect in assuming it was intentional or “directed.” Table 1.6-1 also 

26 indicates that there were more than 3 million sockeye and pink salmon caught in 1997 along with the 

27 29,592 chinook salmon. In other words, the catch of all salmon species was greater in 1997 with 

28 chinook comprising less than 1 percent of the catch. Over 70 percent of the coded-wire tags recovered 

29 from chinook salmon caught in Areas 7 and 7A during the pink and sockeye fisheries were of Canadian 

30 origin, and the year class of three-year-old Fraser River chinook was stronger than average. Despite the 

31 larger than usual incidental catch of chinook salmon in the sockeye and pink fisheries, the exploitation 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 35 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 rates in pre-terminal fisheries were generally lower for Puget Sound chinook stocks than in previous 

2 years. There may have been unusually high local abundance or availability; i.e., more abundance of 

3 Canadian stocks, in areas where U.S. commercial pink and sockeye fisheries occurred in 1997, or just a 

4 greater overall abundance of salmon, but there were no commercial fisheries in these areas 

5 intentionally targeting chinook salmon. It is not clear what ‘analysis’ is referred to by the commentor, 

6 but the Environmental Consequences analysis (DEIS Section 4) compared alternatives to the 2003 pre7 season ‘baseline,’ not historical average catch, so the 1997 anomaly does not pose any analytical risk. 

8 The commentor has pointed out a typographic error on page 1-23 in the DEIS – the figure “50,000” 

9 was intended. Marine sport catch ranged from 26,000 to 41,000 in 1998-2002 with an average of about 

10 31,000. This correction has been made in FEIS Volume 2 (also on page 1-23). 

11 The citation of Bigler et al. was used as general reference to illustrate that there are a variety of cause 

12 and effect relationships that might result in the same pattern of trends in size; i.e., competition for food 

13 or fishery selection. This can be true regardless of salmon species. It was not intended to be specific to 

14 Puget Sound chinook salmon. In pointing out the difficulties inherent in the use of some of the fisheries 

15 by Bigler et al., the commentor underscores a primary point of DEIS Subsection 3.3.7, Selectivity on 

16 Biological Characteristics of Salmon, which is the difficulty in establishing a clear causal link between 

17 changes in size and/or age in chinook salmon populations and the fisheries that intercept them. The 

18 commentor is referred to the revision to Subsection 3.3.7 in FEIS Volume 2 that includes additional 

19 language on size-at-age analyses specific to Puget Sound chinook salmon populations described in the 

20 DEIS but completed subsequent to its publication. 

21 Finally, NMFS recognizes the limitations to the estimates of early twentieth century abundance 

22 provided in Myers et al. (1998), but it is the best available information on abundance of that time, and 

23 is used primarily to offer a relative comparison of abundances at that time with those of recent decades. 

24 SW-30 

25 The commentor’s confusion that “these are three very different management standards” exists because 

26 it may be assumed that only one standard could apply at a time, rather than that all standards must 

27 apply simultaneously. The Proposed Action contains multiple constraints that must all be achieved 

28 simultaneously, rather than as a system under which fisheries can be conducted whenever any one of 

29 the constraints is met. In actuality, as described in Section 5 of the Proposed Action (DEIS Appendix 

30 A), and DEIS Subsection 2.3.1 (Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo), a fishery may be 

31 conducted only if more than 50 percent of the impacts are from harvestable runs, and the aggregate of 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 36 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 fisheries impacts does not exceed the Rebuilding Exploitation Rate (RER) ceilings, and the aggregate 

2 impacts of southern U.S. fisheries does not exceed Pacific Salmon Treaty guidelines. Directed chinook 

3 salmon fisheries might be conducted only if the projected escapements exceed the upper thresholds and

4 the aggregate of fisheries impacts does not exceed the RER ceilings. Each fishery must be agreed to by 

5 the co-managers as part of an overall regime, and additional constraints on the exploitation rate ceiling 

6 apply when the abundance of any management unit or population is critical. Aside from some 

7 ceremonial and subsistence, and research fisheries (which would also occur under Alternative 1A), this 

8 situation is not anticipated to be encountered except perhaps in the Green, Nisqually and Skokomish 

9 Rivers during implementation of the Proposed Action. Fisheries are restricted to incidental-only harvest 

10 of chinook salmon whenever more than 50 percent of the resulting fishery-related mortality will accrue 

11 to management units and species without harvestable surpluses. In most cases over the last five years 

12 (1999–2004), the exploitation rates for the adopted fishing regime have been considerably less than the 

13 “maximum amount” allowed in the DEIS. 

14 See responses to comments SW-5 and SW-31. 

15 SW-31 

16 NMFS must evaluate the Resource Management Plan that is provided by the co-managers. If NMFS 

17 finds that the Proposed Action meets the criteria of Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule and will not appreciably 

18 reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery, then it must issue that finding and does not have the 

19 authority to require changes to the Proposed Action. The use of critical numbers is an element of the 

20 Limit 6 criteria (50 CFR 223.203[b][6][i]) to demonstrate that the RMP is consistent with the concept 

21 of viable and critical thresholds in the Viable Salmonid Population document (McElhaney et al. 2000). 

22 NMFS would expect that the information would change as management reports are updated with new 

23 and better information. The change in the status of the Dosewallips is a good example. The Puget 

24 Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT), the group charged by NMFS to define the population 

25 structure of the listed ESUs in Puget Sound and to provide technical assistance for recovery planning, 

26 revised its earlier assessment of the structure of the mid-Hood Canal chinook populations in January, 

27 2004 (PSTRT 2004). The TRT had concluded in an earlier report (PSTRT 2002b) that the Hood Canal 

28 region of the ESU comprised two populations: the Skokomish and the Dosewallips Rivers. In its latest 

29 report, the TRT has revised its assessment and now concludes the Dosewallips is part of a larger 

30 population comprised of the Dosewallips, Hamma Hamma and Duckabush Rivers (PSTRT 2004). The 

31 co-managers revised their RMP to reflect this new, best available, information. NMFS has also 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 37 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 incorporated the new information into its evaluation of the RMP, as it is tasked with using the best 

2 available information in its assessments. 

3 Lastly, management standards are not provided in the commentor’s description of Alternative 1A. See 

4 responses to comments SW-1B, SW-1D, SW-1E. 

5 SW-32 

6 NMFS must evaluate the Resource Management Plan that is provided by the co-managers. In its 

7 Proposed Evaluation and Pending Recommendation, NMFS has evaluated the co-managers plan using 

8 the best available information regarding the expectation of conditions over the proposed duration of the 

9 plan (2005–2009), and evaluated the outcome against NMFS’ standards for listed Puget Sound chinook 

10 salmon. If NMFS finds that the Proposed Action meets the criteria of Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule and will 

11 not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery, then it must issue that finding and does 

12 not have the authority to require changes to the Proposed Action. NMFS’ Proposed Evaluation and 

13 Pending Determination of the co-managers’ Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management 

14 Plan, as proposed to be implemented during the 2005–2009 fishing seasons, is that it is consistent with 

15 the criteria of Limit 6 and would not pose jeopardy to the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. 

16 SW-33 

17 Development of data with which to manage Puget Sound chinook salmon has been an ongoing 

18 endeavor since the rulings of U.S. v. Washington. Work toward a comprehensive approach to Puget 

19 Sound chinook salmon harvest began in the late 1980s, when data began to be available with which to 

20 evaluate harvest impacts. When it became apparent that stocks were not faring well, the co-managers 

21 began development of a new management framework, represented by earlier versions of the Puget 

22 Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan’s Harvest Management Component, in spite of a 

23 lack of complete data in some cases. The co-managers’ decision to change to exploitation rate 

24 management was carefully considered, after assessment of risks and benefits of different management 

25 approaches (personal communication with Teresa Scott, WDFW, Salmon Resource Policy Analyst, and 

26 Will Beattie, NWIFC, Salmon Recovery Coordinator, July 30, 2004). This includes consideration of 

27 economic, social and cultural impacts as well as biological factors. 

28 A comprehensive chinook salmon management plan was implemented initially in 1997. Subsequent 

29 Puget Sound chinook salmon escapements indicate that the reduced exploitation rates and other harvest 

30 management actions resulting from implementation of that Plan has contributed to the stabilization and 

31 increase in Puget Sound chinook escapements (NMFS 2004a; NMFS 2004b). Revisions to the 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 38 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 management framework have been made in subsequent years as new information became available. 

2 The most recent version of the management framework is the Proposed Action for the 2005–2009 

3 fishing seasons, evaluated in the DEIS. Also see responses to comments SW-1A, SW-1F, SW-4, SW-8, 

4 SW-10, SW-11, SW-13, SW-14, SW-17 and SW-27. 

5 CEQ’s Forty Most Asked Questions 6a acknowledges that “NEPA does not require that an agency 

6 adopt the most environmentally preferable alternative but that the impacts are disclosed in a full and 

7 fair manner” (CEQ Regulations §1502.9 and 15002.16), and that the agency provides a clear record of 

8 the basis of its decision “including consideration of economic and technical considerations and agency 

9 statutory missions”(CEQ Regulations §1505.2[b]). 

10 Also see response to comment SW-32. 

Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 39 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 References 

2 Beamer, E., C. Greene, A. McBride, C. Rice, and K. Larsen. 2003a. Recovery planning for ocean-type 

3 chinook salmon in the Skagit River: results from a decade of field studies. Presentation at 

4 Watershed Open House, Museum of Science and Industry, Seattle, Washington. October 23, 2003. 

5 Beamer, E., A. McBride, R. Henderson, and K. Wolf. 2003b. The importance of non-natal pocket 

6 estuaries in Skagit Bay to wild Chinook salmon: an emerging priority for restoration. Skagit River 

7 System Cooperative Research Department, P.O. Box 368, La Conner, Washington 98257-0368. 

8 Bernard, R. and D. Marks. 2004. 2004 Final Skagit pre-season salmon forecasts. Memo to Preliminary 

9 Pre-season Forecast Recipients from Rebecca Bernard (Swinomish/Sauk-Suiattle Tribes) and 

10 Derek Marks (Upper Skagit Tribe) dated February 4, 2004. 24 pages. 

11 Burton, K., L. Lowe, and H. Berge. 2004. Cedar River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

12 redd and carcass surveys: annual report 2003. Seattle Public Utilities. Seattle, Washington. 59 

13 pages. 

14 Feiberg, J. 2004. Role of parameter uncertainty in assessing harvest strategies. North American Journal 

15 of Fisheries Management. Volume 24, pages 459-474. 

16 Fuss, H. 2003. Production of juvenile and adult chinook salmon from releases of hatchery adults in the 

17 Deschutes River, Washington – annual report 2003. Hatchery/Wild Interactions Team. Fish 

18 Program, Science Division Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 

19 13 pages. 

20 Hayman, B. Salmon Recovery Planner, Skagit Systems Cooperative, LaConner, Washington. May 10, 

21 2004. Personal communication with Keith Schultz, NMFS, re: comments on public review draft of 

22 the proposed evaluation and determination concerning the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource 

23 Management Plan. 

24 Hayman, B. Salmon Recovery Planner, Skagit Systems Cooperative, LaConner, Washington. August 6, 

25 2004. Personal communication with Susan Bishop, NMFS, re: survival of Skagit River chinook 

26 under various environmental conditions. 

27 Huppert, Daniel and David Fluharty. 1996. Economics of Snake River salmon recovery: A report to the 

28 National Marine Fisheries Service. University of Washington. October 1996. 

29 Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal 

30 climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of American Meteorological 

31 Society, Volume 78, pages 1069-1079. 

32 Marshall, A., C. Smith, R. Brix, W. Dammers, J. Hymer, and L. Lavoy. 1995. Genetic diversity units 

33 and major ancestral lineages for chinook salmon in Washington. In C. Busack and J. Shaklee 

34 (editors), Genetic diversity units and major ancestral lineages of salmonid fishes in Washington, 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 40 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 pages 111-173. Technical Report #RAD 95-02. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

2 Olympia, Washington. 

3 McElhany, P. , M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

4 salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of 

5 Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42. 156 pages. 

6 http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/. 

7 Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. 

8 Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from 

9 Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

10 Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pages. 

11 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. RAP: A risk assessment procedure for evaluating 

12 harvest mortality on Pacific salmonids. NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division and NWFSC, 

13 Resource Utilization and Technology Division. May 30, 2000 draft. 33 pages. 

14 Nooksack Rebuilding Exploitation Rate (RER) Workgroup. 2003. Derivation of the rebuilding 

15 exploitation rates (RER) for the Nooksack River chinook salmon populations. December 1, 2003. 

16 13 pages. 

17 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004a. Proposed evaluation of and pending determination 

18 on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), pursuant to the salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule. Puget 

19 Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management Component. Public 

20 review draft. NMFS NW Region. April 8, 2004. 95 pages. 

21 NMFS. 2004b. Endangered Species Act – section 7 consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Act essential 

22 fish habitat consultation. Biological opinion and incidental take statement. Effects of programs 

23 administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs supporting tribal salmon fisheries management in 

24 Puget Sound and Puget Sound salmon fishing activities authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

25 Service during the 2004 fishing season. NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division. April 28, 2004. 89 

26 pages. 

27 Pacific Salmon Commission. 1993. Pacific salmon commission joint chinook technical committee 

28 report; 1992 annual report. TCChinook (93)-2. Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, British 

29 Columbia, Canada. November 19, 1993. 

30 Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (PSTRT). 2002a. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines 

31 for the delisting and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit. April 

32 30, 2002. 16 pages. 

33 PSTRT. 2002b. Independent populations of chinook in Puget Sound. Final draft April 8, 2002. NMFS, 

34 NW Region, NWFSC. Seattle, Washington. 62 pages plus appendices. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 41 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 PSTRT. 2003a. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

2 data for the North Fork Nooksack early chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, 

3 Seattle, Washington. Excel workbook. November 11, 2003. 

4 PSTRT. 2003b. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

5 data for the South Fork Nooksack early chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, 

6 Seattle, Washington. Excel workbook. November 11, 2003. 

7 PSTRT. 2003c. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

8 data for the Cascade spring chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, 

9 Washington. Excel workbooks. October, 2003. 

10 PSTRT. 2003d. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

11 data for the Suiattle spring chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, 

12 Washington. Excel workbook. November, 2003. 

13 PSTRT. 2003e. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

14 data for the Upper Sauk spring chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, 

15 Washington. Excel workbook. November, 2003. 

16 PSTRT. 2003f. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

17 data for the Snoqualmie chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, 

18 Washington. Excel workbook. November 20, 2003. 

19 PSTRT. 2003g. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

20 data for the Skykomish chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, 

21 Washington. Excel workbook. November 20, 2003. 

22 PSTRT. 2004. Independent populations of chinook in Puget Sound. Final draft January 24th, 2004. 

23 NMFS, NW Region, NWFSC. Seattle, Washington. 61 pages plus appendices. 

24 Salmon and Steelhead Inventory (SaSI). 2003. Salmon and steelhead inventory – 2002. Introduction, 

25 Summary Tables, and North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de 

26 Fuca volumes. Fish Program, Science Division. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

27 Olympia, Washington. 

28 Scott, T. and W. Beattie. Salmon Recovery Policy Analyst (Scott), WDFW, Olympia, Washington. 

29 Salmon Recovery Coordinator (Beattie), NWIFC, Olympia, WA. July 30, 2004. Personal 

30 communication with Susan Bishop, NMFS, re: development of Puget Sound Chinook Resource 

31 Management Plan 

32 Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, and L. Kishimoto. 2001. 2000 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook production 

33 evaluation. Annual Project Report. Fish Program, Science Division, Washington Department of 

34 Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 45 pages. 

35 Seiler, D. Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, and L. Kishimoto. 2002a. Annual Report. 2001 Skagit River wild 

36 0+ chinook production evaluation. Report No. FPA02-11. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 42 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, L. Kishimoto, and P. Topping. 2002b. 2000 Green River juvenile salmonid 

2 production evaluation. Report #FPT 02-03. Fish Program, Science Division. Washington 

3 Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 57 pages. 

4 Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser and L. Kishimoto. 2003a. 2002 Skagit River 0+ Chinook Production 

5 Evaluation Annual Report. Report No. FPA 03-11. WDFW. Olympia, Washington. 

6 Seiler, D., G. Volkhardt, and L. Kishimoto. 2003b. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon 

7 production in 1999 and 2000 from three Lake Washington tributaries: Cedar River, Bear Creek, 

8 and Issaquah Creek. Report # FPA 02-07. Fish Program, Science Division, Washington 

9 Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 197 pages. 

10 Simmons, Dell. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. 2003. Personal 

11 communication with Susan Bishop (NMFS NWR Sustainable Fisheries Division), regarding 

12 estimates of marine survival for Puget Sound, Washington Coastal and British Columbian chinook 

13 stocks. 

14 Skagit Rebuilding Exploitation Rate (RER) Workgroup. 2003. Derivation of the Rebuilding 

15 Exploitation Rates (RER) for the Skagit Spring chinook salmon populations. 22 pages. 

16 Snohomish Rebuilding Exploitation Rate (RER) Workgroup. 2002. Derivation of the Rebuilding 

17 Exploitation Rates (RER) for the Snohomish populations. October 7, 2002 draft.10 pages. 

18 Tynan, T. Fisheries Biologist, NMFS. July 26, 2004. Personal communication, e-mail to Susan Bishop 

19 (NMFS), regarding assessment of a scientific journal article suggested during public comment on 

20 the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Draft EIS. 

21 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (PSIT). 2004. 

22 Comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound chinook: Harvest management component. 

23 March 1, 2004. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Lacey, Washington. Provided to NMFS 

24 on March 18, 2004. 247pages. 

25 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (PSTT). 2004. 

26 Puget Sound chinook salmon hatcheries, a component of the comprehensive chinook salmon 

27 management plan. March 31, 2004. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Lacey, Washington. 

28 148 pages. 
 

 

Native Fish Society (NFS) 

Letter of Comment 





Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 44 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM NATIVE FISH SOCIETY (NFS) 

2 NFS-1 

3 The range of alternatives considered by NMFS was in part mandated in a settlement agreement 

4 (Washington Trout v. Lohn) that challenged the adequacy of NMFS’ NEPA analysis on an earlier 4(d) 

5 determination for a Puget Sound chinook salmon harvest plan. NMFS was therefore required to include 

6 them in its range of alternatives. Other alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed 

7 study are discussed in DEIS Section 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action. 

8 NFS-2 

9 Comment noted. 

10 NFS-3 

11 Data is currently insufficient to establish escapement goals for each river reach. In addition, such an 

12 approach might not be practical or desirable to implement. Environmental and habitat conditions are 

13 highly variable from year to year, and spawning adults seek out the best habitat as defined by the 

14 conditions in that year. NMFS agrees that harvest management plans should be consistent with the 

15 concepts in the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) document regarding abundance, productivity, 

16 diversity and spatial structure, and this is a requirement of any resource management plan provided to 

17 NMFS under the 4(d) Rule. NMFS’ evaluation of how the RMP is consistent with the VSP criteria can 

18 be found in its Proposed Evaluation and Pending Recommendation (NMFS 2004). 

19 DEIS Alternative 3 evaluates the implementation of a fixed-escapement goal approach to harvest 

20 management with escapement goals at the individual population level. Although Alternative 3 also 

21 mandates terminal fisheries only, removing the geographical restriction on the fisheries would not 

22 change the results because the anticipated abundances for many populations would preclude mixed23 stock fisheries under the fixed-escapement goal approach represented by Alternative 3. The Proposed 

24 Action (Alternative 1) also uses a weak-stock management approach, although harvest management 

25 objectives are specific to management units. The twenty-two Puget Sound chinook populations 

26 identified by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (PSTRT 2004) are divided into 14 

27 management units, eleven of which are explicitly managed for the weakest population in the 

28 management unit. Therefore, the range of alternatives evaluated in the DEIS is inclusive of the 

29 approach suggested by the commentor. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 45 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 NFS-4 

2 The harvest management approach used to manage Oregon Coast Natural coho (OCN) is a matrix of 

3 parent and grandparent escapement measured against a marine survival index to yield a ceiling 

4 exploitation rate for an annual adult abundance forecast. For Puget Sound chinook salmon, parent and 

5 grandparent escapement estimates are available. A marine survival index for chinook salmon is more 

6 difficult to determine than for coho, because chinook are in marine waters for several years and each 

7 age class will experience different environmental conditions and survival rate factors, particularly early 

8 marine survival conditions. The marine survival index used for OCN coho is the “jack” (age 2) return 

9 to the spawning areas as an indication of the return of adult age 3 coho the next year. Using jack coho 

10 as an indicator of adult survival rate is much more reliable for coho than it is for chinook salmon where 

11 the “jack” (age 2) maturation rate is very low compared to the number of fish returning as age three- to 

12 five-year-olds. For example, two-year-old Skagit summer and fall chinook salmon comprised 2 percent 

13 of the mature run for the 1987–1991 brood years (personal communication with Rebecca Bernard, 

14 Swinomish Tribe, Fisheries Biologist, February 4, 2004). 

15 Accounting for jack chinook salmon in Puget Sound terminal fisheries and in escapement is difficult 

16 and highly variable between river systems (see Appendix E of DEIS Appendix A, the Resource 

17 Management Plan). Because of their small size, jack chinook salmon are not caught in significant 

18 numbers in net fisheries, and are difficult to enumerate accurately during spawning ground surveys. For 

19 most systems in Puget Sound, terminal area age data necessary for estimating a marine survival index 

20 is not available until after the pre-season forecasting period for the upcoming management year. 

21 Finally, the OCN matrix system is designed to work across a wider range of escapement, ocean 

22 survival and abundances than what is expected for Puget Sound chinook salmon across the duration of 

23 the Proposed Action (2005–2009). With the Proposed Action only covering the next five fishing 

24 seasons, it is likely that abundance and survival conditions will be similar to those in recent years. The 

25 Proposed Action is in a sense similar to the OCN matrix approach where its tiered exploitation rates 

26 (e.g., RER, CERC) approach depends on critical, low, or normal abundance status. 

27 NFS-5 

28 Insufficient detail is provided in this comment for use in analyzing the suggested approach. It is unclear 

29 how the commentor defines “restricted” fisheries or what the magnitude of the fisheries would be. The 

30 commentor characterizes the fixed-escapement-goal alternatives in the DEIS (Alternatives 2 and 3) as 

31 similar to the OCN approach, however, the OCN approach is exploitation-rate based, not escapement 

32 goal based. The OCN approach uses escapement thresholds of parent and grandparent escapements, in 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 46 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 combination with predictions of marine survival, to determine what exploitation rate is appropriate in a 

2 given year. This approach is similar to that of the Proposed Action, which uses escapement thresholds 

3 to determine which level of exploitation rate is appropriate in a given year. CEQ Regulations specify 

4 that “Comments on an environmental impact statement...shall be as specific as 

5 possible...”(§1503.3[a]), and “When a commenting agency criticizes a lead agency’s predictive 

6 methodology, the commenting agency should describe the alternative methodology which it 

7 prefers...”(§1503.3[b]). Also see response to NFS-3. 

8 NFS-6 

9 The integration of habitat, hatchery and harvest actions is the subject of a recovery planning process 

10 currently underway in Puget Sound through a forum called the Shared Strategy (see DEIS Subsection 

11 1.10.4, Puget Sound Recovery Planning), and is outside the scope of the Proposed Action. Completion 

12 of the recovery plan and decisions regarding the form and timing of recovery efforts described in the 

13 recovery plan will dictate the kinds of harvest actions that may be necessary and appropriate in the 

14 future. However, NMFS has integrated an assessment of current habitat conditions in the development 

15 of standards used to evaluate the DEIS alternatives. NMFS has done this to ensure that its standards are 

16 consistent with the productivity and capacity of the habitat for specific Puget Sound chinook 

17 populations where that information is available (see DEIS Subsection 4.3.1, Threatened and 

18 Endangered Fish Species, page 4-10). 

19 Aspects of the integration between habitat actions and the proposed harvest management action are 

20 discussed as cumulative effects in DEIS Subsections 4.3.8 (Indirect and Cumulative Effects), and 4.8.6 

21 (Cumulative Effects on Wildlife). 

22 NFS-7 

23 The Proposed Action includes annual reports provided to NMFS that report numerical harvest 

24 accounting by fishery, adult spawner escapement estimates, and estimates of exploitation rate on each 

25 Puget Sound chinook salmon management unit and population. Initial estimates of commercial harvest 

26 provided in annual reports are preliminary, and are finalized in subsequent years. Catch estimates can 

27 be reported immediately post-season for a few recreational fisheries for which creel surveys estimate 

28 recreational catch in-season, but actual post-season catch estimates for most recreational fisheries are 

29 not available until one to two years after the fishery occurs. 

30 Population- and management-unit-specific exploitation rate information used to measure performance 

31 of the Resource Management Plan become available two to four years after fisheries are completed. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 47 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Post-season Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM) assessments are used to report this 

2 information by management unit or population when data become available. The Proposed Action 

3 suggests FRAM be updated to incorporate this new information every five years. 

4 NFS-8 

5 The assumptions used in the DEIS modeling were based on the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

6 Chinook Annex and information exchanged with Canadian harvest managers that occurs through the 

7 Pacific Salmon Commission and the annual implementation of the terms of the Annex. The objectives 

8 and procedures for improved implementation of impact sharing arrangements is the subject of the terms 

9 of the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Annex negotiated in 1999 between Canada and the U.S. That 

10 agreement is not part of the Proposed Action, although it influences the shaping of annual fishing 

11 regimes in Puget Sound. Therefore, it is outside the scope of the Proposed Action, but impacts on Puget 

12 Sound chinook salmon in Canadian fisheries must be taken into account when evaluating the 

13 alternatives in the DEIS. NMFS cannot assume that Canada will manage it fisheries in a different 

14 manner than specified in the terms of the Annex. Therefore, NMFS attempted to define a reasonable 

15 range of outcomes consistent with that agreement (CEQ Regulations 1502.14 and CEQ Forty Most 

16 Asked Questions 1b), and describes the rationale behind these choices. 

17 Also see response to comment SW-18. 

18 NFS-9 

19 In actuality, chinook salmon harvests that target hatchery-origin fish occur throughout marine and 

20 freshwater (pre-terminal and terminal) areas of Puget Sound. Harvests in all Puget Sound areas where 

21 chinook salmon may be affected are managed to protect the weakest management unit. Alternatives 

22 that explore the effects of decreases and increases in the hatchery production of juvenile chinook 

23 salmon will be included in a separate, ongoing EIS for Puget Sound region hatchery programs. 

24 Evaluations of these alternatives within the hatchery EIS will consider effects on fisheries harvests, 

25 fishery economic value, and natural and hatchery-origin chinook salmon population abundances. 

26 In addition to the need to avoid duplication of issues that will be more appropriately addressed in the 

27 hatchery EIS, NMFS did not consider hatchery program adjustment effects in this EIS because any 

28 changes in hatchery practices would have little practical effect on the Puget Sound Chinook harvest 

29 management framework under consideration. The Proposed Action has a five-year duration. 

30 Considering that chinook salmon recruit to fisheries primarily as four-year-olds, the effect of any 

31 hatchery adjustments implemented now on harvests would be experienced overwhelmingly in the final 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 48 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 two years of the five-year plan (2008 and 2009). To the extent that changes in hatchery practices would 

2 be reflected in earlier age classes, this would be taken into account in annual pre-season fishery 

3 planning. Integration of habitat, hatchery, and harvest actions to effectuate recovery of the listed Puget 

4 Sound Chinook ESU is the subject of on on-going recovery planning process but outside the scope of 

5 the action evaluated in this EIS. Also see responses to comments SW-19, SW-22 and NFS-6. 

6 It is unclear from this comment in what context the EIS should document the assumption that 

7 hatcheries can compensate for habitat degradation. Such additional documentation needs to be 

8 connected with a specific alternative to be evaluated or a specific assumption made in the EIS analysis. 

9 Without this information, it is unclear what specific information is missing from the EIS. The potential 

10 beneficial and adverse effects of hatchery programs have been summarized in numerous scientific 

11 publications and literature reviews (for example, Lichatowich and McIntyre 1987; Hard et al. 1992; 

12 Witty et al. 1995; Busack and Currens 1995; Waples 1999), and discussed in DEIS Subsection 3.3.8, 

13 Hatchery-Related Fishery Effects on Salmon. One beneficial effect of hatcheries identified in all of 

14 these documents is their enhanced ability to bolster the abundance of adult salmon relative to naturally15 spawning fish due to increased egg-to-smolt survival rates afforded by the hatchery environment. 

16 Given extensive habitat degradation that has occurred within the Puget Sound region (WDNR 1998), 

17 hatchery production has been necessary to at least partially off-set natural chinook salmon production 

18 that has been lost. 

19 NFS-10 

20 Tribal fisheries are limited in geography by treaty and through court order (see DEIS Subsection 3.4, 

21 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibilities, U.S. v. Washington: 384 F. Supp. 312). In addition, 

22 tribal fishing is as much a cultural activity as an economic one, so “higher economic value” is not the 

23 only value considered when planning fisheries. Indian treaties signed by the federal government 

24 guaranteed continued access to fisheries for future generations. The Treaty of Medicine Creek includes 

25 a provision typical of that found in treaties with many Northwest tribes: 

26 “The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to 

27 said Indians, in common with all citizens of the Territory,..” (Treaty of Medicine Creek , Article III, 10 

28 Statute 1132. See also, Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Statute 927; Treaty of Point-No-Point, 12 Statute 933; 

29 Treaty of Neah Bay, 12 Statute 939; and Treaty of Olympia, 12 Statute 971, which are generally known as 

30 the “Stevens Treaties”.) 

31 Provision of fishing opportunity in all usual and accustomed fishing grounds is therefore an essential 

32 objective of the Resource Management Plan, and is central to fulfilling NMFS’ trust responsibility. It 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 49 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 would be inconsistent with the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action to examine re-location of 

2 tribal fisheries.

3 NFS-11 

4 Presence of salmon carcasses in streams is a natural component of stream ecology. Nevertheless, the 

5 Clean Water Act specifically prohibits the placement of “biological materials”" unless an 

6 environmental review is done indicating no significant adverse environmental effect. WDFW 

7 completed a State Environmental Policy Act process, and issued a Declaration of Non-Significance on 

8 May 21, 1997 prior to implementing its carcass dispersal activities. 

9 In some fisheries, for both treaty Indian and non-treaty fishers, sales of eggs can be more lucrative than 

10 sales of the whole fish. This is primarily true for pink and chum salmon – chinook salmon eggs are a 

11 relatively small proportion of total egg sales. Egged carcasses associated with commercial harvest are 

12 not used for stream fertilization because of logistical constraints. The infrastructure required to collect 

13 and distribute egged carcasses from commercial fisheries is not in place, and would be much more 

14 complicated than that required for hatcheries. Hatcheries act as central collection facilities because 

15 large numbers of fish in a region return there. The fishermen and commercial buyers are dispersed 

16 throughout Puget Sound when fisheries are open and their location changes depending on factors such 

17 as the pattern of catch, price paid, and weather. A significant number of carcasses are sold along with 

18 the eggs and processed (e.g., smoked, used for bait, fishmeal), or taken home as subsistence catch by 

19 the fishermen. Generally, disposition of carcasses into fresh or marine waters by fishermen is not 

20 known to cause any significant water quality problems. However, mass disposal of salmon carcasses 

21 into marine waters has been identified as a specific problem in some local areas of Puget Sound. In 

22 areas where disposal of salmon carcasses has been identified as a problem, the co-managers are 

23 developing new markets for carcasses otherwise discarded and encouraging buyers to retain the 

24 carcasses to facilitate proper disposal. In addition, WDFW and the Puget Sound tribes work 

25 cooperatively with a number of volunteer groups who help to distribute carcasses from hatcheries into 

26 streams. Applications to WDFW for carcass distribution are reviewed within WDFW for consistency 

27 with fish health and carcass distribution guidelines (Michael, Jr. 1997).

28 It is an open question whether the nutrient load from salmon carcasses is significantly different now 

29 than it was historically, when all the natural runs were healthy. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 50 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 NFS-12 

2 NMFS acknowledges that protecting, restoring, and enhancing salmon and other aquatic resources 

3 affected by the Proposed Action generate non-use values. Non-use values associated with protecting 

4 salmon resources in the State of Washington have been the focus of several studies in recent years 

5 (Olsen et al., 1991; Loomis, 1996b; and Layton et al., 1999). 

6 NMFS’ guidelines for preparing economic analysis were developed for the purposes of analyzing 

7 regulatory actions in Regulatory Impact Reviews and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses. These 

8 guidelines, primarily structured around a benefit-cost analytical framework, allow for considering non9 use values in evaluating regulatory actions. The Proposed Action is not considered a regulation 

10 requiring the co-managers to comply with specific regulations; instead, the EIS states that if the 

11 fisheries are conducted consistent with the Plan, then the co-managers of the fisheries will be exempt 

12 from take regulations. Fisheries also could occur in other ways and not be in violation of the ESA. 

13 Consequently, strict adherence to the guidelines in preparing the economic analysis, including 

14 evaluating non-use values, is not mandated. In addition, the guidelines’ primary focus on determining 

15 the “expected direction in net benefits to the nation” of the Proposed Action is considered to be an 

16 analytical objective beyond the scope of the EIS. 

17 In recognition of the relevance of non-use values pertaining to fishery resources, particularly listed 

18 species, the Affected Environment section, Economic Activity and Value (Section 3.6) has been 

19 modified to include a brief description of non-use values and how they relate to the Proposed Action 

20 and alternatives. Because the effects of the alternatives on the recovery of listed species cannot be 

21 determined with sufficient certainty to reliably estimate non-use values associated with recovery, 

22 potential effects of implementing the alternatives on non-use values are not evaluated in the 

23 Environmental Consequences section. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 51 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 References 

2 Bernard, R.. Swinomish Tribe Memorandum. February 4, 2004. 

3 Busack, C.A. and K.P. Currens. 1995. Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations: fundamental 

4 concepts and issues. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15:71-80. 

5 Hard, J.J., R.P. Jones, M.R. Delarm, and R.S. Waples. 1992. Pacific salmon and artificial propagation 

6 under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS F/NWC-2, 56 pages. 

7 Layton, David, Gardner Brown and Mark Plummer. 1999. Valuing Multiple Programs to Improve Fish 

8 Populations. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, 

9 California. 

10 Lichatowich, J.A. and J.D. McIntyre. 1987. Use of hatcheries in the management of Pacific 

11 anadromous salmonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1: 131-136. 

12 Loomis, John. 1996. Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha 

13 River: Results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resources Research, 32(2):441-447. 

14 Michael, Jr., J.H. Protocols and guidelines for distributing salmonid carcasses, salmon carcass analogs, 

15 and delayed release fertilizers to enhance stream productivity in Washington state. May 1997. 

16 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Proposed evaluation of and pending determination 

17 on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), pursuant to the salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule. Puget 

18 Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management Component. Public 

19 review draft. NMFS NW Region. April 8, 2004. 95 pages. 

20 Olsen, Darryll, Jack Richards, and R. Douglas Scott. 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the 

21 size of Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2(1):44-56. 

22 PSTRT. 2004. Independent populations of chinook in Puget Sound. Final draft January 24, 2004. 

23 NMFS, NW Region, NWFSC. Seattle, Washington. 61 pages plus appendices. 

24 Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1998. Our changing nature - natural resource 

25 trends in Washington State. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Jennifer M. Belcher, 

26 Commissioner of Public Lands. Olympia, Washington. 74 pages. 

27 Waples, R.S. 1999. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. Fisheries 24(2) 12-21. 

28 Witty, K., C. Willis, and S. Cramer. 1995. A review of potential impacts of hatchery fish on naturally 

29 produced salmonids in the migration corridor of the Snake and Columbia rivers. Comprehensive 

30 Environmental Assessment - Final Report. S.P. Cramer and Associates. Gresham, Oregon. 76 

31 pages. 
 

 

Washington Trout (WT) 

Letter of Comment 

1

Comments Regarding: 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management 

Plan; Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

National Marine Fisheries Service, April 2004 

Submitted July 1, 2004 

Washington Trout 

PO Box 402 Duvall, WA 98019 

425/788-1167; fax 425/788-9634 

wildfish@washingtontrout.org; www.washingtontrout.org 
2

Part 1. Comments Regarding: 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan; Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

National Marine Fisheries Service, April 2004 

Washington Trout, July 1, 2004 

INTRODUCTION

Washington Trout has reviewed the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan; 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and relevant accompanying documentation. We 

have also reviewed the relevant RMP, the Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management 

Plan: Harvest Management Component, submitted to NOAA by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes 

and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (co-managers). We have also reviewed 

relevant fisheries-management records and scientific literature pertinent to a review of both the 

RMP and the DEIS. 

We find that the DEIS is inadequate in several fundamental respects. NEPA requires a thorough 

and fair analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the “Proposed Action” as well as 

alternatives to the Proposed Action. The dismissals of several potential alternatives to the 

Proposed Action that were proposed in scoping appear to be arbitrary. In the discussion that does 

occur regarding alternatives to the Proposed Action, the DEIS fails to consider and analyze the 

alternatives to the Preferred Alternative in sufficient detail and without bias. The analysis of the 

Preferred Alternative fails to adequately consider or evaluate its full environmental impacts, 

particularly the impacts of the RMP on Threatened Puget Sound chinook. The economic analyses 

and the evaluation of the affected environments in the DEIS fail to include any evaluation of the 

full economic, social, and environmental costs of chinook harvest under each of the Alternatives. 

Of particular importance in the economic analyses is the absence of any consideration of 

opportunity costs associated with the Preferred Alternative and of benefits to chinook harvest 

and chinook conservation that might reasonably be made available by the adoption of one or 

another alternative to the Preferred Alternative. 

In view of the considerable deficiencies in these regards we believe that the DEIS is 

unacceptable and should be withdrawn and revised to remedy these basic failures. 
3

KEY ISSUES 

I. Inadequacy of Alternatives Analyses 

I-1. Inappropriateness of the Adopted Environmental Baseline: NOAA Fisheries attempts to 

make transparent the connection between the DEIS – including several of its particulars – and 

NOAA’s July 2002 Settlement Agreement with Washington Trout re Washington Trout v. Lohn.

The basis for Washington Trout’s challenge of NOAA’s determination on the 2001 RMP in 

Washington Trout v. Lohn was NOAA’s clear failure to comply with NEPA requirements to 

perform a full Environmental Impact Statement before finalizing its ESA take-authorization 

processes. But now, NOAA proposes to use as a “baseline against which the environmental, 

social, and economic consequences of the [proposed] action are compared,” the “harvest 

management practices and baseline environmental conditions” that have existed since NOAA’s 

inappropriate determination to grant take-authorization for the RMP in 2001. Had NOAA 

undertaken to comply with NEPA in 2001 it could not have employed the yet-to-be-initiated 

RMP as the environmental baseline against which to evaluate the changes likely to occur if the 

RMP were adopted. NOAA proposes to reward itself for failing to comply with NEPA in 2001 

by using the conditions resulting from that failure to imply that the new proposed action “most 

closely approximates” current environmental conditions, suggesting the least impacts. It is 

inappropriate and unfairly biased in favor of the RMP for NMFS to now use that same RMP 

harvest regime as the appropriate baseline for the DEIS. 

The 2001 RMP-determination was the first take-authorization NOAA had awarded for harvestrelated impacts to PS chinook since the ESU had been listed as Threatened in 1999, representing 

and suggesting significant reevaluation and modification of then-current “harvest management 

practices and baseline environmental conditions.” Using the baseline proposed in the DEIS 

leaves still-unexamined the potentially significant changes in environmental impacts that resulted 

from NOAA’s inappropriate 2001 determination. The harvest regime proposed by the RMP is a 

matter of controversy, especially as regards the conservation and recovery of PS chinook; it is at 

best premature to employ it as a baseline to argue the Preferred Alternative would effect no 

change in the environmental status quo. Besides leaving the actual relevant changes in 

environmental impacts unexamined, this places an unfair burden on any other alternative by 

characterizing such an alternative as one that would endeavor to alter the status quo. 

The language and tone of the DEIS overall suggest an attempt to justify the co-managers’ RMP 

for chinook harvest, rather than present a clear and balanced overview of several alternative 

approaches to the management of harvest-related impacts on the ESA-listed Puget Sound 

chinook salmon ESU and its component populations. For example, page-i of the Executive 

Summary states “The Resource Management Plan also includes implementation, monitoring, and 

evaluation procedures designed to ensure that fisheries are consistent with the objectives of the 

Resource Management Plan for conservation and use.” Such statements are inappropriately 

presumptive and favorable to the Preferred Alternative. Moreover, this statement is unsupported 

by a fair and critical review of the harvest RMP, which will be discussed below. 

I-2. Failure to Justify the Several Purposes and Needs; Failure to Consider Potential Inherent 

Incompatibilities among Some Purposes and Needs: Pages i and ii of the Executive Summary list 

eight (8) constraints that the proposed action must satisfy. No justification for this suite of 
4

constraints is provided, yet this assertion (viz., that all of these constraints must be satisfied) is 

crucial to the argument in support of the Preferred Alternative. 

In addition, it is simply assumed that all eight constraints are mutually compatible, an 

assumption that is far from obvious. For example, among the constraints are the following: 

“Provides equitable sharing of harvest opportunity among tribes, and among treaty and nontreaty fishers pursuant to U.S. v Washington and U.S. v. Oregon; “Manages risk associated with 

abundance estimation, population dynamics, and management implementation”; and “Optimizes 

harvest of abundant Puget Sound salmon ... while protecting weaker commingled chinook 

stocks”. Some argument is required to even make plausible the claim that management of the 

risks mentioned and protection of “weaker commingled chinook stocks” in mixed stock 

(including mixed species) fisheries is possible in conjunction with optimal harvest of other 

salmon stocks and with complying with the sharing of opportunity required under U.S. v 

Washington and U.S. v. Oregon. (It is certainly not clearly supported that the RMP successfully 

reconciles this difficult and contradictory standard.) 

Further, it is not at all obvious that such constraints have equal weight when devising a harvest 

management regime capable of satisfying ESA concerns. Clearly, any such list is likely to 

require some degree of prioritization among the components of the list. If the DEIS asserts such 

a list of constraints it should also prioritize them. The DEIS is remiss in failing to do this. 

The DEIS attempts to argue that among the Alternatives considered, only the Preferred 

Alternative satisfies the purpose and need as characterized by the eight conditions. If true, this 

would seem to be inappropriate. Is the assertion of the DEIS that ONLY the preferred 

alternative, of all other imaginable alternatives, is capable of meeting the purported purpose and 

need? There are none more expensive, more complicated, less efficient? Surely, the purpose and 

“need” must be capable of being characterized more generally and the Alternatves described in 

such a way that they can be understood (and subsequently evaluated) as different ways in which 

and different degrees to which the basic purpose can be fulfilled. Hence, we argue that the DEIS 

has failed to provide a properly unbiased description of the purpose and need for the 

contemplated harvest action and has therefore failed to provide an appropriate context in which 

the Alternatives can be fairly considered and evaluated. 

I-3. Biased Consideration and Arbitrary Dismissal of Alternatives Proposed in Scoping: In its 

specification of “criteria applied in narrowing the range of alternatives included”(page 2-2), the 

DEIS employs the description of the program purpose and need -- characterized by the eight 

constraining conditions described in Section I above – to arbitrarily dismiss reasonable 

alternatives presented during scoping. 

A tribal-only fisheries alternative was presented during scoping. This alternative would “provide 

the 4(d) Rule take limitation on harvest activities only for treaty tribal fishing, would estimate the 

level of tribal fisheries required to satisfy federal trust responsibilities to the Puget Sound treaty 

tribes, and would configure those fisheries for all salmon species” (p. 2-2). 

Such an alternative would clearly satisfy NMFS trust responsibilities to Puget Sound Treaty 

Tribes and would generally be expected to result in both a reduced overall level of harvest-
5

impacts to Puget Sound populations of the listed chinook ESU and to a reduction in some of the 

impacts arising from mixed stock fisheries in marine waters. It would also require a detailed 

estimation of the level and distribution of hatchery production necessary to satisfy such a fishery. 

The DEIS appears to place a great deal of weight on NOAA’s trust responsibilities as a 

constraint on acceptable alternatives while at the same time arguing that the additional levels of 

fishing impacts permitted under the Preferred Alternative are consistent with the conservation 

and recovery of the listed chinook ESU. Describing and evaluating a tribal-only alternative in 

detail would appear to be a useful exercise that would provide a valuable contrast with the 

Preferred Alternative. This would enable the public to clearly understand the level of fishing that 

NMFS believes is required to satisfy trust responsibilities and to understand the additional levels 

of harvest and additional levels of impact that arise from satisfying the other features of the 

alleged purpose and need that require non-tribal harvest. The DEIS steadfastly refuses to do this, 

resorting to an arbitrary dismissal of the suggested alternative. 

This alternative is not consistent with the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. Since 

the purpose is to put in place a resource management plan under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule 

(i.e., a joint state-tribal plan), it would not be reasonable to expect that the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound tribes would put forward a joint 

plan under Limit 6 that would include no provision for non-tribal fishing. A fishery plan 

involving tribal-only fisheries would reasonably be expected to be provided to NMFS for 

evaluation under the Tribal 4(d) Rule. (2-2) 

This line of reasoning is entirely unconvincing, arbitrary and capricious. NOAA should act on its 

responsibilities under the ESA and NEPA to thoroughly analyze and influence the technical and 

biological elements of resource-management proposals that could potentially impact the status 

and recovery of PS chinook. Instead, the DEIS attempts to employ rhetorical and legalistic 

acrobatics to suggest that NOAA has met some bare-minimum interpretation of its responsibility. 

The dismissal of this alternative is also not compelling on its face. 

There is no organic reason why the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 

cannot or would not participate in developing such a plan on behalf of the co-managers (and thus 

submit it under Limit 6) in order to discharge its over-arching (Washington-State) constitutional 

responsibility to manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state for the posterity of the 

citizens of the state. There is no reason for believing a priori that a tribal-only fisheries plan 

might not be the preferred alternative on the part of a reasonably-responsible WDFW when 

balancing conservation, legal, and equity concerns with respect to the treaty tribes. 

The DEIS appears to suggest that WDFW represents only one narrow interest group of 

consumptive users of the fishery resource – non-tribal commercial and sport anglers – and uses 

that unsupported suggestion to label WDFW participation in such a plan “unreasonable. ” Even 

if it were true that WDFW represented only harvest-fishers, the department still would certainly 

consider participating in a tribal-only RMP if for no other reason than to reconcile potential 

forgone-opportunity issues that have been matters of controversy between the co-managers in the 

past. But this is an entirely inappropriate view of WDFW and of its legal responsibilities with 

regard to the fishery and aquatic resources of the Washington. 
6

More importantly perhaps, NOAA Fisheries surely has equal if not greater obligations, and there 

is no reason that NMFS might not recognize that a treaty-only fishery is required and even may 

be the most equitable under circumstances in which ESA-listing of Puget Sound salmon ESUs 

was warranted. It is neither at all clear to this review that NOAA has any particular obligation to 

accept or reject alternatives proposed in scoping only as a matter of whole cloth. It seems 

reasonable to assume that NOAA Fisheries retains some discretion in deleting or adding 

elements to scoping proposals in order to shape and analyze reasonable and potentially valuable 

alternatives. It would not seem a huge leap for NOAA to have fashioned some variation of this 

alternative that might have appeared to it more plausible, even under its torturously rigid 

interpretation of the 4(d) Rule. For instance, an alternative that considered tribal only mixedstock fisheries combined with terminal-area tribal and recreational non-tribal fisheries would 

certainly appear to satisfy the standards for Purposes and Needs at least as well as the Preferred 

Alternative, would likely provide valuable contextual information for evaluating the relative 

environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative, and would appear to require jointparticipation of the co-managers in applying for take authorization. 

In its discussion of Alternative 4, NOAA argues that before considering the implementation of 

an alternative precluding tribal fishing, it is constrained by several standards related to its Trust 

Responsibilities, including that “reasonable regulation of non-Indian activities” has not been 

considered first. This would appear to argue for an evaluation of some form of tribal-only or 

nontribal-restricted fishery as a more reasonable alternative to the proposed action, but NOAA 

games the 4(d) Rule to avoid having to make even that analysis. Finally, it should be noted that 

the likely desires or inclinations of take-authorization applicants may not be entirely relevant in 

this context, certainly not controlling. The co-managers appear to be disinclined to consider any 

alternative significantly different from the RMP, and it’s unlikely they would jointly submit a 

significantly different plan. Doesn’t that make analyses of Alternatives 2 and 3 as 

“unreasonable” as an alternative similar to the tribal-only alternative proposed in scoping? 

 

A No Hatchery Augmentation alternative was also suggested during public comment. This is 

dismissed out of hand by the authors of the DEIS for reasons that are both arbitrary and 

confused. The DEIS argues the following: 

A no-hatchery augmentation alternative would assume that hatchery augmentation 

programs and the fish produced from those programs do not exist. It has been excluded 

from further detailed analysis because it is not reasonable or practical. Even if the 

hatchery programs were discontinued in 2004, substantial numbers of hatchery fish from 

previous hatchery releases will return to Puget Sound in 2004 and over the next several 

years. It is not reasonable to expect that the co-managers would develop a resource 

management plan that did not provide for harvest of these hatchery fish, particularly since 

many of these fish were produced specifically for harvest. This alternative is also 

technically infeasible to assess with current tools and available data, since it is not yet 

possible to distinguish returning hatchery adults from wild adults for many Puget Sound 

chinook salmon populations. (2-3) 
7

It is clearly uncharitable in the extreme to interpret a no-hatchery augmentation alternative as 

assuming or requiring the magical, instantaneous elimination of all hatchery fish of all ages and 

stages of development from the waters of Puget Sound and the Pacific Coast. It is incumbent 

upon NMFS under NEPA to provide a realistic and charitable interpretation of an otherwise 

reasonable alternative proposed by the public, not create a strawman caricature that is then 

ridiculed. 

Absent such a principle of charity there is no reasonable way for the interested general public to 

propose alternatives for serious consideration. Nor does such a lack of charity further the aims 

and purposes of NEPA that a consideration of environmental impacts provide a reasonable 

spectrum of alternative ways that might succeed in meeting the broad purposes of a proposed 

action while minimizing or eliminating undesirable collateral impacts. A range of alternatives 

should be fully and fairly assessed – even if those alternatives only partially meet the purpose 

and need – in order to provide a useful evaluation of the relative environmental impact from 

meeting the need, and determine not only the best balance between environmental conservation 

and meeting the need, but the relative value of meeting the need as now conceived. An 

examination of the relative impacts of alternatives that partially meet the need will be valuable in 

identifying the cost society at large or even proponents are willing to incur to meet particular, 

often subjective, “needs.” 

Certainly, a reasonable description can be provided for the elimination of chinook hatchery 

production in Puget Sound and Hood Canal and for the attendant development of a transitional 

fishery regime that would direct harvest at the remaining returning hatchery adults. It would 

seem that NOAA is required under NEPA to provide such a description. 

NOAA proceeds to assert that the alternative is technically infeasible to assess due to the 

imperfect ability to distinguish returning adult hatchery chinook from natural-origin chinook. 

The statement is a non sequiteur. If hatchery fish are not produced (the case under the proposed 

alternative here at issue) there is no issue as to whether hatchery fish can or cannot be 

distinguished. Under a charitable reading of the proposal in which a transitional harvest regime 

would be established to harvest the remaining returning cohorts of hatchery chinook, NOAA’s 

assertion is patently false in as much as all returning adult Puget Sound and Hood Canal hatchery 

chinook beginning with the current year (2004) are expected to be 100% marked so as to be 

entirely distinguishable from natural-origin adults. 

Consequently, the authors of the DEIS here simply fail to establish the claim that such an 

alternative “is not reasonable or practicable”. 

The passage from page 2-3 quoted above continues as follows: 

Finally, most of the reasons suggested for including this alternative (broodstock take, prey 

competition, loss of genetic fitness, and migration barriers) are not affected by fishery 

activities. An analysis of harvest activities will only provide information about the change in 

escapement, catch and exploitation rate, and would not provide the information necessary to 

address the reasons given for the request. These issues would be more appropriately 

addressed in a National Environmental Policy Act analysis of proposed hatchery operations, 
8

if necessary. A pending National Environmental Policy Act review is currently under 

development for the Puget Sound salmon hatchery program. Fishery-related hatchery issues, 

such as straying and possible over-fishing, are addressed in the alternatives evaluated in this 

Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, it is not necessary to develop and analyze an 

additional alternative in order to evaluate them. (2-3). 

It is simply false that harvest activities do not affect either broodstock take or genetic fitness of 

hatchery or wild chinook populations. For example, the Independent Science Advisory Board -- 

an independent scientific panel that is advisory to NMFS and to the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council for fishery management issues in the Columbia River Basin – in its 

extensive review of hatchery supplementation (“Review of Salmon and Steelhead 

Supplementation”, ISAB 2003-03; June 4, 2003) presented and discussed at length a population 

model for integrated hatchery-natural-spawning populations that evaluates the fitness impacts on 

wild populations of hatchery operations that involve different levels of spawning of hatchery fish 

in the wild and incorporation of natural-origin spawners into the hatchery broodstock. Among 

the factors that affect the impact of hatchery operations on the fitness of naturally-spawning 

populations are the harvest rates on the natural-origin fish as a fraction of the harvest rate on the 

hatchery-produced fish. (ISAB 2003-03, Section 4, pp. 40 – 46. See also, Goodman 2003 and 

Goodman 2004, in review for a more extended and technical presentation of the model). 

In addition, the distribution of harvest mortality not only affects escapement but, in the case of 

chinook salmon, can also affect the age-composition of the escapement. The age composition of 

spawning adults is an extremely important feature of chinook populations that is directly relevant 

to the survival and recovery of listed chinook that can be directly affected by harvest. Harvest 

impacts on the number and the age composition of spawning chinook and on the proportion of 

naturally spawning fish that are of direct hatchery origin (F1 hatchery fish) are directly relevant 

to genetic fitness issues and are direct impacts of hatchery production for harvest augmentation. 

Analysis of harvest actions are, for this reason alone, directly relevant to the evaluation of the 

proposed no-hatchery augmentation alternative. 

In the remainder of the quoted passage under discussion the DEIS implausibly asserts that the 

kinds of concerns that might motivate (and justify) consideration of the no-hatchery alternative 

are not appropriate concerns for a harvest EIS but rather for a review of “proposed hatchery 

operations, if necessary.” This makes little sense in view of NMFS admission in this very same 

passage that “many of these fish were produced specifically for harvest.” As we note below in 

our discussion of the Economic Impacts Analysis, hatchery production in Puget Sound and Hood 

Canal is nearly entirely for the subsidization (augmentation) of harvest. It is principally harvest 

directed at hatchery stocks of chum, coho, and non-listed chinook in Puget Sound and Hood 

Canal that have direct impacts on the listed chinook populations for which Limit 6 take 

exemptions are being sought by the Preferred Alternative that has occasioned this DEIS. Put 

simply, hatchery production is a “fishery activity.” 

Consideration of hatchery practices and their impacts on populations of the listed chinook ESU 

are directly relevant to the determination of the appropriate kind of harvest management plan, if 

any, that is compatible with the preservation and recovery of the ESU. Several scientific reviews 

and independent review panels have made this point and have urged NMFS to consider 
9

integrated recovery measures that consider both hatchery and harvest practices in conjunction 

with habitat protection and restoration. In particular, the Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel 

– an independent review expert body organized by the US National Academy of Sciences at 

NMFS request to oversee the quality of the science employed by the regional Technical 

Recovery Teams (TRT), including the Puget Sound TRT – has explicitly recommended this to 

the Puget Sound TRT and NMFS, state, and tribal harvest managers (RSRP 2001). 

Further, NOAA attempts to use assertions about the effects and impacts of various Puget Sound 

hatchery programs to justify conclusions drawn in its Proposed Evaluation and Determination of 

the RMP (the Proposed Action), even though, as the DEIS correctly notes, NOAA has not 

completed either its NEPA or ESA evaluation of those programs. NOAA’s Sustainable Fisheries 

Division cannot have it both ways; it cannot assert determinations regarding hatchery impacts it 

considers supportive of its arguments and then reject responsibility for evaluating the ecological, 

social, and economic impacts of those hatchery programs. Consequently, the casual dismissal of 

the suggested no-hatchery augmentation alternative is unconvincing as well as arbitrary and 

capricious. 

I-4. Inadequate Range of Alternatives Considered in Detail: The DEIS considers four (4) 

alternatives in some detail (DEIS Section 2). These include the co-managers’ RMP (the Preferred 

Alternative), two escapement goal management alternatives, and a complete no-chinook harvest 

alternative. This fails to provide an appropriate contrast among the considered alternatives with 

regard to the maximum harvest impacts that a harvest management regime might embrace. 

Clearly, many of the purely harvest-oriented elements of the purpose and need as it is 

characterized by the DEIS (e.g., “optimization of harvest of abundant Puget Sound salmon 

stocks”, “equitable sharing of harvest opportunity among tribes, and among treaty and non-treaty 

fishers pursuant to U.S. v Washington and U.S. v. Oregon”) could be satisfied by even greater 

levels of harvest than would generally be provided by the RMP. It is important to consider one or 

more such alternatives, if for no other reason than to clearly delineate where – in the opinion of 

the authors of the DEIS – the line is crossed with regard to satisfying ESA concerns for listed 

Puget Sound chinook. 

It is at the least somewhat odd that the Preferred Alternative is the most harvest-intensive of the 

alternatives considered and the most risk-prone with respect to impacts on the survival and 

recovery of the listed ESU and its component populations. This certainly suggest that the 

Preferred Alternative provides no middle ground with respect to the kinds of risks and benefits 

that are associated with mixed stock fisheries harvest regimes affecting ESA-listed stocks. 

The DEIS frankly admits that the Preferred Alternative (take-authorization of the 2004 RMP) is 

not the “Environmentally Preferable Alternative.” However, NOAA justifies its choice by 

identifying Alternative 4 (no harvest) as the Environmentally Preferable Alternative and 

dismissing it as incompatible with the Purposes and Needs, and describes at some length the 

discretion is reserves for choosing a Preferred Alternative at odds with the most Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative. Leave aside for the moment that the DEIS makes no very compelling 

case that the Preferred Alternative meets all the standards of Purpose and Need significantly 

more successfully that the Environmentally Preferable Alternative. Based on the standards that 

would identify Alternative 4 as the Environmentally Preferable Alternative, all the alternatives 
10

analyzed in the DEIS would be environmentally preferable to the Preferred Alternative. Some 

discussion would seem warranted on the discretion available to NOAA in choosing a Preferred 

Alternative that is the least environmentally preferable of every alternative analyzed. 

I-5. Inadequate Consideration of the Preferred Alternative’s Environmental Impacts: The 

analysis of the Preferred Alternative fails to adequately consider or evaluate its full 

environmental impacts, particularly the impacts of the RMP on Threatened Puget Sound 

chinook. The description of the harvest regime proposed in the RMP is often confusing and 

misleading. Some of these issues are addressed in the discussions of other key issues evaluated in 

this review. Washington Trout has already submitted substantive comments to NOAA Fisheries 

detailing our concerns regarding NOAA Fisheries’ Proposed Evaluation and Pending 

Determination on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), Pursuant to the Salmon and Steelhead 

4(d) Rule (PEPD), the technical “Proposed Action” being evaluated in the DEIS at issue. That 

review, COMMENTS ON NOAA FISHERIES; SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES DIVISION Proposed 

Evaluation of and Pending Determination on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), Pursuant to 

the Salmon and Steelhead 4(d) Rule (May 17 2004, Washington Trout), is attached as an 

Appendix to these Comments and are herein incorporated by reference and should be evaluated 

as part of Washington Trout’s submitted comments on the DEIS. 

I-6. Inadequate Description of the Alternatives: Alternative 2 is inadequately characterized in 

such a way as to bias its evaluation. It is inappropriate, for example, to fail to employ estimation 

of management imprecision in modeling projected escapements under all of the Alternatives 

except Alternative 4, the No Harvest alternative. While there are good theoretical reasons for 

adopting escapement-goal-based harvest management regimes under assumptions of perfect 

management in which no escapement in excess of escapement goals would occur (pure threshold 

harvesting) or in which only a specific proportion of the excess of potential escapement would be 

harvest (proportional threshold harvesting) (cf., Lande et al. 1995 and 1997), in practice such 

perfect implementation is not expected to occur. Consequently, harvest management regimes 

must be adopted after taking into account the expectation that harvest regimes in any particular 

year/season will not be perfectly implemented so as to achieve exactly the preseason estimate of 

total escapement. Consideration of such imprecision affects both the choice of nominal 

escapement target levels and modeled projections of the range and distribution of escapements 

likely to be achieved over a period during which a particular management plan is to be 

implemented. 

By choosing to ignore these real-world complications by making the “simplifying” assumption 

that harvest management perfectly achieves the escapement targets in all years when population 

abundance is expected to exceed the escapement target, the contrast between Alternatives 2 and 

3 on the one hand and the Preferred Alternative on the other with respect to conservation of 

populations of the listed ESU is considerably weakened. This further biases the presentation of 

Alternatives in favor of the Preferred Alternative. 

The discussion of Alternative 2 (Escapement goal management at the management unit level 

with no restriction on where fisheries may take place) is further unfairly simplified by the 

assumption that under the six-year period of implementation considered in the DEIS projected 

abundances are expected to be such as to permit principally terminal area (freshwater) fisheries 
11

with only limited fisheries in mixed stock marine areas. The DEIS fails to consider the 

development and employment of modified or alternative fishing gears – such as “tangle nets” 

and reduced set times or net lengths for purse seines – that may selectively harvest target species 

and stocks and non-lethally release non-targeted chinook stocks. 

Failure to consider selective fishing gears also biases the description of Alternative 3 

(Escapement goal management at the individual population level with terminal fisheries only), 

since in order for fisheries to take place under this alternative in estuaries and lower mainstem 

rivers that have multiple local populations of listed chinook (such as the Skagit and Snohomish 

Rivers), selective fishing gears would have to be employed. In fact, the motivation for this 

alternative is the fact that this is the only approach that permits risk-averse escapement goal 

management to be implemented in the absence of the employment of selective fishing gears. 

The descriptions and analyses of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are also deficient in failing to 

adequately describe and evaluate alternative uses of resources that might be expected to result 

from the adoption of a harvest management regime that is less resource intensive than the 

Preferred Alternative and in failing to estimate the benefits resulting from these alternative uses. 

For example, monitoring and enforcement activities would be shifted and/or reduced under each 

of these alternatives in comparison to the Preferred Alternative. This will likely result in more 

efficient employment of human and financial resources and resulting cost savings will enable the 

co-managers to invest in alternative actions, including those that have conservation benefits for 

listed chinook. 

II. Incomplete and Inadequate Evaluation of Economic Impacts 

Section 3.6 of the DEIS “describes current conditions and recent trends in economic activity and 

value associated with commercial and sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound” (p. 

3-125). Section 4.6 describes “the effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on salmon 

commercial fisheries, salmon sports fisheries, and regional economies in the Puget Sound area. 

Economic impact indicators include sales by commercial salmon harvesters and processors, sales 

by businesses to sport fishing anglers, net economic values to commercial harvesters and 

processors, angler days, net economic values to sport anglers, regional employment and personal 

income levels” (page 4-129). 

The descriptions of economic impacts under each of the alternatives are confined entirely to net 

economic benefits, principally net incomes. However, none of the descriptions or analyses 

contain any presentation of the costs of producing the fish harvested or the costs associated with 

managing the fisheries. Most important among these costs are the costs associated with the Puget 

Sound (including Hood Canal) hatchery facilities that subsidize a considerable proportion of the 

annual harvest of chum, coho and (non-listed) chinook salmon in Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is simply improper to describe the various kinds of income reported 

in these sections to result from commercial and sport fisheries as net income without a proper 

accounting of gross economic returns and associated costs of producing the harvested products 

and of engaging in the fishing and fishing-related activities. 

Consideration of the costs of producing the fish targeted for harvest is also necessary in order for 

the opportunity costs associated with those investments to be calculated and compared across the 
12

alternatives to be evaluated. The complex of hatchery programs and facilities in Puget Sound and 

Hood Canal is huge by any standard and extremely costly to operate. This complex represents a 

huge subsidy to the commercial and sport fishing communities. Any putative calculation of the 

net economic benefit arising from Puget Sound fishing activities is incomplete and seriously 

misleading if the costs of hatchery production are ignored as they are in the DEIS. This is a 

fundamental violation of NEPA standards and requirements. 

Consideration of the costs of producing hatchery fish for harvest is also necessary to evaluate the 

opportunities for alternative investment in activities that promote the conservation and 

productivity of naturally-produced (including ESA-listed) salmon populations in Puget Sound 

and Hood Canal that may be made with monies that may be made available by reductions in 

Puget Sound and Hood Canal hatchery programs as a result of the adoption of alternative other 

than the Preferred Alternative. Such opportunities are legitimate potential benefits of the 

alternatives in comparison to the Preferred Alternatives. By failing to consider the costs of 

hatchery production associated with the status quo and, hence, with the Preferred Alternative, the 

economic analyses in sections 3 and 4 fail to properly consider and evaluate the full economic 

benefits that may reasonably be associated with one or more of the alternatives. 

For these reasons alone, the DEIS fails to comply with NEPA requirements and should be 

withdrawn. 

CONCLUSION 

In view of considerable deficiencies and omissions this review has identified in the DEIS, 

Washington Trout finds the document unacceptable and out of compliance with NEPA 

standards. The DEIS should undergo significant revision before it can be finalized. The 

dismissals of several potential alternatives to the Proposed Action that were proposed in scoping 

appear to be arbitrary. The DEIS fails to consider and analyze the alternatives to the Preferred 

Alternative in sufficient detail and without bias. The analysis of the Preferred Alternative fails to 

adequately consider or evaluate its full environmental impacts, particularly the impacts of the 

RMP on Threatened Puget Sound chinook. The economic analyses and the evaluation of the 

affected environments in the DEIS fail to include any evaluation of the full economic, social, and 

environmental costs of chinook harvest under each of the Alternatives. 

The DEIS fails to make a compelling extra-biological case for accepting potentially unacceptable 

levels of risk in the Preferred Alternative. NOAA’s various and sometimes conflicting 

responsibilities concerning Puget Sound chinook must be reconciled, but that reconciliation does 

not always or automatically require the imposition of extra or undue risk on the PS chinook ESU. 

Washington Trout respectfully recommends that NOAA Fisheries substantively revise the DEIS, 

requesting additional information and appropriate changes in the RMP from the co-managers 

before a final NEPA determination is developed. 

REFERENCES 

Goodman, Daniel. 2003. “Salmon supplementation: demography, evolution, and risk 

assessment”. Paper presented at American Fisheries Symposium on Propagated Fishes in 

Resource Management, Boise, Idaho, June 16, 2003. 
13

Goodman, Daniel. 2004. “Selection equilibrium for hatchery and wild spawning fitness in 

integrated breeding programs”. In Review.

Independent Science Advisory Board. 2003. “Review of Salmon and Steelhead 

Supplementation”. ISAB 2003-03. June 4, 2003. 

Lande, Russell, Brent-Erik Saether, and Steiner Engen. 1997. “Threshold harvesting for 

sustainability of fluctuating resources”. Ecology 78(5) 1341-1350. 

Lande, Russell, Steiner Engen, and Brent-Erik Saether.1995. “Opimtal harvesting of fluctuating 

populations with a risk of extinction.” American Naturalist 147: 728-745. 

Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel. 2002. Report of the meeting held August 27 – 29, 

2001. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, 

Washington. 18 pages. 

ATTACHMENTS

The following documents inform and supplement this review. They should be considered 

integral components of this review and evaluated and recorded accordingly. 

1. COMMENTS ON NOAA FISHERIES; SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES DIVISION Proposed 

Evaluation of and Pending Determination on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), 

Pursuant to the Salmon and Steelhead 4(d) Rule (May 17 2004, Washington Trout) 

2. Selected References (references cited in this review and in #1, but not attached, should also 

be considered and recorded as integral components of this review). 

a. ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION REVIEW - ECONOMICS ANALYSIS PHASE I: IEAB Task 

56, July, 2002. 

b. Independent Science Advisory Board (ISAB) 2003. Review of Salmon and Steelhead 

Supplementation. ISAB document number 2002 – 3. 

c. Lande, Russell, Bernt-Eric, Saether, and Steinar. Engen. 1997. Threshold Harvesting For 

Sustainability of Fluctuating Resources. Ecology 78(5): 1341-1350.

d. Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel. 2001. Report of the meeting held August 27 – 

29, 2001. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Seattle, Washington. 18 pages.

Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 53 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM WASHINGTON TROUT (WT) 

2 In addition to the comments to which NMFS responds below, Washington Trout also included a more 

3 technical set of comments (Washington Trout Part 2. Proposed Alternative) which were identical to 

4 those submitted by Mr. Sam Wright, addressed previously in this FEIS. Therefore the reader is referred 

5 to the Response to Comments Received from Sam Wright (SW). 

6 WT-1 

7 NMFS agrees that Washington Trout's complaint challenging NMFS’ 2001 determination under the 

8 4(d) rule on the Puget Sound harvest Resource Management Plan (RMP) was based in part on its 

9 assertion that NMFS’ determination violated NEPA (Washington Trout v. Lohn, No. C01-1863R 

10 (W.D. Wash.)). NMFS and Washington Trout settled that case by NMFS’ agreement to prepare an EIS 

11 on its 2004 RMP determination. The parties subsequently agreed to give NMFS one additional year to 

12 complete this EIS. 

13 WT-2 

14 According to CEQ Regulations, “The EIS shall succinctly describe the environment of the areas 

15 affected or created by the alternatives under consideration” (40 CFR 1502.15). The alternatives under 

16 consideration are relevant to implementation of the 2005–2009 Resource Management Plan, not the 

17 2001 Resource Management Plan. To provide a meaningful and accurate analysis of environmental 

18 impacts resulting from the Proposed Action, the EIS must first describe the current environmental 

19 conditions that would potentially be altered. Describing historical conditions that have since changed 

20 would not provide an appropriate baseline from which to compare anticipated future changes. While a 

21 discussion of historical, 2001 conditions may provide background information, it would do little to 

22 assist with an analysis of incremental changes expected to occur between current conditions and future 

23 conditions of the Affected Environment under the Proposed Action or any of the alternatives. 

24 WT-3 

25 See response to comment WT-2. 

26 WT-4 

27 Comment noted, but NMFS respectfully disagrees. NMFS see this as a statement of fact in that it 

28 describes what the measures are intended to do as defined by the Resource Management Plan. It is not 

29 meant to infer that this will be accomplished, since that is the subject of NMFS’ evaluation of the 

30 Proposed Action (the Resource Management Plan), or to infer that the implementation, monitoring and 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 54 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 evaluation procedures of the other alternatives are not designed to ensure fisheries managed under 

2 those alternatives would be consistent with the same objectives for conservation and use. 

3 WT-5 

4 These constraints are not meant to be quantitative and comparable objectives for implementing the 

5 Purpose and Need. Rather, they provide parameters from which the implementation of the Proposed 

6 Action must occur. NMFS believes that “risks” can be managed in a manner that “optimizes” 

7 abundance, protects weaker stocks and provides “equitable” harvest sharing because there are various 

8 ways to manage a fishery to ensure these outcomes. 

9 WT-6 

10 CEQ Regulations do not require that the components of the Purpose and Need be prioritized. The list 

11 provides constraints and not objectives that must be met. CEQ Regulations require only that “the [EIS] 

12 shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding...”(40 CFR 

13 1502.13). 

14 WT-7 

15 It is unclear from this comment in which section of the DEIS the commentor finds this argument. The 

16 DEIS does not argue that only the Preferred Alternative meets the Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

17 Action. With one exception, any of the alternatives would meet the Purpose and Need, which is the 

18 basis for determining which alternatives to analyze in an EIS. The DEIS discloses that Alternative 4 

19 would not meet the Purpose and Need and the reasons why it would not. However, inclusion of 

20 Alternative 4 in the analysis was required as part of a settlement agreement with the commentor 

21 (Washington Trout) as described in DEIS Subsection 2.3, Alternatives considered in Detail. 

22 WT-8 

23 See response to comment EPA-1. 

24 WT-9 

25 NMFS considered the tribal-only fisheries alternative but eliminated it from detailed study for the 

26 reasons described in DEIS Subsection 2.2.1, Tribal-Only Fisheries. 

27 WT-10 

28 NMFS does place high importance on its trust responsibilities to the tribes. NMFS does not agree, as 

29 the commentor seems to imply, that the fishing impacts expected under the Preferred Alternative are 

30 above those that would be consistent with its trust responsibility. DEIS Subsection 4.4, Tribal Treaty 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 55 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Rights and Trust Responsibility, discusses each alternative relative to tribal treaty rights and NMFS’ 

2 trust responsibility. The DEIS concluded that “the Proposed Action [Preferred Alternative] was 

3 predicted to be consistent with the federal trust responsibility to protect and provide tribal fishing 

4 opportunities.” NEPA requires identification of reasonable alternatives that are consistent with the 

5 purposes and needs of the Proposed Action. In this case, those include the protection of tribal treaty 

6 rights and NMFS’ trust responsibilities, and meeting ESA criteria as defined by Limit 6 of the 4(d) 

7 Rule. NEPA does not require evaluation of alternatives for the sole purpose of defining what fishing 

8 level is required to satisfy NMFS’ trust responsibilities, or to evaluate the value of one element of the 

9 Purpose and Need against another. See also response to comment WT-21. 

10 WT-11 

11 Comment noted, but NMFS respectfully disagrees and finds the original reasons for eliminating the 

12 alternative from detailed study are still relevant (see Subsection 2.2.1 of the DEIS). See also response 

13 to WT-10. 

14 WT-12 

15 WDFW would not be prevented from collaborating with the tribes in the development of a tribal-only 

16 fishery proposal to provide to NMFS for consideration under the 4(d) Rule (personal communication 

17 with Teresa Scott, WDFW, Natural Resources Policy Analyst, September 2, 2004). However, 

18 providing a tribal-only proposal under Limit 6 would not be consistent with elements of the stated 

19 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action: 1) provides for tribal and non-tribal fishing opportunity co20 managed under the jurisdiction of U.S. v. Washington, and 2) provide equitable sharing of harvest 

21 opportunity among tribes, and among treaty and non-treaty fishers pursuant to U.S. v. Washington and 

22 U.S. v. Oregon. In other words, it would not be consistent with the Purpose and Need for the 

23 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound tribes to put forward a joint plan 

24 under Limit 6 that would include no provision for non-tribal fishing. A fishery plan involving tribal25 only fisheries would reasonably be expected to be provided to NMFS for evaluation under the Tribal 

26 4(d) Rule. 

27 Also response to comment WT-16. 

28 WT-13 

29 See response to comment WT-12. 

30 WT-14 

31 See response to comment WT-12. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 56 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 WT-15 

2 Under NEPA, the alternatives are chosen based on the Purpose and Needs of the Proposed Action as 

3 described in DEIS Subsection 1.3. NMFS’ primary mandates are to 1) carry out its trust 

4 responsibilities; 2) apply the Endangered Species Act; and, 3) provide for sustainable fisheries and 

5 comply with the various federal laws and executive orders described in DEIS Appendix F. These 

6 mandates are not mutually exclusive. NMFS sees no conflict between its primary mandates and the 

7 Purpose and Needs for the Proposed Action, or with the range of alternatives in the DEIS (with the 

8 exception of Alternative 4; see discussion in DEIS Subsection 2.3, Alternatives considered in Detail). 

9 WT-16 

10 As described originally by the commentor during public scoping for the EIS in August 2003, the tribal11 only alternative would provide the 4(d) Rule take limitation on harvest activities only for treaty tribal 

12 fishing, would estimate the level of tribal fisheries required to satisfy federal trust responsibilities to the 

13 Puget Sound treaty tribes, and would configure those fisheries for all salmon species. Non-tribal 

14 fisheries were not included in the description of the alternative (Washington Trout 2003). NMFS is 

15 confused by this comment because it is inconsistent with the description of the alternative provided by 

16 the commentor in August 2003, and with comments previously submitted by the commentor(see 

17 responses to comments WT-10, WT-11, and WT-15). Also see responses to comments SW-31 and 

18 WT-19. 

19 The range of alternatives considered by NMFS emphasized types of management frameworks that 

20 would best achieve the conservation objectives and maximize use of the resource. Salmon abundance is 

21 highly variable from year to year, both among chinook salmon populations and other salmon species, 

22 requiring managers to formulate fisheries to respond to the population abundance conditions particular 

23 to that year. Therefore, the alternatives provide several harvest management frameworks within which 

24 the co-managers would develop their annual action-specific fishing regimes to protect Puget Sound 

25 chinook salmon and meet other management objectives. Except as needed to comply with the 

26 settlement agreement reached in Washington Trout v. Lohn, the alternatives considered did not include 

27 such specific details of an annual fishing regime as where and when fisheries occur; what gear will be 

28 used; or how harvest will be allocated among gears, areas or fishermen. 

29 The commentor has now suggested a new alternative that would combine a tribal-only pre-terminal 

30 fishery with tribal/recreational non-tribal terminal fishery alternative. Unfortunately, not enough details 

31 are provided by the commentor to evaluate this alternative. Modelers need a description of key 

32 management criteria before they can shape the model runs and analyze an alternative; e.g., the type of 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 57 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 management objectives, the resolution of management (population or management unit), the fishing 

2 response to low abundance. The commentor’s proposal is simply a tribal and non-tribal fishing plan, 

3 and does not describe any conditions or limitations to fisheries or fishing impacts when low 

4 abundances would warrant additional protective measures. If the key management criteria/values from 

5 the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) or the fixed escapement goal approach (Alternative 2 or 3) were 

6 applied to this proposed tribal and non-tribal fishing plan, the end result on chinook salmon population 

7 status would be very similar to the outcomes in the original alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. For 

8 example, if it were based on fixed-goal management, the results would be very similar to Alternative 2 

9 or 3 because, as in those alternatives, the abundance for several management units would be 

10 insufficient to allow fishing in pre-terminal areas. Such management guidance was not provided by the 

11 commentor for this proposed alternative. 

12 Without elaboration on key management criteria pertaining to chinook salmon population status, the 

13 new proposal is, in essence, a redistribution of harvest between tribal and non-tribal users rather than a 

14 new type of conservation measure or management framework for Puget Sound chinook salmon. This 

15 stands in contrast to the alternatives that were included in the DEIS, where the guidance provided by 

16 the settlement agreement pursuant to Washington Trout v. Lohn made clear the difference in 

17 conservation approach to be applied for each alternative. 

18 WT-17 

19 The requirement for reasonable regulation of non-tribal activities as it relates to the discussion of 

20 Alternative 4 and the provisions of the Secretarial Order does not make consideration of the further 

21 restriction of non-tribal fisheries or even tribal-only fisheries a reasonable alternative to the Proposed 

22 Action considered in the DEIS. Alternative 4 would close all salmon and steelhead net fisheries that 

23 would take listed chinook salmon. The Secretarial Order provides that before further restricting tribal 

24 fisheries, as would occur under Alternative 4, NMFS must explore whether the necessary reductions 

25 could be achieved through reasonable restriction of non-tribal fishing activities. Such additional 

26 restriction of the non-tribal fishery would occur if NMFS concludes that the action as proposed would 

27 cause jeopardy to listed species; i.e., the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved by 

28 reasonable regulation of non-tribal activities and the restriction is reasonable and necessary for 

29 conservation of the species at issue. As discussed in DEIS Section 5, Identification of the 

30 Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternatives, NMFS’ evaluation of the Proposed 

31 Action (Alternative 1) concluded that it would not jeopardize listed Puget Sound chinook salmon 

32 (NMFS 2004). Therefore, further restrictions of either the tribal or non-tribal fisheries would not be 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 58 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 necessary for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. The original reasons cited in the DEIS (Subsection 2.2.1) 

2 for elimination of this alternative still apply. Also see responses to comments WT-10 and WT-15. 

3 WT-18 

4 NMFS cannot say what alternative Resource Management Plans the co-managers may or may not be 

5 inclined to consider. NMFS does not view a tribal-only alternative (as originally described; see DEIS 

6 Subsection 2.2.1) as a reasonable alternative. A tribal-only fishery alternative is not consistent with two 

7 elements of the Purpose and Need: 1) provides for tribal and non-tribal fishing opportunity co-managed 

8 under the jurisdiction of U.S. v. Washington; and 2) provide equitable sharing of harvest opportunity 

9 among tribes, and among treaty and non-treaty fishers pursuant to U.S. v. Washington and U.S. v. 

10 Oregon. NMFS considers a tribal-only alternative to be unreasonable because the State of Washington 

11 would not agree to it, as a co-manager of the Puget Sound fisheries under U.S. v. Washington and the 

12 Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, nor would it have any obligation or incentive to agree to 

13 tribal-only harvest, under the treaty rights allocation principles of U.S. v. Washington. That is why 

14 these provisions were explicitly included as elements of the Purpose and Need. Tribal-only fishing 

15 plans would more likely be submitted under the Tribal 4(d) Rule. 

16 The inclination on the part of the applicants to consider an alternative different from what they have 

17 proposed is not what makes an alternative unreasonable under NEPA. It is whether it meets the Purpose 

18 and Need of the Proposed Action, and whether it is feasible to implement, that determines whether it is 

19 a reasonable alternative to evaluate in the DEIS. 

20 WT-19 

21 In responding to comments or analyzing additional alternatives, NMFS must use the guidance provided 

22 to it and cannot assume a commentor meant something else. The request provided by Washington 

23 Trout to NMFS through public scoping was “Since the desire for harvest is the justification for 

24 hatchery operations, the impacts of hatchery operations should be evaluated in this EIS through the 

25 analysis of an alternative harvest regime that does not include hatchery augmentation”(Washington 

26 Trout 2002). The fact that, in practical terms, there would not be an instantaneous elimination of all 

27 hatchery fish from Puget Sound (the Pacific Coast is irrelevant since the proposed action affects only 

28 Puget Sound fisheries) was taken into account in NMFS’ original reasons for eliminating this 

29 suggestion from detailed analysis (see DEIS Subsection 2.2.2, No Hatchery Augmentation). There 

30 would not be a significant difference between a no-hatchery alternative and the Proposed Action for the 

31 duration of the Proposed Action (2005–2009). 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 59 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 WT-20 

2 Section 2 of the DEIS clearly states that the alternatives must fit the Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

3 Action. Section 1.3 describes each element of the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. These 

4 statements and descriptions are meant to provide the public and other federal agencies with the 

5 information needed to shape and suggest additional alternatives. 

6 WT-21 

7 While the analysis suggested in this comment may be informative for other purposes, it is not 

8 consistent with NEPA as applied to the assessment of the Proposed Action. NMFS agrees with the 

9 commentor that the EIS should “further the aims and purposes of NEPA that a consideration of 

10 environmental impacts provide a reasonable spectrum of alternative ways that might succeed in 

11 meeting the broad purposes of a proposed action while minimizing or eliminating undesirable collateral 

12 impacts... in order to provide a useful evaluation of the relative environmental impact from meeting 

13 the need, and determine....the best balance between environmental conservation and meeting the 

14 need....” The Purpose and Need is defined by the agency and applicants preparing to make the 

15 decision; in this case, NMFS and the co-managers. Section 2 of the DEIS describes the range of 

16 alternatives that would meet the purpose and need; Section 4 of the DEIS discusses the environmental 

17 impacts of each alternative; and Section 5 of the DEIS and the Record of Decision describe the basis of 

18 NMFS’ decision in terms of the balance between environmental conservation and resource use. It is 

19 unclear what is meant by “the relative value of meeting the need as now conceived,” as the purpose of 

20 the EIS is to make a decision that balances environmental conservation with other elements of the 

21 Purpose and Need (taking into account cultural and economic resources as well as biological). 

22 Alternatives that meet only a part of the full Purpose and Need are not reasonable in that they do not 

23 provide decision makers with the full range of information and a full and fair disclosure of the impacts 

24 of a range of reasonable alternatives designed to accomplish the agency’s goal, i.e.; to meet the Purpose 

25 and Need for the Proposed Action (CEQ Regulations §1508.23). Evaluation of such alternatives would 

26 result in the needless generation of paperwork and accumulation of extraneous background data, and 

27 would not emphasize those alternatives that would achieve the goal (CEQ Regulations §1500.1[c] and 

28 §1500.2[b]). However, NEPA does require that the EIS discuss the reasons why some alternatives were 

29 eliminated from detailed analysis (CEQ Regulations §1502.14). The no-hatchery alternative was 

30 considered but eliminated from further analysis for a variety of reasons. The reasons for the elimination 

31 of this alternative are described in DEIS Subsection 2.2.2. (Also see responses to comments NFS-9, 

32 WT-24 through 27.) 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 60 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 WT-22 

2 Although most Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon are currently mass-marked, some Puget Sound 

3 facilities will not have all ages of mass-marked chinook returning until 2008 at the earliest. The 

4 Proposed Action covers the transitional period that ends with 100 percent mass-marking of hatchery 

5 fish. NMFS agrees that the majority of returning Puget Sound and Hood Canal hatchery chinook will 

6 be mass-marked by 2004 so that they could be distinguished in future years. However, that information 

7 is not available for a sufficient number of Puget Sound chinook salmon populations to use to model and 

8 evaluate the Proposed Action or its alternatives at this time. That information is important to determine 

9 how many of the hatchery adults would have survived in order to remove them from the returning adult 

10 aggregate in order to model a no-hatchery alternative. 

11 WT-23 

12 The genetic impacts of varying levels of naturally-spawning hatchery chinook salmon on natural 

13 populations will be evaluated through NMFS on-going Puget Sound hatchery program EIS process. 

14 Effects of incorporation of natural-origin spawners into hatchery broodstocks on the genetic 

15 characteristics of hatchery populations, and on the abundance of donor natural populations, will also be 

16 evaluated in the hatchery EIS. These evaluations will account for expected variations in hatchery and 

17 natural-origin chinook salmon proportions, driven by natural environmental conditions, hatchery 

18 production levels proposed under the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, and by harvest rates levied by 

19 fisheries with which the hatchery programs are integrated. 

20 WT-24 

21 NMFS agrees that fishery activities might affect the number and age composition of spawning Puget 

22 Sound chinook salmon and the composition of the spawning population. These effects are discussed in 

23 DEIS Subsections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.5 and 4.3.7. It is not necessary to analyze a no-hatchery 

24 augmentation alternative to assess these fishery-related effects of the Proposed Action and its 

25 alternatives. NMFS is currently evaluating the effects of Puget Sound hatchery programs through a 

26 separate EIS. That EIS will also consider effects on harvest from the implementation of various Puget 

27 Sound hatchery production alternatives. See response to WT-23. 

28 WT-25 

29 Section 1502.16 of CEQ Regulations states that “The discussion [of environmental consequences] will 

30 include the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action [emphasis added], 

31 any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the 

32 relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 61 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be 

2 involved in the proposal should it be implemented.” In its request for a no-hatchery alternative during 

3 public scoping, Washington Trout stated “Hatchery operations hurt listed fish by taking them for 

4 broodstock, releasing hatchery fish that compete with and prey upon listed fish, causing loss of genetic 

5 fitness as a result of interbreeding, and physically blocking migration at certain hatchery locations. 

6 Furthermore...justified levels of harvest...”(Washington Trout 2002). It is outside the scope of the 

7 Proposed Action to evaluate the broader effects of hatcheries; and most of the reasons suggested for 

8 including this alternative (broodstock takes, prey competition, loss of genetic fitness, and migration 

9 barriers) are not affected by fishery activities. Consequently, the DEIS discusses the effects of hatchery 

10 programs that would be expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Action and its alternatives, such 

11 as straying (DEIS Subsection 4.3.7), and possible overfishing (DEIS Subsections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.5 and 

12 4.3.7). However, as the commentor is aware, NMFS is evaluating the effects of Puget Sound hatchery 

13 programs under a separate EIS. That EIS will also consider effects on harvest from the implementation 

14 of various Puget Sound hatchery production alternatives. See response to comment WT-23. 

15 Finally, even if the hatchery programs were discontinued in 2005, substantial numbers of hatchery fish 

16 from previous hatchery releases will return to Puget Sound in 2005 and over the next several years. 

17 Given that these fish will return independently of the conduct of future hatchery programs, it is not 

18 reasonable to expect that the co-managers would develop a Resource Management Plan that did not 

19 provide for harvest of these hatchery fish in the interim, particularly since many of these fish were 

20 produced specifically for harvest. 

21 WT-26 

22 The commentor is correct that the Recovery Science Review Panel has emphasized integrated recovery 

23 measures in the context of developing recovery plans. Consistent with these recommendations, NMFS 

24 is currently involved as part of a Puget Sound-wide effort to develop a recovery plan for listed Puget 

25 Sound chinook salmon that will integrate hatchery, harvest and habitat recovery actions. However, that 

26 effort is outside the scope of the Proposed Action, which is the implementation of a fishery 

27 management plan for salmon fisheries in Puget Sound over the next five years. The DEIS 

28 acknowledges this planning activity and the implications to future harvest activities in DEIS Subsection 

29 4.3.1, Threatened and Endangered Fish Species. 

30 The conservation standards used to assess the four alternatives in the DEIS also take into account the 

31 effects of hatchery programs and habitat conditions as described in DEIS Appendix C2. Where 

32 sufficient information is available, NMFS has developed population-specific conservation standards 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 62 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 that include consideration of freshwater and marine environmental conditions and focus on the effect of 

2 harvest on naturally-produced salmon. 

3 Also see responses to comments WT-23 through WT-25. 

4 WT-27 

5 See response to comment WT-22 through WT-26, and DEIS Subsection 2.2.2, No Hatchery 

6 Augmentation. 

7 WT-28 

8 NMFS analyzed the alternatives identified during scoping that were reasonable, technically feasible, 

9 and consistent with the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action. NEPA does not require that the 

10 Proposed Action fall within the middle ground of all alternatives analyzed, and does not support the 

11 concept of analyzing alternatives that would result in greater environmental impacts than would occur 

12 under the Proposed Action (such as increased harvest beyond the proposed levels). CEQ regulations 

13 require that the action agency identify a reasonable range of alternatives (CEQ Regulations §1502.14), 

14 and that the agency thoroughly assess the impacts of the Proposed Action and identified alternatives on 

15 the natural, human, and built environment (CEQ Regulations §1502.16). Recall that the federal action 

16 under consideration through NEPA is the 4(d) determination on the Puget Sound Chinook Resource 

17 Management Plan (RMP). NMFS must evaluate the harvest management plan that is provided to it by 

18 the co-managers. If NMFS finds that the Proposed Action meets the criteria of Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule 

19 and will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the affected ESU, then it 

20 must issue that finding. NMFS’ evaluation of the RMP concludes that it would not appreciably reduce 

21 the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. The CEQ regulations do not 

22 require that the lead agency impose an activity or alternative that is more impactful in scope than that 

23 being proposed by the applicant. Given the complexity of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, there are 

24 multiple scenarios that would meet ESA requirements for the ESU; however, satisfying ESA concerns 

25 is only one element of the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action. (Also see responses to comments 

26 WT-5, WT-6 and WT-21.) 

27 Further, NMFS is confused by the commentor’s suggestion for a more liberal fishing alternative than 

28 the Proposed Action, since this suggestion is contrary to the commentor’s own subsequent comments 

29 suggesting that the Proposed Action would result in “potentially unacceptable levels of risk.” (See 

30 comments WT-29, WT-30, WT-45 through WT-46.) 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 63 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 WT-29 

2 See response to WT-28. 

3 WT-30 

4 NMFS agrees that based on its choice of criterion to choose the Environmentally Preferable 

5 Alternative, Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would result in less biological impacts to some resources than 

6 Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative. Section 1505.2(b) of CEQ Regulations requires that the Record 

7 of Decision identify which alternative or alternatives are considered to be environmentally preferable 

8 based on which would best express the national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of 

9 NEPA. CEQ’s 40 Most Asked Questions states that “Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes 

10 the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best 

11 protects, preserves and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources” (CEQ 40 Most Asked 

12 Questions 6a). Based on CEQ Regulations, NMFS was conservative in its choice of the 

13 Environmentally Preferable Alternative by basing it only on the effects of the biological and physical 

14 environment. More broadly inclusive criteria would have made Alternative 1 the Environmentally 

15 Preferable Alternative, since Alternatives 2, 3 or 4 clearly would not “protect, preserve or enhance” the 

16 cultural and historic resources represented by the exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights. Under the 

17 broader, more inclusive interpretation of CEQ Regulations, Alternative 1 would be both the 

18 Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative. 

19 CEQ’s Forty Most Asked Questions 6a goes on to acknowledge that “The Council recognizes that the 

20 identification of the environmentally preferable alternative may involve difficult judgments, 

21 particularly when one environmental value must be balanced against another. However, NEPA does 

22 not require that an agency adopt the most environmentally preferable alternative but that the impacts 

23 are disclosed in a full and fair manner” (CEQ Regulations §1502.9 and 15002.16), and that the agency 

24 provides a clear record of the basis of its decision, “including consideration of economic and technical 

25 considerations and agency statutory missions”(CEQ Regulations §1505.2[b]). NMFS believes it has 

26 fully disclosed the expected impacts resulting from an alternative that is not the environmentally 

27 preferred, as required by CEQ Regulations. 

28 WT-31 

29 These comments have been addressed as part of NMFS’ 4(d) evaluation process of the Puget Sound 

30 Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan provided to it by the co-managers (the Proposed Action), 

31 and are attached as Appendix A to the Record of Decision. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 64 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 WT-32 

2 Management error is not incorporated in modeling any of the alternatives in the DEIS, including the 

3 Proposed Action. In this way, the alternatives are treated exactly the same. Instead, management error 

4 is incorporated into the development of harvest management objectives and the evaluation of the 

5 various management strategies represented by the different alternatives. Robustness of the different 

6 alternatives to management error is briefly described in DEIS Subsection 4.3.8.1, Indirect Effects. 

7 However, NMFS has expanded the discussion in Subsection 4.3.8.1 in FEIS Volume 2 to provide more 

8 detail on this subject. 

9 WT-33 

10 Since all marine area fisheries in Puget Sound are mixed-stock fisheries to a varying degree, including 

11 terminal fisheries where non-local stocks from a variety of areas are commonly found, fishing 

12 opportunities under Alternative 2 or 3 would likely be limited to the freshwater areas where only the 

13 local stock is present, given the abundances anticipated during the five years of the Proposed Action 

14 (2005–2009). The escapement goal-based alternatives were described as management for the weakest 

15 population with “no fishing” as the fishing level at low abundance. Describing special cases/conditions 

16 under “escapement goal management” where some fishing in Puget Sound would be intentionally 

17 allowed on stocks without harvestable surplus could result in a multitude of alternative variations that 

18 would need to be analyzed, for which the commentor provides no guidance. The simple terms that 

19 might be used to describe special cases like “incidental only” or “limited impact” are judgment calls 

20 that are open to interpretation. (Also see response to comments SW-1B and 1E and NFS-5, and DEIS 

21 Subsection 4.2 that provides rationale behind choice of abundance during the implementation period of 

22 the Proposed Action.) 

23 WT-34 

24 Alternative fishing gears such as “tangle nets” are not specifically addressed in the Proposed Action 

25 being evaluated by NMFS for ESA approval. Many gear-related measures have been and would be 

26 implemented under the Proposed Action that reduce mortality on released animals (including chinook 

27 salmon), or reduce such encounters (as with seabirds). Limitations on set time or net length can reduce 

28 fishing effort (and therefore, overall catch), but do not contribute to increased selectivity of that gear 

29 (i.e., do not increase the selectivity of the catch). 

30 Purse seines, reef nets, beach seines and angling gear are highly selective gears from which non31 targeted fish or species can be released with low incidental mortality. There are a number of selectivity 

32 measures being implemented for the current gears employed by the co-managers; for example: 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 65 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 a) Recovery boxes: Commercial purse seines, gillnets and reef nets use recovery boxes when 

2 release of certain fish is required; i.e., non-tribal purse seine and gillnet fisheries in Marine Catch 

3 Areas 7 and 7A during the time chinook and coho salmon are present. Recovery boxes allow fish 

4 to recover from handling prior to being released. Studies show released fish survive better when 

5 recovery boxes are used. 

6 b) Reef net selective release: Reef net gear maintains a targeted fishery on abundant sockeye and 

7 coho salmon in Area 7, because survival from that gear of fish required to be released is very 

8 high. 

9 c) Cut meshes: Gillnetters are required to cut net meshes in order to release non-target species. Fish 

10 released from a gill net under typical methods do not exhibit high survival. Cutting meshes to 

11 release the fish significantly reduces trauma to the animal, and improving survival. 

12 d) Special Recreational Handling Rule: In Marine Catch Areas 1 through 6 and 13, and in two Puget 

13 Sound freshwater fisheries: it is illegal to bring a wild salmon, or a species of salmon, aboard a 

14 vessel (or otherwise “land”) if it is unlawful to retain those salmon. This provision reduces 

15 trauma to released fish, thus increasing post-release survival. Depending on the success of these 

16 fisheries, they might be expanded in the future. 

17 All implementation of selective fishing gear has some associated mortality associated with it, even if it 

18 is very low (Columbia River Compact 2004; Ruggerone and June 1996; Vander Haegen 2002a; Vander 

19 Haegen 2002b; Vander Haegen 2001; Vander Haegen 2003; also see Appendix B of the Proposed 

20 Action in DEIS Appendix A). Because of the associated non-retention mortality, fisheries could not 

21 occur, even with the use of selective gear, under Alternative 2 or 3 when abundance is below the 

22 spawning escapement objective for either management units (Alternative 2) or populations 

23 (Alternative 3). 

24 WT-35 

25 See response to comment WT-34. Given that non-retention mortality occurs with the use of any 

26 selective gear, it is unclear what the commentor means by “...the motivation for this alternative is the 

27 fact that this is the only approach that permits risk-averse escapement goal management to be 

28 implemented in the absence of the employment of selective fishing gears.” 

29 The conservation objectives of the Proposed Action do not distinguish between fish caught in saltwater 

30 or freshwater, by nets or by sport gear, for personal consumption or for commercial sale, as a result of 

31 landing or release. An adult fish killed after being released in the Strait of Juan de Fuca sport fishery is 

32 no different from an adult fish killed in a Skagit River sport or net fishery. There is no biological reason 

33 to distinguish among these impacts. The question of where the impacts take place, and by what gear, is 

34 more often a question of allocation and increased opportunity than conservation. It is the harvest 

35 management objectives that limit the impacts to the populations. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 66 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 WT-36 

2 There are so many demands for the limited funds and staff available for natural resource management 

3 that the state and tribes would have no trouble finding alternative uses for those funds and staff. For 

4 example, a vast majority of tribal resources are already devoted to non-salmonid fisheries, research, 

5 and recovery planning. It is likely that tribal shell fisheries management alone could use any surplus 

6 resources, even if salmon fisheries were generally closed. The DEIS states that enforcement activity 

7 may be reduced, but it would not be eliminated altogether since some enforcement is required to 

8 monitor compliance with fishery closures. Any displaced salmon fishery enforcement would likely be 

9 redirected to enforcement of other fish and wildlife rules. 

10 NMFS agrees that state and tribal resources usually spent on fishery monitoring would likely be shifted 

11 to resource monitoring (see DEIS Subsection 2.3.2 through 2.3.4). In any case, the costs would be 

12 expected to be the same (personal communication with Teresa Scott, WDFW, Natural Resources 

13 Policy Analyst, July 27, 2004, and Will Beattie, NWIFC, Conservation Management Coordinator, July 

14 27, 2004). NMFS is not clear what alternative actions are being suggested that have conservation 

15 benefits for listed chinook salmon. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that additional resource 

16 monitoring funds would benefit chinook salmon, and other listed fish and wildlife throughout 

17 Washington ( Washington Monitoring Oversight Committee 2002). 

18 WT-37 

19 Although the economic analysis evaluates net economic benefits, the descriptions of economic effects 

20 are not confined to net benefits. Measures of gross economic returns evaluated in the Puget Sound 

21 Chinook Harvest DEIS include sales of commercially-harvested salmon, trip-related sales to anglers, 

22 and effects on personal income and employment associated with these sales. 

23 Costs associated with hatchery facilities are not reported because none of the alternatives is expected to 

24 substantially affect hatchery production and operations, particularly over the five-year period when the 

25 Proposed Action will be in effect (2005–2009). The effect of potential changes in hatchery operations 

26 in the Puget Sound area is the subject of an EIS currently being prepared by NMFS, in conjunction 

27 with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound treaty tribes. Changes in 

28 hatchery operations may occur in the future in response to the outcome of the hatchery EIS, other state 

29 or tribal objectives or newly available information, but the effect of implementing any of the 

30 alternatives for the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan EIS on changes in 

31 hatchery operations is considered speculative and unlikely to occur within the time frame of the 

32 Proposed Action. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 67 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 NMFS acknowledges that the costs associated with managing the fisheries affected by the Proposed 

2 Action could be impacted by the alternative implemented. These costs, which are borne primarily by 

3 the State of Washington and the Puget Sound Tribes, include expenditures for pre-season planning, in4 season management, sampling, monitoring, evaluation and enforcement. For the Washington 

5 Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), costs for salmon management in marine waters are 

6 estimated to be about $300,000 per year, and costs for salmon fishery sampling in marine waters are 

7 estimated to be about $562,000 per year. Information is currently unavailable on management or 

8 enforcement costs incurred by the Puget Sound Tribes, or for enforcement by WDFW. 

9 If salmon fisheries in Puget Sound closed or were dramatically reduced, as envisioned under the No10 Fishing Alternative (Alternative 4), it can reasonably be assumed that resources used by the State and 

11 tribes to manage or enforce those fisheries would be re-directed toward management and enforcement 

12 of other fisheries in the Puget Sound area, including shellfish or groundfish fisheries, or toward salmon 

13 research, habitat assessment, or restoration and recovery of salmon populations. The State (WDFW) 

14 and Puget Sound tribes presently have insufficient funding to adequately address the pressing issues 

15 related to species other than salmon, some of which are on the Endangered Species List, and others 

16 subject to concern over harvest allocation distribution and harvest accounting. Consequently, funds that 

17 might be available from a closure or curtailment of salmon fisheries in Puget Sound would likely be 

18 redirected to address critical high-profile species under ESA and State/Tribal allocation issues (e.g., 

19 bull trout, Puget Sound crab, Puget Sound steelhead and groundfish). 

20 A similar situation would likely occur if Alternative 2 or 3 were implemented, in which fishing would 

21 be concentrated in terminal areas. More management resources would be devoted to improving the 

22 performance of freshwater fisheries. It can reasonably be expected that a large proportion, if not all, of 

23 current management resources would be redirected to refine terminal management tools, and monitor 

24 those fisheries. 

25 In conclusion, because current funds for management and enforcement of fisheries affected by the 

26 Proposed Action would likely be re-directed to other fisheries in the Puget Sound area if Alternative 2, 

27 3, or 4 were implemented, the overall effect of fishery management and enforcement efforts on 

28 generating jobs and personal income in the Puget Sound region would be minor. Some distributional 

29 effects may occur as spending by the management agencies shifted between sub-regions, but these 

30 effects would likely be minor given current funding levels. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 68 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 WT-38 

2 Because none of the alternatives is expected to result in any changes to hatchery operations over the 

3 five-year period covered by the Plan (2005–2009), and potential long-term effects of the alternatives on 

4 hatchery operations are considered speculative, analysis of current investments and associated 

5 economic impacts related to hatchery operations is not warranted in this EIS. The economic effects of 

6 hatchery operations in the Puget Sound area are being evaluated as part of an EIS currently being 

7 prepared by NMFS, in conjunction with the Washington Department of Fish and Game and the Puget 

8 Sound treaty tribes. 

9 WT-39 

10 See response to WT-38. 

11 WT-40 

12 Comment noted, but NMFS respectfully disagrees. 

13 WT-41 

14 See responses to comments WT-9 through WT-17, WT-19 through WT-21, WT-23 through WT-28 as 

15 well as responses to comments SW-1A through SW 1I, SW-16, SW-19, NFS-3 through NFS-6, NFS16 10, and DEIS Subsection 2.2, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study. NMFS 

17 determined that the comments could be addressed through its responses, revision to the DEIS, and 

18 description of mitigation measures. CEQ Regulations (40 CFR §1503.4) require that the agency 

19 preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement respond to public comments by modifying or 

20 considering additional alternatives, modifying its analysis, making factual corrections, or explaining 

21 why no response is warranted. It does not require modification of the Proposed Action, although the 

22 applicants may choose to do so based upon consideration of public comment. 

23 WT-42 

24 Comment noted, but NMFS respectfully disagrees based on its responses to comments above.

25 WT-43 

26 NMFS determined that the comments could be addressed through its responses, revision to the DEIS, 

27 and description of mitigation measures. CEQ Regulations (40 CFR §1503.4) require that the agency 

28 preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement respond to public comments by modifying or 

29 considering additional alternatives, modifying its analysis, making factual corrections or explaining 

30 why no response is warranted. It does not require modification of the Proposed Action, although the 

31 applicants may choose to do so based on consideration of public comment. Public comment on the 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 69 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 RMP (Proposed Action) occurred as part of NMFS’ consideration of the action through the ESA 4(d) 

2 process. 

3 WT-44 

4 Comment noted, but NMFS respectfully disagrees based on its responses to comments above.

5 WT-45 

6 Comment noted, but NMFS respectfully disagrees. Section 4 of the DEIS (and as revised in FEIS 

7 Volume 2) includes a thorough evaluation of each of the resources in the natural, built and human 

8 environment that may be affected by the Proposed Action. Where available, NMFS has relied on 

9 resource standards developed by experts in the resource fields considered in the DEIS, including 

10 agency standards in its evaluation of the alternatives. Several examples are: 1) Subsections 4.8.1 and 

11 4.8.4 – using NMFS’ Potential Biological Removal thresholds for evaluation of impacts to marine 

12 mammals and ESA determinations on seabirds by the USFWS for its evaluation of effects on marbled 

13 murrelets, respectively; 2) Section 4.7 – using standards established by the U.S. Environmental 

14 Protection Agency to assess impacts of the alternatives on Environmental Justice; and 3) the Proposed 

15 Action – including the subject of a detailed Section 7 consultation and evaluation under Limit 6 of the 

16 ESA 4(d) Rule. Section 5 of the DEIS identifies the Environmentally Preferred and the Agency 

17 Preferred Alternative, and a detailed discussion of why NMFS has chosen its preferred alternative. 

18 WT-46 

19 Section 5 of the DEIS (Volume 2 of the FEIS) describes how NMFS has balanced its various mandates 

20 in its choice of the Agency Preferred Alternative. NEPA also requires NMFS to identify and discuss in 

21 its Record of Decision all the relevant factors which were balanced by the agency in making its 

22 decision including economic and technical considerations, agency statutory missions and national 

23 policy (40 CFR §1505.2). The Record of Decision is issued a minimum of 30 days after the EPA has 

24 notified the public of the availability of the FEIS (40 CFR §1506.10). 

25 WT-47 

26 The DEIS has been revised as indicated in responses to comments SW-15, SW-28, WT-32, EPA-1, 

27 EPA-6, EPA-10, and EPA-16 (see FEIS Volume 2). NMFS determined that the comments could be 

28 addressed through its responses, revision to the DEIS, and description of mitigation measures. CEQ 

29 Regulations (40 CFR §1503.4) require that the agency preparing the Final Environmental Impact 

30 Statement respond to public comments by modifying or considering additional alternatives, modifying 

31 its analysis, making factual corrections, or explaining why no response is warranted. It does not require 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 70 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 modification of the Proposed Action, although the applicants may choose to do so based on 

2 consideration of public comment. Public comment on the Proposed Action occurred as part of NMFS 

3 consideration of the action through the ESA 4(d) process. 

4 WT-48 

5 Comment noted. NMFS acknowledges that these resources were used as integral components of the 

6 Washington Trout review, and this response serves as a record of that acknowledgement. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 71 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 References 

2 Beattie, Will. Conservation Management Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

3 Olympia, Washington. July 27, 2004. Personal communication with Susan Bishop, NMFS, re: cost 

4 redistribution of personnel and sampling resources among EIS alternatives. 

5 Columbia River Compact. 2004. Joint staff report winter fact sheet No. 3. February 5, 2004. 

6 Ruggerone, Gregory T. and Jeffrey June. 1996. Pilot study: survival of chinook salmon captured and 

7 released by a purse seine vessel in Southeast Alaska. Prepared for: Southeast Alaska Seiners 

8 Association, Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association. July 12, 1996. 11 pages. 

9 Scott, Teresa. Natural Resources Policy Analyst, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

10 Olympia, Washington. July 27, 2004. Personal communication with Susan Bishop, NMFS, re: cost 

11 redistribution of personnel and sampling resources among EIS alternatives. 

12 Scott, Teresa. Natural Resources Policy Analyst, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

13 Olympia, Washington. September 2, 2004. Personal communication with Susan Bishop, NMFS, re: 

14 appropriateness of evaluating a tribal only alternative in the Puget Sound chinook harvest EIS. 

15 U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee. 2004. Biological assessment of incidental impacts on 

16 salmon species listed under the Endangered Species Act in the 2004 non-Indian and treaty Indian 

17 fall season fisheries in the Columbia River Basin. July 9, 2004. 55 pages plus appendices. 

18 Vander Haegen, G.E., C.E Ashbrook, K.W. Yi, and J.F. Dixon. 2003. In press. Survival of spring 

19 chinook salmon captured and released in a selective commercial fishery using gill nets and tangle 

20 nets. Fisheries Bulletin?. 

21 Vander Haegen, G.E., K.W. Yi, C.E. Ashbrook, E.W. White and L.L. LeClair. 2002(a). Evaluate live 

22 capture selective harvest methods. Final report for BPA Contract 2001-007-00. Washington 

23 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

24 Vander Haegen, G. E., K.W. Yi, J. F. Dixon, C. E. Ashbrook. 2002(b). Commercial selective harvest of 

25 coho salmon and chinook salmon on the Willapa River using tangle nets and gill nets. Final report 

26 – IAC contract 01-1018N. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

27 Vander Haegen, G.E., L.L. LeClair, and E. White. 2001. Evaluate Tangle Nets for Selective Fishing. 

28 Semi-Annual Progress Report, February 1, 2001. 

29 Washington Monitoring Oversight Committee. 2002. The Washington comprehensive monitoring 

30 strategy and action plan for watershed health and salmon recovery. Three volumes. 

31 Washington Trout. 2002. Comments on the scope of the environmental impact statement for the Puget 

32 Sound resource management plan for harvest of Puget Sound chinook salmon; per Federal Register 

33 51547 (August 8, 2002). FAX to Susan Bishop, NMFS NW Region. September 9, 2002. 6 pages. 

 

 

Puget Sound Anglers, 

North Olympic Peninsula Chapter 

(PSA) 

Letter of Comment 



Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 73 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PUGET SOUND ANGLERS, 

2 NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA CHAPTER (PSA) 

3 PSA-1 

4 Comment noted. 

5 PSA-2 

6 Comment noted. 

7 PSA-3 

8 Comment noted. 

9 PSA-4 

10 Comment noted. 

 

 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

Letter of Comment 









Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 75 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE 

2 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

3 EPA-1 

4 The applicant has requested ESA coverage through Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule which includes specific 

5 criteria that a Resource Management Plan must adequately address. NMFS does not have the authority 

6 to request that applicants seek ESA coverage under regulatory mechanisms other than what was 

7 requested by the applicant. Furthermore, as the Lead Agency for this applicant request, NMFS must 

8 disclose the applicants’ regulatory request, which is a critical factor in the Purpose and Need for the 

9 Proposed Action. NMFS’ determination on its review of the Proposed Action under the criteria of 

10 Limit 6 is the federal action triggering a NEPA analysis. Therefore, meeting the provisions of Limit 6 

11 of the ESA 4(d) Rule is a critical element of the Purpose and Need (see Draft EIS Subsection 1.6). The 

12 criteria of Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule require that Resource Management Plans submitted under this limit 

13 provide information that the proposed Resource Management Plan minimizes the long-term risks to 

14 population persistence (50 CFR 223.03[b][i]4[B]), and provide a biological rationale that the Proposed 

15 Action will not “appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU in the wild” (50 

16 CFR 223.03[b][i]4[D]). NMFS believes that, “...declining to apply take prohibitions to such programs 

17 [4(d) Limits] likely will result in greater conservation gains for a listed ESU than would blanket 

18 application of section 9(a)(1) prohibitions...”(65 FR 42422, Background). The basis and background to 

19 the 4(d) Rule and Limit 6 is discussed in Subsection 1.5 of the DEIS. Subsection 1.4 of the DEIS 

20 (Background to Purpose and Need) has been modified to emphasize the importance of including the 

21 Limit 6 criteria as an element of the Purpose and Need. The revised language can be found in FEIS 

22 Volume 2, Revised Draft EIS. 

23 EPA-2 

24 The Dungeness and Elwha chinook salmon populations are considered to be increasing and stable in 

25 abundance, respectively, based on an assessment of escapements before and after listing of the Puget 

26 Sound Chinook ESU (NMFS 2004). Escapements are predicted to remain stable for these populations 

27 under the most likely scenario of abundance and Canadian fisheries considered in the DEIS, due to 

28 supplementation of spawner abundance by local, listed hatchery programs in both rivers. Southern U.S. 

29 exploitation rates on these populations are not expected to exceed 5 percent over the duration of the 

30 Proposed Action (2005–2009). 

31 NMFS has evaluated the co-managers’ Plan using the best available information regarding the 

32 expectation of conditions over the proposed duration of the plan (2005–2009), and evaluated the 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 76 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 outcome against NMFS’ standards for listed Puget Sound chinook salmon (NMFS 2004). NMFS has 

2 concluded in its 4(d) evaluation and in a biological opinion under section 7 of the ESA that the 2005–

3 2009 co-managers’ Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan would not pose 

4 jeopardy to the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. The 4(d) evaluation and section 7 Biological Opinion are 

5 incorporated herein by reference and included as Appendices B and C of the Record of Decision. 

6 The Puget Sound Chinook ESU, not the component, individual populations, is the primary focus of 

7 NMFS’ evaluation of the impacts of the RMP under the ESA. In conducting this evaluation, NMFS 

8 takes into account the recommendations of the Puget Sound TRT, which is charged with identifying the 

9 biological characteristics of a recovered ESU as part of developing delisting and recovery criteria. The 

10 TRT’s preliminary recommendation is that any ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two 

11 to four viable chinook salmon populations in each of five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

12 depending on the historical life history and biological characteristics of populations in each region. 

13 The Puget Sound Chinook ESU includes 22 chinook salmon populations distributed over five distinct 

14 geographic areas and several life history types. Total exploitation rates have decreased 14 to 63 percent 

15 from rates in the 1980s. Puget Sound chinook salmon escapements have been stable or increasing since 

16 the ESU was listed in 1999 for all populations in all regions and life history types, an apparent positive 

17 response to the decline in exploitation rates in combination with other factors. Recent years’ average 

18 escapement for all but the North Fork Nooksack population is above the critical escapement thresholds, 

19 and two to four of the populations in two of the five regions (10 populations over all regions) exceed 

20 their viable escapement thresholds, representing the range of life history types in each region. This 

21 pattern is expected to continue during the duration of the Proposed Action. Five of the ten RERs are 

22 expected to be met under the Proposed Action. Escapements for one of the populations (Green23 Duwamish) for which RERs are not expected to be met are expected to meet or exceed the viable 

24 escapement threshold for this population across the duration of the Proposed Action. 

25 Although concerns remain regarding low abundance of four populations in the remaining three regions, 

26 analysis indicated that conducting the Proposed Action between 2005–2009 is expected to have 

27 generally little to no effect on the ability to achieve viability criteria in these regions. For example, all 

28 but two of the populations that are not expected to meet their viable thresholds under the Proposed 

29 Action are also not expected to meet their viable thresholds even if Puget Sound fisheries were 

30 eliminated. Based on the stable or increasing trends in escapement; the apparent positive response to 

31 significant decreases in exploitation rates for most populations; the distribution and life history 

32 representation of chinook populations throughout the ESU relative to their status and the TRT 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 77 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 guidance; the low level of exploitation in southern U.S. fisheries for those populations at low 

2 abundance; taking into account its Tribal trust responsibility; and the buffer against genetic and 

3 demographic risks provided by some associated hatchery programs, NMFS’ evaluation of the Proposed 

4 Action concluded it would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget 

5 Sound Chinook ESU. 

6 EPA-3 

7 The Pacific Salmon Treaty allows the parties (the U.S. and Canada) to reach agreements regarding how 

8 their intercepting fisheries will be managed, subject to a number of constraining considerations, such as 

9 the desire to avoid undue disruption of existing fisheries, both countries’ interest in protecting treaty 

10 Indian and aboriginal fisheries, etc. (Also see response to comment SW-18.) As a practical matter, the 

11 agreed bilateral fishing arrangements tend to be multi-year in duration, and only limited opportunities 

12 and mechanisms exist to modify the agreed regimes. The existing arrangements expire after 2008 for 

13 chinook and southern coho and chum fisheries, and after 2010 for Fraser River sockeye and pink 

14 fisheries. That is why the duration of the Proposed Action in the DEIS coincides with the negotiation of 

15 a new Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement in 2009. Until then, the DEIS must take into account the terms 

16 of the existing Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement when evaluating alternatives within the scope of the 

17 Proposed Action; i.e., steelhead net and salmon fisheries within Puget Sound. NMFS is unaware of any 

18 “informal” processes that may be available to reduce Puget Sound chinook salmon fishing mortality in 

19 Canadian waters. 

20 EPA-4 

21 Scenario A (high abundance and 2003 expected Canadian and Alaskan fisheries), and Scenario C (low 

22 abundance and 2003 expected Canadian and Alaskan fisheries), described as using 2003 pre-season 

23 projections for Canadian fisheries, represent a “reduced Canadian fishery mortality” condition. Actual 

24 catches in 2003 Canadian fisheries were higher than pre-season projections and more in line with 

25 expected harvest levels in upcoming years. 

26 EPA-5 

27 Canadian fisheries affecting Puget Sound chinook and other salmon are governed by existing 

28 agreements developed pursuant to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The existing arrangements were agreed to 

29 in 1999, following several years of very intense bilateral negotiations between the U.S and Canadian 

30 governments. The pertinent fishing regimes apply through 2008, except for the provisions governing 

31 Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon, which expire after the 2010 fishing season. Working through 

32 their representatives to the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), the body emplaced to oversee 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 78 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, NMFS and the state and tribal co-managers meet 

2 annually to discuss the status of salmon stocks and fisheries with their Canadian counterparts. These 

3 discussions occur at both the technical and policy levels, and focus on ensuring that the applicable 

4 provisions of the agreed regimes are faithfully implemented by both countries. Both countries are 

5 obligated to those regimes unless otherwise agreed. It is quite probable that U.S. representatives to the 

6 Pacific Salmon Commission process will continue to argue – as they have in the past – for management 

7 measures that would further reduce Puget Sound chinook salmon mortality in Canadian fisheries. 

8 However, no one can predict the outcome of those discussions, and until something changes or the 

9 existing regimes expire, the only valid and prudent assumptions are that the Canadians will comply 

10 fully with the agreed regimes and harvest up to their allowed limits (see DEIS Subsection 4.2, Basis for 

11 Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis). (Also see responses to comments 

12 SW-18 and EPA-3.) 

13 EPA-6 

14 NMFS agrees and has deleted the language from DEIS Subsection 4.2.3.2, Basis for Comparison of 

15 Alternatives and Approach to the Alternatives Analysis. See FEIS Volume 2, Revised Draft EIS. 

16 EPA-7 

17 Actually, the results of the DEIS evaluation indicate that the specific populations cited by the 

18 commentor (Puyallup, Nisqually, Skokomish and White River) would meet their objectives under all 

19 alternatives in the DEIS. More broadly, restriction of recreational fisheries for some of the populations 

20 not expected to meet their objective under the Proposed Action would not increase the probability of 

21 meeting harvest objectives, since the majority of fishing-related mortality is in tribal fisheries; e.g., 

22 Nooksack early chinook salmon. For other populations, harvest management objectives are not 

23 expected to be met even if Puget Sound fisheries were eliminated because of the magnitude of harvest 

24 in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries; e.g., Dungeness, Elwha, and Nooksack. 

25 All measures to shape the recreational fisheries are currently part of the tools of the Proposed Action. 

26 However, which measures to use would vary from year to year depending on the status of the various 

27 Puget Sound Chinook populations. Appendix C of the Proposed Action, found in DEIS Appendix A, 

28 describes some of the actions that would be taken in the recreational fisheries when low abundance 

29 thresholds and RERs were not expected to be met. The types of actions include area or time closures, 

30 mark-selective or species-selective regulations, limitations on the number of fish retained or type of 

31 gear used. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 79 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Puget Sound chinook salmon populations are currently stable or increasing (NMFS 2004), although 

2 several are near their critical escapement thresholds, and the average escapements since listing under 

3 the ESA are generally above the average escapements in the years prior to listing. Although the DEIS 

4 indicates that while the exploitation rates under the Proposed Action may delay the rebuilding of some 

5 populations within the ESU, it does not conclude that any Puget Sound populations would be 

6 eliminated as the commentor suggests (see DEIS Subsection 4.3.1.1, Alternative 1 – Proposed 

7 Action/Status Quo). NMFS’ preliminary evaluation of the Proposed Action is that it would not 

8 appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon 

9 (NMFS 2004). See response to comment EPA-2. 

10 EPA-8 

11 NMFS has provided additional language in DEIS Subsection 3.3.1.1, Puget Sound Chinook, that gives 

12 a broader overview of the effect of habitat activities on the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, and added 

13 language to Appendix C2 that describes the effects of habitat impacts and environmental conditions on 

14 CETs, VETs and RERs. The added language can be found in FEIS Volume 2, Revised Draft EIS. 

15 EPA-9 

16 Puget Sound chinook salmon populations are currently stable or increasing (NMFS 2004), although 

17 several are near their critical escapement thresholds, and the average escapements since listing under 

18 the ESA are generally above the average escapements in the years prior to listing. Seven populations 

19 have exceeded their viable escapement thresholds in recent years; three have done so consistently. 

20 Although the DEIS indicates that while the exploitation rates under the Proposed Action may delay the 

21 rebuilding of some populations within the ESU, it does not conclude that any Puget Sound populations 

22 would be eliminated (see DEIS Subsection 4.3.1.1). NMFS’ preliminary evaluation of the Proposed 

23 Action is that it would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of listed Puget 

24 Sound chinook salmon (NMFS 2004). 

25 The future trend in populations will depend on a variety of factors, including harvest (NMFS 2000; 

26 PSTRT 2003). Depending on the influence of other sources of mortality, reductions in harvest may 

27 have a limited or negligible effect on these trends (NMFS 2004). (See response to comment EPA-8, 

28 and comments SW-2, SW-10, SW-26.) The recovery planning process currently underway for the 

29 Puget Sound Chinook ESU will specifically address the integration of all the factors affecting the ESU 

30 and has as its major objectives the two goals listed by the commentor. Regarding the DEIS, any of the 

31 alternatives would implement harvest management objectives that are consistent with current 

32 environmental conditions, and take into account fishing-related mortality even in fisheries outside the 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 80 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Action Area. Under the DEIS alternatives, those objectives would be revised as habitat changes. 

2 Mitigation measures for effects unrelated to the Proposed Action, are outside the scope of the Action. 

3 The effect of different hatchery production levels on tribal treaty rights will likely be evaluated as part 

4 of an EIS NMFS is conducting on Puget Sound hatchery programs. 

5 The Puget Sound Treaty Tribes assert, in providing the RMP jointly with WDFW to NMFS, their 

6 strong belief that current Puget Sound chinook abundance is far below what is required to satisfy treaty 

7 tribal fishing rights. In most areas, chinook harvest is limited to what is caught incidentally in fisheries 

8 targeted at other species, and targeted to ceremonial and subsistence needs. However, under the 

9 Proposed Action, all Puget Sound tribes are currently able to exercise their treaty-reserved fishing 

10 rights for salmon in their usual and accustomed grounds and stations, although at much reduced levels 

11 from the past. 

12 EPA-10 

13 This comment is refers to mixed-stock management practices that manage the abundance of fish in a 

14 fishery made up of multiple stocks as an aggregate; i.e., as if it was only one stock. The Proposed 

15 Action would not manage mixed-stock fisheries as an aggregate. Current management tools can 

16 estimate the contribution of each management unit to the fishery. As described in DEIS Section 2.3.1 

17 (Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo), the Proposed Action would manage mixed-stock 

18 fisheries for the harvest management objective of the weakest management unit in the fishery, 

19 foregoing harvest of stronger management units, if necessary, to protect the weaker management units. 

20 DEIS Section 2.3.1 has been revised to make this point more clearly in FEIS Volume 2, Revised Draft 

21 EIS. 

22 EPA-11 

23 See responses to comments EPA-2, EPA-9 and WT-15. 

24 EPA-12 

25 See responses to comments EPA-3, EPA-4, EPA-5, EPA-7, EPA-10, and NFS-8 and NFS-10. 

26 EPA-13A 

27 NMFS agrees with the commentor and has changed the EIS to reflect the 2005–2009 fishing seasons. 

28 NMFS completed an ESA section 7 consultation on a fishing plan for the 2004 Puget Sound steelhead 

29 net, and salmon commercial and recreational fisheries that take listed Puget Sound chinook (NMFS 

30 2004). 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 81 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 EPA-13B 

2 The 2004 salmon and steelhead fisheries discussed in response to comment EPA-13A will be 

3 conducted under the terms of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan consistent 

4 with those described in the DEIS, so no revisions to the DEIS are necessary. 

5 EPA-13C 

6 See responses to comments EPA-13A and EPA-13B. 

7 EPA-13D 

8 Because chinook salmon adults return through October in many systems, final escapement estimates 

9 for the 2004 chinook salmon return will not be available until Spring of 2005. Catch of chinook salmon 

10 returning in 2004 in commercial and recreational fisheries also occurs into the Fall, and therefore, final 

11 catch estimates will not be available until late Winter or Spring of 2005. The data required to estimate 

12 exploitation rates on all chinook salmon cohorts that contributed to fisheries in 2004 is based on coded13 wire tag recoveries and information collected over a wide range of fisheries and jurisdictions, and 

14 generally takes up to six years to complete. Therefore, information on 2004 exploitation rates and 

15 escapement will not be available in time to include in the FEIS. 

16 CEQ Regulations (40 CFR §1503.4) require that the agency preparing the Final Environmental Impact 

17 Statement respond to public comments by modifying or considering additional alternatives, modifying 

18 its analysis, making factual corrections, or explaining why no response is warranted. It does not require 

19 modification of the Proposed Action (the Resource Management Plan), although the applicants may 

20 choose to do so based on consideration of public comment. However, the Proposed Action does contain 

21 provisions for annual reporting that includes estimates of exploitation rates and escapement (DEIS 

22 Subsection 2.3.1), and requires a periodic review and update of the entire Resource Management Plan 

23 (Subsection 7.5 of the Proposed Action, found in DEIS Appendix A). 

24 EPA-14 

25 NMFS agrees with EPA’s characterization of Alternatives 1 and 4 with regard to CEQ Regulations. 

26 However, the titles of the alternatives refer to specific alternatives mandated in the settlement 

27 agreement reached with Washington Trout (Washington Trout v. Lohn). This potential confusion was 

28 clarified for readers in DEIS Subsection 4.2.1 (No Action Alternative) by stating that Alternative 1 is 

29 the No Action Alternative under CEQ regulations. In addition, all alternatives were compared with 

30 Alternative 1 as the No Action alternative as required by CEQ regulations to evaluate how the other 

31 alternatives would change relative to existing conditions. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 82 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 EPA-15 

2 Evaluation of the effects of decreased hatchery chinook salmon production levels on natural population 

3 abundance is outside of the scope of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan DEIS. 

4 Alternatives to current hatchery chinook salmon production levels in Puget Sound, including increases 

5 and decreases in juvenile fish production levels, will be evaluated within a separate on-going EIS being 

6 administered by NMFS and directed at regional hatchery programs. 

7 EPA-16 

8 Comment noted. NMFS has made the necessary revisions to DEIS Section 3.7 in FEIS Volume 2, 

9 Revised Draft EIS. 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 83 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 References 

2 Beamish, R.J., and D.R. Bouillon. 1993. Pacific salmon production trends in relation to climate. 

3 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 50: pages 1002-1016. 

4 Beamish, R.J., D.J. Noakes, G.A. MacFarlane, L. Klyshatorin, V.V. Ivanov, and V. Kurashov. 1999. 

5 The regime concept and natural trends in the production of Pacific salmon. Canadian Journal of 

6 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 56: pages 516-526. 

7 Bishop, S. and A. Morgan (editors). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural chinook salmon 

8 stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State. Northwest Indian Fisheries 

9 Commission, Olympia, Washington, 105 pages. (Available from Northwest Indian Fisheries 

10 Commission, 6730 Martin Way, E., Olympia, Washington 98506). 

11 Cramer, S.P., J. Norris, P. Mundy, G. Grette, K. O'Neal, J. Hogle, C. Steward, and P. Bahls. Status of 

12 chinook salmon and their habitat in Puget Sound. Volume 2, Final Report. June 1999. 

13 Department of Ecology (DOE). 2004. 2002-2004 proposed assessment- Category 5- the 303(d) list, at 

14 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/2002_list.html. Web site accessed May 10, 2004. 

15 Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr. 1993. Entering the watershed: a new approach to 

16 save America’s river ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

17 Federal Caucus. 2000. Columbia River fish final basinwide salmon recovery strategy. December 20, 

18 2000. Three volumes. 

19 Frissell, C.A. 1993. A new strategy for watershed restoration and recovery of Pacific salmon in the 

20 Pacific Northwest. Prepared for Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, Oregon. 

21 Hare, S.R., N.J. Mantua, and R.C. Francis. 1999. Inverse production regimes: Alaska and west coast 

22 Pacific salmon. Fisheries, Volume 24: pages 6-14. 

23 Henjum, M.G., and seven co-authors. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, 

24 and watersheds: national forests east of the Cascade Crest, Oregon, and Washington. The Wildlife 

25 Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

26 Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal 

27 climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

28 Society, Volume 78: pages 1069-1079. 

29 Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. 

30 Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from 

31 Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

32 Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pages. 

33 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Proposed evaluation of and pending determination 

34 on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), pursuant to the salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule. Puget 
Section 3 – Public Comments and Response to Public Comments 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 84 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management Component. Public 

2 review draft. NMFS NW Region. April 8, 2004. 95 pages. 

3 Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team (NCRT). 2001. Nisqually chinook recovery plan. August 2001. 59 

4 pages + appendices. 

5 Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group (PSSSRG). 1997. An assessment of the status of Puget 

6 Sound chinook and Strait of Juan de Fuca coho stocks as required under the Salmon Fishery 

7 Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council Review Draft, 78 p. (Available from the 

8 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 Fifth Ave., Ste. 224, Portland, OR 97201.) 

9 Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team and Shared Strategy Staff Group (PSTRT/SSSG). 2002. 

10 Integrated recovery planning for listed salmon: technical guidance for watershed groups in Puget 

11 Sound. Draft February 3, 2003. 68 pages. 

12 Shared Strategy. 2004. Watershed planning efforts and profiles at 

13 www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/watersheds.htm. Web site accessed August 26, 2004. 

14 Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Technical Committee (SBSRTC). 1999. Initial Snohomish River 

15 basin chinook salmon conservation/recovery technical work plan. October 6, 1999. 109 pages + 

16 appendices. 

17 Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to 

18 salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services 

19 Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon. 356 pages. 

20 Stanford, J.A., and J.V. Ward. 1992. Management of aquatic resources in large catchments: 

21 recognizing interactions between ecosystem connectivity and environmental disturbance. Pages 91-

22 124 in R.J. Naiman, editor. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental 

23 change. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

24 Washington Conservation Commission. 2004. Habitat limiting factors reports at. 

25 (http://salmon.scc.wa.gov/reports/index.html). Web site accessed August 26, 2004. 

26 West Coast Biological Review Team (WCSBRT). 2003. Preliminary conclusions regarding the updated 

27 status of listed ESUs of west coast salmon and steelhead. West Coast Biological Review Team. 

28 Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

29 Santa Cruz, California. July 2003. 
For information, please contact:

Susan Bishop, NMFS: 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.

 Seattle, WA 98115-0070

 susan.bishop@noaa.gov

 (206) 526-4587

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Region

with Assistance from the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes

and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

December 2004

Volume 2
Executive Summary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest i December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

2 The Proposed Action analyzed in the Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement is implementation of 

3 the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan, jointly-developed by the Washington 

4 Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Puget Sound treaty tribes, under Limit 6 of the Endangered 

5 Species Act (ESA) 4(d) Rule for implementation in the 2004 2005−2009 fishing years, beginning May 

6 1, 2004 2005 (May 1, 2004 2005 – April 30, 2010). The proposed Resource Management Plan would 

7 regulate commercial, recreational, ceremonial, and subsistence salmon fisheries potentially affecting 

8 the listed Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit within the marine and 

9 freshwater areas of Puget Sound, from the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca inward. It excludes 

10 Washington Commercial Salmon Management Catch Reporting Area 4B during the months from May 

11 to September, when this area is under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

12 Harvest objectives specified in the Resource Management Plan account for fisheries-related mortality 

13 of Puget Sound chinook salmon throughout the migratory range of this species – from Oregon and 

14 Washington to Southeast Alaska. The Resource Management Plan also includes implementation, 

15 monitoring, and evaluation procedures designed to ensure that fisheries are consistent with the 

16 objectives of the Resource Management Plan for conservation and use. Fishery activities under the 

17 Resource Management Plan would affect the listed Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Hood Canal 

18 Summer-Run Chum Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units. Salmon abundance is highly variable 

19 from year to year, both among chinook populations and other salmon species, requiring managers to 

20 formulate fisheries to respond to the population abundance conditions particular to that year. Therefore, 

21 the Resource Management Plan does not include the specific details of an annual fishing regime − i.e., 

22 where and when fisheries occur; what gear will be used; or how harvest is allocated among gears, 

23 areas, or fishermen. However, the Resource Management Plan does provide the framework and 

24 objectives against which the co-managers must develop their annual action-specific fishing regimes to 

25 protect Puget Sound chinook salmon and meet other management objectives. 

26 The purpose and need for the Proposed Action (Section 1) is to provide for harvest of salmon species in 

27 Puget Sound marine and freshwater areas that: 

28 • Ensures the sustainability of Puget Sound chinook salmon by conserving the productivity, 

29 abundance and diversity of the populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily 

30 Significant Unit 

31 • Protects treaty Indian fishing rights and meets federal treaty trust responsibilities 

32 • Provides equitable sharing of harvest opportunity among tribes, and among treaty and non-treaty 

33 fishers pursuant to U.S. v. Washington and U.S. v. Oregon
Executive Summary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest ii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 • Meets the requirement of Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by: 

2 “. . . not appreciably reducing the likelihood of survival and recovery” of ESA listed Puget Sound 

3 chinook (50 CFR 223.203[b][6][i]). 

4 • Manages risk associated with abundance estimation, population dynamics, and management 

5 implementation 

6 • Optimizes harvest of abundant Puget Sound salmon (coho, chinook, sockeye, pink, chum) while 

7 protecting weaker commingled chinook stocks 

8 • Accounts for all sources of fishery-related mortality 

9 • Achieves the guidelines for allocation of harvest benefits and conservation objectives for chinook 

10 salmon under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

11 Since the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit was listed in 1999, the National Marine 

12 Fisheries Service (NMFS) has evaluated the impact of Alaskan, Canadian and southern U.S. salmon 

13 fisheries affecting listed Puget Sound chinook under section 7 of the ESA, and evaluated fisheries 

14 resource management plans in 2001 and 2003 for listed Puget Sound chinook under the 4(d) Rule Limit 

15 6. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews were also conducted on the 2001 and 2003 

16 Resource Management Plans as part of the overall assessment of those Resource Management Plans. 

17 The current application of Limit 6 to the 2003 Resource Management Plan expires expired May 1, 

18 2004. The co-managers jointly-developed another harvest RMP for Puget Sound commercial and 

19 recreational salmon, and steelhead net fisheries taking listed Puget Sound chinook for the 2004−2009 

20 fishing seasons which began May 1, 2004. NMFS conducted a consultation under Section 7 of the ESA 

21 and issued a Biological Opinion in June of 2004 that the 2004 fishing season was not likely to 

22 jeopardize the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (NMFS 2004). The co-managers provided the RMP to 

23 NMFS, and NMFS is evaluating the RMP under Limit 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 

24 4(d) rule for the 2005−2009 fishing season, beginning May 1, 2005.

25 Application of Limit 6 to the proposed Resource Management Plan would ensure that in conducting 

26 fishery activities, the co-managers would not be subject to ESA take prohibitions because these 

27 activities would be conducted in a way that contributes to conserving the listed Evolutionarily 

28 Significant Units, or would be governed by regulations that adequately limit impacts to listed salmon. 

29 For NMFS to apply the provisions of Limit 6 for implementing a Resource Management Plan, the co30 managers must jointly prepare a fishing plan that meets the requirements defined under Limit 6 of the 

31 4(d) rule. NMFS must then make a determination pursuant with the government-to-government 

32 processes of the Tribal 4(d) Rule that the Resource Management Plan, as proposed and implemented by 

33 the co-managers, does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of listed Puget 
Executive Summary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest iii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Sound chinook (50 CFR 223.203[b][6][i]). The NMFS determination under the 4(d) Rule is the major 

2 Federal action that triggers review under NEPA (NOAA Administrative Order 216.603(e)[2][a]). 

3 Washington Trout, a Puget Sound environmental group, challenged the adequacy of the NEPA 

4 Environmental Assessment used by NMFS for its determination for the 2001 Puget Sound Chinook 

5 Harvest Resource Management Plan (Washington Trout v. Lohn, No. C01-1863R, Western District, 

6 Washington). As part of the settlement agreement reached with Washington Trout (July 22, 2002), 

7 NMFS agreed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for its 2004 determination related to a 

8 long-term Resource Management Plan. 

9 The alternatives considered and analyzed in this Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement were 

10 formulated based on scientific information, alternatives described in the settlement agreement in 

11 Washington Trout v. Lohn, and public comments received during the scoping process for the 

12 Environmental Impact Statement on the 2004 Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management 

13 Plan. Several alternatives suggested by the public were eliminated from further consideration because 

14 they did not meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action or were contained within the 

15 alternatives that were considered in more detail. It should be noted that Alternative 4 is also 

16 inconsistent with several elements of the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, and would not be 

17 considered were it not one of the alternatives identified for analysis in the settlement agreement to 

18 Washington Trout v. Lohn. In the analyses, Alternative 4 provides an upper-bound estimate of the 

19 decrease in mortality on fish and wildlife species affected by Puget Sound salmon fisheries, and an 

20 upper-bound estimate of socio-economic effects. A description of the Proposed Action and alternatives 

21 is provided in Section 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action. The alternatives considered for 

22 detailed analyses are: 

23 Alternative 1: The Proposed Action (the proposed Resource Management Plan) 

24 Alternative 2: Escapement goal management at the management unit level with no restriction 

25 on where fisheries may take place 

26 Alternative 3: Escapement goal management at the individual population level with terminal 

27 fisheries only 

28 Alternative 4: No authorized take of listed Puget Sound chinook salmon within the Strait of 

29 Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound area. 

30 NEPA requires disclosure of how current environmental and social conditions would change with the 

31 Proposed Action or its alternatives. For this analysis, the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) most closely 

32 approximates current salmon harvest management practices and baseline environmental conditions, 

33 because the same type of harvest management plan has been implemented since 2000−2001. Therefore, 
Executive Summary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest iv December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Alternative 1 is the baseline against which the environmental, social, and economic consequences of 

2 the action are compared. The predicted direct and indirect effects of alternatives on baseline 

3 environmental conditions (Alternative 1) are described in Section 4, Environmental Consequences, 

4 along with predicted cumulative effects on the natural, built and human environment when combined 

5 with other related actions. 

6 The predicted outcome of implementing any of the alternatives evaluated in this Draft Final 

7 Environmental Impact Statement will depend on the Puget Sound chinook salmon abundance available 

8 to the fisheries in any individual year, and the amount of Puget Sound chinook harvest taken in 

9 Canadian and Alaskan fisheries prior to chinook salmon reaching Puget Sound fisheries. Canadian 

10 fisheries, which are outside the jurisdiction of U.S. fishery management agencies, account for 25 to 80 

11 percent of the fishing-related mortality for most chinook populations within Puget Sound. Each 

12 alternative was evaluated for four scenarios that captured the general range in magnitude of abundance 

13 and the level of Puget Sound chinook salmon harvest in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries that is 

14 reasonably expected to occur across the duration of the Proposed Action (the 2004 2005−2009 fishing 

15 seasons), in order to capture the range of predicted impacts of the Proposed Action or alternative. A 

16 more detailed discussion of the basis and choice of these scenarios is presented in Subsection 4.2 of this 

17 Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to 

18 Alternatives Analysis. 

Scenario Abundance Canadian/Alaskan Fisheries 

Scenario A 2003 Puget Sound abundance 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest. 

Scenario B 2003 Puget Sound abundance High Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest. 

Scenario C 30% reduction from 2003 abundance 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest. 

Scenario D 30% reduction from 2003 abundance High Alaskan/Canadian fisheries harvest. 

19 The indications of a plateau or potential reduction in marine survival (the primary influence on 

20 abundance), and expectations that Canadian fisheries will continue to increase as they have in recent 

21 years, led the Interdisciplinary Team to conclude that Scenario B is the most likely to occur during 

22 implementation of the Proposed Action. However, the other scenarios followed the same general 

23 patterns of impact when comparing among alternatives for each resource. 

24 The Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement examines the predicted effects of the Proposed 

25 Action and three alternatives on a range of issues including fish species (salmon and non-salmon), 

26 federal treaty trust responsibilities, subsistence use, economics, environmental justice and wildlife 
Executive Summary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest v December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 (Section 4, Environmental Consequences). From the information provided in this Draft Final

2 Environmental Impact Statement, the Regional Administrator of the NMFS Northwest Region must 

3 decide: 

4 1) Which harvest management strategy to adopt for salmon fisheries that take listed Puget Sound 

5 chinook salmon in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca that would meet the requirements 

6 for Limit 6 of the 4(d) take prohibition 

7 2) If a harvest strategy other than that proposed by the co-managers is preferred, whether to limit 

8 the geographic location of salmon fisheries that take listed Puget Sound chinook within the Puget 

9 Sound Action Area. 

10 CEQ Regulations (§1502.14[e]) require that the agency “Identify the [agency’s] preferred alternative or 

11 alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft [environmental impact] statement...unless another law 

12 prohibits the expression of such a preference.” The Environmentally Preferable Alternative “ordinarily, 

13 means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also 

14 means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural and natural 

15 resources” (CEQ 40 Most Asked Questions, No. 6a). The Preferred Alternative is the alternative NMFS 

16 believes best fulfills the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. The Preferred Alternative and the 

17 Environmentally Preferable Alternative need not be the same. NMFS may take into account various 

18 other considerations in choosing its Preferred Alternative, including such factors as the agency’s 

19 statutory mission and responsibilities, and economic, environmental, technical, and social factors. 

20 The following factors weighed most heavily in NMFS’ decision concerning the Agency Preferred 

21 Alternative and the Environmentally Preferable Alternative: 1) effects on fish, and in particular the 

22 ESA-listed Puget Sound chinook salmon; 2) various levels of restriction on tribal treaty rights (from 

23 voluntary to mandated) and trust responsibilities, and the subsequent effects thereon; 3) treaty Indian 

24 ceremonial and subsistence uses; 4) various levels of environmental justice effects on Puget Sound 

25 tribes; 5) stable or increasingly adverse economic impacts to fishing communities; 6) secondary effects 

26 of fishing resulting from interactions of hatchery salmon that escape fisheries with wild salmon (i.e., 

27 straying); and 7) fishing-related impacts to fish habitat. For other resources evaluated in the Draft 

28 Environmental Impact Statement (wildlife, ownership and land use, water quality), there were no or 

29 very small differences among the alternatives, or uncertainty in the outcome precluded assessment of 

30 the effect (see Section 5, Identification of the Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred 

31 Alternative, for further details). 

32 Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, is the NMFS’ preferred alternative because NMFS believes this 

33 alternative would be most successful at balancing resource conservation, trust obligations to Native 
Executive Summary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest vi December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 American tribes, promotion of sustainable fisheries and prevention of lost economic potential 

2 associated with overfishing, declining species and degraded habitats. NMFS did not choose Alternative 

3 4, the Environmentally Preferable Alternative, as its preferred alternative due to: 1) the anticipated 

4 substantial adverse impacts to tribal treaty rights, treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing uses, 

5 environmental justice effects, and economic effects on fishing communities predicted for this 

6 alternative; 2) the expected reduction in adverse biological impacts from implementation of Alternative 

7 4 were not predicted to be substantial enough to outweigh the losses in these other areas, particularly 

8 for listed Puget Sound chinook salmon; and 3) failure to achieve the purpose and need for the Proposed 

9 Action. 

10 NEPA regulations and guidance indicate that agencies have discretion in choosing a preferred 

11 alternative different from the environmentally preferred alternative “based on relevant factors including 

12 economic and technical considerations and agency statutory missions” (40 CFR 1505.2[b]). NMFS has 

13 three primary mandates with regard to this Proposed Action: 1) implement the ESA; 2) carry out its 

14 federal trust responsibilities with Native American tribes, including protecting the exercise of federally15 recognized treaty tribal fishing rights and; 3) provide for sustainable fishing opportunity. In addition, 

16 Presidential Executive Orders require that NMFS minimize conflicts between its implementation of the 

17 ESA and exercise of tribal activities (E.O. 13175), e.g., treaty reserved fishing rights, and fishing (E.O. 

18 12962). The Secretarial Order (DOI Order 3206) requires that any restrictions of tribal fishing under 

19 the ESA 1) be reasonable and necessary for the conservation of the species at issue; 2) occur only when 

20 the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved by reasonable regulation of non-Indian 

21 activities; 3) be the least restrictive alternative available to achieve the conservation purpose; 4) not 

22 discriminate against Indian activities either as stated or implied; and 5) that voluntary tribal measures 

23 are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. NMFS staff has proposed to conclude 

24 that Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or 

recovery of listed Puget Sound chinook salmon1 25 . Therefore, the further reductions in fisheries, and 

26 tribal fisheries specifically, that would occur with implementation of Alternative 2, 3, or 4 are not 

27 required to meet ESA requirements, and would represent an unreasonable and unnecessary constraint 

28 on the exercise of federally-recognized treaty fishing rights. In addition, the approach represented in 

29 Alternative 1 is more robust overall to management error and key uncertainties in environmental 

30 parameters (see Subsection 4.3.8, Fish: Indirect and Cumulative Effects) and therefore should better 

 

1

 NMFS’ Proposed 4(d) Evaluation and Determination for the Puget Sound chinook resource management plan is 

currently undergoing public comment and review. 
Executive Summary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest vii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 protect salmonid resources evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement and better promote 

2 sustainable fishing opportunities. 

3 Under the most likely scenario to occur over the duration of the Proposed Action (the 2004 2005−2009 

4 fishing seasons), implementation of Alternative 2, 3, or 4 is predicted to result in the loss of more than 

5 94 percent of the local and regional sales, employment, and personal income generated by commercial 

6 salmon fishing associated with the Puget Sound fishery. Reductions in sport fishing-related economic 

7 activity would range from 12 to 72 percent (see Subsection 4.6, Economic Activity and Value: 

8 Environmental Consequences). These predicted effects would be most severe in communities 

9 dependent upon commercial and sport fishing activities. Combined with substantial declines in fishing 

10 industries that these communities have already experienced over the past 20 years, these predicted 

11 effects would further affect the character and viability of these communities, especially tribal 

12 communities (see Subsections 4.5, Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses: 

13 Environmental Consequences; and 4.7, Environmental Justice: Environmental Consequences). The 

14 primary basis for the identification of Alternative 4 as the Environmentally Preferred Alternative was 

15 the increased abundance in fish species. Alternative 4 (as well as Alternative 2 or 3) would provide for 

16 substantially larger escapements of salmonids, larger abundance of forage fish, and a slightly greater 

17 possibility of rebuilding some individual listed Puget Sound chinook populations more quickly. 

18 However, given the discussion above, it is unclear what realistic effect this would have on the status of 

19 salmonid populations. NMFS has tentatively concluded that Alternative 1 will meet ESA requirements. 

20 Management objectives for the other salmonid species are also predicted to be met. Since Alternative 1 

21 also provides for the conservation needs of these resources, NMFS does not consider the predicted 

22 reduction in adverse biological impacts from the implementation of Alternative 4 substantial enough to 

23 outweigh the significant economic losses that would be prevented under Alternative 1. 

24 Finally, NEPA regulations require that the selected alternative be consistent with the purpose and need 

25 for the Proposed Action. Alternative 4 would be inconsistent with several elements of the purpose and 

26 need for the Proposed Action, and would not have been considered were it not one of the alternatives 

27 identified for analysis in the settlement agreement to Washington Trout v. Lohn. It would not: 1) 

28 provide for the meaningful exercise of federally protected treaty fishing rights; 2) provide for tribal and 

29 non-tribal fishing opportunity co-managed under the jurisdiction of U.S. v Washington; or 3) optimize 

30 harvest of abundance of Puget Sound salmon while protecting weaker commingled chinook salmon 

31 stocks. 

List of Acronyms 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest viii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

List of Acronyms 

CCEG Current-condition escapement goal 

CEQ President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

CET Critical escapement threshold 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWT Coded-wire tag (or tagged) 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ER Exploitation rate 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FIRE Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sectors 

FR Federal Register 

FRAM Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model 

IMPLAN Impact Analysis and Planning Professional (Minnesota IMPLAN Group) 

LIFT License and Fish Ticket database (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFP Northwest Forest Plan 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPFMC North Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

NWIFC Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

PBR Potential Biological Removal value 

PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

PSAMP Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program 

PSC Pacific Salmon Commission 

PST Pacific Salmon Treaty 

RER Recovery exploitation rate 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act 

TMOSNRT TENYO MARU Oil Spill Natural Resources Trustees 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VET Viable escapement threshold 
List of Acronyms 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest ix December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

VSP Viable Salmonid Population guidelines 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WTP Willingness to pay 

WWTIT Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest x December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table of Contents 

 GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................................. xxviii 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION...............................................................................1-1 

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1-1 

1.2 Summary of the Proposed Action............................................................................................................1-3 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action............................................................................................1-3 

1.4 Background to Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................................1-4 

1.5 ESA 4(d) Rule and Limit 6.....................................................................................................................1-10 

1.6 Fisheries Affecting Puget Sound Chinook Salmon................................................................................1-12 

1.7 Regulatory Jurisdictions Affecting Washington Fisheries......................................................................1-25 

1.8 Environmental Review Process.............................................................................................................1-26 

1.8.1 Public Scoping..........................................................................................................................1-26 

1.8.2 Issues and Concerns Raised During Scoping..........................................................................1-27 

1.9 Decisions to be Made............................................................................................................................1-27 

1.10 Relationship to Other Plans ..................................................................................................................1-28 

1.10.1 Pacific Salmon Treaty Annexes ...............................................................................................1-28 

1.10.2 Pacific Coast Framework Management Plan ...........................................................................1-28 

1.10.3 Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan .................................................................................1-29 

1.10.4 Puget Sound Recovery Planning .............................................................................................1-29 

1.10.5 Wild Salmonid Policy................................................................................................................1-29 

1.10.6 Gravel to Gravel .......................................................................................................................1-30 

1.11 Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government, State and Tribes in Fisheries Management...1-30 

1.11.1 Federal Agencies .....................................................................................................................1-30 

1.11.2 Tribes .......................................................................................................................................1-31 

1.11.3 State Agencies .........................................................................................................................1-31 

1.12 Overview of the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement......................................................................1-32 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................2-1 

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................2-1 

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..................................................................2-2 

2.2.1 Tribal-Only Fisheries ..................................................................................................................2-2 

2.2.2 No Hatchery Augmentation ........................................................................................................2-3 

2.2.3 Exploitation Rate Management ..................................................................................................2-3 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xi December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................................2-3 

2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..............................................................................2-6 

2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management.......................................................................2-13 

2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

Fisheries Only ..........................................................................................................................2-15 

2.3.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .........................................................................2-19

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................................................3-1 

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................3-1 

3.2 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................3-2 

3.2.1 Physical Description of the Action Area......................................................................................3-5 

3.2.2 Resident Population within the Action Area................................................................................3-8 

3.2.3 Evolutionarily Significant Units within the Action Area................................................................3-9 

3.3 Fish .......................................................................................................................................................3-14 

3.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................................3-14 

3.3.1.1 Puget Sound Chinook ..............................................................................................3-16 

3.3.1.2 Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) .........3-61 

3.3.1.3 Listed Columbia River Chinook Salmon ...................................................................3-67 

3.3.1.4 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)...........................................................................3-67 

3.3.1.5 Listed Columbia River Chum Salmon.......................................................................3-68 

3.3.2 Unlisted Salmonids...................................................................................................................3-68 

3.3.2.1 Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula Coho Salmon (O. kisutch).............................3-68 

3.3.2.2 Puget Sound Sockeye Salmon (O. nerka)................................................................3-73 

3.3.2.3 Washington Coastal Chinook and Unlisted Columbia River Chinook.......................3-75 

3.3.2.4 Puget Sound Chum Salmon (Unlisted).....................................................................3-76 

3.3.2.5 Puget Sound Steelhead (O. mykiss) ........................................................................3-76 

3.3.2.6 Puget Sound Pink Salmon (O. gorbuscha)...............................................................3-78 

3.3.3 Non-Salmonid Fishes (Groundfish) ..........................................................................................3-80 

3.3.4 Forage Species (Pacific Herring, Sandlance, Smelt) ...............................................................3-81 

3.3.5 Fish Habitat Affected by Salmon Fishing..................................................................................3-82 

3.3.6 Marine-Derived Nutrients from Salmon Spawners ...................................................................3-86 

3.3.7 Selectivity on Biological Characteristics of Salmon ..................................................................3-94

3.3.8 Hatchery-Related Fishery Effects on Salmon.........................................................................3-115 

3.3.8.1 Effects of Hatchery-Origin Chinook on Natural-Spawning Chinook Salmon ..........3-115 

3.3.8.2 Overfishing .............................................................................................................3-121 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

3.4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibilities...................................................................................3-122 

3.4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................3-122 

3.4.2 Federal–Tribal Relations ........................................................................................................3-122 

3.4.3 The Trust Responsibility.........................................................................................................3-123 

3.4.4 Indian Treaty Rights in Puget Sound......................................................................................3-123 

3.4.5 Tribal Regulation and Usual and Accustomed Grounds and Stations....................................3-125 

3.4.6 Limitations on the Exercise of Indian Treaty Rights ...............................................................3-126 

3.5 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses ..................................................................3-128

3.5.1 Historic Fisheries....................................................................................................................3-130 

3.5.1.1 The Ethnographic Record ......................................................................................3-130 

3.5.1.2 Tribal Areas, Reservation Locations, and the Importance of Salmon.....................3-132 

3.5.1.3 Post Treaty Period Fishing .....................................................................................3-133 

3.5.2 Contemporary Fisheries .........................................................................................................3-135 

3.5.2.1 Salmon Species, Availability, and Cultural Preferences.........................................3-135 

3.5.2.2 Fishing Areas .........................................................................................................3-135 

3.5.2.3 Gear .......................................................................................................................3-136 

3.5.3 Salmon Uses and the Cultural Significance of Salmon ..........................................................3-136 

3.5.3.1 Use, Distribution and Sharing.................................................................................3-136 

3.5.3.2 Tribes and Relationship to Salmon: Responsibility and Stewardship.....................3-140 

3.5.3.3 The Transmission of Fishing Culture......................................................................3-141 

3.5.3.4 Other Activities That Underscore The Significance of Salmon in Contemporary 

Indian Culture.........................................................................................................3-142 

3.5.3.5 Summary................................................................................................................3-143 

3.6 Economic Activity and Value...............................................................................................................3-144 

3.6.1 Commercial Salmon Harvesting and Processing ...................................................................3-145 

3.6.1.1 Salmon Harvesting .................................................................................................3-145

3.6.1.2 Processing of Commercial Salmon Catch ..............................................................3-154 

3.6.2 Sport Fishing Activity, Catch, and Value ................................................................................3-155 

3.6.3 Regional Economic Activity ....................................................................................................3-161 

3.6.3.1 Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal Region ..................................................3-162 

3.6.3.2 North Puget Sound.................................................................................................3-163

3.6.3.3 South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal..................................................................3-163 

3.6.3.4 Three-Region Summary .........................................................................................3-171 

3.7 Environmental Justice .........................................................................................................................3-173 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xiii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

3.7.1 Background ............................................................................................................................3-173 

3.7.2 Methodology...........................................................................................................................3-173 

3.7.2.1 Establish the Target Area.......................................................................................3-174 

3.7.2.2 Identify the Population Areal Unit ...........................................................................3-174 

3.7.2.3 Identify the Target Population.................................................................................3-174 

3.7.2.4 Identify the Reference Area....................................................................................3-174 

3.7.2.5 Define Disproportionate Effect................................................................................3-174 

3.7.2.6 Identify Environmental Justice Area(s) of Concern ................................................3-175 

3.7.3 Public Outreach to Identify Significant Minority and/or Low-Income Groups..........................3-175 

3.7.4 Low Income Populations ........................................................................................................3-175 

3.7.5 Racial Minorities.....................................................................................................................3-176 

3.7.6 Indian Tribes...........................................................................................................................3-178 

3.8 Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................3-180 

3.8.1 Marine Habitats ......................................................................................................................3-180 

3.8.2 Marine Birds ...........................................................................................................................3-186 

3.8.2.1 Rhinoceros Auklet ..................................................................................................3-186 

3.8.2.2 Common Murre ......................................................................................................3-187

3.8.2.3 Pigeon Guillemot ....................................................................................................3-189 

3.8.2.4 Gulls and Terns......................................................................................................3-190 

3.8.2.5 Grebes, Loons, and Cormorants ............................................................................3-191 

3.8.2.6 Sea Ducks..............................................................................................................3-193 

3.8.3 Marine Mammals....................................................................................................................3-194 

3.8.3.1 Harbor Seal ............................................................................................................3-195 

3.8.3.2 California Sea Lion .................................................................................................3-195 

3.8.3.3 Gray Whale ............................................................................................................3-197 

3.8.3.4 Killer Whale ............................................................................................................3-198 

3.8.3.5 Harbor Porpoise and Dall’s Porpoise .....................................................................3-199 

3.8.3.6 Sea Otter................................................................................................................3-200 

3.8.4 Benthic Invertebrates .............................................................................................................3-201 

3.8.5 Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................................................3-202 

3.8.5.1 Marbled Murrelet ....................................................................................................3-202 

3.8.5.2 California Brown Pelican ........................................................................................3-203 

3.8.5.3 Bald Eagle..............................................................................................................3-204 

3.8.5.4 Steller Sea Lion......................................................................................................3-205 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xiv December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

3.8.5.5 Humpback Whale/Fin Whale..................................................................................3-205 

3.8.5.6 Pacific Leatherback Turtle......................................................................................3-206 

3.9 Ownership and Land Use – Parks and Recreation .............................................................................3-207 

3.10 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................3-209 

3.10.1 Turbidity and Sedimentation...................................................................................................3-210 

3.10.2 Non-Point Source Pollution ....................................................................................................3-210 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..........................................................................................................4-1 

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................4-1 

4.2 Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis.........................................4-3 

4.2.1 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................................4-3 

4.2.2 Technical Approach to Impact Assessment ...............................................................................4-4

4.2.3 Scenarios for Alternatives ..........................................................................................................4-5 

4.2.3.1 Abundance .................................................................................................................4-5 

4.2.3.2 Canadian and Alaskan Fisheries................................................................................4-6 

4.3 Fish .........................................................................................................................................................4-9 

4.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Fish Species................................................................................4-9

4.3.1.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ............................................................4-16 

4.3.1.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ......4-21 

4.3.1.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level..................4-24 

4.3.1.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .........................................................4-27 

4.3.1.5 Summary Discussion of Alternatives........................................................................4-30 

4.3.2 Unlisted Salmonid Species.......................................................................................................4-54 

4.3.2.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ............................................................4-55 

4.3.2.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ......4-57 

4.3.2.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level With 

Terminal Fisheries Only ...........................................................................................4-60 

4.3.2.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .........................................................4-64 

4.3.3 Non-Salmonid Fish Species .....................................................................................................4-67 

4.3.4 Fish Habitat ..............................................................................................................................4-68 

4.3.5 Marine-Derived Nutrients from Spawning Salmon ...................................................................4-70 

4.3.5.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ............................................................4-71 

4.3.5.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ......4-74 

4.3.5.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with 

Terminal Fisheries Only ...........................................................................................4-76 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xv December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

4.3.5.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .........................................................4-77 

4.3.6 Selectivity on Biological Characteristics of Salmon ..................................................................4-79

4.3.6.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ............................................................4-80 

4.3.6.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ......4-84 

4.3.6.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with 

Terminal Fisheries Only ...........................................................................................4-85 

4.3.6.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .........................................................4-86 

4.3.7 Hatchery-Related Fishery Effects On Salmon: Straying and Overfishing.................................4-87 

4.3.7.1 Straying of Hatchery Chinook...................................................................................4-88 

4.3.7.2 Straying of Coho and Chum Salmon......................................................................4-102 

4.3.8 Indirect and Cumulative Effects..............................................................................................4-104 

4.3.8.1 Indirect Effects........................................................................................................4-104 

4.3.8.2 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action or Alternatives on Fish Species..........4-109 

4.4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibility......................................................................................4-120 

4.4.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..........................................................................4-120

4.4.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ....................4-121 

4.4.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

Fisheries Only ........................................................................................................................4-122 

4.4.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .......................................................................4-123 

4.4.5 Indirect and Cumulative Effects..............................................................................................4-124 

4.5 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses ..................................................................4-125

4.5.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..........................................................................4-127

4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ....................4-128 

4.5.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

Fisheries Only. .......................................................................................................................4-129 

4.5.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .......................................................................4-130 

4.5.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................4-131 

4.5.5.1 Indirect Effects........................................................................................................4-131 

4.5.5.2 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................4-133

4.6 Economic Activity and Value...............................................................................................................4-135 

4.6.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..........................................................................4-137

4.6.1.1 Summary of Scenario Differences..........................................................................4-137 

4.6.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ....................4-137 

4.6.2.1 Summary of Scenario Differences..........................................................................4-137 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xvi December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

4.6.2.2 Comparison of the Management Unit-Based Escapement Alternative (Alternative 

2) to the Proposed Action.......................................................................................4-138 

4.6.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

Fisheries Only ........................................................................................................................4-139 

4.6.3.1 Summary of Scenario Differences..........................................................................4-139 

4.6.3.2 Comparison of the Population Unit-Based Escapement Alternative (Alternative 3) 

to the Proposed Action ...........................................................................................4-140 

4.6.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .......................................................................4-141 

4.6.4.1 Summary of Scenario Differences..........................................................................4-141 

4.6.4.2 Comparison of the No Action/No Authorized Take Alternative (Alternative 4) to the 

Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-141 

4.6.5 Summary................................................................................................................................4-143 

4.6.6 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................4-165 

4.7 Environmental Justice .........................................................................................................................4-169 

4.7.1. Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..........................................................................4-175 

4.7.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ..................4-177 

4.7.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level...............................4-180 

4.7.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take, Scenario B....................................................4-182 

4.7.5 Comparison of the Effects of Management Alternatives on the Tribes...................................4-183 

4.7.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects..............................................................................................4-185 

4.7.6.1. Indirect Effects........................................................................................................4-185 

4.7.6.2 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................4-185 

4.8 Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................4-189 

4.8.1 Marine Birds ...........................................................................................................................4-189 

4.8.1.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..........................................................4-193 

4.8.1.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ....4-194 

4.8.1.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with 

Terminal Fisheries Only .........................................................................................4-194 

4.8.1.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .......................................................4-194 

4.8.2 Marine Mammals....................................................................................................................4-195 

4.8.2.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..........................................................4-197 

4.8.2.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ....4-197 

4.8.2.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with 

Terminal Fisheries Only .........................................................................................4-198 

4.8.2.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .......................................................4-199 

4.8.3 Marine Invertebrates ..............................................................................................................4-199 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xvii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

4.8.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..........................................................4-200 

4.8.3.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ....4-200 

4.8.3.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with 

Terminal Fisheries Only .........................................................................................4-200 

4.8.3.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .......................................................4-200 

4.8.4 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species .......................................................................4-200 

4.8.4.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo ..........................................................4-202 

4.8.4.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level ....4-202 

4.8.4.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with 

Terminal Fisheries Only .........................................................................................4-203 

4.8.4.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take .......................................................4-203 

4.8.5 Wildlife Indirect Effects ...........................................................................................................4-203 

4.8.6 Cumulative Effects on Wildlife................................................................................................4-206 

4.9 Ownership and Land Use – Parks and Recreation .............................................................................4-216 

4.10 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................4-217 

4.10.1 Sedimentation and Turbidity...................................................................................................4-217 

4.10.2 Non-Point Source Pollution ....................................................................................................4-217 

5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE AND AGENCY PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................................5-1 

5.1 Impacts Summary ...................................................................................................................................5-1 

5.2 Identification of the Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternatives...............................5-9 

5.2.1 The Environmentally Preferable Alternative ...............................................................................5-9 

5.2.2 The Agency Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................5-10 

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS .............................................................................................6-1 

6.1 NEPA Evaluation Team..............................................................................................................6-1 

6.2 Contributors................................................................................................................................6-4 

7.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ........................................................................7-1 

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................8-1 

1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action............................................................................................8-1 

2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.............................................................................................8-2 

3.0 Affected Environment..............................................................................................................................8-3 

3.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................8-3 

3.3 Fish ............................................................................................................................................8-4 

3.3.6 Marine-Derived Nutrients .........................................................................................8-12 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xviii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

3.3.7 Selectivity on Biological Characteristics of Salmon ..................................................8-17 

3.3.8 Hatchery-Related Fishery Effects on Salmon...........................................................8-19 

3.4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibilities........................................................................8-22

3.5 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses .......................................................8-23 

3.6 Economic Activity and Value ....................................................................................................8-25 

3.7 Environmental Justice ..............................................................................................................8-26 

3.8 Wildlife......................................................................................................................................8-27 

3.9 Ownership and Land Use.........................................................................................................8-39 

3.10 Water Quality............................................................................................................................8-39 

4.0 Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................8-39 

4.2 Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis ..........................8-39 

4.3 Fish ..........................................................................................................................................8-40 

4.3.5 Marine-Derived Nutrients from Spawning Salmon ...................................................................8-41 

4.3.6 Selectivity on Biological Characteristics of Salmon ..................................................................8-42

4.3.7 Hatchery-Related Effects on Salmon: Straying and Overfishing ..............................................8-42 

4.3.8 Indirect and Cumulative Effects................................................................................................8-42 

4.4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibility...........................................................................8-43 

4.6 Economic Activity and Value ....................................................................................................8-43 

4.7 Environmental Justice ..............................................................................................................8-43 

4.8 Wildlife......................................................................................................................................8-44 

5.0 Identification of the Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative ..............................8-48 

Technical Appendix C Technical Methods, Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery 

Impacts.....................................................................................................................8-48 

Technical Appendix D Technical Methods, Economics................................................................................8-50 

APPENDICES 

A Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan................................................................. A-1 

B Puget Sound Chinook Population Information ....................................................................................... B-1 

C Technical Methods – Derivation of Chinook Management Objectives and Fishery Impact Modeling 

Methods................................................................................................................................................. C-1 

D Technical Methods – Economics............................................................................................................ D-1 

E Technical Methods – Environmental Justice .......................................................................................... E-1 

F Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits ...................................................................................F-1 

G Plant and Animal Database Searches.................................................................................................... G-1 

H Consultation and Coordination............................................................................................................... H-1 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xix December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

List of Tables 

Table 1.5-1. The fourteen salmon and steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units included in the ESA 4(d) 

rule and their listing information. .................................................................................................1-11 

Table 1.6-1. Fraser River sockeye, pink and incidental chinook catch in Puget Sound, 1995–2001. .............1-22 

Table 1.6-2. Commercial net fishery harvest of pink salmon from the Nooksack, Skagit, and Snohomish 

river systems, 1991–2001...........................................................................................................1-22 

Table 1.6-3. Landed coho salmon harvest: Puget Sound net fisheries. Regional totals include the 

freshwater catch..........................................................................................................................1-23 

Table 2.3-1. Comparison of alternatives considered for detailed analysis. .......................................................2-5 

Table 2.3-2. Puget Sound chinook resource management plan harvest conservation objectives: Recovery 

exploitation rates, escapement goals, critical abundance thresholds, and minimum fishing 

rates under Alternative 1...............................................................................................................2-8 

Table 2.3-3. Escapement goal objectives used to analyze Alternative 2 based on objectives provided by 

the co-managers.........................................................................................................................2-14 

Table 2.3-4. Escapement goal objectives used to analyze Alternative 3 based on objectives provided by 

the co-managers.........................................................................................................................2-18 

Table 3.2-1. Major river systems within the four regions of the Puget Sound Action Area................................3-5 

Table 3.2-2. April 1, 2000 resident population of Puget Sound Action Area counties.......................................3-8 

Table 3.3-1. Summary of key characteristics of Pacific salmon species.........................................................3-15 

Table 3.3-2. Critical escapement thresholds, viable escapement thresholds, and rebuilding exploitation 

rates determined by NMFS for Puget Sound chinook populations..............................................3-21 

Table 3.3-3. Summary of status of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca native summer chum salmon 

populations. ................................................................................................................................3-65 

Table 3.3-4. Summary of environmental and harvest-related factors contributing to the decline of Hood 

Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum populations in the 1970s and 1980s. .............3-65 

Table 3.3-5. Summary of assessments of population status of Puget Sound coho salmon............................3-70 

Table 3.3-6. Summary of run size and escapement trends for Puget Sound wild coho population groups, 

1981 through 2000......................................................................................................................3-71 

Table 3.3.7-1. Average age composition of the Puget Sound chinook salmon catch by gear type..................3-100 

Table 3.3.7-2. Characteristics of populations chosen for size at age analyses................................................3-103 

Table 3.3.7-3. Changes in size at age and sex for selected Puget Sound chinook populations (significance 

level (P) = 0.10). .......................................................................................................................3-105 

Table 3.3.7-4. Changes in size at age for selected Puget Sound chinook populations (significance level (P) 

= 0.05).......................................................................................................................................3-107 

Table 3.3.7-5. Comparison of size at age analyses for hatchery and natural spawning escapement analysis 

for those population and age strata in common to both analyses.............................................3-109 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xx December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 3.3.7-6. Observed trends in Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon adult lengths (cm/year) and 

corresponding expected trends (cm/year) under directional harvest (Ryding and Reidinger 

2004). Model runs incorporated strong stabilizing selection on length (ω = 1σ) and a 

threshold for legal harvest of 50 cm..........................................................................................3-111 

Table 3.3.7-7. Observed trends in Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon adult lengths (cm/year) and 

corresponding expected trends (cm/year) under directional harvest selection (Ryding and 

Reidinger 2004). Model runs incorporated weak stabilizing selection on length (ω= 4σ) and a 

threshold for legal harvest of 50 cm..........................................................................................3-112 

Table 3.3.7-8. Observed trends in Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon adult lengths (cm yr-1) and 

corresponding expected trends (cm yr-1) under directional harvest selection (Ryding and 

Reidinger 2004). Model runs incorporated strong stabilizing selection on length (ω= 1σ) and 

a threshold for legal harvest of 70cm........................................................................................3-113 

Table 3.3.7-9. Observed trends in Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon adult lengths (cm yr-1) and 

corresponding expected trends (cm yr-1) under directional harvest selection (Ryding and 

Reidinger 2004). Model runs incorporated weak stabilizing selection on length (ω= 4σ) and a 

threshold for legal harvest of 70cm...........................................................................................3-114 

Table 3.6-1. County, regional, and state industrial output by major industrial sector in 2000 (in millions of 

2000 dollars). ............................................................................................................................3-165 

Table 3.6-2. County, regional, and state industrial output by specific industrial sectors in 2000 (in millions 

of 2000 dollars). ........................................................................................................................3-166 

Table 3.6-3. County, regional, and state employment1 by major industrial sector in 2000. ..........................3-167 

Table 3.6-4. County, regional, and state employment1 by specific industrial sectors in 2000. ....................3-168 

Table 3.6-5. County, regional, and state personal income1 by major industrial sector in 2000 (in millions of 

2000 dollars). ............................................................................................................................3-169 

Table 3.6-6. County, regional, and state personal income1 by specific industrial sectors in 2000 (in millions 

of 2000 dollars). ........................................................................................................................3-170 

Table 3.7-1. Percentage of persons below the poverty level, by county, within the target area....................3-176 

Table 3.7-2. Percentage of minority persons by county, by race, within the target area...............................3-177 

Table 3.7-3. Tribes considered in the environmental justice analysis. ..........................................................3-179 

Table 3.8-1. Presence and association of marine birds and mammals with the marine habitats of Puget 

Sound. ......................................................................................................................................3-182 

Table 3.8-2. Seasonal abundance of birds and marine mammals in Puget Sound.......................................3-185 

Table 3.9-1. Freshwater and saltwater boat launches in the 12 counties within the Puget Sound action 

area...........................................................................................................................................3-207 

Table 4.2-1. Scenarios associated with estimated harvest levels within the Puget Sound Action Area............4-8 

Table 4.3-1. Rebuilding Exploitation Rates, and critical and viable escapement standards for listed Puget 

Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum, against which impacts of Alternatives were 

assessed.....................................................................................................................................4-13 

Table 4.3-2. Predicted Southern U.S. catch of Puget Sound chinook populations under Alternatives 1-4 

and Scenarios A-D......................................................................................................................4-33 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxi December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 4.3-3. Performance of Alternatives 1 through 4 under Scenario B relative to rebuilding exploitation 

rate, critical escapement threshold, and viable escapement threshold standards. .....................4-34 

Table 4.3-4 Summary of impacts of Alternatives 2-4 relative to the proposed action under Scenario B........4-35 

Table 4.3-5. Performance of Alternatives 1 through 4 under Scenarios A-D relative to rebuilding 

exploitation rate, critical escapement threshold, and viable escapement threshold standards...4-36 

Table 4.3-6 Summary of impacts of Alternatives 2-4 relative to the proposed action under scenarios 1-4....4-37 

Table 4.3-7a Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) under Scenario A relative to NMFS recovery 

standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for 

listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. ....4-38 

Table 4.3-7b Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) under Scenario B relative to NMFS recovery 

standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for 

listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. ....4-39 

Table 4.3-7c Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) under Scenario C relative to NMFS recovery 

standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for 

listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. ....4-40 

Table 4.3-7d Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) under Scenario D relative to NMFS recovery 

standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for 

listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. ....4-41 

Table 4.3-8a-1 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) 

under Scenario A relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population 

guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood 

Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. .................................................................4-42 

Table 4.3-8a-2 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) 

under Scenario A relative to Alternative 1 Scenario A (Proposed Action)...................................4-42 

Table 4.3-8b-1 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) 

under Scenario B relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population 

guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood 

Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. .................................................................4-43 

Table 4.3-8b-2 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) 

under Scenario B relative to Alternative 1 Scenario B (Proposed Action)...................................4-43 

Table 4.3-8c-1 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) 

under Scenario C relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population 

guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood 

Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. .................................................................4-44 

Table 4.3-8c-2 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) 

under Scenario C relative to Alternative 1 Scenario C (Proposed Action). .................................4-44 

Table 4.3-8d-1 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) 

under Scenario D relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population 

guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood 

Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. .................................................................4-45 

Table 4.3-8d-2 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) 

under Scenario D relative to Alternative 1 Scenario D (Proposed Action). .................................4-45 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 4.3-9a-1 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under 

Scenario A relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and 

current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of 

Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon..........................................................................................4-46 

Table 4.3-9a-2 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under 

Scenario A relative to Alternative 1 Scenario A (Proposed Action).............................................4-46 

Table 4.3-9b-1 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under 

Scenario B relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and 

current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of 

Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon..........................................................................................4-47 

Table 4.3-9b-2 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under 

Scenario B relative to Alternative 1 Scenario B (Proposed Action).............................................4-47 

Table 4.3-9c-1 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under 

Scenario C relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and 

current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of 

Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon..........................................................................................4-48 

Table 4.3-9c-2 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under 

Scenario C relative to Alternative 1 Scenario C (Proposed Action). ...........................................4-48 

Table 4.3-9d-1 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under 

Scenario D relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and 

current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of 

Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon..........................................................................................4-49 

Table 4.3-9d-2 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under 

Scenario D relative to Alternative 1 Scenario D (Proposed Action). ...........................................4-49 

Table 4.3-10a-1 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario A relative to NMFS recovery 

standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for 

listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. ....4-50 

Table 4.3-10a-2 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario A relative to Alternative 1 Scenario 

A (Proposed Action)....................................................................................................................4-50 

Table 4.3-10b-1 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario B relative to NMFS recovery 

standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for 

listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. ....4-51 

Table 4.3-10b-2 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario B relative to Alternative 1 Scenario 

B (Proposed Action)....................................................................................................................4-51 

Table 4.3-10c-1 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario Crelative to NMFS recovery 

standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for 

listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. ....4-52 

Table 4.3-10c-2 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario C relative to Alternative 1 Scenario 

C (Proposed Action)....................................................................................................................4-52 

Table 4.3-10d-1 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario D relative to NMFS recovery 

standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for 

listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. ....4-53 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxiii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 4.3-10d-2 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario D relative to Alternative 1 Scenario 

D (Proposed Action)....................................................................................................................4-53 

Table 4.3-11 Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) relative to exploitation rate objectives or 

escapement goals for coho, sockeye, pink, and fall-winter chum salmon...................................4-56 

Table 4.3-12a Performance of Alternative 2 relative to exploitation rate objectives or escapement goals for 

coho, sockeye, pink, and fall-winter chum salmon......................................................................4-58 

Table 4.3-12b Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement goal management at the management unit level) 

relative to Alternative 1 for coho, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon............................................4-59 

Table 4.3-13a Performance of Alternative 3 relative to exploitation rate objectives or escapement goals for 

coho, sockeye, pink, and fall-winter chum salmon......................................................................4-61 

Table 4.3-13b Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement goal management at the population level) relative 

to Alternative 1 for coho, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon. .......................................................4-63 

Table 4.3-14a Performance of Alternative 4 relative to exploitation rate objectives or escapement goals for 

coho, sockeye, pink, and fall-winter chum salmon......................................................................4-65 

Table 4.3-14b Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) relative to Alternative 1 for coho, sockeye, pink, 

and chum salmon........................................................................................................................4-66 

Table 4.3.5-1 Biomass (pounds) of spawning salmon in the Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers, 

under Alternative 1......................................................................................................................4-72 

Table 4.3.5-2 Biomass (pounds) of spawning salmon in the Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers, 

under Alternative 2......................................................................................................................4-75 

Table 4.3.5-3 Biomass (pounds) of spawning salmon in the Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers, 

under Alternative 3......................................................................................................................4-77 

Table 4.3.5-4 Biomass (pounds) of spawning salmon in the Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers, 

under Alternative 4......................................................................................................................4-78 

Table 4.3.6.1-1. Range of expected total exploitation rates by Puget Sound chinook management unit during 

the period 2005−2009.................................................................................................................4-83 

Table 4.3.6.1-2. Range of expected southern U.S. exploitation rates by Puget Sound chinook management 

unit during the period 2005−2009...............................................................................................4-84 

Table 4.3.7-1. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the 

Proposed Action or alternatives by scenario...............................................................................4-89 

Table 4.3.7-2. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the 

Proposed Action or alternatives under Scenario A. ....................................................................4-90 

Table 4.3.7-3. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the 

Proposed Action or alternatives under Scenario B. ....................................................................4-91 

Table 4.3.7-4. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the 

Proposed Action or alternatives under Scenario C. ....................................................................4-92 

Table 4.3.7-5. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the 

Proposed Action or alternatives under Scenario D. ....................................................................4-93 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxiv December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 4.3.7-6. Estimated 1996–2002 average number of hatchery-origin chinook salmon that spawn in the 

wild as a proportion of the hatchery-origin escapement for key Puget Sound chinook hatchery 

salmon populations under consideration (hatchery fish spawning in the wild/total hatchery fish 

returning). ...................................................................................................................................4-95 

Table 4.3.7-7. Hatchery contribution to natural spawning escapement by scenario and alternative for five 

representative Puget Sound chinook populations.......................................................................4-97 

Table 4.3.7-8. Comparisons of hatchery- and natural-spawning coho salmon escapement with the proposed 

action and alternatives. .............................................................................................................4-103 

Table 4.3.7-9. Comparisons of hatchery- and natural-spawning chum salmon escapement with the proposed 

action and alternatives. .............................................................................................................4-103 

Table 4.3.8-1. Federal, Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish 

within the Puget Sound Action Area: 2004................................................................................4-111 

Table 4.6-1. Performance of economic indicators under alternatives 1-4 relative to conservation standards 

under scenarios 1-4. .................................................................................................................4-146 

Table 4.6-2. Impacts to commercial harvest, commercial harvest value, and processing value. Scenario A: 

2003 Abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.......................4-147 

Table 4.6-3. Direct economic impacts to the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries. 

Scenario A: 2003 Abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ..4-148 

Table 4.6-4. Impacts to sport fishing trips and expenditures by region. Scenario A: 2003 Abundance and 

2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries..........................................................4-149 

Table 4.6-5. Regional economic impacts of the alternatives. Scenario A: 2003 Abundance and 2003 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries...................................................................4-150 

Table 4.6-6. Impacts to commercial harvest, commercial harvest value, and processing value. Scenario 

B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. .........4-151 

Table 4.6-7. Direct economic impacts to the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries. 

Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty 

fisheries. ...................................................................................................................................4-152 

Table 4.6-8. Impacts to sport fishing trips and expenditures by region. Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. .................................................4-153 

Table 4.6-9. Regional economic impacts of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries...................................................................4-154 

Table 4.6-10. Impacts to commercial harvest, commercial harvest value, and processing value. Scenario 

C: 30% Reduction in abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty 

fisheries. ...................................................................................................................................4-155 

Table 4.6-11. Direct economic impacts to the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries. 

Scenario C: 30% Reduction in abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty 

fisheries. ...................................................................................................................................4-156 

Table 4.6-12. Impacts to sport fishing trips and expenditures by region. Scenario C: 30% Reduction in 

abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................................4-157 

Table 4.6-13. Regional economic impacts of the alternatives. Scenario C: 30% Reduction in abundance 

and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries...................................................4-158 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxv December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 4.6-14. Impacts to commercial harvest, commercial harvest value, and processing value. Scenario 

D: 30% Reduction in abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty 

fisheries. ...................................................................................................................................4-159 

Table 4.6-15. Direct economic impacts to the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries. 

Scenario D: 30% Reduction in abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon 

Treaty fisheries. ........................................................................................................................4-160 

Table 4.6-16. Impacts to sport fishing trips and expenditures by region. Scenario D: 30% Reduction in 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. .......................4-161 

Table 4.6-17. Regional economic impacts of the alternatives. Scenario D: 30% Reduction in abundance 

with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries...........................................4-162 

Table 4.6-18. Baseline and change in net economic values of commercial salmon fishing (in millions of 

2002 dollars). ............................................................................................................................4-163 

Table 4.6-19. Baseline and changes in angler days and net economic value (NEV) of salmon sport fishing 

in the Puget Sound area. ..........................................................................................................4-164 

Table 4.6-20. Federal, Tribal, Washington State, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence 

economic condition within the Puget Sound Action Area (2004)...............................................4-167 

Table 4.7-1. Tribal salmon fishing revenue for the action area – 17 fishing tribes (estimates in thousands 

of dollars). .................................................................................................................................4-171 

Table 4.7-2. Selected data for potentially affected tribes. .............................................................................4-173 

Table 4.7-3. Relative mortality for tribal peoples compared to residents of Washington State. ....................4-174 

Table 4.7-4. Estimated tribal salmon harvested annually under Alternative 1, Scenario B. ..........................4-176 

Table 4.7-5. Estimated annual tribal salmon revenue, by species – Alternative 1, Scenario B.....................4-176 

Table 4.7.6. Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or D............4-177 

Table 4.7-7. Number of tribal salmon caught annually under Alternative 2, Scenario B. ..............................4-178 

Table 4.7-8. Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 2, Scenarios A, C, or D............4-180 

Table 4.7-9. Estimated tribal salmon numbers harvested annually under Alternative 3, Scenario B. ...........4-180 

Table 4.7-10. Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 3, Scenarios A, C, or D............4-181 

Table 4.7-11. Estimated tribal salmon numbers harvested annually under Alternative 4, Scenario B. ...........4-182 

Table 4.7-12. Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 4, Scenarios A, C, or D............4-183 

Table 4.7-13. Summary of environmental justice indicators associated with potential impacts from 

alternative management plans under Scenario B. ....................................................................4-184 

Table 4.7-14. Federal, Tribal, Washington State, and local plans, policies, and programs predicted to have 

a cumulative impact on environmental justice communities within the Puget Sound Action 

Area (2004)...............................................................................................................................4-188 

Table 4.8.6-1 Cumulative effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, 

policies and laws.......................................................................................................................4-208 

Table 5.1-1. Abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fishery scenarios evaluated for each alternative...................5-2 

Table 5.1-2 Comparison of predicted environmental effects among alternatives and a description of the 

Proposed Action for Scenario B in the order they appear in the EIS. ...........................................5-4 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxvi December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1-1. Washington commercial salmon management marine catch reporting areas...............................1-2 

Figure 1.4-1. Marine range of west coast chinook salmon.................................................................................1-5 

Figure 1.4-2. Fisheries management forums. ....................................................................................................1-6 

Figure 1.4-3. Locations of federally-recognized Puget Sound treaty tribes that are parties to the proposed 

action. ...........................................................................................................................................1-8 

Figure 1.6-1. Major fishing areas in Alaska, British Columbia and the southern United States where listed 

Puget Sound chinook salmon are caught. ..................................................................................1-14 

Figure 1.6-2. Commercial net and troll catch of chinook salmon in Puget Sound, 1980–2001. .......................1-19 

Figure 1.6-3. Puget Sound overview. ...............................................................................................................1-21 

Figure 1.6-4. Number of chinook salmon caught in Puget Sound marine fisheries..........................................1-24 

Figure 1.6-5. Number of chinook salmon caught in Puget Sound freshwater recreational fisheries. ..............1-24 

Figure 3.2-1. The Puget Sound Action Area and regions within the action area................................................3-3

Figure 3.2-2. Washington counties within the Puget Sound Action Area. ..........................................................3-4 

Figure 3.2-3. The North Puget Sound region of the Puget Sound Action Area. .................................................3-6 

Figure 3.2-4. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit: Land ownership pattern. ............3-10 

Figure 3.2-5. Proposed demographically-independent populations in the Puget Sound Salmon 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit......................................................................................................3-12 

Figure 3.2-6. Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit: Land ownership 

pattern.........................................................................................................................................3-13 

Figure 3.3-1. North Puget Sound Region. ........................................................................................................3-24 

Figure 3.3-2. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Nooksack River spring chinook...............................................................................3-26 

Figure 3.3-3. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Skagit River summer-fall chinook............................................................................3-29 

Figure 3.3-4. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Skagit River spring chinook.....................................................................................3-31 

Figure 3.3-5. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Stillaguamish River summer-fall chinook. ...............................................................3-34 

Figure 3.3-6. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Snohomish River summer-fall chinook....................................................................3-35 

Figure 3.3-7. South Puget Sound Region. .......................................................................................................3-39 

Figure 3.3-8. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Lake Washington summer-fall chinook. ..................................................................3-41 

Figure 3.3-9. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Green-Duwamish River summer-fall chinook..........................................................3-43 
 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxvii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Figure 3.3-10. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for White River spring chinook......................................................................................3-46 

Figure 3.3-11. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Puyallup River fall chinook. .....................................................................................3-49 

Figure 3.3-12. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Nisqually River fall chinook. ....................................................................................3-51 

Figure 3.3-13. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Skokomish River fall chinook. .................................................................................3-53 

Figure 3.3-14. Strait of Juan de Fuca Region. ...................................................................................................3-56 

Figure 3.3-15. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Dungeness River spring chinook.............................................................................3-58 

Figure 3.3-16. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

mortality for Elwha River summer-fall chinook............................................................................3-60 

Figure 3.3-17. Summer chum salmon spawning escapement to the Big Quilcene, other west Hood Canal 

streams, and east Hood Canal streams, 1968 –2001.................................................................3-63 

Figure 3.3-18. Summer chum salmon spawning escapement to Strait of Juan de Fuca streams, 1971–2001..3-64 

Figure 3.3.7-1. Age composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon catch: relatively stable since 1980. ............3-100 

Figure 3.3.7-2. Age composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon escapement: stable since the 1970s..........3-101 

Figure 3.5-1. Location of federally-recognized Puget Sound Indian tribes that are parties to the proposed 

action. .......................................................................................................................................3-129 

Figure 3.6-1. Annual average ex-vessel value of commercial salmon landed at Puget Sound ports between 

1991 and 1998, by county.........................................................................................................3-146 

Figure 3.6-2. Annual average catch (tribal and non-tribal) and ex-vessel value of commercially-caught 

salmon in Puget Sound between 1991 and 2000. ....................................................................3-147 

Figure 3.6-3. Percent of the annual average commercially-caught salmon in Puget Sound between 1991 

and 2000, by marine catch area (in pounds landed).................................................................3-148 

Figure 3.6-4. Action and impact analysis area for the Puget Sound Harvest Management Plan. ..................3-150 

Figure 3.6-5. Percent of annual average commercially-caught (tribal and non-tribal) harvest of salmon in 

freshwater areas of Puget Sound. ............................................................................................3-151 

Figure 3.6-6. Annual average catch and ex-vessel value of salmon harvested by tribes in Puget Sound 

(1991-2000). .............................................................................................................................3-153 

Figure 3.6-7. Annual average sport catch (number of fish caught) of salmon in marine and freshwater areas 

of Puget Sound, by species (1991-2000)..................................................................................3-156 

Figure 3.6-8. Salmon ports and major launch areas in North Puget Sound region. .......................................3-157 

Figure 3.6-9. Salmon ports and major launch areas in South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region. ........3-158 

Figure 3.6-10. Salmon ports and major launch areas in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region.3-159 
Glossary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxviii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

Glossary 

4(d) Rule Regulations adopted by the Secretary of Commerce that he/she deems 

necessary and advisable for the conservation of threatened species. For this 

document, the 4(d) Rule specifically means those regulations published by 

NMFS on July 10, 2000 for fourteen listed salmon ESUs. 

Action area See Puget Sound Action Area, below. 

Adjudicated fishing 

rights 

Fishing rights of federally-recognized Indian tribes that have been 

established pursuant to court decree. 

Adverse impact An impact that has a negative consequence. 

Alleles Location in the genetic material (DNA) where genetic traits are carried. The 

type and frequency of the alleles in a population constitutes the genetic 

diversity of the population. 

Alternatives Reasonable actions that fit the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. 

Angler days Trips by sport fishermen. 

Annex The detailed agreements that implement the principles of the Pacific 

Salmon Treaty. 

Asymptote A straight line approached by a given curve as one of the variables in the 

equation of the curve approaches infinity. 

Authorized take Take of a listed species defined in the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in 

any such conduct” conducted in a manner approved by the federal agency 

with jurisdiction over that listed species; i.e., NMFS or USFWS. 

Bag limit The number of fish allowed to be harvested in recreational fisheries within 

a certain time frame, e.g., angler trip. It may also be measured relative to 

another species; e.g., two salmon, only one of which is a chinook. 

Beneficial impact An impact that has a positive consequence. 

Blackmouth Immature chinook salmon. 

Brood year The year in which returning salmon adults spawn or the year in which the 

parents of a group of fish of the same age spawned. 

Bycatch Unintentional capture of marine birds or mammals during fisheries using 

any of a variety of gear types. 

Carcass biomass The volume of spawning salmon, measured in this document by spawner 

abundance. 

Ceremonial uses Salmon is a traditional food of Puget Sound Native American tribes. 

Examples of ceremonies that require traditional meals, including salmon, 

are: winter ceremonials, naming ceremonies, giveaways and feasts, and 

funerals. 

Cetaceans Whales, dolphins, porpoise. 
Glossary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxix December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

Chinook-directed 

fisheries 

Fisheries with the objective of harvesting chinook salmon. 

Coded-wire tags Minute, implanted tags in a portion of hatchery-reared salmon that reveal 

information about their origin. 

Cohorts Fish of a given age and stock at the beginning of a particular year of life. 

Co-managers Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Puget Sound Treaty 

Tribes. 

Commingle To mix together. 

Critical escapement 

threshold 

A level of escapement below which extinction risk increases substantially. 

Cumulative impact The impact on the environment that would result from the incremental 

effects of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or 

non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts 

can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time (CEQ 1508.7). 

Current-condition 

escapement threshold 

The number of spawners that meet the productivity and capacity constraints 

of a given river system. 

Depensatory mortality Mortality that occurs at very low population abundance that has the affect 

of destabilizing or further destabilizing the population. 

Depressed population A population whose production is below expected levels based on available 

habitat and natural variations in survival rates, but above the level where 

permanent damage to the population is likely. 

Direct effect An effect that would be caused by the proposed action or alternatives and 

occur at the same time and place as the action. Direct effects typically arise 

from construction activities, and may also occur from operations associated 

with the proposed action or alternatives (40CFR 1508.8[a]). 

Disproportionate effect An incidence (or prevalence) of an effect, a risk of an effect, or likely 

exposure to environmental hazards that would potentially cause adverse 

effects on a minority and/or low income population that significantly 

exceeds that experienced by a comparable reference population − a form of 

effects analysis used in the Environmental Justice subsection (4.7). 

Diurnal foraging Daytime foraging. 

Endangered species The ESA defines a threatened species as “any species which is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a 

species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest 

whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an 

overwhelming and overriding risk to man.” 

Escapement The number of spawning adult salmon that return to a particular geographic 

area. 

Escapement floor The number of spawning adult salmon for a population or management unit 

that harvest management actions are designed to meet or exceed. 
Glossary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxx December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

Escapement goal A management objective expressed as the number of fish returning to 

natural or artificial (hatchery) spawning areas. 

Escapement goal 

management 

A harvest management strategy whereby fisheries are managed to achieve 

an escapement goal(s). 

Estuarine habitat Tidal flats and river mouths (like Padilla Bay and the mouth of the 

Nooksack River). 

Exploitation Harvest. 

Exploitation rate The total mortality in a fishery or aggregate of fisheries expressed as the 

proportion of the un-fished cohort removed by fishing. 

Exploitation rate 

ceiling 

The maximum exploitation rate allowed for a population or management 

unit. A ceiling differs from a target in that fisheries are not managed to 

achieve the ceiling, but generally to fall below it. 

Ex-vessel value The dollar value that commercial fishermen receive for their product once it 

leaves the fishing vessel. 

Fecundity Fertility. For salmon, fecundity is measured as the number of eggs 

produced per female. 

Federal trust 

responsibility 

Duties and responsibilities of the federal government to manage the 

property and natural resources of the Tribes for the benefit of the Tribes. 

Federally-recognized 

tribes 

Any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or 

community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an 

Indian tribe. The Secretary of the Interior is required to publish an annual 

list of such tribes in the Federal Register (25 USC sections 479a and 479a1). 

Fingerlings Actively-feeding juvenile salmon within river systems. 

Fishing regime The specific group of fishery actions/regulations that are taken to achieve 

fishery management objectives. 

Fry Newly-emerged salmon. 

Genetic diversity The variation in inherited traits. 

Genetic integrity Maintenance of unique genetic characteristics of a population. 

Genome The genetic material (DNA, chromosomes) contained in living cells. 

Ghost net Fishing nets, especially gillnets, that have been lost but continue to capture 

fish, marine birds, marine mammals and crabs. 

Harvest Fish killed as a result of encounters with fishing gear. 

Harvest rate Total fishing mortality in a fishery expressed as a proportion of the total 

fish abundance available (standing stock) in a given fishing area at the start 

of a time period. 

Hatchery-origin fish Fish whose parents spawned or were spawned in a hatchery. 

Hatchery-spawning 

fish 

Same as hatchery-origin fish. 
Glossary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxxi December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

Healthy population A population experiencing production levels consistent with its available 

habitat and within the natural variations in survival for the population. 

Hood Canal region For purposes of this analysis, the Hood Canal region includes Jefferson, 

Kitsap and Mason Counties, and the following river systems: Skokomish, 

Hamma Hamma, Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little 

Quilcene. 

Hook-and-line fishery Fisheries that use hook-and-line gear, e.g., troll and sport fisheries, to catch 

fish. 

Hook-ups The occurrence of catching marine birds in hook-and-line sport fisheries. 

Incidental catch Fish captured during a fishery targeted at another species. 

Incidental take Accidental harm or death caused to a threatened or endangered species 

during a fishery targeted at another species. 

Indicator populations Hatchery produced salmon that are marked with coded-wire tags and are 

used to represent associated wild spawning populations. 

Indirect effect Reasonably foreseeable effects that would be caused by the proposed action 

or alternatives, but which would occur later in time or further removed 

from the project site or action area than direct effects. Indirect effects may 

also include those resulting from actions that may have both beneficial and 

detrimental effects, even if on balance the lead agency believes the effect 

will be beneficial. Indirect effects may be growth-inducing or otherwise 

related to changes in land use patterns, population density, or growth rate, 

and may affect air quality, water, and/or other natural systems (40CFR 

1508.8[b]). 

Inland marine deeper 

water habitat 

Marine waters of Puget Sound greater than 66 feet deep. 

Listed species Species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or 

endangered. 

Low effect Measurable but of small amount or occurs infrequently. 

Marine Catch Areas Geographic areas in marine and freshwaters defined for the purposes of 

reporting catch. 

Marine-derived 

nutrients 

The input of nutrients into freshwater systems associated with the return, 

death and decomposition of adult salmon. 

Management unit A population or group of populations aggregated for the purpose of 

achieving a management objective. 

Marine shelf habitat Deepwater habitat of the Strait of Juan de Fuca west of a line from the 

mouth of the Elwha River north to Race Rocks on the southern tip of 

Vancouver Island, influenced by oceanic currents. 

Mesocosm Communities in the middle or community structure that transitions from 

one layer to another, e.g., rock-insect-fish. 

Moderate effect Measurable at some level between low and substantial. 

Morphology The form and structure of an organism. 
Glossary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxxii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

Morphological Pertaining to the form and structure of an organism. 

Mortality Number or amount of salmon killed. 

Natal stream Stream of origin. 

Natural escapement The number of fish spawning in the wild regardless of whether their parents 

spawned in the wild or in a hatchery. 

Naturally-spawning Spawning in the wild. 

Nearshore marine 

habitat 

Marine areas of Puget Sound between high tide and the end of the photic 

zone (66 feet depth). 

Net economic value to 

commercial fishermen 

The amount of total revenues received by vessel operators less the costs of 

production, including wages, operational expenses (like fuel and 

equipment), and fixed costs (such as insurance and depreciation). 

Net economic value for 

sport anglers 

The amount anglers would be willing to pay over and above what they 

actually pay is the measure of net economic value (or the value received) to 

anglers. 

No effect Not measurable and/or expected, or of such a rare occurrence that it is 

impossible to measure or detect. 

North Hood Canal The Economic Activity analysis of this Environmental Assessment 

addresses North Hood Canal (Jefferson County) and Clallam County in a 

subregion identified as Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal. 

North Puget Sound 

region 

For purposes of this analysis, the North Puget Sound region includes 

Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Island and San Juan Counties, and the 

following river systems: Nooksack, Samish, Skagit, Stillaguamish, and 

Snohomish. 

Nutrient loading The nutrients released into a system proportional to carcass density. 

Otoliths Bones in the head of a fish that indicate age. 

Out-of-watershedorigin chinook 

Chinook originating from a watershed other than that in which they are 

found, or chinook originating from a watershed other than that under 

discussion. 

Population areal unit The geopolitical unit used for purposes of the Environmental Justice 

analysis. Contains the populations used to define the target area: by county. 

Precocious Age-2 fish. 

Productivity of systems The survival rate of a population from a particular watershed from one life 

stage to another measured after taking into consideration mortality 

occurring during that period, e.g., juveniles produced per spawning adult. 

Progeny Offspring of spawning salmon. 

Proposed Action The Puget Sound chinook harvest management framework proposed by the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound Treaty 

Tribes (co-managers). 
Glossary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxxiii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

Puget Sound Action 

Area 

All marine waters of the State of Washington east of, and including, the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca; all State of Washington freshwater tributaries to 

these marine waters east of the Strait of Juan de Fuca; the freshwater 

tributaries of the Strait of Juan de Fuca east of, and including, the Elwha 

River drainage; and the counties that border these waters. 

Pulsed openings Fishery openings scheduled for short duration. These openings are 

generally scheduled throughout the period over which salmon move 

through an area so that harvest is not focused on any one segment of the 

run. 

Rebuilding exploitation 

rate 

A harvest objective used by NMFS that defines the level of salmon fishery 

exploitation that would result in a low probability that the harvest action 

will endanger the population, and a relatively high probability that it will 

not impede recovery. 

Recovery exploitation 

rate 

A harvest objective used by the co-managers that defines the level of 

salmon fishery exploitation that would result in a low probability that the 

harvest action will endanger the population, and a relatively high 

probability that it will not impede recovery. 

Recruits The number of salmon in an the unfished cohort produced from a single 

brood year (parental escapement). 

Redds “Nests” constructed by salmon in gravel. 

Redd superimposition A phenomena that occurs when later arriving adult spawners spawn in the 

same places as earlier arriving adult spawners, in effect, digging up redds 

dug by previous spawners. This generally causes significant mortality to 

the eggs laid by the previous spawners. 

Reference area For purposes of the Environmental Justice analysis in this Environmental 

Assessment, the reference area is the State of Washington. 

Resource management 

plan 

A plan that includes a process, specific regulations, management objectives 

or other information required to manage a natural resource. For this 

document, the natural resource would be salmon. 

Run timing The time over which a population or group of populations move through or 

into an area, e.g., the time over which adults return to the spawning 

grounds. 

Salmonids All fishes belonging to the taxonomic family Salmonidae; i.e., salmon and 

trout. 

Smolts Actively-feeding juvenile salmon, physiologically ready to migrate to salt 

water. 

Smolting Transitional life stage of juvenile salmon at the point where they move 

from fresh water to salt water; may occur in a river or within an estuary. 

South Hood Canal The Economic Activity analysis of this Environmental Assessment 

addresses South Hood Canal (Mason and Kitsap counties) and South Puget 

Sound (King, Pierce and Thurston counties) in a subregion identified as 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal. 
Glossary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxxiv December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

South Puget Sound 

region 

For purposes of this analysis, the South Puget Sound region includes King, 

Pierce, and Thurston Counties, and the following river systems: Cedar, 

Green/Duwamish, Puyallup, Nisqually, Deschutes, and Shelton. 

Southern U.S. fisheries Chinook salmon fisheries occurring in Puget Sound and off the Pacific 

coast of Washington, Oregon and California. 

Spawner density The number of spawning salmon per area of spawning habitat. 

Spawning escapement The number of sexually-mature adults returning to spawning grounds. 

Strait of Juan de Fuca 

region 

For purposes of this analysis, the Strait of Juan de Fuca region includes 

Clallam County and the following river systems: Elwha and Dungeness. 

Stratum Sampling groups. 

Straying The occurrence of some hatchery-origin fish failing to return to the 

hatchery at the time of spawning. 

Straying rate The proportion of total hatchery-origin escapement not removed from the 

natural environment through trapping, or the number of hatchery-origin 

salmon that otherwise strayed from their point of release. 

Subsistence uses The ways in which indigenous people utilize the environment and the 

resources it provides (such as salmon) to meet the nutritional needs of the 

members of the society. 

Substantial effect A high impact that is measurable and/or expected, or likely to occur more 

frequently than anticipated. 

Sub-yearlings Juvenile salmonids that migrate as fingerlings. 

Take The ESA defines take as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the 

course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or 

foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as endangered, without 

written authorization. 

Take prohibition Ban of take. 

Target area The geographical study area for purposes of the Environmental Justice 

analysis; synonymous with the Puget Sound Action Area in this case. 

Target population The potentially affected residents of each county within the target area. 

Terminal areas Locations containing only populations that return to a single river system. 

Terminal fisheries Freshwater fisheries only; i.e., within rivers and lakes. 

Terminal net fisheries Freshwater fisheries that use net fishing gear; e.g., drift gill nets, set gill 

nets, beach seines, dip nets. 

Threatened species The ESA defines a threatened species as “any species which is likely to 

become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range.” 

Transport vectors Stream flow, stream channel structure, and similar factors. 

Unlisted species Species that have not been listed under the Endangered Species Act as 

threatened or endangered 
Glossary 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest xxxv December 2004 

Resource Management Plan Final EIS 

Usual and accustomed 

fishing areas 

Traditional Indian fishing grounds so designated through judicial process. 

Defined in the Boldt Decision (383 Federal Supplement 312: 313) as every 

fishing location where members of an Indian tribe customarily fished from 

time to time at and before treaty times, however distant the then-usual 

habitat of the tribe, and whether or not other tribes then also fished in the 

same waters. 

U.S. v. Washington Commonly referred to as “The Boldt decision”, U.S. v Washington is the 

on-going Federal court proceeding that enforces and implements reserved 

treaty fishing rights with regard to salmon and steelhead returning to 

Western Washington. 

Viable escapement 

threshold 

A level of escapement that would generally indicate recovery or a point 

beyond which ESA protection is no longer required. 

Viable Salmonid 

Population guidelines 

Generic values or descriptive guidelines for abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure and diversity provided by NMFS in Viable Salmonid 

Populations and the Recovery of Evoluntionarily Significant Units 

(McElhany et al., 2000) used as one factor in assessing the status of 

population where population-specific information is not available. 

Wild exploitation rate The total mortality in a fishery or aggregate of fisheries expressed as the 

proportion of the un-fished cohort whose parents spawned the wild that are 

removed by fishing. 

Wild-origin fish Fish whose parents spawned in the wild 

Yearlings Juvenile salmon that have reared at least one year in freshwater 
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2 1.1 Introduction 

3 The Proposed Action is implementation of the 2004−2009 Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource 

4 Management Plan (RMP), jointly-developed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and 

5 the Puget Sound treaty tribes (hereafter referred to as the ‘co-managers’), under Limit 6 of the 

6 Endangered Species Act (ESA) 4(d) Rule (see Subsection 1.5) for the 2005 through 2009 fishing 

7 seasons. The RMP regulates salmon harvest and steelhead net fisheries within Puget Sound and the 

8 Strait of Juan de Fuca that take Puget Sound chinook. The ESA defines take as: 

9 “ . . . to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, import or export, 

10 ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

11 interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as endangered, without written 

12 authorization.” 

13 The proposed RMP is the fisheries management component of the co-managers’ recovery plan for 

14 Puget Sound chinook salmon. It encompasses commercial, recreational, ceremonial, and subsistence 

15 salmon fisheries potentially affecting the listed Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

16 (ESU) within the marine and freshwater areas of Puget Sound, from the entrance of the Strait of Juan 

17 de Fuca inward (Figure 1.1-1). It excludes Washington Commercial Salmon Management Catch 

18 Reporting Area 4B (hereafter referred to as Marine Catch Areas) during the months of May to 

19 September, when this area is under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

20 Harvest objectives specified in the RMP account for fisheries-related mortality of Puget Sound chinook 

21 throughout the migratory range of this species – from Oregon and Washington to Southeast Alaska. 

22 The RMP also includes implementation, monitoring, and evaluation procedures designed to ensure 

23 fisheries are consistent with the RMP’s objectives for conservation and use. Fishery activities under the 

24 RMP would affect the listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum ESUs. The RMP 

25 does not include the specific details of an annual fishing regime − i.e., where and when fisheries occur; 

26 what gear will be used; or how harvest is allocated among gears, areas or fishermen. Salmon abundance 

27 is highly variable from year to year, both among chinook populations and other salmon species, 

28 requiring managers to formulate fisheries to respond to the population abundance conditions particular 

29 to that year. Therefore, the RMP provides the framework and objectives against which the co-managers 

30 must develop their annual action-specific fishing regimes to protect Puget Sound chinook salmon and 

31 meet other management objectives. 

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 1.1-1. Washington commercial salmon management marine catch reporting areas 

2 

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 1.2 Summary of the Proposed Action

2 The Proposed Action is implementation of the 2004−2009 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for 

3 Puget Sound chinook salmon for the 2005 through 2009 fishing seasons. The RMP is a jointly-prepared 

4 proposal of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Puget Sound treaty tribes (co5 managers) under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. The RMP is a set of objectives for chinook salmon 

6 populations that guide the co-managers in shaping annual harvest management measures. It 

7 encompasses: 

8 • Tribal and non-tribal commercial, recreational, ceremonial and subsistence salmon fisheries, and 

9 steelhead net fisheries taking listed Puget Sound chinook 

10 • Marine areas and freshwater rivers of Puget Sound, from the entrance of the Strait of Juan de 

11 Fuca inward, excluding fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management 

12 Council 

13 • Implementation, monitoring, and evaluation procedures designed to ensure fisheries are 

14 consistent with the objectives of the RMP 

15 • Application of Limit 6 for the period May 1, 2004 2005 through April 30, 2010. 

16 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

17 The need for the Proposed Action is to provide for harvest of salmon species in Puget Sound marine 

18 and freshwater areas that: 

19 • Provides for the meaningful exercise of federally-protected treaty fishing rights 

20 • Provides for tribal and non-tribal fishing opportunity co-managed under the jurisdiction of U.S. 

21 v. Washington

22 • Meets the requirement of Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): “. . . 

23 not appreciably reducing the likelihood of survival and recovery” of Puget Sound chinook (50 

24 CFR 223.203[b][6][i]). 

25 The purpose of the Proposed Action to meet the need for the action is to: 

26 • Ensure the sustainability of Puget Sound chinook salmon by conserving the productivity, 

27 abundance and diversity of the populations within the Puget Sound chinook ESU 

28 • Manage risk associated with abundance estimation, population dynamics, and management 

29 implementation 

30 • Meet the criteria under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule 

31 • Optimize harvest of abundant Puget Sound salmon (coho, chinook, sockeye, pink, chum) while 

32 protecting weaker commingled chinook stocks 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 4 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 • Account for all sources of fishery-related mortality 

2 • Provide equitable sharing of harvest opportunity among tribes, and among treaty and non-treaty 

3 fishers pursuant to U.S. v. Washington and U.S. v. Oregon

4 • Achieve the guidelines for allocation of harvest benefits and conservation objectives for chinook 

5 salmon under the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

6 • Protect treaty Indian fishing rights and meet federal treaty trust responsibilities. 

7 1.4 Background to Purpose and Need 

The Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)i 8 was listed as threatened under the 

9 Endangered Species Act (ESA) in March 1999 (64 Federal Register 14308, March 24, 1999; 50 CFR 

10 223.102[a][16]). The ESU encompasses all naturally-spawned spring, summer, and fall-runs of chinook 

11 salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the 

12 Olympic Peninsula. Puget Sound chinook salmon have a complex life history, migrating from their 

13 natal streams throughout Puget Sound to the Pacific Ocean. In their ocean migration, they travel north 

14 along the west coast into Canadian waters, and at times as far north as Alaskan waters (Figure 1.4-1). 

15 In doing so, they are caught in a broad range of fisheries, managed by an array of agencies, bodies and 

16 governments, including the U.S. Department of Commerce; States of Washington, Oregon, and Alaska; 

17 more than 20 Native American tribal jurisdictions; the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council; 

18 the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC); Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans; 

19 and the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) (Figure 1.4-2). Salmon fisheries within Puget Sound and 

20 the Strait of Juan de Fuca are jointly managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

21 (WDFW) and the Puget Sound treaty tribes, under the continuing jurisdiction of U.S. v. Washington

22 (Civil No. C70-9213, Western District, Washington; see 384 Federal Supplement 312, Western 

23 District, Washington, 1974). 

 

i

 For the purposes of fulfilling the mandates of the ESA, NMFS treats ESUs as “species” as the Act defines the 

term “...including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any 

species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544). 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 5 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 1.4-1. Marine range of west coast chinook salmon. 

2 

3 Source: K. Schultz, National Marine Fisheries Service 2001. 

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 6 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 1.4-2. Fisheries management forums. 

2 

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 7 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 U.S. v. Washington is the on-going Federal court proceeding that enforces and implements reserved 

2 treaty fishing rights with regard to salmon and steelhead returning to western Washington. The Puget 

3 Sound treaty tribes include the Makah, Lower Elwha Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, Port Gamble 

4 S’Klallam, Suquamish, Skokomish, Squaxin Island, Nisqually, Puyallup, Muckleshoot, Tulalip, 

5 Stillaguamish, Sauk-Suiattle, Swinomish, Upper Skagit, Nooksack and Lummi tribes (Figure 1.4-3). 

6 Since the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) was listed in 1999, the National 

7 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has evaluated the impact of Alaskan, Canadian and southern U.S. 

8 salmon fisheries affecting listed Puget Sound chinook under section 7 of the ESA, and evaluated 

9 fisheries resource management plans (RMP) in 2001 and 2003 for Puget Sound chinook under the 4(d) 

10 Rule Limit 6. NEPA reviews were also conducted on the 2001 and 2003 RMPs as part of the overall 

11 assessment of those RMPs. The current application of Limit 6 to the RMP expireds on May 1, 2004. 

12 The co-managers jointly-developed another harvest RMP for Puget Sound commercial and recreational 

13 salmon, and steelhead net fisheries taking listed Puget Sound chinook for the 2004−2009 fishing 

14 seasons that began May 1, 2004. NMFS conducted a consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and 

15 issued a Biological Opinion in June of 2004 that the 2004 fishing season was not likely to jeopardize 

16 the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (NMFS 2004). The RMP is hereby incorporated by reference (see 

17 Appendix A). The co-managers provided the RMP to NMFS, and NMFS is evaluating the RMP under 

18 Limit 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 4(d) rule for the 2005−2009 fishing season, 

19 beginning May 1, 2005. Implementation of the RMP for the 2005−2009 fishing seasons is evaluated in 

20 this EIS.The co-managers have provided another jointly-developed harvest RMP for Puget Sound 

21 commercial and recreational salmon, and steelhead net fisheries taking listed Puget Sound chinook to 

22 NMFS for consideration under Limit 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 4(d) rule for the 

23 2004−2009 fishing years, beginning May 1, 2004. The RMP is hereby incorporated by reference (see 

24 Appendix A).

25 Application of Limit 6 to the proposed RMP would ensure that in conducting fishery activities, the co26 managers would not be subject to ESA section 9 take prohibitions because these activities would be 

27 conducted in a way that contributes to conserving the listed ESUs, or would be governed by regulations 

28 that adequately limit impacts to listed salmon. For NMFS to apply the provisions of Limit 6 for 

29 implementing a RMP, the co-managers must jointly prepare a fishing plan that meets the requirements 

30 defined under Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule (see Subsection 1.5). Because implementation of the proposed 

31 fishing plan relies on NMFS’ determination that the plan meets the criteria of Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule, 

32 meeting the Limit 6 criteria is an essential element of the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action.

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 8 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 1.4-3. Locations of federally-recognized Puget Sound treaty tribes that are parties to the 

2 proposed action. 

3 

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 9 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 NMFS must then make a determination pursuant with the government-to-government processes of the 

2 Tribal 4(d) Rule that the RMP, as proposed and implemented by the co-managers, does not appreciably 

3 reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Puget Sound chinook (50 CFR 223.203[b][6][i]). The 

4 NMFS determination under the 4(d) Rule is the Federal action that triggers review under the National 

5 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (NOAA Administrative Order 216.6.03[2][a]). 

6 Washington Trout, a Puget Sound environmental group, challenged the adequacy of the NEPA 

7 Environmental Assessment used by NMFS for its determination for the 2001 Puget Sound chinook 

8 harvest RMP (Washington Trout v. Lohn, No. C01-1863R, Western District, Washington). As part of 

9 the settlement agreement reached with Washington Trout (July 22, 2002), NMFS agreed to prepare an 

10 Environmental Assessment for its determination for a one-year RMP in 2003, and an Environmental 

Impact Statement for its determination related to a long-term RMP in 2004 and subsequent yearsii 11 . 

12 NMFS agreed to include alternatives suggested by Washington Trout in its list of alternatives for 

13 analysis. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the alternatives for the Environmental Impact 

14 Statement include: 

15 1) The Proposed Action (the proposed RMP) 

16 2) Escapement goal management at the management unit level with no restriction on where 

17 fisheries may take place 

18 3) Escapement goal management at the individual population level with terminal fisheries only 

19 4) No authorized take of listed Puget Sound chinook salmon within the Strait of Juan de Fuca and 

20 Puget Sound area. 

21 A description of the Proposed Action and alternatives is provided in Section 2. 

22 This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service and a 

23 team of technical consultants in support of the environmental determination to be made by NMFS 

24 concerning the Proposed Action. This Environmental Impact Statement evaluates the environmental 

25 consequences associated with the RMP jointly-developed by the co-managers (the Proposed 

26 Action/Status Quo), and reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts associated with alternatives to 

 

ii Because of the delay in completing the EIS in time for the 2004 fishing season, Washington Trout agreed to an

ESA section 7 consultation by NMFS for the 2004 fishing season. This agreement was entered into the court,

and the original stipulation was modified to reflect the new agreement.
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 10 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the proposed RMP, including those alternatives evaluated pursuant to the terms of the settlement 

2 agreement with Washington Trout. 

3 1.5 ESA 4(d) Rule and Limit 6

4 Salmon and steelhead trout species in Washington have been in decline for years. Since 1992, nearly 30 

5 ESUs of these species have been listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act 

6 (ESA). Section 9 of the ESA imposes take prohibitions on species listed as endangered. However, 

7 section 4(d) of the ESA states that whenever a species is listed as threatened, the Secretary “shall issue 

8 such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.” 

9 Such protective regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions that apply automatically to 

10 protect endangered species under ESA section 9(a)(1). Those section 9(a)(1) prohibitions, in part, make 

11 it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to “take” endangered species, as 

12 previously defined in Section 1.1. 

13 Between 1997 and 1999, NMFS listed 14 ESUs of salmon and steelhead as threatened under the ESA, 

14 but did not immediately invoke the ESA section 4(d) protections (Table 1.5-1). In July 2000, NMFS 

15 promulgated 4(d) rules for the 14 threatened ESUs accompanied by a set of “limits” on the application 

16 of the ESA section 9 take prohibitions, provided that the specified categories of activities contribute to 

17 conserving listed salmonids or are governed by a program that adequately limits impacts to listed 

18 salmon and steelhead (65 Federal Register 42422, July 10, 2000). 

19 In promulgating the 4(d) Rule, NMFS determined that the section 9 take prohibitions can be invoked 

20 with limited exceptions. NMFS thereby established a mechanism whereby entities can be assured that 

21 an activity they are conducting or permitting is consistent with ESA requirements, and avoids or 

22 minimizes the risk of take of listed threatened salmonids. When such a program contributes to 

23 conservation for listed salmonids, NMFS does not find it necessary or advisable to apply ESA section 

24 9(a)(1) take prohibitions to activities governed by those programs. Under such limits to the section 9 

25 take prohibitions, these categories of human activities must contribute to conservation for listed 

26 salmonids and their habitat, or be governed by a program that adequately limits impacts on listed 

27 salmon and steelhead. NMFS anticipates that by involving individuals and entities at the local and state 

28 program levels, they would become more engaged with salmon and steelhead conservation while 

29 providing NMFS with additional management tools for conservation of listed salmonids. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 11 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 1.5-1. The fourteen salmon and steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units included in the ESA 

2 4(d) rule and their listing information.

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Listing Status 

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 24, 1999. 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 24, 1999. 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 24, 1999. 

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU iii Listed as a threatened species on August 10, 1998. 

Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 25, 1999. 

Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 25, 1999. 

Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 25, 1999. 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 25, 1999. 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 25, 1999. 

South-Central California Coast Steelhead ESU Listed as a threatened species on August 18, 1997. 

Central California Coast Steelhead ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 19, 1998. 

Snake River Basin Steelhead ESU Listed as a threatened species on August 18, 1997. 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 19, 1998. 

Central Valley, California Steelhead ESU Listed as a threatened species on March 19, 1998. 

3 Source: 65 Federal Register 42422, July 10, 2000. 

4 NMFS designed the limit approach to the 4(d) rule to meet the following objectives: 

5 1) Ensure technical feasibility to yield consistent results in conserving listed species 

6 2) Ensure effectiveness over a broad range of activities to contribute to conserving salmon 

7 throughout the Pacific Northwest and California 

8 3) Develop a user-friendly process to encourage wide acceptance. 

9 With these objectives in mind, NMFS established categories of actions that could reasonably proceed 

10 in a manner that contributes to conservation of listed salmonids. The 4(d) rule comprises 13 (total) 

 

iii On February 24, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals in the Alsea Valley Alliance

case. The practical effect of the decision is that there is currently no Federal protection under the ESA for 

Oregon Coastal coho. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 12 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

limits on the ESA section 9 take prohibitions (65 Federal Register 42422, July 10, 2000),iv 1 The limits 

2 cover activities from fishery management plans, to research programs, to habitat restoration activities 

3 and, in doing so, create several new avenues to comply with the ESA. The limits also create a means 

4 for NMFS to assess possible take impacts over broad areas and sets of actions rather than simply 

5 accounting for whether a given activity resulted in direct or incidental take. 

6 Under Limit 6, state and tribal governments conducting jointly-managed fishing activities would not be 

7 subject to the ESA section 9 take prohibitions (with respect to actions implemented under the Resource 

8 Management Plan), provided that the fishing activities are implemented under a RMP that meets the 

9 requirements of Limit 6. For NMFS to determine that a RMP meets the requirements of Limit 6, the 

10 RMP must clearly define its intended scope and area of impact, and define management objectives 

11 consistent with the criteria referenced in Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule. It is important to note that a RMP 

12 determined by NMFS to meet Limit 6 requirements would not authorize activities conducted under a 

13 RMP per se; the co-managers would continue to regulate RMP activities. However, Limit 6 offers an 

14 option, in addition to those of ESA sections 7 and 10, to the co-managers to conduct fishing activities 

15 that avoid possible liability under the ESA while providing NMFS with an additional management tool 

16 for conserving listed species. 

17 1.6 Fisheries Affecting Puget Sound Chinook Salmon

18 Puget Sound chinook salmon are harvested in a wide range of fisheries over a broad geographic area 

19 and with a variety of methods. They are caught in ocean fisheries throughout their migratory range 

20 from Alaska to California, and in marine areas and freshwater rivers of Puget Sound and the Strait of 

21 Juan de Fuca (NMFS 2001; NMFS 2000; and NMFS 1999) (Figure 1.6-1). The magnitude of catch 

22 depends on the location, timing, duration and type of fishery. Most listed Puget Sound chinook are 

23 caught incidentally in fisheries targeted for unlisted salmon stocks, or in fisheries directed at other 

24 species like groundfish or trout. Fisheries are regulated with time/area and gear restrictions. The same 

25 is true for other salmon species. Fisheries targeted for one species or population catch commingled fish 

26 of other salmon species and populations. Subsection 3.3 of this document and Appendix A of the RMP 

 

iv At the same time, NMFS adopted a 4(d) rule for Tribal Resource Management Plans (Tribal Plan) that allows 

Indian tribes to qualify for a limit on the take prohibition in cases where the Secretary has determined that 

implementing the Tribal Plan would not appreciably reduce the likelihood that listed species would survive and 

recover (65 Federal Register 42481). This Environmental Impact Statement focuses on the 4(d) rule for salmon 

and steelhead. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 13 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 present more detailed information on the distribution of catch among Alaskan, Canadian and southern 

2 U.S. salmon fisheries. The following three subsections discuss the harvest of salmon in the areas 

3 through which salmon migrate, and the consequent affect on the amount of salmon that can be 

4 harvested in Puget Sound by the co-managers. 

5 Southeast Alaska 

6 Chinook salmon are harvested in commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries throughout 

7 Southeast Alaska. Since 1995, the total landed chinook catch has ranged from 217,000 to 339,000 

8 salmon (Pacific Salmon Commission 2001). These fisheries are managed by the Alaska Board of 

9 Fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, under the oversight of the North Pacific 

10 Fisheries Management Council, to ensure consistency of fisheries management objectives with the 

11 Magnuson – Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. 

12 Commercial fisheries employ troll, gillnet, and purse seine gear. Commercial trolling accounts for 

13 about 68 percent of the chinook harvest (NMFS 2002). Gillnet and seine fisheries occur within Alaskan 

14 state waters, and target pink, sockeye, and chum salmon, with substantial incidental catch of coho, and 

15 a relatively low incidental catch of chinook. 

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 14 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 1.6-1. Major fishing areas in Alaska, British Columbia and the southern United States where 

2 listed Puget Sound chinook salmon are caught. 

3 

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 15 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Recreational fishing in Southeast Alaska, in recent years, has comprised more than 500,000 angler days 

2 (trips by sport fishermen) annually. Recreational fishing occurs primarily in June, July, and August. A 

3 majority of the effort is associated with non-resident fishers, and is targeted at chinook salmon. 

4 More than 3,000 subsistence and personal-use permits were issued in southeast Alaska in 1996 (NMFS 

5 2002), but only a small proportion of the subsistence harvest of salmon (33,000 in 1996) is chinook. 

6 Southeast Alaska harvests consist primarily of chinook salmon from the Columbia River, Oregon coast, 

7 Washington coast, West Coast Vancouver Island, and northern British Columbia (Pacific Salmon 

8 Commission Chinook Technical Committee 2001). In general, very few Puget Sound chinook salmon 

9 are caught in Alaska, except for Strait of Juan de Fuca stocks (Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook 

10 Technical Committee 1999). 

11 British Columbia 

12 In British Columbia, chinook salmon are harvested in commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries. 

13 Conservation concerns over Canadian chinook and coho stocks have constrained these fisheries in 

14 recent years. The landed catch of chinook in 2001 British Columbia marine fisheries was 265,000 fish 

15 (Pacific Salmon Commission 2001). 

16 Troll fisheries occur on the north and west coasts of Vancouver Island. Commercial and test troll 

17 fisheries directed at pink salmon in northern areas, and sockeye on the west coast of Vancouver Island 

18 and the southern Strait of Georgia, incur relatively low incidental chinook mortality. Net fisheries, 

19 including gillnet and purse seine gear, in British Columbia marine inshore waters are primarily directed 

20 at sockeye, pink, and chum salmon, but also incur incidental chinook mortality. 

21 Nearshore waters along the entire west coast of Vancouver Island were closed to recreational salmon 

22 fishing in 1999–2001 (Pacific Salmon Commission, 2000; Pacific Salmon Commission, 2001) to 

23 conserve weak chinook salmon populations. Limited recreational fisheries have been implemented in 

24 the inlets along the west coast of Vancouver Island. Marine recreational fisheries occur along the 

25 central British Columbia coast, and within Johnstone Strait, the Strait of Georgia, and the Strait of Juan 

26 de Fuca. Sport fisheries in inshore marine areas land the largest portion of the chinook harvest in 

27 southern British Columbia. 

28 Fisheries in northern British Columbia are targeted primarily at local stocks, as well as chinook from 

29 the Columbia River, Washington and Oregon coasts, Strait of Georgia, and west coast of Vancouver 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 16 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Island (Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical Committee 2001). Puget Sound chinook 

2 comprise a minor portion of the catch in northern British Columbian fisheries, but a significant portion 

3 of the mortality on North Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca spring and summer/fall chinook can 

4 occur in these fisheries (see Subsections 3.3.1 through 3.3.2). West coast Vancouver Island fisheries 

5 that target Columbia River, Puget Sound, and Strait of Georgia populations have a major impact on all 

6 Puget Sound summer/fall chinook salmon stocks, and a lower, but significant impact on spring 

7 chinook. The Strait of Georgia fisheries target Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound chinook, and have 

8 heavy impacts on North Puget Sound spring chinook, North Puget Sound summer/fall chinook, and 

9 Hood Canal summer/fall chinook. Strait of Georgia fisheries also have a significant, but lower impact 

10 on all other Puget Sound chinook populations (Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical 

11 Committee 1999). 

12 Washington Ocean 

13 Treaty tribal and non-tribal commercial troll fisheries that target chinook, coho, and pink salmon, and 

14 recreational fisheries that target chinook and coho salmon, are scheduled from May through September, 

15 under the authority of the co-managers. Annual fishing regimes, including establishing catch 

16 allocations, are overseen by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, pursuant to the Magnuson – 

17 Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act. Tribal fleets operate within their defined usual and accustomed 

18 fishing areas. Principles governing the co-management objectives and the allocation of harvest benefits 

19 among treaty tribal and non-tribal users, for each river of origin, were developed as a result of litigation 

20 in Hoh v. Baldrige (522 Federal Supplement 683, 1981). The declining status of Columbia River-origin 

21 chinook stocks has been the primary constraint on coastal fisheries, though consideration is also given 

22 to attaining allocation objectives for troll, terminal net, and recreational harvest of Washington coastal23 origin stocks. Washington ocean fisheries harvest primarily chinook from the Columbia River and 

24 Fraser River (Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical Committee 2001). Puget Sound chinook 

25 salmon make up a low percentage of the catch, with South Puget Sound and Hood Canal chinook 

26 populations exploited at a slightly higher rate than North Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca 

27 chinook. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 17 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The summer troll fishery has been structured, in recent years, to focus on chinook salmon-directed 

fishing in May and June, and chinook/coho salmon-directed fishing from July into mid-September,v 2 to 

3 enable full utilization of treaty tribal and non-tribal chinook and coho salmon quotas. These quotas are 

4 developed in a pre-season planning process that considers harvest impacts to all contributing stocks, 

5 and function as catch ceilings. In general, the chinook salmon harvest occurs 10 to 40 miles offshore, 

6 whereas the coho salmon fishery occurs within 10 miles off the coast, but annual variations in the 

7 distribution of the target species may cause this pattern to vary. The majority of the summer troll 

8 chinook salmon catch has, in recent years, been caught off the northern Washington coast (which, 

9 during the summer, includes the westernmost areas of the Strait of Juan de Fuca – Washington Catch 

10 Area 4B). In a recent 5-year period (1997−2001), troll catch ranged from 18,000 to 49,300 chinook 

11 (Pacific Fisheries Management Council 2001). 

12 Recreational fisheries in Washington ocean areas are also conducted under specific quotas for each 

13 species, and under allocations to each catch area. Most of the ocean recreational fishing effort occurs 

14 off the southern Washington coast. In the last five years, ocean recreational chinook salmon catch has 

15 ranged from 2,200 to 23,000 chinook salmon (Pacific Fisheries Management Council 2001). 

16 Puget Sound chinook salmon populations comprise less than 10 percent of coastal troll and sport catch 

17 (see Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). The contribution of Puget Sound populations is higher in northern 

18 areas on the coast, as would be expected, since these areas are adjacent to Puget Sound. The 

19 exploitation rate of most individual chinook salmon management units in these coastal fisheries is less 

20 than one percent in most years. However, these exploitation rates vary annually in response to the 

21 varying abundance of commingled Columbia River, local coastal, and Canadian chinook salmon 

22 populations. 

23 Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries

24 Principles governing the co-management objectives (conservation, use, access), and the allocation of 

25 harvest benefits (catch and fishing opportunity), among treaty tribal and non-tribal users, for each river 

26 of origin, are defined in the Puget Sound Management Plan (1985), the implementation framework for 

27 U.S. v. Washington (see Subsection 1.7, and Appendix F of this Environmental Impact Statement). 

 

v

 In odd-numbered years, the coastal troll fishery may also target pink salmon, the majority of which originate in 

the Fraser River. In the odd-numbered years 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001, the annual troll harvest of 

pink salmon has ranged form 1,800 to 48,300 (PFMC 2001). 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 18 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Tribal fleets operate within the confines of their usual and accustomed fishing areas in Puget Sound. 

2 Salmon fisheries in Puget Sound are constrained to meet the conservation objectives of the weakest 

3 species and management unit. 

4 Commercial Chinook

5 Commercial fisheries in Puget Sound are conducted using troll, set nets and drift gill nets, 

6 purse/roundhaul seines, beach seines, and reef net gear (Figure 1.6-2). Several tribes conduct small7 scale commercial troll fisheries that target chinook salmon in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Rosario 

8 Strait. In the western Strait of Juan de Fuca, most of the fishing effort occurs in winter and early spring, 

9 with annual closures between mid-April and mid-June to protect maturing spring chinook salmon. 

10 Annual harvest ranged from 1,000 to 2,000 chinook salmon in a recent 5-year period (1997−2001). 

11 Commercial net fisheries are conducted throughout Puget Sound, and in the lower reaches of larger 

12 rivers. Total commercial net and troll harvest of chinook salmon has fallen from levels in excess of 

13 200,000 in the 1980s to an average of 64,000 chinook salmon for the period 1997 through 2001 (Figure 

14 1.6-2). 

15 Due to current conservation concerns, commercial fisheries that target chinook salmon are of limited 

16 scope, and are mostly directed at abundant hatchery chinook salmon production in terminal areas: 

17 Bellingham/Samish Bay and the Nooksack River; Tulalip Bay; Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River; 

18 Lake Washington; the Puyallup River; the Nisqually River; Budd Inlet; Chambers Bay; Sinclair Inlet; 

19 southern Hood Canal; and the Skokomish River (Figure 1.6-3). 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 19 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Figure 1.6-2. Commercial net and troll catch of chinook salmon in Puget Sound, 1980–2001.vi 1 

2 

3 Source: Personal communication from Will Beattie, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, December 20, 

4 2002. 

5 Indian tribes schedule ceremonial and subsistence chinook salmon fisheries to provide basic nutritional 

6 benefits to their members, and to maintain the intrinsic and essential cultural values imbued in 

7 traditional fishing practices and spiritual links with the natural environment. The magnitude of 

8 ceremonial and subsistence harvest of chinook salmon is small, relative to commercial and recreational 

9 harvest, particularly where it involves critically-depressed populations. Subsistence harvest is discussed 

10 in Subsection 3.5 of this Environmental Impact Statement. 

11 Commercial Sockeye, Pink, Coho, and Chum Fisheries

12 Net fisheries directed at Fraser River sockeye salmon are conducted annually and at Fraser River pink 

salmon in odd-numbered years,vii 13 in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Rosario Strait, and the Strait of Georgia 

14 (Figure 1.6-3). Nine tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife issue regulations for 

15 these fisheries, with oversight by the Fraser River Panel under Pacific Salmon Treaty Annexes. Annual 

16 management plans include sharing and allocation provisions, but fishing schedules are developed based 

17 on in-season assessment of the abundance of early, early summer, summer, and late-run sockeye 

18 salmon stocks. Sockeye salmon harvest exceeded 2 million fish in the 10-year period 1991−2001, but 

 

vi Includes Marine Catch Area 4B from May through September, although 4B is within the jurisdiction of the 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council at this time 

vii Fraser River pink salmon follow a two-year life cycle, returning only in odd-numbered years. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 20 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the fishery has been constrained in recent years due to lower survival and pre-spawning mortality; thus, 

2 harvest has been substantially lower. Catches of sockeye, pink and chinook salmon in recent years are 

3 shown in Table 1.6-1. Specific regulations to reduce incidental chinook salmon mortality, including 

4 requiring release of all live chinook salmon from purse seine hauls, have reduced incidental 

5 contribution to less than 1 percent of the total catch. 

6 Commercial and recreational fisheries directed at Puget Sound sockeye salmon populations occur in 

7 Elliot Bay, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and Lake Washington (Cedar River sockeye), and at a 

8 smaller scale on the Skagit River (Baker River sockeye) (Figure 1.6-3). The Cedar River population 

9 does not achieve harvestable abundance; i.e., abundance exceeds the escapement goal consistently, but 

10 significant fisheries occurred in 1996 and 2000, when more than 50,000 sockeye salmon were 

11 harvested. These fisheries involve low incidental mortality to Puget Sound chinook salmon. 

12 Commercial and recreational fisheries that target Puget Sound-origin pink salmon occur in terminal 

13 marine areas and fresh water in Bellingham Bay and the Nooksack River, Skagit Bay and Skagit River, 

14 and Possession Sound/Port Gardner (Snohomish River system) (Figure 1.6-3). The pink salmon catch 

15 in these areas for the 10-year period 1991–2001 is shown in Table 1.6-2. Incidental chinook salmon 

16 catch in these pink salmon fisheries adds substantially to the total terminal-area catch of chinook 

17 salmon. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 21 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 1.6-3. Puget Sound overview. 

2 

Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 22 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 1.6-1. Fraser River sockeye, pink and incidental chinook catch in Puget Sound, 1995–2001. 

 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Sockeye 41,106 30,414 12,510 26,730 20,328 44,728 34,973 

Pink 48,333 8 3,723 35 4,526 91 8,583 

Strait of 

Juan de Fuca 

Chinook 4,681 497 422 258 471 630 911 

Sockeye 372,789 243,936 1,354,532 509,153 69 446,757 216,324 

Pink 2,065,779 1 1,790,883 807 11 254 474,513 

Rosario Strait and the 

Strait of Georgia 

Chinook 5,321 3,934 29,592 3,668 3 801 965 

2 Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission tribal fish ticket database, 2002. 

3 Table 1.6-2. Commercial net fishery harvest of pink salmon from the Nooksack, Skagit, and 

4 Snohomish river systems, 1991–2001. 

Bellingham Bay 

Nooksack River 

Skagit Bay

and River 

Possession Sound 

Port Gardner 

1991 17,447 133,672 46,039 

1993 1,335 143,880 9,648 

1995 7,339 524,810 48,006 

1997 1,196 46,169 34,537 

1999 2,484 32,339 13,055 

2001 12,280 198,534 86,097 

5 Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission tribal fish ticket database, 2002. 

6 Commercial fisheries directed at coho salmon also occur throughout Puget Sound and in some rivers. 

7 In the a recent 5-year period (1997−2001), the total landed coho salmon catch ranged from 108,000 to 

8 390,000 coho salmon, well below the levels of the early 1990s, when the total harvest exceeded 1.0 

9 million coho salmon (Table 1.6-3). 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 23 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 1.6-3. Landed coho salmon harvest: Puget Sound net fisheries. Regional totals include the 

2 freshwater catch.

Strait of 

Juan de 

Fuca 

Rosario 

Strait and 

Strait of 

Georgia 

Nooksack 

Samish Skagit 

StillaguamishSnohomish South Puget 

Sound Hood Canal Total 

1997 1,200 10,525 15,034 1,348 25,193 78,634 9,925 141,859 

1998 8,083 1,980 22,892 10,359 24,743 65,617 21,974 155,648 

1999 5,586 1 50,175 7,411 18,439 21,189 4,845 107,646 

2000 12,505 1,549 68,206 13,239 89,881 181,857 23,014 390,251 

2001 17,671 738 76,685 20,089 75,078 143,489 12,860 346,610 

3 Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission tribal fish ticket database, 2002. 

4 Note: All sources combined. Troll catch removed from the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

5 Recreational Fisheries

6 Recreational salmon fisheries in Puget Sound occur in marine and freshwater areas, under regulations 

7 promulgated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. In marine areas, the principal target 

8 species are chinook and coho salmon. Since the mid-1980s, the total annual marine harvest of chinook 

9 salmon has steadily declined to levels of less than 50,000 chinook salmon in recent years (Figure 1.6-

10 4). Coho harvest also declined markedly in the early 1990s and since then has varied from 3,000 to 

11 15,000 coho salmon. Pink salmon fisheries are substantial only in odd-numbered years. In most years 

12 since the mid-1980s, harvest has been about 5,000 pink salmon. 

13 Recreational fisheries targeting mature chinook salmon occur during the summer months (July through 

14 September), and continue through the fall and winter months, primarily in central Puget Sound, 

15 targeting immature chinook salmon (called “blackmouth”). The recreational chinook salmon catch has 

16 been increasingly constrained to avoid overharvest of weak Puget Sound populations. Recreational 

17 fisheries are managed under the same harvest objectives for chinook and coho salmon that apply to 

18 commercial fisheries. Perhaps in response to increasingly constrained bag limits and seasons in marine 

19 areas, recreational harvest of chinook salmon in freshwater areas of Puget Sound has shown an 

20 increasing trend since the early 1990s (Figure 1.6-5). 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 24 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 1.6-4. Number of chinook salmon caught in Puget Sound marine fisheries. 

2 

3 Source: Personal communication from Will Beattie, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, December 20, 

4 2002. 

5 Figure 1.6-5. Number of chinook salmon caught in Puget Sound freshwater recreational fisheries. 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

6 

7 Source: Personal communication from Will Beattie, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, December 20, 

8 2002. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 25 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 1.7 Regulatory Jurisdictions Affecting Washington Fisheries 

2 Planning and regulations put forth by the Washington co-managers are coordinated with other 

3 jurisdictions, in consideration of the effects of Washington fisheries on Columbia River and Canadian 

4 chinook salmon populations, and the effects of fisheries in other areas on Washington salmon 

5 populations including those in Puget Sound (discussed in Subsection 3.2.4, Environmental Setting). 

6 Pursuant to U.S. v. Washington, the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (1985) provides the 

7 fundamental principles and objectives for co-management of salmon. Subsection 1.10 (below) 

8 describes in greater detail the various jurisdictions, international agreements, and laws affecting the 

9 management of Puget Sound salmon. 

10 Pacific Salmon Treaty 

11 The Pacific Salmon Treaty was finalized March 17, 1985, between Canada and the United States. The 

12 Treaty establishes a framework for managing salmon stocks either originating from one country and 

13 intercepted by the other, or affecting the management or biology of the stocks of the other country. The 

14 Treaty commits the co-managers to equitable cross-border sharing of harvest, and conservation of U.S. 

15 and Canadian stocks. The thrust of the original Treaty, and subsequently negotiated agreements 

16 (Annexes) for chinook salmon, was to constrain harvest on both sides of the border in order to rebuild 

17 depressed salmon stocks. The Pacific Salmon Commission oversees implementation of the Treaty and 

18 subsequent revisions to its annexes. 

19 U.S. v. Washington

20 Salmon fisheries within Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca are jointly managed by the 

21 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound treaty tribes (the co-managers) 

22 under the continuing jurisdiction of U.S. v. Washington. U.S. v. Washington is the on-going Federal 

23 court proceeding that enforces and implements reserved Tribal treaty fishing rights with regard to 

24 salmon and steelhead returning to western Washington. The Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan 

25 (1985) remains the guiding framework for jointly-agreed management objectives, allocation of harvest, 

26 information exchange among the co-managers, and processes for negotiating annual harvest regimes. 

27 Pacific Fisheries Management Council

28 The Pacific Fisheries Management Council was created by the Magnuson Fishery Management and 

29 Conservation Act in 1977, and re-authorized by passage of the Sustainable Fisheries (Magnuson30 Stevens) Act (SFA) by the United States Congress in 1997. The Council coordinates and oversees the 

31 ocean fishery management objectives among the three state jurisdictions (Washington, Oregon and 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 26 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 California) by mandating regulations that prevent overfishing and maintain sustainable harvest. The 

2 function of the Council is to assure that conservation objectives are achieved for all chinook and coho 

3 salmon stocks, and that harvest is equitably shared among the various user groups. 

4 Amendment 14 to the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) Framework Management Plan 

5 restricts the Council’s direct oversight of conservation to those chinook stocks for which the 

6 exploitation rate in Pacific Fisheries Management Council fisheries has exceeded 2 percent, in a 

7 specified base period. However, the PFMC must also align its harvest objectives with conservation 

8 standards required for salmonid Evolutionarily Significant Units, listed under the Endangered Species 

9 Act (discussed Subsection 1.5, above). 

10 1.8 Environmental Review Process 

11 1.8.1 Public Scoping

12 A notice was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2002, to announce the start of a 30-day 

13 public comment period, and the date and location of the public scoping meeting. The Federal Register 

14 notice included addresses and contacts to obtain the RMP currently in effect and NMFS’ evaluation of 

15 that RMP as reference material to help interested parties understand the proposed action. The notice 

16 also provided the email address and telephone number of NMFS Northwest Region personnel to 

17 contact for questions about the public comment period or public meeting. Only the U.S. Fish and 

18 Wildlife Service called to clarify the date of the end of the public comment period. The Northwest 

19 Region Office of NMFS Public Affairs also notified media and various organizations that were 

20 involved with, potentially affected by, or that expressed interest in NMFS’ determinations on Puget 

21 Sound salmon fishery activities. The Federal Register notice stated that the environmental review 

22 would analyze the Proposed Action (the proposed RMP), a range of reasonable and practicable 

23 alternatives, and the associated impacts of each. At a minimum, the notice stated that the alternatives 

24 would include those mandated in the settlement agreement with Washington Trout. 

25 One public scoping meeting was held on August 22, 2002, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. in the Building 9 

26 auditorium at the Sand Point NOAA campus in Seattle, Washington. Public testimony was invited on 

27 the issues and alternatives that should be considered in the Environmental Impact Statement. Public 

28 comments were recorded and a written transcript of the comments prepared. A form to provide written 

29 comments was also made available should attendees to the meeting wish to provide additional 

30 comment. NMFS received two sets of written comments on issues and alternatives to be included in the 

31 Environmental Impact Statement. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contacted NMFS to say that it 

32 might send comments; however, no comments were received. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 27 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 1.8.2 Issues and Concerns Raised During Scoping 

2 Comments from the various respondents overlapped to a great degree, highlighting several key issues 

3 and suggesting two potential additional alternatives to analyze (described in Section 2 of this 

4 Environmental Impact Statement). Issues identified during public scoping that will be addressed in this 

5 Environmental Impact Statement on the 2004 RMP for implementation of the RMP during the 

6 2005−2009 fishing seasons include the following: 

7 • Effects on chinook spawner levels of the various management approaches at both the population 

8 and management-unit levels 

9 • Probability that alternatives may achieve management objectives, including chinook recovery 

10 • Role of marine-derived nutrients in salmon population health and setting chinook spawning 

11 escapement levels

12 • The derivation for management objectives, including how productivity and capacity were 

13 considered 

14 • The effect of limitations and uncertainties inherent in chinook population modeling

15 • Effect of harvest on chinook age structure 

16 • Effect of fishing activities on hatchery-related issues. 

17 1.9 Decisions to be Made 

18 From the information in this Environmental Impact Statement, the Regional Administrator of the 

19 NMFS Northwest Region must decide: 

20 1) Which harvest management strategy to adopt for salmon fisheries that take listed Puget Sound 

21 chinook salmon in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca that would meet the requirements 

22 for Limit 6 of the 4(d) take prohibition 

23 2) If a harvest strategy other than that proposed by the co-managers is preferred, whether to limit 

24 the geographic location of salmon fisheries that take listed Puget Sound chinook within the Puget 

25 Sound Action Area. 

26 In most cases, the Regional Administrator of NMFS, Northwest Region, must also determine if the 

27 selected alternative (management strategy) would or would not be a major Federal action, significantly 

28 affecting the quality of the human environment. If the Regional Administrator determines that the 

29 action would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, then he can prepare and 

30 sign a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and the project can proceed. If the Regional 

31 Administrator determines that the action would significantly affect the natural, built, and/or human 

32 environment, then preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. However, an 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 28 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Environmental Impact Statement for the 2004 RMP was mandated by the terms of the settlement 

2 agreement with Washington Trout. 

3 1.10 Relationship to Other Plans 

4 1.10.1 Pacific Salmon Treaty Annexes 

5 In 1999, negotiations between the United States and Canada resulted in new annexes for the Pacific 

6 Salmon Treaty. Annex 4 of the June 30, 1999, agreement stipulates management goals and measures 

7 for important chinook and coho salmon stocks that are harvested in southeast Alaska, Canadian and 

8 southern United States fisheries, including the fisheries that are the subject of this Environmental 

9 Impact Statement. Annex 4 establishes an abundance-based chinook salmon management regime for 

10 the populations and fisheries subject to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. It includes increased specificity on 

11 the management of all fisheries affecting chinook salmon, and seeks to address the conservation 

12 requirements of a larger number of depressed stocks, including some now listed under the ESA. The 

13 new agreement establishes exploitation rate guidelines or quotas for fisheries subject to the Pacific 

14 Salmon Treaty based on the forecast abundance of key chinook stocks. This regime will be in effect for 

15 the period 1999 through 2008. 

16 1.10.2 Pacific Coast Framework Management Plan

17 The fundamental principles and implementation of the conservation standards of the Magnuson18 Stevens Act are outlined in the Pacific Coast Framework Management Plan. The goals and objectives 

19 of the Framework Plan are intended to provide a philosophical framework to guide the decisions of the 

20 Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Framework Plan includes specific management goals and 

21 objectives for salmon stocks, usually stated as escapement goals, exploitation rates, or harvest rates. 

22 These objectives are based on the fundamental principle of providing optimum yield, which was re23 defined to mean “maximum sustainable yield, as reduced by relevant economic, social, or ecological 

24 factors” (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2000). The Council has adopted amendments to the 

25 Framework Plan to address specific conservation and management issues. Amendment 14 is intended 

26 to revise the process by which the Council considers the salmon specifications and management 

27 measures, and includes conservation objectives − expressed as the number of natural, adult spawners −

28 for chinook salmon stocks from Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It does not revise the 

29 guiding principles of the Framework Plan. 

30 Management units that are listed under the Endangered Species Act or contribute 5 percent or less of 

31 the salmon catch within the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council are exempt from 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 29 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 PFMC management. In these cases, management must be consistent with Endangered Species Act 

2 standards established by NMFS, and with conservation and allocation objectives established by the 

3 state and tribal governments. Puget Sound chinook salmon generally contribute less than 3 percent of 

4 the catch in fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. However, the 

5 Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan (RMP) commits the co-managers to explicit 

6 consideration of coastal fishery impacts, to ensure that the overall conservation objectives are achieved 

7 for all Puget Sound chinook management units. 

8 1.10.3 Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan

9 The Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (1985) is the implementation framework for the allocation, 

10 conservation and equitable sharing principles of U.S. v. Washington that governs management of 

11 salmon resources in the Puget Sound Action Area between the Puget Sound treaty tribes and State of 

12 Washington. It defines the basis for deriving management objectives and allocation accounting, 

13 proscribes procedures for information exchange and dispute resolution, and includes provisions for 

14 annual review and modification. Salmon management plans, like the Proposed Action, must be 

15 consistent with terms of the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. The Plan also envisioned the 

16 adaptive management process that motivated the RMP; i.e., that improved technical understanding of 

17 the productivity of populations, and assessment of the actual performance of management regimes in 

18 relation to management objectives and the status of stocks, would result in continuing modification of 

19 harvest objectives. 

20 1.10.4 Puget Sound Recovery Planning 

21 Federal, state, local and tribal governments and community organizations are currently collaborating in 

22 the development of a recovery plan for listed salmon species in Puget Sound, including the Puget 

23 Sound Chinook ESU. This effort is collectively called the Shared Strategy forum. The Shared Strategy 

24 plan will include conservation goals for listed Puget Sound salmon; and the habitat, hatchery, and 

25 harvest actions that will need to be taken to achieve these goals for each watershed in Puget Sound and 

26 the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Proposed Action (Puget Sound Harvest Resource Management Plan) is 

27 intended to contribute to the development of the harvest framework for the Shared Strategy plan. When 

28 complete, the Shared Strategy will provide its plan to NMFS for assessment as to whether the plan 

29 would suffice as the recovery plan for Puget Sound salmon listed under the ESA. 

30 1.10.5 Wild Salmonid Policy

31 The Wild Salmonid Policy was adopted in 1997 by the Fish and Wildlife Commission to guide the 

32 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in harvest, hatcheries or habitat actions it takes that affect 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 30 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the salmon resource, such as the Proposed Action. For harvest actions, the policy mandates that 

2 fisheries will be managed to meet its spawning escapement policy and criteria for genetic conservation 

3 and ecological interactions (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1997). This includes 

4 performance criteria requiring harvest regimes to be responsive to annual abundance, holding 

5 incidental harvest rates to 10 percent or less of the Washington abundance, and shaping fisheries and 

6 using selective gear where possible to reduce or eliminate impacts to weak populations. This guidance 

7 must be implemented consistent with “. . . meeting treaty harvest opportunity needs” (Washington 

8 Department of Fish and Wildlife 1997). 

9 1.10.6 Gravel to Gravel

10 “Gravel to Gravel” was adopted by the Western Washington Treaty Tribes in 1997 as the regional 

11 salmon recovery policy covering the coast of Washington and Puget Sound by the Western Washington 

12 Treaty Tribes. The policy “ . . . is intended as a model to provide overall guidance and consistency for 

13 managing and recovering wild salmon, trout, and char stocks through intensive habitat, harvest, and 

14 hatchery strategies” (Western Washington Treaty Tribes 1997). It provides general policy goals 

15 designed to guide development of specific harvest plans such as the Proposed Action. These goals are 

16 to: 

17 1) Manage fisheries for sustainable abundance and to maintain biological and geographic diversity 

18 2) Provide for harvestable numbers of fish that will support fishing communities and maximize 

19 fishing opportunities. 

20 1.11 Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government, State and Tribes in Fisheries 

21 Management 

22 1.11.1 Federal Agencies

23 The Pacific Fisheries Management Council, under the oversight of the Secretary of Commerce, is 

24 responsible for setting harvest levels for coastal salmon fisheries in Washington, Oregon, and 

25 California. The Council adopts the management objectives of the relevant local authority, provided 

26 they meet the standards of the Magnuson−Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act. The Endangered Species 

27 Act has introduced a more conservative standard for coastal fisheries, when they significantly impact 

28 listed stocks. 

29 Within Puget Sound, NMFS oversees the implementation of the ESA for salmon and marine mammals, 

30 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oversees the implementation of the ESA for terrestrial species 

31 and non-anadromous fish species. These agencies work with the co-managers to develop harvest plans 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 31 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 and implement harvest actions that are consistent with the ESA; for example, the Puget Sound Chinook 

2 Harvest Resource Management Plan (the Proposed Action). 

3 1.11.2 Tribes

4 Five treaties ratified by the United States and various Washington Tribes between 1854 and 1856 

5 guaranteed Tribes fishing rights in common with citizens of the Territory. These are the treaties of 

6 Medicine Creek, Quinault, Neah Bay, Point Elliott, and Point-No-Point. Findings of U.S. v. 

7 Washington, commonly referred to as the Boldt Decision, clarified these treaties with regard to 

8 allocation of salmon harvests between treaty tribal and non-tribal fishers, holding that Tribes are 

9 entitled to a 50 percent share of the harvestable run of fish. Hoh v. Baldrige established the principle 

10 that where annual fishery management plans might affect an individual Tribe, the plans must take into 

11 account returns to individual streams, thus establishing a key management principle of river-by-river or 

run-by-run management.viii 12 The Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan and the management 

13 agreements under Hoh v. Baldrige established principles governing the management of shared salmon 

14 resources and established the principle of co-management whereby Tribes are equal co-managers with 

15 the State and represent themselves in the regional and international management forums (see 

16 Subsection 3.4 of this Environmental Impact Statement for a more detailed discussion of tribal treaty 

17 rights and tribal trust responsibilities). The Puget Sound treaty tribes co-manage Puget Sound fisheries 

18 with the state of Washington, and participate with tribes from California, Oregon and other Washington 

19 areas in managing fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the 

20 Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

21 The Puget Sound treaty tribes participated in the development of this Environmental Impact Statement 

22 by providing representation on the NMFS NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, and through review of the 

23 NMFS Interdisciplinary Team work products. 

24 1.11.3 State Agencies

25 States have management responsibilities for non-tribal salmon fisheries occurring in waters within 

26 3 miles of the coast and in all inshore and freshwater areas. States participate directly in the 

27 management of salmon fisheries through their representation on the North Pacific Fisheries 

 

viii Under the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, a run equates to a group of fish returning to a freshwater 

system which flows into saltwater, or groups of freshwater systems flowing into saltwater (see definitions of 

‘run’ and ‘stock’ in the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, May 15, 1985). 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 32 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Management Council, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Pacific Salmon Commission, and 

2 through participation on technical and policy committees that guide salmon management decisions. 

3 State fishery agencies, along with NMFS and Tribal fishery agencies, provide much of the technical 

4 information and research used in managing the fisheries. The state of Washington co-manages 

5 Washington’s salmon and steelhead fisheries with the Washington tribes. 

6 State fishery management policies are set by commissions appointed by the administrative branch, and 

are defined in state administrative codes.ix 7 The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission consists of 

8 nine members appointed by the governor for 6-year terms. The Commission is the supervising 

9 authority for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. With the 1994 merger of the former 

10 Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Commission has comprehensive species authority as well. 

11 Through formal public meetings and informal hearings held around the state, the Commission provides 

12 an opportunity for citizens to actively participate in management of Washington's fish and wildlife. 

13 WDFW also participated on the NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, and provided review of Team work 

14 products. 

15 1.12 Overview of the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement

16 This Environmental Impact Statement, prepared under the guidelines of the National Environmental 

17 Policy Act (NEPA), is organized in five main sections, each presenting a different aspect of the NEPA 

18 analysis. Each section builds on the information provided in the previous sections. These sections 

19 reflect the content requirements proscribed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ regulations 

20 at Sections 1500 through 1508). 

21 Section 1, the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action, provides background information about the 

22 Proposed Action, its purpose, and its relationship to other harvest management and resource plans, 

23 management planning processes, and previous NEPA analyses. 

24 Section 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, describes alternative management strategies in 

25 detail, including the proposed implementation of the 2004-2009 Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

26 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the 2005−2009 fishing seasons. Section 2 also describes 

 

ix Alaska, Washington, and Oregon have all recently adopted legislation to guide management of fisheries and 

resources. These wild salmonid policies are incorporated herein by reference. 
Section 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 1 - 33 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 alternatives that were considered but excluded from further detailed analysis, and the reasons why 

2 some alternatives were eliminated from consideration. 

3 Section 3, the Affected Environment, describes those components of the natural, built and human 

4 environment that would be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives. This section provides a 

5 basis for understanding the effects of the action. 

6 Section 4, Environmental Consequences, describes the predicted effects of the Proposed Action or 

7 alternatives on elements of the natural, built and human environment described in Section 3. Section 4 

8 provides a comparative basis to assess the significance of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 

9 the Proposed Action or alternatives. 

10 Section 5, Determination of Agency Preferred Alternative, briefly describes the National Marine 

11 Fisheries’ (NMFS) preferred alternative. According to CEQ regulations (CEQ §1502.14), an agency 

12 must identify a preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement if one exists. In 

13 Section 5, the relative merits and disadvantages of all alternatives evaluated are summarized in order to 

14 clearly establish why NMFS has chosen one alternative over the others as its preferred alternative. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2 2.1 Introduction 

3 This section discusses the alternatives that were considered for analysis in this Environmental Impact 

4 Statement; identifies those excluded from further analysis with an explanation for why (Subsection 

5 2.2); and describes those that have been considered for detailed analysis (Subsection 2.3). The National 

6 Environmental Policy Act requires consideration of all reasonable alternatives that fit the purpose and 

7 need for the proposed action (CEQ Regulations 1502.14; CEQ 40 Questions 1 and 2). The statement of 

8 purpose and need for the Proposed Action is provided in Section 1.3 of this Environmental Impact 

9 Statement. 

10 The alternatives considered and analyzed in this Environmental Impact Statement were formulated 

11 based on scientific information, alternatives described in the settlement agreement in Washington Trout 

12 v. Lohn, and public comments received during scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement on the 

13 2004 Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan that is proposed for implementation 

14 during the 2005−2009 fishing seasons (Subsection 1.8). 

15 The National Environmental Policy Act requires disclosure of how current environmental and social 

16 conditions would change with the Proposed Action and/or its alternatives. For this analysis, the 

17 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) most closely approximates current salmon harvest management 

18 practices and baseline environmental conditions, because the same type of harvest management plan 

has been implemented since 2000-2001 (CEQ 40 Questions, question 3).i 19 Therefore, Alternative 1 is 

20 the baseline against which the environmental, social, and economic consequences of the action are 

21 compared. The predicted direct and indirect effects of alternatives on baseline environmental 

22 conditions (Alternative 1) are described in Section 4 of this Environmental Impact Statement, along 

23 with predicted cumulative effects on the natural, built and human environment when combined with 

24 other related actions. 

 

i

 CEQ interprets the ‘no action’ alternative in two ways (CEQ 40 Questions, question 3): 

1) For a continuing action, such as a long-term plan or program of action, the ‘no action’ is defined as ‘no 

change’ from current management direction or level of management intensity. 

2) For a project, ‘no action’ is defined as ‘the proposed activity would not take place, and the resulting 

environmental effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects of permitting the proposed 

activity or an alternative activity to go forward.” 

Fundamentally, these two interpretations are the same since each is intended to define the environmental 

baseline conditions that exist prior to implementation of the proposed action or its alternatives. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The criteria applied in narrowing the range of alternatives included: 

2 • Relevance to the Action – Is the alternative consistent with the identified purpose and need for 

3 the Proposed Action? 

4 • Redundancy – Is the primary characteristic of the alternative contained in another, broader, 

5 alternative? 

6 • Environmental Considerations – Could the alternative effectively address conservation mandates 

7 of the subject jurisdictions? Could the alternative effectively address conservation concerns of 

8 the ESA? 

9 • Technical Feasibility – Is there evidence or compelling reason to expect that the alternative 

10 approach would be technically feasible? 

11 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

12 Three alternatives suggested in public comment received during scoping for the EIS on the 2004 Puget 

13 Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan proposed for implementation during the 

14 2005−2009 fishing seasons or discussed during the internal consultation process were eliminated from 

15 further analysis. These include: 1) tribal-only fisheries, 2) no hatchery augmentation, and 3) 

16 exploitation-rate management. These alternatives were considered either outside the scope of this 

17 Environmental Impact Statement because they are not relevant to the Proposed Action, or they have 

18 been encompassed within alternatives analyzed in detail (Subsection 2.3, following). A more detailed 

19 explanation for why NMFS eliminated these alternatives from detailed study is provided in Subsections 

20 2.2.1 through 2.2.3. 

21 2.2.1 Tribal-Only Fisheries 

22 A tribal-only fishing alternative was suggested during public comment. As described, this alternative 

23 would provide the 4(d) Rule take limitation on harvest activities only for treaty tribal fishing, would 

24 estimate the level of tribal fisheries required to satisfy federal trust responsibilities to the Puget Sound 

25 treaty tribes, and would configure those fisheries for all salmon species. This alternative is not 

26 consistent with the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. Since the purpose is to put in place a 

27 resource management plan under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule (i.e., a joint state-tribal plan), it would not be 

28 reasonable to expect that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound tribes 

29 would put forward a joint plan under Limit 6 that would include no provisions for non-tribal fishing. A 

30 fishery plan involving tribal-only fisheries would reasonably be expected to be provided to NMFS for 

31 evaluation under the Tribal 4(d) Rule. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 2.2.2 No Hatchery Augmentation 

2 A no-hatchery-augmentation alternative would assume that hatchery augmentation programs and the 

3 fish produced from those programs do not exist. It has been excluded from further detailed analysis 

4 because it is not reasonable or practicable. Even if the hatchery programs were discontinued in 2004

5 2005, substantial numbers of hatchery fish from previous hatchery releases will return to Puget Sound 

6 in 2004 2005 and over the next several years. It is not reasonable to expect that the co-managers would 

7 develop a resource management plan that did not provide for harvest of these hatchery fish, particularly 

8 since many of these fish were produced specifically for harvest. This alternative is also technically 

9 infeasible to assess with current tools and available data, since it is not yet possible to distinguish 

10 returning hatchery adults from wild adults for many Puget Sound chinook salmon populations. Finally, 

11 most of the reasons suggested for including this alternative (broodstock takes, prey competition, loss of 

12 genetic fitness, and migration barriers) are not affected by fishery activities. An analysis of harvest 

13 activities will only provide information about the change in escapement, catch and exploitation rate, 

14 and would not provide the information necessary to address the reasons given for the request. These 

15 issues would be more appropriately addressed in a National Environmental Policy Act analysis of 

16 proposed hatchery operations, if necessary. A pending National Environmental Policy Act review is 

17 currently under development for the Puget Sound salmon hatchery program. Fishery-related hatchery 

18 issues, such as straying and possible over-fishing, are addressed in the alternatives evaluated in this 

19 Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, it is not necessary to develop and analyze an additional 

20 alternative in order to evaluate them. 

21 2.2.3 Exploitation Rate Management 

22 Under an exploitation-rate management alternative, Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca salmon 

23 fisheries would be managed for a constant total exploitation rate on each Puget Sound chinook 

24 management unit regardless of the expected abundance. This alternative is encompassed within the 

25 Proposed Action (Alternative 1). Therefore, a separate alternative to address this issue would be 

26 redundant and would not be consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act mandate to reduce 

27 excessive paperwork (CEQ Regulations 1500.4). 

28 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail 

29 Three alternatives are analyzed in detail in this Environmental Impact Statement. The alternatives 

30 selected for detailed analysis represent different frameworks from which to develop annual fishing 

31 regimes. They are meant to provide a flexible framework for managing fisheries to meet conservation 

32 and use objectives. They do not include the specific details of an annual fishing regime; i.e., where and 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 4 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 when fisheries occur, what gear will be used, or how harvest will be allocated among gears, areas or 

2 fishermen. Salmon abundance is highly variable from year to year, both among chinook salmon 

3 populations and other salmon species, due to changing environmental conditions. In addition, resource 

4 use objectives vary from year to year based on the concerns and needs of the stakeholder groups, which 

5 are also influenced by annual abundance and population status. These circumstances require managers 

6 to shape fisheries to respond to the population abundance and resource use conditions particular to that 

7 year. Therefore, each year, the co-managers would use the framework to develop annual fishing 

8 regimes for Puget Sound fisheries that are responsive to the year-specific circumstances related to the 

9 status of populations and other resource use objectives. Each alternative represents a distinctly different 

10 approach to setting management objectives, and each would have different outcomes in terms of 

11 escapement levels, harvest-related mortality, long-term resource protection, and harvest opportunity. 

12 These predicted outcomes are described in Section 4 of this Environmental Impact Statement. The 

13 following subsections describe the alternatives in more detail. More specificity about the technical 

14 assumptions and methods involved in analyzing each of the alternatives can be found in Appendix B. 

15 Table 2.3-1 summarizes the elements of the alternatives. 

16 Before describing the alternatives in more detail, it is important to point out that Alternative 4 is 

17 inconsistent with several of the elements of the purpose and need for the Proposed Action described in 

18 Subsection 1.3, and would not be considered were it not one of the alternatives identified for analysis in 

19 the settlement agreement to Washington Trout v. Lohn. Alternative 4 is inconsistent with the purpose 

20 and need for the Proposed Action because it does not: 1) provide for the meaningful exercise of 

21 federally-protected treaty fishing rights; 2) provide for tribal and non-tribal fishing opportunity co22 managed under the jurisdiction of U.S. v. Washington; or 3) optimize harvest of abundant Puget Sound 

23 salmon while protecting weaker commingled chinook salmon stocks. In addition, unless necessary for 

24 reasons of conservation, Alternative 4 is inconsistent with other legal mandates and policies related to 

25 treaty tribal fishing rights. It is unrealistic and unnecessary for the co-managers to engage in the 

26 regulatory burden of seeking coverage of their Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management 

27 Plan under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule with NMFS if that plan involved no take of listed chinook salmon, 

28 since actions that do not result in take of a listed species do not require consultation with NMFS. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 5 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 2.3-1. Comparison of alternatives considered for detailed analysis. 

Element 

Alternative 1 – 

Proposed 

Action/Status Quo 

Alternative 2 – 

Management Unit 

Escapement Goal 

Alternative 3 – 

Population Escapement 

Goal/ 

Terminal Fisheries Only 

Alternative 4 – 

No Action/No 

Authorized Take 

Management 

objectives 

Exploitation rate 

ceilings 

Escapement thresholds 

Fixed escapement goals Fixed escapement goals No take of listed chinook 

within the Puget Sound 

Action Area. 

Focus of 

management 

Weak population Weak population Weak population Not applicable 

Access All marine and 

freshwater areas of 

Puget Sound 

All marine and 

freshwater areas of 

Puget Sound 

Freshwater areas only Marine areas closed. 

Freshwater areas closed 

April−November. 

Level of 

management 

Management Unit, 

most managed for 

weakest population 

Management Unit Population Not applicable 

Protection of 

ESU diversity 

Fisheries shaped to 

minimize timing, age, 

size selectivity 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

for fisheries on other 

salmon that remain 

open. 

Fishing at low 

abundance 

Minimum Fishing 

Regime 

No fishing No fishing No fishing 

Monitoring Fishery Monitoring 

Escapement Monitoring 

Biological Sampling 

Coastwide CodedWire-Tag Indicator 

Stock Program 

Smolt Production 

Monitoring 

Monitoring would 

continue as in 

Alternative 1, although 

fishery monitoring in 

marine areas would 

likely be greatly reduced 

given the low 

expectation of fisheries 

in these areas. 

Monitoring would continue as 

in Alternative 1, except fishery 

monitoring in marine areas 

would be eliminated. 

Monitoring would 

continue as in 

Alternative 1, except

fishery monitoring in 

marine areas would be 

eliminated and the 

biological sampling 

would likely be reduced. 

Enforcement Puget Sound-wide 

coverage in marine and 

freshwater areas 

Same as Alternative 1 

except marine patrols 

would probably be 

redirected when the 

likelihood of marine 

fisheries was low. 

Freshwater patrols as in 

Alternative 1. 

Marine patrols redirected. 

Freshwater patrols as in 

Alternative 1. 

Redirected to other 

natural resources. 

Reporting Fishery results 

Escapement estimates 

Biological sampling 

results 

Reduced from 

Alternative 1. 

Reduced from Alternative 1 Reduced or eliminated 

from Alternative 1. 

2 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 6 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Finally, existing case law provides that treaty tribal fishing can be limited for conservation purposes, 

2 but only if the associated legal standards are first met. Implementation of Alternative 4 would require 

3 closure of all salmon fisheries that took listed Puget Sound chinook salmon, including treaty tribal 

4 fisheries. In cases involving an activity that could raise the potential issue of a take under the ESA and 

5 further restriction of treaty tribal fishing, an analysis will be conducted to determine whether all of the 

6 following conservation standards have been met: 

7 (i) the restriction is reasonable and necessary for conservation of the species at issue 

8 (ii) the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved by reasonable regulation of non9 Indian activities 

10 (iii) the measure is the least restrictive alternative available to achieve the required conservation 

11 purpose 

12 (iv) the restriction does not discriminate against Indian activities, either as stated or applied 

13 (v) voluntary tribal measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. 

14 A thorough discussion of Tribal Rights and Treaty Trust Responsibilities is provided in Section 3.4 of 

15 this Environmental Impact Statement. 

16 Therefore, Alternative 4, No Action/No Authorized Take, is included among the alternatives for 

17 detailed analysis because it was one of the alternatives included in the settlement agreement in 

18 Washington Trout v. Lohn. It provides an upper-bound estimate of the decrease in mortality on fish and 

19 wildlife species affected by Puget Sound salmon fisheries, and an upper-bound estimate of socio20 economic effects. 

21 2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo 

22 Alternative 1 represents the Puget Sound chinook harvest management framework proposed by the co23 managers (Puget Sound treaty tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). Although 

24 management objectives have been updated as new information has become available and the co25 managers have continued to refine their approach, it is the same general management framework that 

has been implemented since 2000. All marine and freshwater areas currently fishedii 26 would remain 

27 available under Alternative 1, subject to shaping by the co-managers to address conservation or use 

28 objectives. More detailed descriptions of these fisheries are provided in Subsection 1.6 of this 

29 Environmental Impact Statement. The following discussion describes the approach of Alternative 1 in 

 

ii Not all freshwater areas are currently fished by the co-managers because of ongoing conservation concerns, or 

due to fisheries in the area being infeasible. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 7 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 general detail. A detailed explanation of the management framework for individual management units 

2 is presented in the Resource Management Plan itself in Appendix A. 

3 Under Alternative 1, Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound salmon fisheries would be managed for a 

4 mixture of management-unit-specific escapement thresholds and exploitation rate ceilings. The type of 

5 objective would vary by management unit (Table 2.3-2). Several of the management units encompass 

6 two or more populations. One half of these management units would be managed for the weakest 

7 population component and to avoid falling below the low escapement thresholds for all populations, 

8 and fisheries within the Puget Sound Action Area would be managed to achieve the conservation 

9 objectives for the weakest chinook management unit. Because it is often a point of confusion, it is 

10 important to note that this approach is different than mixed-stock management practices that manage 

11 the abundance of fish in a fishery made up of multiple populations as an aggregate; i.e., as if it was 

12 only one population. Alternative 1 would not manage mixed-stock fisheries as an aggregate. Under 

13 Alternative 1 mixed-stock fisheries would be managed for the harvest management objective of the 

14 weakest management unit in the fishery, foregoing harvest of stronger management units, if necessary, 

15 to protect the weaker management units.

16 The exploitation rate objectives would be ceilings not targets. This means that fisheries in each year 

17 would not be shaped to achieve the exploitation rate ceilings but rather to not exceed them. In any 

18 particular year, fisheries may be managed for rates well below these ceilings. Fisheries in the Green, 

19 Skokomish and Nisqually Rivers would be managed to meet or exceed escapement thresholds. This 

20 means that in many years, escapements would be well above their escapement thresholds, although in 

21 some years escapement may fall below their thresholds due to management imprecision. However, the 

22 degree to which escapement deviates from the threshold varies from year to year depending on the 

management decisions and error in forecasted abundanceiii 23 . Except for the Nisqually River management 

24 unit, management units managed for escapement thresholds are also coupled with ceilings on 

25 exploitation rates in mixed-stock fisheries. When abundance is insufficient to meet the escapement 

26 thresholds, additional actions would be taken to come as close to the goal as possible. 

 

iii Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, fisheries have been designed to harvest all chinook above the 

escapement threshold in these systems. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 8 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 2.3-2. Puget Sound chinook resource management plan harvest conservation objectives: 

2 Recovery exploitation rates, escapement goals, critical abundance thresholds, and 

3 minimum fishing rates under Alternative 1. 

4 Source: Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (11/4/20033/18/04). 

5 Exploitation rates expressed as: 

6 SUS = Total, southern United States. 

PT SUS = Pre-terminal southern United States. 1 7 1 8 A fishery that harvests significant numbers of fish from more than one region of origin. Does not include 

9 additional impacts in terminal fisheries. 

2 10 Managed for weakest population component. 3 11 Natural-origin spawners. 

4 12 500 adults to the South Prairie Creek index. 

Management Unit/ Population 

Recovery 

Exploitation Rates 

Upper Management 

Threshold 

Low Abundance 

Threshold 

Critical Exploitation Rate 

Ceilings 

Western Strait of Juan de Fuca 10% SUS 850 500 6% SUS 

Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Dungeness 

Elwha 

10% SUS 

10% SUS 

925 

2,900 

500 

1,000 

6% SUS 

6% SUS 

Nooksack2

North Fork 

South Fork 

Under development 

4,0003

2,0003

2,0003 1,000 3 

1,000 3

9% SUS 

anticipated to be 7% or less 

in 4 of the next 5 years 

Skagit spring 

Upper Sauk 

Cascade 

Siuattle 

38% 2,000 

986 

440 

574 

576 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

15% SUS even-years 

17% SUS odd-years 

Skagit summer/fall 

Upper Skagit 

Lower Sauk 

Lower Skagit 

50% 14,500 

8,434 

1,926 

4,140 

4,800 

2,200 

400 

900 

18% SUS 

Stillaguamish2

North Fork summer 

South Fork fall 

25% 9003

6003

3003

650 3

500 3

N/A 

15% SUS 

Snohomish2

Skykomish 

Snoqualmie 

21% 4,6003

3,6003

1,0003

2,800 

 1,745 3

521 3

15% SUS 

Lake Washington 

Cedar River 

15% PT SUS 1,2003 200 3 12% PT SUS

Green 15% PT SUS 5,800 1,800 12% PT SUS 

White River spring 20% 1,000 200 15% SUS 

Puyallup 50% 500 5004 12% PT SUS 

Nisqually Terminal fishery managed to achieve 1,100 natural spawners 

Mid-Hood Canal 

Dosewallips 

15% PT SUS 750 400 12% PT SUS 

Skokomish 15% PT SUS 3,650 aggregate, 

1,650 natural 

1,300 aggregate 

800 natural 

12% PT SUS 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 9 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Under Alternative 1, all populations have low abundance thresholdsiv 1 and all management units have 

upper management thresholdsv 2 that trigger additional fishery responses when escapement is anticipated 

3 to be lower or higher than these thresholds (Table 2.3-2). For all management units, when abundance is 

4 projected to result in escapement below the low abundance threshold, or the amount of exploitation in 

5 Alaskan and Canadian fisheries would make it difficult or impossible to meet harvest objectives, 

6 exploitation rates in southern U.S. fisheries would be held to rates no greater than those rates defined 

7 by a minimum fishing regime (Table 2.3-2). The minimum fishing regime is designed to preserve an 

8 acceptable level of harvest opportunity on other salmon species and hatchery chinook stocks. As such, 

9 the minimum fishing regime is based primarily on policy interpretation of this acceptable level of 

10 harvest opportunity rather than primarily on biological considerations as is the case with the 

11 escapement thresholds and general exploitation rate objectives. The co-managers believe the minimum 

12 fishing regime achieves a balance of protection for the chinook salmon populations, preserves harvest 

13 opportunity on other salmon species and stronger chinook salmon stocks, and provides a minimum 

14 level of fishing that allows some exercise of tribal treaty rights. The status of several populations is 

15 such that they would be expected to be managed under the minimum fishing regime over the duration 

16 of the Proposed Action. The expected range of impacts on these populations is discussed in more detail 

17 in Section 4.3 of this Environmental Impact Statement. 

18 Under Alternative 1, if after accounting for expected Alaskan and Canadian catches; and incidental, 

19 test, and tribal ceremonial and subsistence catches in southern U.S. fisheries; a management unit is 

20 expected to have a spawning escapement greater than its upper management threshold, and its 

21 projected exploitation rate is less than its exploitation rate ceiling objective, the amount in excess of the 

22 upper escapement threshold (harvestable surplus) would be considered to be available for targeted 

23 harvest. In that case, additional fisheries may be implemented until the exploitation rate ceiling is met 

24 or its expected escapement equals the upper management threshold. In other words, the primary 

25 objective of the fishery could be to harvest the amount in excess of the upper management threshold for 

26 that management unit, in addition to incidental harvest occurring in fisheries on other species or 

 

iv These thresholds are set at levels below which concerns about demographic and genetic effects on population 

stability begin to arise. They are intentionally set above the level at which a population may become 

demographically unstable, or subject to loss of genetic integrity. More detail for each population can be found in 

Appendix A of the Puget Sound Chinook Comprehensive Management Plan – Harvest Management 

Component. 

v These thresholds are intended to represent optimum productivity of the management unit or population. More 

detail for each management unit can be found in Appendix A of the Puget Sound Chinook Comprehensive 

Management Plan – Harvest Management Component. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 10 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 hatchery chinook stocks. These fisheries are commonly called directed fisheries. Otherwise, Alternative 

2 1 would prohibit directed harvest on listed populations of Puget Sound chinook salmon, unless they 

3 were expected to have harvestable surpluses. However, both directed and incidental fishery impacts 

4 would be constrained by the overall exploitation rate ceilings or escapement thresholds for each 

5 management unit (Recovery Exploitation Rates and Thresholds, Table 2.3.2). The co-managers expect 

6 that directed fishing under Alternative 1 during the 2004 2005−2009 fishing seasons would be limited 

7 to occasional ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. 

8 Fisheries would also be conducted in a manner that would minimize impacts to the diversity of chinook 

9 salmon populations within the Puget Sound Action Area. For example, to minimize potential size, 

10 timing, and age-selective effects resulting from terminal fisheries, pulsed (i.e., short-duration) openings 

11 would be scheduled over the duration of the run. 

12 Monitoring 

13 Alternative 1 includes monitoring provisions to collect biological data, validate assumptions, and assess 

14 the performance of the annual fishing regime. WDFW and the Puget Sound treaty tribes work together 

15 cooperatively to conduct the monitoring. The Puget Sound chinook salmon catch in all fisheries, 

16 including incidental catch, and fishing effort would be monitored and compared against pre-season 

17 expectations. Commercial catch in Washington waters would be recorded on sales receipts (‘tickets’), 

18 copies of which would be sent to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and tribal agencies, 

19 and recorded in a jointly-maintained database. Recreational catch in some areas in Puget Sound would 

20 be estimated in-season by creel surveys. Creel sampling regimes have been developed to meet 

21 acceptable standards of variance for weekly catch. For other Puget Sound fishing areas, recreational 

22 harvest would be estimated from a sample of catch record cards obtained from all anglers. The 

23 recreational fishery baseline sampling program would provide auxiliary estimates of species 

24 composition, effort, and catch per unit effort. For this program, the objectives would be to sample 120 

25 fish per sampling group for estimation of species composition, and 100 boats per stratum (i.e., 

26 sampling group) for the estimation of catch per unit effort. Post-season comparison to actual catch is 

27 used to assess the true effect of regulations, and guides their future application or modification. 

28 Collection of scales, otoliths (bones in the head of a fish that indicate age), coded-wire tags, and sex 

29 and length data would occur to determine the age and size composition of the local population, and 

30 distinguish hatchery- and natural-origin fish. 

31 Chinook escapement surveys in each river system would be implemented to estimate annual 

32 escapements, evaluate trends in escapement, and to describe the annual variation in the return timing of 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 11 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 chinook populations. Estimates of escapement and fishery exploitation rates would enable 

2 reconstruction of the abundance of annual chinook returns and, given the age composition of annual 

3 returns, would enable estimation of the abundance produced from a given brood year escapement. After 

4 adjustment to account for non-landed fish and natural mortality, these estimates of recruitment would 

5 define the productivity of specific populations. 

6 Monitoring would include continued implementation of the coast-wide indicator stock program in 

7 Puget Sound, used to assess harvest mortality and distribution. Chinook salmon populations that are 

8 part of the indicator stock program include Nooksack River spring, Skagit River spring, Stillaguamish 

9 River summer, Green River fall, Nisqually River fall, Skokomish River fall, and Hoko River fall 

10 populations. Additional indicator stocks are being developed for Skagit River summer and fall, and 

11 Snohomish summer populations. Commercial and recreational catch in all marine fishing areas in 

12 Washington would be sampled to recover coded-wire tagged chinook. For commercial fisheries, the 

13 objective would be to sample at least 20 percent of the catch in each area, in each week, throughout the 

14 fishing season (Johnson 1990). For recreational fisheries, the objective would be to sample 10 percent 

15 of the catch in each month/area stratum for Marine Catch Areas 7 through 13 and 20 percent for Marine 

16 Catch Areas 4B through 6 (Milward 2003a; Milward 2003b). 

17 Smolt production from several Puget Sound management units would be estimated to provide 

18 additional information on the productivity of populations, and to quantify the annual variation in 

19 freshwater (i.e., egg-to-smolt) survival. In general, traps are operated through the chinook salmon out20 migration period (January–August). These estimates are essential to understanding and predicting the 

21 annual recruitment, particularly in large river systems where freshwater survival has shown wide 

22 variation. 

23 Enforcement 

24 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and individual Treaty tribes are responsible for 

25 regulating harvest of fisheries under their authority, consistent with the principles and procedures set 

26 forth in the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (1985). 

27 Each tribe exercises authority over enforcement of tribal commercial fishing regulations, whether 

28 fisheries occur on or off their reservation. In some cases, enforcement is coordinated among several 

29 tribes by a single agency (e.g., the Point-No-Point Treaty Council is entrusted with enforcement 

30 authority over Lower Elwha Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, and Port Gamble S’Klallam tribal 

31 fisheries). Enforcement officers of one tribal agency may be cross-deputized by another tribal agency, 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 12 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 where those tribes fish in common areas. Prosecution of violations of tribal regulations occurs through 

2 tribal courts and governmental structures. Enforcement officers would patrol all marine and freshwater 

3 salmon fisheries under Alternative 1 to enforce regulations and offer community outreach. 

4 Reporting 

5 The co-managers would write an annual report on Puget Sound chinook salmon fisheries management 

6 that they would use to inform future harvest management decisions (see Section 7 of the Resource 

7 Management Plan in Appendix A), and would provide this report to NMFS annually as part of the 

8 application of Limit 6. Annual review builds a remedial response into the pre-season planning process 

9 to prevent excessive fishing mortality levels relative to the conservation of a management unit. The 

10 report would include: 

11 • A summary of the chronology and conduct of all fisheries within the co-managers’ jurisdiction, 

12 comparing expected and actual fishing schedules, and landed chinook catch. Significant 

13 deviations from the pre-season plan would be highlighted, with a summary of in-season 

14 abundance assessments and changes in fishing schedules or regulations. 

15 • Estimates of landed catch of chinook in all fisheries during the management year (May through 

16 April) compared with pre-season expectations of catch, including revised estimates of landed 

17 catch for the previous management year. The causes of significant discrepancies between 

18 expected and actual catch would be examined, with an objective to improving the accuracy of the 

19 pre-season projections. 

20 • Results of non-landed mortality studies. 

21 • Comparisons of spawning escapement for all management units to pre-season projections, with 

22 detail on individual populations reported, as possible. Escapements would be compared to 

23 escapement goals and critical escapement thresholds. Final and detailed estimates of escapement 

24 for the previous year would also be tabulated. 

25 • A summary of coded-wire tag sampling rates achieved in the previous year, and a description of 

26 biological sampling (i.e., collection of scales, otoliths, and sex and size data) of catch and 

27 escapement. 

28 • Annual, adult-equivalent exploitation rates for each management unit as data become available, 

29 and comparison of these rates to the preseason expected exploitation rates and ceilings. 

30 • A report describing whether the annual goals of the Pacific Salmon Treaty agreements were 

31 achieved. 

32 As part of Alternative 1, the results of the annual reports would be used to revise harvest management 

33 objectives and fishery actions to maintain consistency with the current productivity and capacity of the 

34 various chinook systems and to improve management accuracy. The primary intent of monitoring, 

35 evaluation and reporting is to provide a useful feedback loop to improve understanding of the status 

36 and ecology of the salmon populations and fisheries management. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 13 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 2.3.2 Alternative 2 − Escapement Goal Management 

2 Under Alternative 2, Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca salmon fisheries would be managed to 

3 achieve fixed escapement goals for each Puget Sound chinook management unit. All marine and 

freshwater areas currently fishedvi 4 would remain available under Alternative 2, subject to shaping by 

5 the co-managers to address conservation or use objectives. Under Alternative 2, fisheries would occur 

6 where the abundance of Puget Sound chinook management units passing through those areas were 

7 predicted to be in excess of their goals (Table 2.3-3). Although, there would be no general restriction 

8 on where the fish could be caught as long as the fisheries management units were meeting their 

9 escapement goals, the subsequent analysis in Section 4 demonstrates that, for the abundances expected 

10 to occur over the next six years, most fishing would be limited to terminal (freshwater) areas. Terminal 

11 areas are defined as locations containing only populations returning to a single river system; for 

12 example, the Skagit River. The reason for this is that fisheries in marine areas would encounter fish 

13 from a mixture of management units, some of which would not be anticipated to meet their escapement 

14 goals. Since fishing cannot occur on management units below their escapement goals under Alternative 

15 2, fisheries in these areas would be closed. 

16 In practice, under Alternative 2, fisheries would be managed to meet or exceed escapement thresholds 

17 for the Puget Sound chinook management units. This means that in many years, escapements would be 

18 well above their escapement thresholds, although in some years escapements could fall below their 

19 goals because of management imprecision. However, the degree to which escapement deviates from 

20 the threshold varies from year to year depending on the management decisions and error in forecasted 

21 abundance. Therefore, as with Alternative 1, for the purposes of this analysis, fisheries have been 

22 designed to harvest all chinook in excess of the escapement goal. 

23 In general, the analysis of Alternative 2 assumes that the terminal fishery structure is the same as that 

24 of Alternative 1, and does not introduce any new fisheries that have not occurred in recent years, since 

25 this would be highly speculative. For example, non-tribal commercial fisheries do not presently occur 

26 in freshwater areas by agreement with the tribes, and due to a resource use decision to prioritize 

27 recreational fisheries in freshwater areas by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the 

28 Strait of Juan de Fuca region, very limited harvest of chinook, coho, and steelhead would occur only in 

29 the Hoko River. In the North Puget Sound region, limited chum and steelhead fisheries would occur in 

 

vi Not all freshwater areas are currently fished by the co-managers because of ongoing conservation concerns, or 

due to fisheries in the area being infeasible. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 14 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the Nooksack and Skagit Rivers. Available chinook abundance for the Stillaguamish management unit 

2 would allow a small chum fishery, moderate chinook, coho and pink fisheries in the Stillaguamish 

3 River and a small chum fishery in Tulalip Bay. The Tulalip Bay fishery is the only fishery outside 

4 terminal areas under Alternative 2. In the South Puget Sound region, available chinook salmon 

5 abundance would allow moderate fisheries for coho and chum salmon, and limited fisheries for pink 

6 salmon. In Hood Canal, available chinook salmon abundance would allow moderate fisheries for coho, 

7 pink and chum salmon relative to Alternative 1. 

8 Table 2.3-3. Escapement goal objectives used to analyze Alternative 2 based on objectives provided 

9 by the co-managers. 

Management Unit Alternative 2 Escapement Goal 

Western Strait-Hoko 1 850 

Dungeness Spring 925

Elwha 2,900 

Nooksack Spring 4,0002

Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 1 8,900 

Skagit Spring 2,000 

Skagit Summer/Fall 14,500 

Stillaguamish 9002

Snohomish 4,6002

Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 1 -- 

Lake Washington 1,550

Green-Duwamish 5,800 

Puyallup 1,200 

White Spring 1,000 

Nisqually 1,100 

Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & McAllister, Deschutes 1 9,600 

Mid-Canal 750

Skokomish 1,200 

Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tributaries. 1 1,850 

1 10 Not defined as an independent population for the listed Puget Sound chinook Evolutionarily 

11 Significant Unit. Goals used to assess economic impacts of lost harvest opportunity. 2 12 Natural-origin spawners. 

13 Fisheries outside the Puget Sound Action Area, such as those under the jurisdiction of the Pacific 

14 Fisheries Management Council, including Marine Catch Area 4B from May to September, would 

15 continue to operate under Alternative 2. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 15 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Monitoring 

2 With the elimination of almost all marine salmon fisheries under Alternative 2, monitoring programs 

3 associated with those fisheries would be eliminated. Monitoring of terminal fisheries, escapement, and 

4 smolt production would continue as described under Alternative 1. 

5 Enforcement 

6 With the elimination of almost all marine salmon fisheries, enforcement would be redirected from 

7 marine fisheries to terminal salmon fisheries or to other natural resources; such as, shellfish and 

8 wildlife. 

9 Reporting 

10 Reporting provisions would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 

11 2.3.3 Alternative 3 − Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

12 Fisheries Only 

13 Alternative 3 is very similar to Alternative 2 except that 1) Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca 

14 salmon fisheries would be managed to meet population-specific escapement goal objectives rather than 

15 management unit-specific goals and, 2) salmon fisheries that would harvest listed Puget Sound chinook 

16 would not occur within the Puget Sound Action Area outside terminal areas of Puget Sound and the 

17 Strait of Juan de Fuca. Alternative 2 had no specific geographical constraints on where fisheries could 

occurvii 18 . Populations are those defined by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (NMFS PSTRT 

19 2003). There would be no fishing-related mortality of listed Puget Sound chinook for populations for 

20 which abundance was not expected to meet the escapement goal of the population (Table 2.3-4). Data 

21 were not available to derive a population-specific escapement goal for the North Lake Washington 

22 population because the data are too variable to derive a population dynamic relationship, and the 

23 contribution of hatchery strays is unknown. Lacking these data, the escapement goals for the Lake 

24 Washington management unit and the Cedar River population were used to represent probable effects 

25 of Alternative 3 on the North Lake Washington population. Both the Lake Washington Tributaries and 

26 Cedar River populations have the same type of life history and are subject to the same fisheries, so 

27 there is no reason to believe based on available information that the North Lake Washington 

 

vii Abundance over the next 6 years (2005–2010) is predicted to be below the escapement goal for most 

populations, effectively constraining fisheries to freshwater areas under the terms of Alternative 2. However, if 

abundance was predicted to exceed the escapement goals, fisheries could occur in marine as well as freshwater 

areas under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, however, fisheries would be explicitly constrained to freshwater 

areas. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 16 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Tributaries population and the Cedar River population are harvested in different locations or at 

2 different rates. Management for all individual populations rather than management units, the constraint 

3 to fish only in freshwater areas, the use of escapement goals as management objectives for all 

4 populations, and the elimination of harvest on listed chinook salmon populations or management units 

5 that do not meet their escapement goal, are the key differences between Alternatives 1, and 

6 Alternatives 2 and 3. For example, under Alternative 1, the three Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon 

7 populations would be managed for an exploitation rate ceiling. There would be no general restriction 

8 on where the fish could be caught as long as the fisheries in total did not exceed the ceiling and there is 

9 some level of harvest under all abundance conditions. Under Alternative 2, the three Skagit 

10 summer/fall populations would be managed for the management unit escapement goal, and no fishery11 related mortality on listed Skagit summer/fall chinook would occur in Puget Sound fisheries when 

12 abundance was not expected to meet the escapement goal. Under Alternative 3, the three Skagit 

13 summer/fall chinook populations would be managed for individual escapement goals. Fisheries would 

14 only occur in terminal areas where and when abundance was anticipated to exceed the escapement 

15 goal. 

16 It is important to note that under the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (1985), the co-managers 

17 established escapement goals only at the management-unit level, and not at the population level, except 

18 where there is only one population in the management unit. The Puget Sound Salmon Management 

19 Plan (1985) defines a stock (population) as “An anadromous salmonid population of a single 

20 population of a species migrating during a particular season to a specific fish production facility and/or 

21 to a freshwater system which flows into saltwater” (Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan 1985). The 

22 co-managers have interpreted this to mean that the smallest unit of management would be at the level 

23 of a river system (i.e., management unit), not tributaries within that river system, and in most instances, 

24 information on individual populations is very limited. In order to adopt population-specific 

25 management objectives for those management units that include multiple populations, formal 

26 agreement would be required between the co-managers. Therefore, the population-specific escapement 

27 goals defined under Alternative 3 are not official management objectives, but are used only for the 

28 purpose of analyzing this alternative. 

29 Under Alternative 3, terminal fisheries would occur where Puget Sound chinook salmon abundance in 

30 excess of the goals were predicted (Table 2.3-4). Although in practice fisheries would be managed to 

31 meet or exceed the goals, as with Alternatives 1 and 2, for the purposes of this analysis, fisheries have 

32 been designed to harvest all chinook in excess of the escapement goal. In general, as under 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 17 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Alternative 2, the analysis of Alternative 3 assumes that the terminal fishery structure would be the 

2 same as that of Alternative 1, and would not introduce any new fisheries that have not occurred in 

3 recent years even with the elimination of marine commercial fishing opportunities. Except for fisheries 

4 in Tulalip Bay and the Stillaguamish River, fisheries under Alternative 3 would be identical to those 

5 under Alternative 2. In the Strait of Juan de Fuca region, very limited harvest of chinook, coho, and 

6 steelhead would occur only in the Hoko River. In the North Puget Sound region, limited chum and 

7 steelhead fisheries would occur in the Nooksack and Skagit Rivers. Population abundance for the South 

8 Fork Stillaguamish population would not meet its escapement goal and so the Tulalip Bay and 

9 Stillaguamish fisheries that would occur under Alternative 2 would not occur under Alternative 3. In 

10 the South Puget Sound region, available chinook abundance would allow moderate fisheries for coho 

11 and chum salmon, and limited fisheries for pink salmon. In Hood Canal, available chinook abundance 

12 would allow moderate fisheries for coho, pink and chum salmon relative to Alternative 1. 

13 Fisheries outside the Puget Sound Action Area, such as those under the jurisdiction of the Pacific 

14 Fisheries Management Council, including Marine Catch Area 4B from May to September, would 

15 continue to operate under Alternative 3. 

16 Monitoring 

17 With the elimination of marine salmon fisheries under Alternative 3, monitoring programs associated 

18 with those fisheries would be eliminated. Monitoring of terminal fisheries, escapement, and smolt 

19 production would continue as described under Alternative 1. 

20 Enforcement 

21 Enforcement would be redirected from marine fisheries to terminal salmon fisheries or to other natural 

22 resources; such as, shellfish and wildlife. 

23 Reporting 

24 Reporting requirements would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 18 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 2.3-4. Escapement goal objectives used to analyze Alternative 3 based on objectives provided 

2 by the co-managers. 

Management Unit/Population Alternative 3 Escapement Goal 

Western Strait-Hoko 1 850 

Dungeness Spring 925

Elwha 2,900 

Nooksack Spring

 North Fork Nooksack 2,0001

South Fork Nooksack 2,0001

 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 1 8,900 

Skagit Spring 

Upper Sauk 986 

 Suiattle 574 

 Upper Cascade 440 

 Skagit Summer/Fall 

Lower Sauk 1,926 

 Upper Skagit 8,434 

 Lower Skagit 4,140 

 Stillaguamish 

 North Fork Stillaguamish 6005

South Fork Stillaguamish 3005

 Snohomish 

 Skykomish 3,6005

 Snoqualmie 1,0005

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 1 -- 

Lake Washington 

 Cedar 1,2005

 North Lake Washington tributaries 

 Green-Duwamish 5,800 

Puyallup 1,200 

White Spring 1,000 

Nisqually 1,100 

Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & McAllister, Deschutes 2 9,600 

Mid-Canal 750

Skokomish 1,200 

Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tributaries. 2 1,850 

1 3 Natural-origin spawners. 

2 4 Not defined as an independent population for the listed Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily 

5 Significant Unit. Goals used to assess economic impacts of lost harvest opportunity. 
Section 2 − Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 2 - 19 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 2.3.4 Alternative 4 − No Action/No Authorized Take 

2 Under Alternative 4, fishing-related mortality of listed Puget Sound chinook would be eliminated in 

3 salmon fisheries within the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. Therefore, it is assumed that those 

4 salmon fisheries within the Puget Sound Action Area that harvested one or more listed Puget Sound 

5 chinook consistently from year to year would be closed. This would preclude all salmon fisheries in 

6 marine areas and most freshwater fisheries. The only fisheries open under Alternative 4 would be 

7 freshwater fisheries for chum from December through January, and freshwater fisheries for steelhead 

8 from December through March. This would result in limited chum and/or steelhead fisheries in the 

9 Strait of Juan de Fuca tributaries, Nooksack, Skagit, Green, and Skokomish Rivers. It is assumed that 

10 the catches of chum and steelhead salmon species would be similar to those observed in recent years 

11 (1996-2001). 

12 Fisheries outside the Puget Sound Action Area, such as those under the jurisdiction of the Pacific 

13 Fisheries Management Council, including Marine Catch Area 4B from May to September, would 

14 continue to operate under Alternative 4. 

15 Monitoring 

16 With the elimination of salmon fisheries under Alternative 4, monitoring programs associated with 

17 those fisheries would be eliminated. Core programs like escapement surveys, and smolt production 

18 monitoring would continue. Collection of biological data might continue, but in situations of past 

19 revenue constraint, have been substantially reduced or eliminated. 

20 Enforcement 

21 Without fishery regulations to enforce under Alternative 4, the enforcement program for fisheries 

22 would be redirected to other natural resources such as shellfish and wildlife. Officers would cite illegal 

23 fishing when encountered, but it would be unlikely to be a focused effort. 

24 Reporting 

25 The reporting element would be greatly reduced by the co-managers under Alternative 4, as they would 

26 turn their focus to management of other resources. However, it is likely that the reporting of 

27 escapement, escapement trends, and some of the other core biological information would continue. 

Affected Environment

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

2 3.1 Introduction 

3 This section describes those components of the existing natural, built, and human environment that 

4 would be affected by the alternatives under consideration for salmon and steelhead fisheries in Puget 

5 Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca that take listed Puget Sound chinook. The ESA defines “take” to 

6 mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage 

7 in any such conduct” (ESA section 3, Definitions). Fisheries that do not take listed chinook salmon are 

8 not considered in this document. Each of the topics required to be addressed by the National 

9 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act were 

10 considered when selecting topics for discussion in this section. The issues discussed in this section have 

11 been identified as important aspects of the Affected Environment by NOAA Fisheries NMFS, the co12 managers, other federal agencies, and/or public comment. Consistent with guidance from the 

13 President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing NEPA, this section provides 

14 the most detail and discussion on those issues with the greatest potential to be affected by the Proposed 

15 Action and alternatives, and only briefly describes those issues that may be marginally affected (CEQ 

16 Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.15). To accurately depict existing conditions, the Affected Environment is 

17 described in the context of the 1990s and early 2000s, focusing on the 2000−2001 period. 

18 The Affected Environment section begins with a description of the Puget Sound Action Area and its 

19 general environmental setting. Subsections within Section 3 discuss various aspects of the natural, 

20 built, and human environment that may be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives, organized 

21 as follows: 

Section 3 Subsections Natural 

Environment 

Built 

Environment 

Human 

Environment 

3.3.1 and 3.3.2: Status of salmonid species X 

3.3.3: Other fishes X 

3.3.4: Fish habitat X 

3.3.5 through 3.3.7: Potential ecological effects of current harvest 

activities 

X 

3.4: Tribal treaty rights and trust responsibilities X 

3.5: Non-commercial use of salmonids by Puget Sound tribes X 

3.6: Regional economics of commercial and sport fisheries X 

3.7: Environmental justice X 

3.8.1 through 3.8.3 and 3.8.5: Seabirds, marine mammals, and 

other wildlife species 

X 

3.8.4: Lower trophic-level species X 

3.9: Land ownership and land use X 

3.10: Water quality X 

22 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.2 Environmental Setting 

2 The Puget Sound Action Area includes all marine waters of the State of Washington east of, and 

3 including the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The action area also includes all State of Washington freshwater 

4 tributaries of these marine waters east of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the freshwater tributaries of the 

5 Strait of Juan de Fuca east of, and including the Elwha River drainage. 

6 Using definitions found in Washington Place Names (Reese 2002), the action area has been divided 

7 into four distinct regions: 1) Strait of Juan de Fuca; 2) Hood Canal; 3) South Puget Sound; and 4) North 

8 Puget Sound (Figure 3.2-1). There are 12 Washington counties within the action area (Figure 3.2-2). 

9 Strait of Juan de Fuca. This 90-mile long waterway between British Columbia (Canada) and 

10 Washington State, with an average width of 13 miles, extends from the Pacific Ocean at Cape Flattery 

11 to the vicinity of Port Townsend in the United States and Victoria in British Columbia (see Figure 3.2-

12 1). The action area includes only the waters of the United States. Washington counties Clallam and 

13 Jefferson border the south side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Major river systems draining into the 

14 Strait of Juan de Fuca include the Elwha River and the Dungeness River in Clallam County (Table 3.2-

15 1). 

16 Hood Canal. This saltwater channel extends southwest from the vicinity of Port Ludlow in Jefferson 

17 County through Kitsap and Mason counties, to the Great Bend at Union, then northeast to Belfair in 

18 Mason County (see Figure 3.2-1). It is an arm of the great inland sea of western Washington. Major 

19 freshwater drainages within Hood Canal include the Skokomish, Hamma Hamma, Dosewallips, 

20 Duckabush, and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers (Table 3.2-1). 

21 South Puget Sound. For the purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement, the marine area defined 

22 in Washington Place Names as Puget Sound is referred to as South Puget Sound. South Puget Sound is 

23 an inland, saltwater sound that extends about 53 miles south from Point Wilson near Port Townsend in 

24 western Washington (see Figure 3.2-1). It extends southwesterly approximately 30 miles to Budd Inlet, 

25 with other branches in Thurston and Mason counties. It does not include Hood Canal, Port Susan, 

26 Bellingham Bay or the San Juan Island waterways. Major freshwater drainages that discharge to South 

27 Puget Sound are listed in Table 3.2-1. 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.2-1. The Puget Sound Action Area and regions within the action area. 

2 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 4 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.2-2. Washington counties within the Puget Sound Action Area. 

2 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 5 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 North Puget Sound. The northern portion of the action area, including the U.S. marine areas referred 

2 to as Port Susan, Bellingham Bay, the Strait of Georgia, the marine waters of the San Juan Islands, and 

3 the marine waters of the San Juan Archipelago, are collectively referred to herein as North Puget Sound 

4 (Figure 3.2-3). Major drainages that enter North Puget Sound include the Nooksack, Samish, Skagit, 

5 Stillaguamish, and Snohomish Rivers (Table 3.2-1). 

6 Table 3.2-1. Major river systems within the four regions of the Puget Sound Action Area. 

Region Major River Systems 

Strait of Juan de Fuca Elwha River 

Dungeness River 

Hood Canal Skokomish River 

Hamma Hamma River 

Dosewallips River 

Duckabush River 

Big Quilcene River 

Little Quilcene River 

South Puget Sound Cedar River 

Green/Duwamish River 

Puyallup River 

Nisqually River 

Deschutes River 

North Puget Sound Nooksack River 

Samish River 

Skagit River 

Stillaguamish River 

Snohomish River 

7 3.2.1 Physical Description of the Action Area 

8 The Puget Sound Action Area is bounded on the east by the Cascade Mountain Range and on the west 

9 by the Olympic Mountains. Its northern part reaches the international boundary between the United 

10 States and Canada, and it ends at the base of the low hills of the Coast Mountain Range near Olympia 

11 (Figure 3.2-1). The surrounding land mass of the action area includes approximately 13,600 square 

12 miles, 20 percent of the total surface land mass within Washington state (66,582 square miles). 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 6 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.2-3. The North Puget Sound region of the Puget Sound Action Area. 

2 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 7 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Freshwater inflow into Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the eastern part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca is 

2 approximately 900 million gallons per day. The major sources of fresh water are the Skagit and 

3 Snohomish Rivers. However, the annual amount of fresh water entering Puget Sound is only 10 to 20 

4 percent of the amount entering the Strait of Georgia. The majority of the fresh water entering the Strait 

5 of Georgia is conveyed by the Fraser River drainage, a major drainage in southwestern Canada 

6 (Gustafson et al. 2000). The Fraser River enters the Strait of Georgia approximately 10 miles north of 

7 the United States border. 

8 The marine surface area of the Puget Sound Action Area is approximately 900 square miles, within 

9 2,000 miles of coastline (Gustafson et al. 2000). The average depth of Puget Sound at mean low tide is 

205 feet, The average surface water temperature is 55o

 F in summer and 45o 10 F in winter (Staubitz et al.

11 1997). Estuarine circulation in Puget Sound is driven by tides, gravitational forces, and freshwater 

12 inflows. 

13 The largest habitat type within the Puget Sound Action Area is kelp beds and eelgrass meadows, which 

14 cover almost 400 square miles. Other major habitats include subaerial and intertidal wetlands (68 

15 square miles), and mudflats and sandflats (95 square miles) (Gustafson et al. 2000). The extent of some 

16 of these habitats has markedly declined over the last century. Hutchinson (1988) indicated that 58 

17 percent of intertidal habitat in Puget Sound has been lost since European settlement. Four river deltas 

18 (the Duwamish, Lummi, Puyallup, and Samish Rivers) have lost more than 92 percent of their intertidal 

19 marshes (Simenstad et al. 1982; and Schmitt et al. 1994, as cited in Gustafson et al. 2000). At least 76 

20 percent of the wetlands around Puget Sound have been eliminated, especially in urbanized estuaries. 

21 Substantial declines of mudflats and sandflats have also occurred in the deltas of these estuaries 

22 (Levings and Thom 1994, as cited in Gustafson et al. 2000). 

23 Geologic history of the area includes repeated advances and retreats of continental ice sheets from 

24 Canada. The continental ice sheet reached its maximum advance about 14,000 years ago (Kruckeberg 

25 1991). It was the action of ice and its later melt waters that gave shape to many of the features of the 

26 Puget Sound area landscape of today. 

27 Three dominant climate factors influence the weather of Puget Sound. They are 1) the Pacific Ocean, 

28 acting as the region’s thermostat and generator of moisture-laden air; 2) the semi-permanent high and 

29 low-pressure cells that hover over the North Pacific Ocean that propel the maritime air in the direction 

30 of Puget Sound; and 3) the mountains bordering Puget Sound, that regulate the flow of the regional 

31 atmosphere. The combined effects of these factors result in a generally predictable climate, described 

32 as “maritime;” i.e., mild and wet. Precipitation is mainly in the form of rain, of which more than 75 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 8 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 percent falls between October and March. With the exception of areas within the “rain shadow” of the 

2 Olympic Mountains, most areas within the Puget Sound Action Area receive 36 to 52 inches of 

3 precipitation per year, with an average of 40.3 inches (Kruckeberg 1991). 

4 3.2.2 Resident Population within the Action Area 

5 The total resident human population of the 12 counties within the action area on April 1, 2000, as 

6 reported by the United States Census Bureau, was 3,978,513 (Table 3.2-2). Approximately 67.5 percent 

7 of the entire Washington State population of 5,894,121 resided within these 12 counties at that time 

8 (United States Census 2000). Most of the population lives near the shores of Puget Sound and in the 

9 alluvial valleys of major rivers. American Indian and Alaska Natives represented approximately 1.4 

10 percent of the population. 

11 Table 3.2-2. April 1, 2000 resident population of Puget Sound Action Area counties. 

Region Washington 

County 

April 1, 2000 

Resident Population 

Percent American Indian 

and Alaska Native 1

Strait of Juan de Fuca Clallam 64,525 5.1% 

Jefferson 25,953 2.3% 

Hood Canal Kitsap 231,969 1.6% 

Mason 49,405 3.7% 

King 1,737,034 0.9% 

South Puget Sound Pierce 700,820 1.4% 

Thurston 207,355 1.5% 

Snohomish 606,024 1.4% 

Skagit 102,979 1.9% 

Whatcom 166,814 2.8% 

Island 71,558 1.0% 

North Puget Sound 

San Juan 14,077 0.8% 

Total 12 Counties 3,978,513 1.4% 

1 12 The proportionate occurrence of American Indian and Alaska Native populations is noted for purposes of the 

13 Environmental Justice analysis of potential impacts to minority populations that have a significant reliance on 

14 Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The United States Census 2000 defined American Indian and Alaska Native as a 

15 “person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), 

16 and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment” (United States Census 2000). 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 9 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.2.3 Evolutionarily Significant Units within the Action Area 

2 An Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon or steelhead 

3 (National Marine Fisheries Service 2003). The Puget Sound Action Area includes the geographic range 

4 of two ESUs: the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, and the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum ESU. 

5 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit: The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

6 Evolutionarily Significant Unit was listed as a threatened species on March 24, 1999 (64 Federal 

7 Register 14308). The Puget Sound Action Area includes the entire area of the Puget Sound Chinook 

8 Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant 

9 Unit encompasses all runs of chinook salmon within Puget Sound, from the Elwha River on the 

10 Olympic Peninsula to the North Fork Nooksack River (Figure 3.2-4). 

11 Chinook salmon are found in most of the rivers within the action area. The Washington Department of 

12 Fisheries (WDF et al. 1993) recognized 27 distinct stocks of chinook salmon: eight spring-run, four 

13 summer-run, and 15 summer/fall and fall-run stocks. The existence of an additional five spring-run 

14 stocks has been disputed among different management agencies (WDF et al. 1993). The Skagit River 

15 and its tributaries were historically the predominant system in Puget Sound that supported naturally16 spawning populations of Puget Sound chinook salmon (WDF et al. 1993). 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 10 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.2-4. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit: Land ownership pattern. 

2 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 11 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team has proposed a more recent analysis of the population 

2 structure of chinook salmon within the action area. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team is an 

3 independent scientific body convened by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to develop 

4 technical delisting criteria and guidance for salmon delisting in Puget Sound. The Technical Recovery 

5 Team has narrowed the earlier population delineation to 22 demographically-independent populations 

6 representing the primary historical spawning areas of chinook salmon in Puget Sound (M. Ruckelshaus, 

7 chair Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, personal communications with K. Schultz, NMFS, 

8 January 8, 2003). These proposed populations include: North Fork Nooksack River, South Fork 

9 Nooksack River, upper Skagit River, lower Sauk River, lower Skagit River, upper Sauk River, Siuattle 

10 River, upper Cascade River, North Fork Stillaguamish River, South Fork Stillaguamish River, 

11 Skykomish River, Snoqualmie River, Cedar River, north Lake Washington tributaries, Green River, 

12 White River, Puyallup River, Nisqually River, Skokomish River, Dosewallips River, Dungeness River, 

13 and the Elwha River (Figure 3.2-5). 

14 Chinook salmon (and their progeny) from the following hatchery stocks are also considered part of the 

15 listed Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit: Kendall Creek (spring run); North 

16 Fork Stillaguamish River (summer run); White River (spring run); Dungeness River (spring run); and 

17 Elwha River (fall run). 

18 Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit: The Hood Canal 

19 Summer-Run Chum Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit was listed as a threatened species on 

20 March 25, 1999 (64 Federal Register 14570). This Evolutionarily Significant Unit includes summer-run 

21 chum salmon populations in Hood Canal and in Discovery Bay and Sequim Bay within the Strait of 

22 Juan de Fuca region (Figure 3.2-6). The Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon Evolutionarily 

23 Significant Unit may also include summer-run chum salmon in the Dungeness River, but the existence 

24 of that run is uncertain at this time. 

25 Listed species of Puget Sound salmon are discussed in more detail in Subsection 3.3 of this 

26 Environmental Impact Statement. 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 12 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.2-5. Proposed demographically-independent populations in the Puget Sound Salmon 

2 Evolutionarily Significant Unit. 

3 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 13 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.2-6. Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit: Land 

2 ownership pattern. 

3 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 14 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.3 Fish 

2 3.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3 This section describes the status of salmonid species with particular reference to chinook salmon, the 

4 species most likely to be affected by the Proposed Action and its alternatives. All five seven species of 

5 Pacific salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and pink, steelhead and cutthroat

6 − are present in the affected environment and are subject to harvest impacts. Two Evolutionarily 

7 Significant Units (ESUs) of Pacific salmon indigenous to the affected environment are listed as 

8 threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): the Puget Sound Chinook ESU and the Hood 

9 Canal summer chum ESU. Chinook and coho salmon from other ESUs, some of which are listed, are 

10 infrequently encountered in fisheries covered under the Resource Management Plan (see Subsection 

11 3.3.1.3). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are present in streams and lakes in the affected 

12 environment, and possibly in the marine area as well. Puget Sound and Washington coastal bull trout 

13 were listed as threatened in 1999 (see Subsection 3.3.1.4.) 

14 General Salmonid Life History 

15 Pacific salmon and steelhead trout belong to the genus Oncorhynchus within the family Salmonidae

16 that includes anadromous salmon, trout, char, whitefish, and grayling. Except in limited cases where 

17 geologic or anthropomorphic events have blocked migration to salt water, all five seven species of 

Pacific salmon, − chinook, sockeye, coho, chum, and pink − exhibit an anadromous life cyclei 18 , meaning 

19 they spawn in fresh water, mature in the marine environment, and return to fresh water to reproduce 

20 and die. Though Pacific salmon species share many general traits, individual populations have adapted 

21 to local environmental conditions, and life history strategies are diverse. A general overview of 

22 salmonid life history is given here. The reader is referred to Groot and Margolis (1991), and Wydoski 

23 and Whitney (2003) for a more in-depth review. 

24 Mature salmon spawn in fresh water, constructing nests called redds in stream gravels where fertilized 

25 eggs are buried to incubate. All five Most anadromous forms ofspecies of salmon species die after 

26 spawning. Generally, the young of all salmon species emerge from the gravel in the spring. Newly27 emerged salmon are called fry. Embryo development rate, the timing of fry emergence, and the 

28 subsequent patterns of freshwater rearing and seaward migration are determined primarily by parental 

29 spawn timing and water temperature; thus, hydrologic characteristics play an important role in shaping 

 

i

 Sockeye salmon are a general exception because kokanee (a non-anadromous form of sockeye salmon) often 

share a watershed with an anadromous sockeye population.
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 15 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 salmonid populations. Specific timing and location of freshwater residence and subsequent migration 

2 patterns of each of the five seven species and populations within species varies markedly. Actively3 feeding riverine juveniles are known as fingerlings until they are physiologically ready to migrate to 

4 salt water, at which time they are called smolts. This transitional life stage is referred to as smolting, 

5 and may occur in the river or estuary. The term yearlings refers to juveniles that remain in their natal 

6 stream (overwinter) until the following spring before migrating seaward. Juveniles that migrate as 

7 fingerlings are often referred to as sub-yearlings. 

8 Both pink and chum salmon migrate seaward almost immediately after emerging from the gravel, and 

9 thus are less dependent on freshwater habitat than are sockeye, chinook and coho. Sockeye and cCoho 

10 may spend one or two years in fresh water before migrating to the ocean. Sockeye also may spend up to 

11 two years in freshwater before migrating to the ocean, or, where lake access is not available, they may 

12 spend a short time rearing in the lower reaches of the river before migrating to sea. The freshwater 

13 rearing habits of fingerlings among and within individual chinook populations may vary considerably. 

14 Once at sea, salmon migrate over routes that vary markedly among species and populations. Seaward 

15 migration of immature salmon tends to be over a broader temporal and geographic range than 

16 streamward migration routes that are generally quite predictable for species and populations. 

17 Table 3.3-1 summarizes differences in key characteristics of the five species, including rearing time in 

18 freshwater, early rearing habitats, time spent at sea, age at maturity and size. 

19 Table 3.3-1. Summary of key characteristics of Pacific salmon species. 

Characteristic Chinook Chum Coho Pink Sockeye 

Time rearing in 

fresh water 

1 month to 1 

year 

Hours to days Most 1 to 2 

years 

Hours to days 1 to 2 years 

Primary early 

rearing habitats 

Stream, estuary Estuary Stream Estuary Lake 

Years spent at 

sea 

1.5 to 4.5 2.5 to 4.5 0.5 to 1.5 1.5 1.5 to 3.5 

Age in years at 

maturity 

2 to 8 2 to 7 2 to 4 2 3 to 8 

Average length 

and weight at 

maturity 

32 5 inches 

15 35 pounds 

24 6 inches 

12 pounds 

24 2 inches 

6 10 pounds 

16 8 inches 

4 pounds 

20 6 inches 

6 5 pounds 

20 Sources: Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans September 2001. 

21 Frank Hawe, Northwest Marine Technologies

22 Gustafson et al. 1997

23 Johnson et al. 1997

24 Hard et al. 1996
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 16 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.3.1.1 Puget Sound Chinook 

2 General Life History and Abundance 

3 The Puget Sound Chinook ESU includes runs of chinook salmon from the North Fork Nooksack River 

4 in northeast Puget Sound to watersheds in South Puget Sound, Hood Canal and the Dungeness and 

5 Elwha Rivers on the Strait of Juan de Fuca (see Figure 3.2-4 in Subsection 3.2). It occupies a central 

6 geographic position in the historical range of chinook salmon, which extended from the Ventura River, 

7 California to Point Hope, Alaska in North America and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to 

8 the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey 1991). 

9 Maturing adults from the Puget Sound Chinook ESU return to their natal streams from early spring to 

10 mid-fall, spawning from August though November. The majority of populations in the Puget Sound 

11 Chinook ESU migrate to the ocean within their first year following emergence, but important 

12 exceptions exist and are noted below. Many Puget Sound chinook rear within Puget Sound marine 

13 waters for several months. 

14 Fisheries catch data show the ocean migration range of Puget Sound chinook extends as far north as 

15 northern British Columbia and Alaska for some populations. Some apparently rear their entire life 

16 within Puget Sound, but most migrate to the ocean and north along the Canadian coast. The majority 

17 are caught inside the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, and off the west coast 

18 of Vancouver Island. Less than one percent is caught off the west coasts of Washington and Oregon 

19 (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife et al. 1997Pacific Fishery Management Council 1992 as 

20 cited in S.P. Cramer and Associates 1999). Puget Sound populations show different tendencies to 

21 migrate along the west coast of Vancouver Island or through Johnstone Strait and the Strait of Georgia. 

22 Catch distribution is discussed in more detail below in the descriptions of individual populations. 

23 Myers et al. (1998) estimated an approximate run size of 690,000 chinook in Puget Sound at the 

beginning of the 20th centuryii 24 when hatchery production was negligible, compared to a recent average 

25 run size of approximately 240,000, the majority of which is from hatchery production. Cramer et al. 

26 (1999) notes the total numbers of chinook produced in Puget Sound dropped in the 1990s to about half 

27 the production sustained in the previous two decades. Because of the decrease in total run sizes, 

 

ii This estimate, as with other historical estimates, should be viewed with caution. Puget Sound cannery pack 

probably included a portion of fish landed at Puget Sound ports but originating in Canada and other areas 

outside Puget Sound, and the estimates of exploitation rates used in run-size expansions are not based on precise 

data (Myers et al. 1998). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 17 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 managers regulated fisheries to reduce harvests, thereby maintaining spawning escapements at close to 

2 their previous levels. 

3 Recent studies (Hare et al. 1999) suggest marine survival of salmon species fluctuates in roughly 20- to 

4 30-year periods that correspond to broad-scale climate changes. In this century, shifts in the ocean5 climate regime occurred in 1925 − to a warm/dry climate; in 1947 − to a cold/wet climate; and in 1977 

6 − to a warm/dry climate. Following the ocean regime shift in 1977, marine survival of Puget Sound 

7 hatchery chinook dropped sharply beginning with the 1979 brood, and has remained at less than 50 

8 percent of the early 1970s value until 2000. In 2001, following improved oceanographic conditions, 

9 there was a notable increase in escapement within many runs. 

10 Description of Individual Puget Sound Populations 

11 Populations are described here in terms of: 

General spawning range − River or river section 

Origin − Native (to basin) 

− Mixed (native with influence from outside 

basin, usually from past hatchery transfers 

Status − Healthy, depressed, critical, or unknown 

Run timing − Spring, summer, summer-fall, or fall 

12 Run timing refers to the seasonal period during which mature adults return to rivers, and is generally 

13 descriptive of a suite of life-history characteristics that, as a whole, contribute to the diversity of 

14 populations. Puget Sound spring-run populations return to natal rivers from early spring to mid15 summer, and spawn from late summer to early fall in colder, higher-elevation areas of watersheds 

16 where eggs and fry develop more slowly. Puget Sound fall-run populations return to natal streams from 

17 late summer to fall and spawn until late fall. Spring-run juveniles tend to reside longer in natal streams 

18 before their ocean migration, and to have different ocean migration patterns than do fall runs. As the 

19 term implies, spawn-timing characteristics of summer-fall runs are intermediate to spring and fall runs. 

20 In evaluating the effect of the Proposed Action on listed salmonids, the National Marine Fisheries 

21 Service (NMFS) uses an approach consistent with concepts developed by the National Oceanic and 

22 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Northwest Fisheries Science Center, for defining the 

23 conservation status of populations and ESUs. These concepts are described in detail in McElhany et al. 

24 2000, incorporated here by reference. These viable salmonid population guidelines describe the 

25 importance of abundance levels, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity as indicators of population 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 18 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 status. In assessing the affect of an action, these guidelines help to stratify the ESU adequately to 

2 represent its unique population characteristics (National Marine Fisheries Service 2000). 

3 The most direct biological effect of the Proposed Action or its alternatives is expected to be changes in 

4 the abundance (spawning escapement) of certain populations within the ESU. Consequently, measures 

5 of abundance and description of the geographic and temporal distribution of populations − which 

6 determine their vulnerability to fisheries − are key in NMFS’ evaluation and are emphasized in this 

7 discussion. Habitat characteristics, though important over the long term in shaping life history 

8 characteristics, are expected to be minimally affected or unaffected by the Proposed Action of fishing 

9 regime management. Therefore, habitat characteristics are treated briefly here, and described in more 

10 detail in Appendix C. Appendix C also includes further detail on life history characteristics of each of 

11 the populations. 

12 Freshwater habitat-related activities having the greatest impact on Puget Sound Chinook salmon 

13 generally fall into three major categories: modifications to flow regimes from the operation of dams 

14 and water withdrawals which affect juvenile outmigration and adult return migration; degraded water 

15 quality and reduced and degraded incubation and rearing habitats that reduce abundance and 

16 productivity; and fluctuations in natural conditions. The relative effect of each impact category to the 

17 ESU, and to each population within the ESU, differs. Habitat restoration actions are expected to 

18 improve abundance, productivity, diversity and spatial distribution by restoring degraded habitat 

19 towards proper function (NMFS 1996a) and protecting habitats that are currently properly functioning. 

20 However, in most cases, it will be a decade or more before the effects are demonstrable. Information on 

21 habitat-related effects has been described in detail in various watershed plans (NCRT 2001; SBSRTC 

22 1999; www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org), limiting factor investigations 

23 (http://salmon.scc.wa.gov/reports/index.html) and general reports (Bishop and Morgan 1996; Myers et 

24 al. 1998; PSSRG 1997; WCSBRT 2003). The reader is referred to those documents for detailed 

25 information. The major effects have been summarized in this subsection by major basin and in 

26 Appendix B-1 of the DEIS. 

27 Dams constructed for hydropower generation, irrigation or flood control have substantially affected 

28 Chinook salmon populations in several river systems. The construction and operation of dams have 

29 blocked access to spawning and rearing habitat, changed flow patterns, resulted in elevated 

30 temperatures and stranding of juvenile migrants and degraded downstream spawning and rearing 

31 habitat by reducing recruitment of spawning gravel to downstream areas. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 19 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Water quality in streams throughout Puget Sound has been degraded by human activities such as dams 

2 and diversion structures, water withdrawals, farming and grazing, road construction, timber harvest, 

3 mining, and urbanization. Within the area encompassed by the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, over 1,300 

4 streams and river segments and lakes do not meet Federally approved, state and Tribal water quality 

5 standards and are now listed as water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act 

6 (DOE 2004). Tributary water quality problems contribute to poor water quality where sediment and 

7 contaminants from the tributaries settle in mainstem reaches and the estuary. 

8 Highway culverts that are not designed for fish passage can block upstream migration. Migrating fish 

9 are also diverted into unscreened or inadequately screened water conveyances or turbines, resulting in 

10 unnecessary mortality. Whereas many fish-passage improvements have been made in recent years, 

11 manmade structures continue to block migrations or kill fish in some areas. 

12 Land ownership has played a part in habitat and land use changes. While there is substantial habitat 

13 degradation across all ownerships, in general, habitat in many Federally managed headwater stream 

14 sections is in better condition than in the largely non-Federal lower portions of tributaries (Doppelt et 

15 al. 1993; Frissell 1993; Henjum et al. 1994). In the past, valley bottoms were among the most 

16 productive fish habitats (NCRT 2001; SBSRTC 1999; Spence et al. 1996; Stanford and Ward 1992). 

17 Today, agricultural and urban land development and water withdrawals have substantially altered the 

18 habitat for fish and wildlife. Streams in these areas typically have high water temperatures, 

19 sedimentation problems, low flows, simplified stream channels, and reduced riparian vegetation 

20 (Bishop and Morgan 1996; NCRT 2001; PSSRG 1997; SBSRTC 1999). For example, hydro21 modification in the Skagit River system has resulted in a loss of 64 percent of its distributary sloughs 

22 and 45 percent of side channel sloughs (Bishop and Morgan 1996; PSSRG 1997). 

23 Salmon abundance is substantially affected by changes in estuarine and marine environments as well as 

24 changes in freshwater environments. For example, large scale climatic regimes, such as El NiΖo, cause 

25 changes in ocean productivity. Much of the Pacific coast was subject to a series of very dry years 

26 during the first part of the 1990s. In more recent years, severe flooding has adversely affected some 

27 stocks. For example, flood events in 1990 and 1995 may have contributed to the low productivity of the 

28 1990 and 1995 brood years for the Nooksack early and some of the Skagit spring and summer/fall 

29 Chinook salmon populations. 

30 Salmon and steelhead are exposed to high rates of natural predation, particularly during freshwater 

31 rearing and migration stages. Ocean predation may also contribute to natural mortality, although the 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 20 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 levels of predation are largely unknown. In general, salmonids are prey for pelagic fishes, birds, and 

2 marine mammals, including harbor seals, sea lions, and killer whales. There have been recent concerns 

3 that rebounding seal and sea lion populations, following their protection under the Marine Mammal 

4 Protection Act of 1972, have resulted in substantial mortality for salmonids. 

5 Recent evidence suggests that marine survival of salmon species fluctuates in response to 20-30 year 

6 long periods of either above or below average survival that is driven by long-term cycles of climatic 

7 conditions and ocean productivity (Beamish and Bouillon 1993; Beamish et al. 1999; Cramer et al.

8 1999; Hare et al. 1999). This phenomenon has been referred to as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

9 (PDO) (Mantua et al. 1997). Poor ocean conditions that affect the productivity of Northwest salmonid 

10 populations appear to have been an important contributor to the decline of many populations prior to 

11 listing. The mechanism whereby stocks are affected is not well understood. The pattern of response to 

12 these changing ocean conditions has differed among stocks, presumably due to differences in their 

13 ocean timing and distribution. It is presumed that survival is driven largely by events occurring 

14 between ocean entry and recruitment to a sub-adult life stage. The survival and recovery of these 

15 species will depend on their ability to persist through periods of low ocean survival when stocks may 

16 depend on better quality freshwater habitat and be aided by lower relative harvest rates. 

17 In accord with the viable salmonid population guidelines, NMFS considers the effect an action may 

18 have on both the critical threshold level of abundance and the viable population abundance level. The 

19 critical threshold represents a boundary below which the risk of extinction increases substantially. The 

20 viable population threshold is a higher abundance level that would generally indicate recovery or a 

21 point beyond which ESA protection is no longer required (McElhany et al. 2000; and NMFS 2000). 

22 Because NMFS and the co-managers most commonly use measures of spawning escapement (i.e., the 

23 number of sexually-mature adults returning to spawning grounds) to express abundance, these 

24 threshold levels are referred to as the Critical Escapement Threshold (CET), and Viable Escapement 

25 Threshold (VET) as determined under current environmental conditions. NMFS has quantified specific 

26 critical escapement thresholds for 14 of the populations, and specific viable escapement thresholds for 

27 10 of the populations described here (Table 3.3.2). It should be noted that specific viable escapement 

28 thresholds are estimates based on current habitat conditions, and do not necessarily reflect a level 

29 beyond which ESA protection is no longer warranted. In other cases, NMFS relies on general 

30 guidelines developed by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (McElhany et al. 2000), and 

31 escapement goals developed by the co-managers to define acceptable levels of spawner abundance. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 21 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The metric for evaluating salmon fishery impacts for chinook populations originating within the Puget 

2 Sound Action Area is exploitation rate − i.e., fisheries-related mortality expressed as the estimated 

3 proportion of the total population(s) taken in various fisheries. For chinook salmon, this is more 

4 specifically defined as the proportion of the total abundance of all age classes of fish from a given 

5 population or management unit present before fishing began in a given management year. For other 

6 species, exploitation rate is more simply calculated as catch or fishing mortality divided by catch plus 

7 escapement. In evaluating impacts of fisheries on the ESU, NMFS uses the concept of rebuilding 

8 exploitation rates developed consistent with the concepts of the Viable Salmonid Population 

9 guidelines. In general terms, a rebuilding exploitation rate (RER) is the level of exploitation that would 

10 result in a low probability that the proposed harvest action will endanger the population, and a 

11 relatively high probability that it will not impede recovery (McElhany et al. 2000; and NMFS 2000). 

12 Table 3.3-2. Critical escapement thresholds, viable escapement thresholds, and rebuilding 

13 exploitation rates determined by NMFS for Puget Sound chinook populations. 

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold 

Viable 

Escapement 

Threshold 

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Nooksack River Spring 0.12 

North Fork 

South Fork 

400 700 

Skagit River Summer-Fall 

Lower Skagit 251 2,182 0.49 

Lower Sauk 200 681 0.51 

Upper Skagit 967 7,454 0.60 

Skagit River Spring 

Upper Cascade 170 

Upper Sauk 130 330 0.38 

Suiattle 170 400 0.41 

Stillaguamish River Summer-Fall 

North Fork 300 552 0.32 

South Fork 200 300 0.24 

Snohomish River Summer-Fall 

Skykomish 1,650 3,500 0.18 

Snoqualmie 400 

Green-Duwamish River 835 5,523 0.53 

14 Source: NMFS 2000 and NMFS 2003. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 22 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM) provides estimates of total or fishery-specific 

2 exploitation rates for chinook management units, Chinook Validation File, for December 2002 

3 provided by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, 

4 December 2002). This model is briefly described in Appendix C. The exploitation rates include the 

5 number of fish actually harvested and an estimated number of fish that die as a result of being captured 

6 and released, or sustain some other form of injury from fishing gear (see incidental catch in the 

7 glossary and Appendix C). 

8 The distribution of fishery impacts among the major fisheries is also described for populations. These 

9 estimates are based on information from the coded-wire tag database. In this system, a portion of 

10 salmon reared in hatcheries throughout the affected environment are implanted with minute tags 

11 bearing relevant information about their origin. A portion of these tags are recovered through 

12 monitoring programs in the fisheries, at hatcheries, and on spawning grounds. Impacts of fisheries on 

13 naturally-spawning fish (that for the most part are not tagged) are estimated based on impacts of 

14 hatchery-tagged indicator populations released in areas frequented by the natural runs. Unless 

15 otherwise noted, estimates of harvest impacts reported in this section are from The Pacific Salmon 

16 Commission Joint Chinook Technical Committee Report Annual Exploitation Rate and Model 

17 Calibration Report, TC-Chinook 02-3 (Pacific Salmon Commission, October 2002). The status of 

18 populations is qualitatively described as critical, depressed or healthy − taking into account many life 

19 history and habitat factors, but particularly trends in spawning escapement − a convention used by the 

20 co-managers. 

21 Included in the Puget Sound Chinook ESU are 22 populations (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, 

22 April 8, 20042) grouped by the co-managers into 15 management units, corresponding to watersheds 

23 throughout the ESU. The co-managers have classed the populations as Category 1, 2 or 3 on the basis 

24 of the history of salmon in the area, the current characteristics of the population, and the influence of 

25 hatchery production. Category 1 populations are genetically unique and indigenous to watersheds of 

26 Puget Sound. Category 2 populations are located in watersheds where indigenous populations may no 

27 longer exist, but where sustainable populations existed in the past and where the habitat can still 

28 support self-sustaining, natural populations). Category 3 populations are generally found in small 

29 tributaries that may now have some natural spawning, but historically never had independent, self30 sustaining populations of chinook salmon. 

31 Management decisions embodied in the Proposed Action consider Category 1 and 2 populations 

32 because those have been identified as areas that have or historically had independent self-sustaining, 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 23 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 natural chinook populations. The status of these populations varies from healthy to critical. The 

2 population delineation proposed by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team and incorporated by 

3 NMFS in this document contains only Category 1 and 2 populations. 

4 Chinook salmon populations have been grouped into four regions of the Puget Sound Action Area: 

5 North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (see Figure 3.2-1 

6 in Subsection 3.2). 

7 North Puget Sound

8 River systems in the North Puget Sound region include the Nooksack, Samish, Skagit, Stillaguamish 

9 and Snohomish (see Figure 3.3-1). These four watersheds contain 12 distinct chinook populations 

10 (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 20041). These drainages are hydrologically diverse, and 

11 support populations with diverse run timing and life history strategies, including five of Puget Sound’s 

12 seven spring chinook runs and three of its five summer-run populations. 

13 Nooksack River. The Nooksack River enters northern Puget Sound just north of the City of 

14 Bellingham, and drains approximately an 800-square-mile area of the Cascade and Puget Lowland 

15 ecoregions. Its main tributaries are the North Fork, Middle Fork and South Fork. 

16 The North Fork, a turbid, glacial stream, is somewhat colder than the South Fork, which is generally 

17 low and clear at the time of spawning migrations. These tributaries have developed genetically distinct, 

18 Category 1, spring-run populations. Both populations spawn in the upper reaches and tributaries of 

19 their respective streams (the North Fork population also spawns in the Middle Fork. The North Fork 

20 population spawns from mid-July through September in roughly 50 miles of spawning area, and the 

21 South Fork population spawns from the end of July through the first week of October over 

22 approximately 40 miles of spawning territory (Myers et al. 1998; and Cramer et al. 1999). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 24 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-1. North Puget Sound Region. 

2 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 25 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The status of the Nooksack early chinook populations is considered critical, due to chronically low 

2 returns and poor freshwater survival. The critical escapement threshold is 400 spawning adults, and the 

3 viable escapement threshold 700 spawning adults for the combined populations (Puget Sound 

4 Technical Recovery Team, July 22, 2003Nooksack Rebuilding Exploitation Rate Workgroup 2003). 

5 The North Fork population is more abundant than that in the South Fork, and benefits from the 

6 hatchery supplementation program, but the natural productivity of both populations is critically 

7 depressed (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003). 

8 Escapement to the North Fork was below 500 fish in all but two years from 1984 through 1998. 

9 Spawning escapement was 911 fish in 1999, 1,357 in 2000, and 4,057 in 2001. The marked increase in 

10 2001 was partly due to the diversion of a large number of male chinook that returned to the hatchery 

11 (personal communication with Susan Bishop, NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, January 13, 2003). 

12 The annual spawning escapement to the South Fork varied from 103 to 606 fish between 1984 and 

13 2001, and the overall trend in escapement during this period has remained flat. Escapement from 1998 

14 through 2001 averaged 310 fish (Figure 3.3-2) (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in 

15 preparationNMFS 2003b). Terminal harvest rates have declined, but the recruits per natural-origin 

16 spawner for both populations have consistently remained below one recruit per pair of spawners 

17 (NMFS 2003b). 

18 NMFS determined the rebuilding exploitation rate to be 12 percent for both populations (Nooksack 

19 Rebuilding Exploitation Rate Working Group 2003). The total fisheries exploitation rate on both 

20 populations averaged 36 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 18 percent from 1996 through 2000. 

21 Because the Nooksack River is located relatively close to the border between the United States and 

22 Canada, and Nooksack early-run chinook tend to migrate northward, the majority of harvest mortality 

23 occurs within British Columbia, which accounted for 73 percent of fishery mortality from 1997 through 

24 2000 (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, December 2002). Southern U.S. fisheries accounted for 

25 26 percent of mortality during this period, and Alaska fisheries 1 percent. Puget Sound fisheries that 

26 impact this population are commercial net fisheries in northeastern Puget Sound (Marine Catch Areas 7 

27 and 7A), Bellingham Bay and the Nooksack River (3 percent), and Puget Sound sport fisheries (18 

28 percent) (Figure 3.3-2) (Pacific Salmon Commission, October 2002). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 26 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-2. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Nooksack River spring chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goal for Nooksack River Spring Chinook

Estimated Fishing Exploitation Rate on Nooksack River Spring Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Nooksack River Spring Chinook

Alaska 1%

Canada 73%

Puget Sound Net 3%

U.S. Sport 18%

U.S. Troll 1%

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model 

compared to NMFS' Recovery

Distribution of fishing mortality based 

on coded-wire tag recoveries of 

Nooksack spring chinook indicator 

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to NMFS' 

Critical and Viable Escapement 

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

North Fork Escapement

South Fork Escapement

Critical Escapement Threshold

Viable Escapement Threshold

Canada

U.S. Sport

Puget Sound Net Alaska

U.S. Troll

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Estimated Exploitation Rate

North Fork Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

South Fork Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 27 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 A hatchery program on the North Fork Nooksack River at Kendall Creek, operated since 1988, 

2 produces early-run juveniles, a proportion of which are released at acclimation sites in the upper North 

3 Fork Nooksack River. Annual releases of 1.0 million spring-run juveniles accounted for about 6 

4 percent of chinook salmon released in Puget Sound between 1991 and 2000. Releases in 2001 were 

5 1.65 million. (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, December 2002). The spring-run releases 

6 are supplemental to natural production, are believed to reduce the immediate extinction risks associated 

7 with very low natural returns, and are therefore listed under the ESA. Between 1991 and 2001, 

8 hatchery-origin spawning adults accounted for an estimated 59 percent of naturally-spawning chinook 

9 in the North Fork. The supplementation program, located at the Skookum Creek facility in the South 

10 Fork, was discontinued after 1992. Hatchery-origin adults made up 31 percent of natural-spawners in 

11 the South Fork during the same period, indicating that a substantial amount of straying may exist 

12 (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). 

13 Skagit River. The Skagit River watershed, the largest in Puget Sound, drains an area of more than 

14 1,600 square miles. Chinook salmon spawn in approximately 270 miles of the Skagit River and its 

15 tributaries, the largest of which are the Baker and the Sauk Rivers. The Puget Sound Technical 

16 Recovery Team has identified six populations in the Skagit River system, including spring populations 

17 in the upper Cascade, Sauk, and Suiattle Rivers; summer populations in the lower Sauk and upper 

18 Skagit; and a fall-timed population in the lower Skagit River (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, 

19 April 8, 20022004). All are Category 1 populations. 

20 Summer-Fall Populations. The lower Sauk summer-run chinook spawn primarily from the mouth of 

21 the Sauk River to Rivermile 21 − separate from the upper Sauk spring spawning areas above Rivermile 

22 32. The lower mainstem Skagit River fall population spawns downstream of the mouth of the Sauk 

23 River. The upper mainstem Skagit and lower Sauk River summer populations spawn from September 

24 through early October. Lower river fall population spawning lasts through October. Age at spawning is 

25 primarily 4 years, with significant numbers of Age-3 and Age-5 fish, as well. Most summer-fall 

26 chinook smolts emigrate from the river as fingerlings, though considerable variability has been 

27 observed in the timing of downstream migration and residence in the estuary prior to entry into marine 

28 waters (Hayman et al. 1996). 

29 The annual spawning escapement for the lower Skagit River fall population has remained well above 

30 the NMFS critical threshold of 250 fish from 1971 to the present. From 1971 through 1996, the average 

31 annual escapement was 2,507. However, escapement declined steadily from the 1970s to the mid-
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 28 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 1990s. Escapement averaged 1,540 from 1997 through 2001, well below NMFS’ viable escapement 

2 threshold of 2,182 adult spawners. The most recent 3-year period has shown an increasing trend in 

3 escapement. 

4 The critical threshold for the Lower Sauk River summer population is 200 adults, and the viable 

5 escapement threshold is 681. Adult spawning escapement averaged 892 from 1971 through 1996, after 

6 which returns fell to levels well below the viable escapement threshold through much of the 1990s. The 

7 geometric mean of escapements from 1997 through 2001 was 480, representing a moderate increase 

8 over the previous 5-year mean. 

9 NMFS’ critical threshold for the Upper Skagit summer population is 967, and the viable escapement 

10 threshold 7,454. There was a downward trend in spawning escapement from the early 1970s to the 

11 early-1990s for the Upper Skagit River summer population. Since then, there has been an increasing 

12 trend in spawning escapement, with the geometric mean for this period rising to 7,467 fish compared to 

13 5,618 over the previous 5-year period (Figure 3.3-3). Exceptionally strong escapements were observed 

14 in three of the four latest return years (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). 

15 NMFS has set rebuilding exploitation rates of 49 percent for the Lower Skagit River population, 51 

16 percent for the Lower Sauk River population and 60 percent for the Upper Skagit River population 

17 (NMFS 2000). Total fishery exploitation rates on the Skagit and Sauk River summer and fall 

18 populations are estimated to have averaged 60 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 29 percent from 

19 1997 through 2000 (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, December 2002). Since coded-wire tag 

20 data from Skagit River summer-fall chinook is insufficient, fishery impact distribution estimates are 

21 based on recoveries of the nearby Samish River fall-run chinook stock. Canadian fisheries accounted 

22 for 43 percent of mortality from 1997 through 2000, Washington fisheries approximately 55 percent, 

23 and Alaska fisheries approximately 2 percent. Puget Sound net fisheries accounted for 40 percent of 

24 fishing mortality, and sport fisheries 13 percent during this period (Figure 3.3-3) (Pacific Salmon 

25 Commission, October 2002). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 29 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-3. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Skagit River summer-fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goal for Skagit River Summer-Fall Chinook

Estimated Exploitation Rate on Skagit River Summer-Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Skagit River Summer-Fall Chinook

Alaska 2%

Canada 43%

Puget Sound Net 40%

U.S. Sport 13%

U.S. Troll 2%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to NMFS' 

Critical and Viable Escapement 

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model 

compared to NMFS' Recovery

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries from Samish 

fall chinook indicator stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

4000

8000

12000

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Lower

Skagit

Lower Sauk

Upper

Skagit

L Skagit

CET

L Sauk CET

U Skag CET

Canada

U.S. Sport

Alaska

Puget Sound Net

U.S. Troll

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Estimated Exploitation Rate

Lower Skagit Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

Upper Skagit Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

Lower Sauk Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 30 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 A hatchery at Marblemount produces spring, summer, and fall-run chinook. From 1990 through 2001, 

2 approximately 0.6 million fall-run and 0.4 million summer-run juveniles were released in the Skagit 

3 River. In 2001, approximately 0.2 million summer and 0.2 million fall juveniles were released as 

4 indicator stocks for the coded-wire tag program. The contribution of hatchery-origin fish to natural 

5 spawning has been estimated at less than 1 percent on the lower Skagit and lower Sauk Rivers, and 2 

6 percent in the upper Skagit (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission December 2002; and Puget 

7 Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). 

8 Spring Populations. Spring-run chinook begin entering the Skagit River system in April, and spawn 

9 from late July through early September. The upper Sauk River population spawns in the mainstem, the 

10 Whitechuck River, and tributary streams. The Suiattle spring chinook population spawns in the 

11 mainstem and several tributaries. The upper Cascade spring chinook population is spatially separated 

12 from summer-run chinook in the lower Cascade River. The latter population is part of the upper Skagit 

13 River summer chinook population. 

14 NMFS determined the critical escapement threshold for the Upper Cascade spring population to be 

15 170, the Upper Sauk 130, and the Suiattle 170 adults (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, July 22, 

16 2003Skagit Rebuilding Exploitation Rate Workgroup 2003). Viable escapement thresholds for the 

17 Upper Sauk and Suiattle have been set at 330 and 400 adults, respectively. A viable escapement 

18 threshold has not been determined for the Upper Cascade population. All three populations had 

19 downward trends in escapement from the early 1980s to the early 1990s. From 1984 through 1996, the 

20 geometric mean of escapement was 248 for the Upper Cascade, 361 for the Upper Sauk, and 378 for 

21 the Suiattle. In recent years, there has been an increasing trend in escapement. From 1997 through 

22 2001, the geometric mean of escapement was 269 for the Upper Cascade population, 298 for the Upper 

23 Sauk population, and 401 for the Suiattle spring chinook population. The geometric mean of the 

24 commingled escapement for these three populations was 978 for this period, compared to 799 from 

25 1992−1996 (Figure 3.3-4) (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). 

26 NMFS determined the rebuilding exploitation rate for the Upper Sauk to be 38 percent and for the 

27 Suiattle, 41 percent. A rebuilding exploitation rate has not been determined for the Upper Cascade 

28 population (Skagit Rebuilding Exploitation Rate Working Group 2003). From 1983 through 1996, the 

29 average annual exploitation rate was 58 percent. From 1997 through 2000, the annual exploitation rate 

30 averaged 31 percent (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, December 2002). Fifty-three percent of 

31 fishing mortality occurred in Canadian waters, 45 percent in U.S. waters. Puget Sound sport fisheries 

32 accounted for approximately 42 percent of fishing mortality, and Puget Sound net fisheries 3 percent 

33 (Figure 3.3-4) (Pacific Salmon Commission, October 2002). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 31 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-4. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Skagit River spring chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goals for Skagit River Spring Chinook

Estimated Exploitation Rate and Goals for Skagit River Spring Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Skagit River Spring Chinook

Alaska 1%

Canada 53%

Puget Sound Net 3%

U.S. Sport 42%

U.S. Troll 0%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to NMFS' 

VSP Guidelines Critical Escapement 

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model 

compared to NMFS' Recovery

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of Skagit 

spring chinook indicator stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

800

1600

2400

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Suiattle Escapement Critical Escapement Threshold

Upper Cascade Escapement

Upper Sauk Escapement

U.S. Sport Canada

Puget Sound Net

U.S. Troll

Alaska

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Estimated Exploitation Rate Recovery Exploitation Rate

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 32 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 From 1991 through 2000, approximately 0.4 million spring chinook juveniles were released annually in 

2 the Skagit River system, primarily in the Upper Cascade. Releases in 2001 were 0.42 million. These 

3 releases serve primarily as an indicator stock for the coded-wire tag program. Less than 1 percent of 

4 adults on the spawning grounds are estimated to be of hatchery origin (Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

5 Commission, December 2002; and Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). 

6 Stillaguamish River. The North Fork Stillaguamish River is fed primarily by non-glacial sources in the 

7 Cascade Mountain foothills, flowing for most of its length through the Puget Lowland ecoregion. Its 

8 main tributaries are Squire Creek, Boulder River and Deer Creek. The South Fork Stillaguamish, which 

9 rises in the Cascades east of Fall City, has similar topography. 

10 NMFS determined the North Fork Stillaguamish summer runs and South Fork Stillaguamish fall runs 

11 were distinct populations, based on genetic characteristics, spawn timing, and spawning distribution. 

12 Both are classified as Category 1 populations. The North Fork Stillaguamish River population, a 

13 composite of natural and hatchery-origin supplemental production, spawns primarily in the upper 

14 mainstem and tributaries above Rivermile 14. The South Fork population spawns in the mainstem, 

15 Pilchuck Creek, and lower Canyon Creek (Washington Department of Fisheries, et al. 1993). 

16 North Fork Stillaguamish adults enter the river from May through August. Spawning begins in late 

17 August, peaks in mid-September, and continues past mid-October. The South Fork Stillaguamish 

18 chinook enter the river in August and September, and spawning peaks in early to mid-October. The age 

19 composition of mature North Fork Stillaguamish summer chinook, based on scales collected from 1985 

20 through 1991, was as follows: 4.9 percent Age 2, 31.9 percent Age 3, 54.7 percent Age 4, and 8.5 

21 percent Age 5. Ninety-five percent of juvenile Stillaguamish summer chinook emigrate as fingerlings 

22 (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993). 

23 The critical escapement threshold is 300 for the North Fork Stillaguamish and 200 for the South Fork. 

24 The viable escapement threshold is 552 for the North Fork and 300 for the South Fork. The estimated 

25 annual escapement (geometric mean) from 1974 through 1996 was 740 (range 309 to 1,403) in the 

26 North Fork, and 207 (range 65 to 283) in the South Fork. The estimated annual escapement (geometric 

27 mean) from 1997 through 2001 was 1,087 (range 845 to 1,403) in the North Fork, and 250 (range 226 

28 to 283) in the South Fork (Figure 3.3-5). From 1974 through 1991, there was a declining trend in 

29 escapement to the North Fork. Since then, there has been an increasing trend. Consequently, the 

30 geometric mean of escapement from 1997 through 2001 is similar to that of the mid-1970s. There has 

31 been no significant trend in escapement in the South Fork Stillaguamish River over this period, and the 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 33 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 geometric for the most recent 5 years is similar to that of the early 1970s. NMFS determined the 

2 rebuilding exploitation rate to be 32 percent for the North Fork population, and 24 percent for the South 

3 Fork population (NMFS 2000; and McElhany et al. 2000). From 1983 to 1996, the total exploitation 

4 rate on these populations was 47 percent, and from 1997 through 2000, 23 percent (Fishery Regulation 

5 Assessment Model, December 2002). From 1997 through 2000, approximately 18 percent of fishing6 related mortality occurred in Alaska, 50 percent in Canada, 29 percent in Washington sport fisheries, 

7 and 3 percent in Puget Sound net fisheries (Figure 3.3-5) (Pacific Salmon Commission, October 2002). 

8 From 1991 through 2000, releases of chinook in the North Fork Stillaguamish system were less than 

9 0.2 million juveniles annually. Releases in 2001 were 0.39 million. The supplementation program, 

10 which collects broodstock from the North Fork spawning escapement, was initiated in 1986 to rebuild 

11 the North Fork Stillaguamish population. It is considered essential to the recovery of the population, so 

12 these fish are also listed. Hatchery-origin adults comprised 32 percent of natural spawners in the North 

13 Fork from 1990 through 2001. Straying of hatchery fish in the South Fork has not been quantified 

14 (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, December 2002; and Puget Sound Technical Recovery 

15 Team, in preparation). 

16 Snohomish River. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team has identified two populations in the 

17 Snohomish River system: Skykomish River chinook and Snoqualmie River chinook. They are both 

18 Category 1 populations (Figure 3.3-6). 

19 Skykomish Chinook. The Skykomish population includes summer/fall-timed fish spawning in the 

20 Snohomish mainstem, the mainstem Skykomish, Sultan River, Bridal Veil Creek and the North and 

21 South Fork of the Skykomish River. A Category 2 population spawning in the Wallace River originates 

22 primarily from the hatchery located there, and is genetically similar to other chinook in the Skykomish 

23 River system (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 20041). Since the 1950s, spawning distribution 

24 of summer chinook has shifted upstream. That is, a much larger proportion of summer chinook 

25 currently spawn higher in the drainage, between Sultan and the forks of the Skykomish River, than in 

26 previous decades (Snohomish Basin Salmonid Technical Recovery Committee 1999). Summer chinook 

27 enter fresh water from May through July, spawning primarily in September. Fall chinook spawn from 

28 late September through October. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 34 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-5. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Stillaguamish River summer-fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goals for Stillaguamish River Summer-Fall Chinook

Estimated Exploitation Rate and Goals for Stillaguamish River Summer-Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Stillaguamish River Summer-Fall Chinook

Alaska 18%

Canada 50%

U.S. (Puget Sound) Net 3%

U.S. Sport 29%

U.S. Troll 0%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to NMFS' 

Critical Escapement Threshold

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model 

compared to NMFS' Recovery

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of 

Stillaguamish chinook indicator stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

800

1600

2400

1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

North Fork Critical Escapement Threshold North Fork Escapement

South Fork Critical Escapement Threshold South Fork Escapement

Canada

U.S. Sport

Puget Sound Net

U.S. Troll

Alaska

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Estimated Exploitation Rate North Fork Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

South Fork Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 35 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-6. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Snohomish River summer-fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goals for Snohomish River Summer-Fall Chinook

Estimated Fishing Exploitation Rate on Snohomish River Summer-Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Snohomish Summer-Fall Chinook

Alaska 18%

Canada 50%

Puget Sound Net 3%

U.S. Sport 29%

U.S. Troll 0%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to NMFS' 

Critical Escapement Thresholds

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model 

compared to NMFS' Recovery

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of 

Stillaguamish summer-fall chinook 

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Skykomish Critical Escapement Threshold

Snoqualmie Critical Escapement Threshold Snoqualmie Escapement

Skykomish Escapement

Canada

U.S. Sport

Puget Sound Net

U.S. Troll

Alaska

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Estimated Exploitation Rate Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 36 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 NMFS determined the critical escapement threshold for the Skykomish River population to be 1,653, 

2 and the viable escapement threshold as 3,500 spawning adults (personal communication e-mail from 

3 Susan Bishop, NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, January 142, 2003). The geometric mean of 

4 annual spawning escapement of the Skykomish River population was 3,023 from 1979 through 1996 

5 (range 1,653 to 5,277). Escapement trended downward from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, after 

6 which it has increased. From 1997 through 2001, the geometric mean of annual escapement was 3,775 

7 (range 2,335 to 4,665) (Figure 3.3-6). 

8 Snoqualmie Chinook. The Snoqualmie River chinook salmon population spawns in the Sultan and 

9 Snoqualmie Rivers and their tributaries from September through November. 

10 Limited data show the Snoqualmie River fall chinook spawning population to have a somewhat larger 

11 component (28 percent) of Age-5 fish than most other Puget Sound fall populations, with Age-3 and 

12 Age-4 fish comprising 20 percent and 46 percent, respectively, of returns (Washington Department of 

13 Fish and Wildlife 1995, cited in Myers et al. 1998). Both summer and fall runs appear to have a 

14 relatively high percentage of fish that migrate to sea as yearlings. 

15 The critical escapement threshold for the Snoqualmie River is 400. The viable escapement threshold 

16 has not yet been determined (65 Federal Register 42433). The trend in escapement for the Snoqualmie 

17 River population was relatively flat from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s. The geometric mean of 

18 annual escapement was 905 (range 385 to 2,366) from 1979 through 1996. In recent years, escapement 

19 has shown an increasing trend. The geometric mean of escapement from 1997 through 2001 was 1,907 

20 (range 1,344 to 3,589), which is above the generic viable escapement threshold of 1,250. Spawning 

21 escapement to the Skykomish River showed a marked declining trend from the late 1970s until 1993, 

22 and a substantial increasing trend since then. Spawning escapement to the Snoqualmie River showed a 

23 declining trend from the late 1970s until 1996, but has shown an increasing trend since then (Figure 

24 3.3-6). 

25 The NMFS rebuilding exploitation rate for both the Skykomish and Snoqualmie River summer-fall 

populations is 18 percent (NMFS 2003c).iii 26 Because juveniles from the Snohomish system were not 

27 consistently tagged, estimates of exploitation rates and distribution of fishing-related mortality for both 

28 the Skykomish and Snoqualmie River populations are based on coded-wire tag recoveries of 

29 Stillaguamish River fingerlings, which are believed to have a similar pattern of ocean migration and 

 

iii The RER has recently been revised. It was 32% in 2001 and 2002. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 37 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 timing (personal communication with Will Beattie, Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest 

2 Indian Fisheries Commission, January 12, 2003). The average exploitation rate from 1983 through 

3 1996 was 57 percent, and from 1997 through 2001: 27 percent (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, 

4 December 2002). Based on the same coded-wire tag data from Stillaguamish River chinook fingerlings, 

5 from 1997 through 2000, approximately 18 percent of fishing-related mortality on the Skykomish and 

6 Snoqualmie populations occurred in Alaska, 50 percent in Canada, 29 percent in Washington sport 

7 fisheries, and 3 percent in Puget Sound net fisheries (Pacific Salmon Commission, October 2002). The 

8 portion of fishery impacts in Canada has decreased in recent years (it was 59% from 1984 through 

9 1995), owing to fishery restrictions (Figure 3.3-6). 

10 An average of 1.6 million juvenile chinook were released into the Snohomish River system each year 

11 between 1991 and 2000, or 3.2 percent of Puget Sound releases. Fall-run fish accounted for 

12 approximately 40 percent of releases, summer-run 57 percent, and spring-run − released only in 1997 

13 and 1998 − 3 percent. Virtually all fall and summer-run juveniles were produced in and released from 

14 the Wallace River hatchery on the Skykomish River. In 2001, 1.72 million summer-run juveniles were 

15 released. Fall-run hatchery production originally utilized the Green-Duwamish River stock. These 

16 hatchery fish stray to other areas in the Skykomish River, and may mix with summer chinook 

17 (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993). From 1990 through 2001, an estimated 41 percent of 

18 naturally-spawning chinook in the Skykomish River and 23 percent of naturally-spawning chinook in 

19 the Snoqualmie River were of hatchery origin (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, December 

20 2002; and Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). Broodstock collection was changed 

21 beginning with the 1997 brood year to exclude fall chinook, and thus reduce the influence of out-of22 basin populations on production (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and 

23 Wildlife 2003). Hatchery production of spring, summer, and fall chinook also occurs at the Tulalip 

24 Hatchery. 

25 South Puget Sound

26 The southern region of the Puget Sound Action Area contains four major chinook-bearing watersheds. 

27 These are, from north to south, the Lake Washington, Green-Duwamish, Puyallup and Nisqually 

28 watersheds (see Figure 3.3-7). The Puyallup and Nisqually are glacially-influenced rivers originating 

29 from the glaciers of Mt. Rainier and surrounding foothills. The lower reaches of all these system flow 

30 through lowland areas that have been developed for agricultural, residential, urban or industrial use. 

31 There are also several smaller but important chinook-bearing streams in South Puget Sound and Hood 

32 Canal. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team has identified six populations in this region. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 38 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Numerous hatcheries in this area account for the majority of chinook salmon produced in Puget Sound. 

2 Hatchery transfers have affected most populations. 

3 Lake Washington Watershed. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team identified two summer-fall 

4 chinook populations within the Lake Washington watershed: the Sammamish River, a Category 2 

5 population, and Cedar River, a Category 1 population (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team July 22, 

6 20032004). The Sammamish basin includes the Sammamish River, Swamp, North, Bear, Little Bear, 

7 and Issaquah Creeks. Historically, Chinook salmon also spawned in other smaller tributaries to Lake 

8 Washington such as May and Kelsey Creeks. Genetic samples from chinook in Bear/Cottage Creek are 

9 similar to those from Issaquah Creek, site of the Issaquah hatchery. It is not known whether this results 

10 from recent or historical intermingling among fish from these basins. Cedar River chinook may be 

11 genetically distinct, but closely related to those in the Green River (Washington Department of 

12 Fisheries et al. 1993). Until 1916, the Cedar River drained into the Green River, and from 1952 through 

13 1964, Green River chinook were planted in the Cedar, so a close relationship is not surprising. Plants of 

14 hatchery fish were made to most other tributaries to the Lake Washington basin from the Issaquah and 

15 Green River hatcheries, from 1952 to at least the early 1990s. Passage to the upper watershed had been 

16 eliminated at the turn of the century with the construction of the Landsburg Dam. In 2003, 100 years 

17 later, passage was restored as part of a Habitat Conservation Plan, opening up 17 miles of additional, 

18 good quality habitat to chinook, coho, and steelhead salmon returning to the Cedar River watershed.

19 Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington drainages from late May through early November. Spawning 

20 is usually complete by the end of November. Chinook spawning in the Cedar River is concentrated 

21 between Rivermile 4.0 and 19.0. Most Cedar River chinook emigrate to Lake Washington prior to 

22 April as fry, but some rear in the river and migrate to Puget Sound between May and July. The Lake 

23 Washington populations have a protracted smolt out-migration, with a large percentage of the run out24 migrating after July 1. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 39 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-7. South Puget Sound Region. 

2 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 40 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 NMFS is currently evaluating critical or viable escapement thresholds for the Lake Washington 

2 populations, but will not complete its analysis prior to completion of this Environmental Impact 

3 Statement. An interim, generic critical escapement threshold of 200 spawning adults and an interim, 

4 generic viable escapement threshold of 1,200 adults has been set by NMFS (NMFS Memorandum 

5 2003a).The co-managers derived an escapement goal of 350 for the North Lake Washington Tributaries 

6 population based on patterns of escapement within the Lake Washington watershed. Actual 

7 escapements have been below this level in the majority of years since 1983, but have shown an 

8 increasing trend since 1997. The geometric mean of spawning escapement was 251 (range 33 to 544) 

9 from 1983 through 1996, and 251 from 1997 through 2001 (range 67 to 537). The co-managers’ goal 

10 for the Cedar River population is 1,200, and actual escapements have been consistently below this 

11 since 1974. The geometric mean of spawning escapement was 576 (range 156 to 1,540) from 1983 

12 through 1996, and 297 from 1997 through 2000 (range 120 to 810) (Figure 3.3-8) (Puget Sound Indian 

13 Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003; and Puget Sound Technical Recovery 

14 Team, in preparation). 

15 The total exploitation rate for chinook salmon returning to the Lake Washington watershed was 67 

16 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 26 percent from 1997 through 2000 (Fishery Regulation 

17 Assessment Model, December 2002). Due to a lack of coded-wire tag data for Lake Washington 

18 chinook salmon populations, harvest distribution has been inferred from coded-wire tag data from the 

19 South Puget Sound fall fingerling indicator stock (comprised of releases from the Green River and 

20 Grovers Creek on the Kitsap Peninsula), which have a similar life history and genetic heritage. 

21 Consequently, the reader is referred to the discussion of harvest distribution for the Green-Duwamish 

22 River population. However, fisheries in Lake Washington have been limited to incidental harvest of 

23 chinook in fisheries targeted on other species, so the proportion of catch in the Lake Washington runs 

24 terminal area is much lower than for the Green River (Figure 3.3-8). 

25 Releases of fall-run chinook salmon in the Lake Washington system accounted for about 5 percent of 

26 all Puget Sound releases from 1991 through 2000, or about 2.6 million fish per year. Eighty-seven 

27 percent of releases came from the Issaquah Creek hatchery, and 7 percent originated from the 

28 University of Washington hatchery in Seattle. Releases in 2001 were 2.2 million. There were no 

29 releases of chinook salmon in the Cedar River system (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

30 December 2002). The hatchery stock used in the Issaquah hatchery originated from the Green31 Duwamish River basin. Hatchery contribution to natural spawning has not been quantified, although 

32 there appears to be little straying of Issaquah Creek adults to the Cedar River (Puget Sound Technical 

33 Recovery Team, in preparation). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 41 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-8. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Lake Washington summer-fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goals for Lake Washington Summer-Fall Chinook

Estimated Exploitation Rate for Lake Washington Summer-Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Lake Washington Summer-Fall Chinook

Alaska 2%

Canada 30%

Puget Sound Net 22%

U.S. Sport 41%

U.S. Troll 6%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to current 

condition escapement goal.

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model.

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of Southern 

Puget Sound Indicator Stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

800

1600

2400

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Current Condition Escapement Goal

N. Lake Wa. Tributaries Escapement

Cedar River Escapement

Canada

U.S. Sport

Puget Sound Net

U.S. Troll

Alaska

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Estimated Exploitation Rate

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 42 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Green-Duwamish River Chinook. Fall chinook spawn in the mainstem Green River and in two major 

2 tributaries − Soos Creek and Newaukum Creek. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team has 

3 determined that Green River chinook comprise a single population (Puget Sound Technical Recovery 

4 Team 20041). It is considered a Category 1 population. 

5 Spawning in the mainstem Green River occurs from Rivermile 26.7 to Rivermile 61 where the first of 

6 two dams operated by the City of Tacoma blocks spawning access. Chinook begin entering the Green 

7 River in July, and spawn from mid-September through October. Nearly all juveniles migrate seaward 

8 during their first year. Age-4 fish comprise 62 percent of adult returns, with Age-3 and Age-5 fish 

9 comprising 26 percent and 11 percent, respectively (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993; 

10 and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995, cited in Myers et al. 1998). 

11 NMFS has determined the critical escapement threshold of Green-Duwamish River chinook 

12 population to be 835 adult spawners, and the viable escapement threshold to be 5,523 adult spawners. 

13 The co-managers’ escapement goal is 5,800 natural spawners (NMFS 2000). From 1971 through 2001, 

14 escapements have exceeded the viable escapement threshold in 15 of 31 years, and the long-term trend 

15 in escapement has been positive. The geometric mean of annual spawning escapement from 1971 

16 through 1996 was 4,892 (range 1,840 to 11,515). The geometric mean of spawning escapement from 

17 1997 through 2001 was 8,306 (range 6,170 to 11,025) (Figure 3.3-9) (Puget Sound Technical Recovery 

18 Team, in preparation). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 43 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-9. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Green-Duwamish River summer-fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goals for Green-Duwamish River Summer-Fall Chinook

Estimated Exploitation Rate for Green-Duwamish River Summer-Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Green-Duwamish River Summer-Fall Chinook

Alaska 2%

Canada 30%

Puget Sound Net 22%

U.S. Sport 41%

U.S. Troll 6%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to NMFS' 

critical and viable escapement thresholds

Estimated exploitation rate compared to 

NMFS' recovery exploitation rate. 

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model.

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of Southern 

Puget Sound Indicator Stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Critical Escapement Threshold Estimated Escapemement

Viable Escapement Threshold

Canada

U.S. Sport

Puget Sound Net

U.S. Troll

Alaska

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Estimated Exploitation Rate Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 44 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The NMFS rebuilding exploitation rate on the Green River population is 53 percent (NMFS 2000). 

2 Harvest mortality distribution for Green River chinook is estimated from recoveries of the South Puget 

3 Sound fingerling indicator stock mentioned previously. Total exploitation on this population fell from 

4 levels above 80 percent in the early 1980s, to levels below 40 percent in the 1990s. The average 

5 exploitation rate from 1983 through 1996 was 63 percent, while the average from 1997 through 2000 

6 was 35 percent (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, December 2002). From 1997 through 2001, 

7 Canadian fisheries accounted for 30 percent of fishing-related mortality, U.S. sport fisheries 41 percent, 

8 Puget Sound net fisheries 22 percent, U.S. troll fisheries 6 percent, and Alaska fisheries 2 percent 

9 (Figure 3.3-9) (Pacific Salmon Commission, October 2002). 

10 The Green-Duwamish River system, with its large hatchery at Soos Creek, accounts for about 12 

11 percent of Puget Sound hatchery chinook releases, with annual releases of 6.4 million juveniles from 

12 1990 through 2001 (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, December 2002). About 72 percent 

13 of the juveniles were released from the Soos Creek facility, with smaller releases throughout the 

14 system. Releases in 2001 were 4.2 million. From 1990 through 2001, hatchery-origin adults are 

15 estimated to have accounted for 71 percent of naturally-spawning chinook in the system (Puget Sound 

16 Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). Green River chinook stocks were transferred extensively to 

17 watersheds throughout Puget Sound, beginning in the 1950s (Myers et al. 1998). 

18 Puyallup River. The Puyallup River is glacially-influenced as a result of its origin on the north slope of 

19 Mt. Rainier. The Puyallup River watershed also includes the Cascade foothills. The lower reaches of 

20 the Puyallup River flow through agricultural, residential, urban and industrial areas. Fall chinook 

21 salmon account for the vast majority of chinook returning to the Puyallup River system, but the White 

22 River − a main tributary − contains a spring-run population. 

23 White River Spring Chinook. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team has identified the spring24 timed chinook in the White River as a single, genetically distinct, Category 1 population, and the only 

25 spring chinook population in South Puget Sound (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 20041). 

26 Mud Mountain Dam at Rivermile 23.4 limits upstream adult migration. A portion of White River 

27 spring chinook spawn below the dam, though habitat suitability is constrained by the flow regime. 

28 Natural-origin adult fish are trapped at a diversion dam below Mud Mountain Dam and transported into 

29 the upper watershed, above Mud Mountain Dam, where they spawn in the West Fork of the White 

30 River and tributaries. Spring chinook enter the Puyallup River from May through mid-September, and 

31 spawn from mid-September through October. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 45 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The status of White River spring chinook is critical because of chronically low escapements and the 

2 population’s reliance on the hatchery supplementation program. NMFS is currently evaluating critical 

3 and viable escapement thresholds for the White River population, but will not complete its analysis 

4 prior to completion of this Environmental Impact Statement. In the interim, NMFS has established 

5 generic critical and viable escapement thresholds of 200 and 1,000 spawning adults, respectively. The 

6 co-managers’ escapement goal is to allow at least 1,000 natural-origin adults to spawn upstream of 

7 Mud Mountain Dam, based on an assessment of available spawning habitat within the White River 

8 watershed and comparisons with similar systems in other areas (WDFW et al. 1996). Escapement of 

9 White River chinook may have exceeded 5,000 in the early 1940s (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and 

10 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003), but abundance had been reduced to critical levels 

11 in the 1970s by migration blockages, alteration of the flow regime, and degradation of spawning and 

12 rearing habitat. The geometric mean of annual spawning escapement was 115 (range 6 to 628) from 

13 1974 through 1996, and 735 (range 316 to 2,002) from 1997 through 2001 (Figure 3.3-10) (Puget 

14 Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). Spawning escapement has shown a substantial 

15 increasing trend since the late 1980s. However, later-timed summer-fall chinook have recently been 

16 returning to the White River in increasing numbers, which has confounded the counts of spring chinook 

17 (personal communication with Bruce Sanford, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, April 2, 

18 2003). The population may not be currently viable in the absence of supplementation (NMFS 2000). 

19 Increased fishery restrictions have all but eliminated impacts to this population in fisheries outside 

20 Puget Sound, and more conservative management in Washington waters lowered the overall 

21 exploitation rate from more than 38 percent between 1983 and 1996, to 22 percent between 1997 and 

22 2000 (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, December 2002). Nearly all fishery impacts on White 

23 River spring chinook occur in Puget Sound, primarily in recreational fisheries, which currently account 

24 for 91 percent of the harvest of this stock (Figure 3.3-10). This is due in part to release of yearling 

25 smolts from the White River and Hupp Spring hatcheries, which are believed to have a greater 

26 tendency to rear in Puget Sound, and in part due to intentional management of commercial fisheries to 

27 avoid impacts on all spring chinook (personal communication with Susan Bishop, NMFS Sustainable 

28 Fisheries Division, January 5, 2003). Juveniles released at older ages are thought to spend more time in 

29 Puget Sound. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 46 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-10. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for White River spring chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goals for White River Spring Chinook

Estimated Exploitation Rate for White River Spring Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on White River Spring Chinook

Alaska 0%

Canada 4%

Puget Sound Net 4%

U.S. Sport 91%

U.S. Troll 1%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to current 

condition escapement goal

 Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of White River 

spring chinook indicator stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

800

1600

2400

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Current Condition Escapement Goal Estimated Escapemement

U.S. Sport

Puget Sound Net U.S. Troll Canada

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Estimated Exploitation Rate

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 47 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 A hatchery supplementation program was begun in the mid-1980s to stabilize and rebuild White River 

spring chinook. Broodstock is trapped at the Buckley diversion dam on the White River. Unmarkediv 2 

3 fish in excess of hatchery needs are transported above Mud Mountain Dam to spawn to rebuild the 

4 naturally-spawning population. From 1991 through 2000, annual releases of approximately 0.8 million 

5 juvenile spring chinook comprised about 1.6 percent of the total annual chinook releases in Puget 

6 Sound. Releases in 2001 were 0.4 million (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, December 

7 2002). Some hatchery fingerlings are released from upstream rearing ponds. Fish from the White River 

8 hatchery supplementation program are considered essential to recovery of the population, and are 

9 therefore listed. 

10 Puyallup River Fall Chinook. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (2001) has identified a 

11 single fall-timed chinook population in the Puyallup River (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 

12 20041). Because hatchery programs have introduced non-native stocks, primarily of Green River 

13 origin, into this system, Puyallup chinook are considered a Category 2 population. Puyallup fall 

14 chinook are genetically similar to Green River chinook (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 

15 20041). 

16 Puyallup River fall chinook spawn primarily in South Prairie Creek (a tributary of the Carbon River), 

17 the Puyallup River mainstem,Voights’ Creek, and Kapowsin Creek. Adult passage has occurred at 

18 Electron Dam, at Rivermile 41.7, since 2001. A remnant native component may persist in South Prairie 

19 Creek. Adults begin entering the Puyallup River in late July, and spawning occurs from mid-September 

20 through mid-November. Spawning adults are 76 percent Age-4 fish, 16 percent, Age 3, and 6 percent 

21 Age 5. An estimated 97 percent of smolts emigrate as fingerlings after a few months of freshwater 

22 rearing (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993, cited in Myers et al. 1998). 

23 NMFS is currently evaluating critical and viable escapement thresholds for the Puyallup River fall 

24 chinook salmon population, but will not complete its analysis prior to completion of this Environmental 

25 Impact Statement. In the interim, NMFS has adopted a generic critical escapement threshold of 200 and 

26 a generic viable escapement threshold of 1,250 spawning adults (NMFS Memorandum 2003). Until 

27 recently, the natural-spawning escapement goal for Puyallup River fall chinook was 3,250; however, 

28 the system was managed primarily to achieve hatchery escapement, and the natural escapement goal 

29 was seldom met (NMFS 2000; and Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). The co-

 

iv Denotes fish thought to be of natural-origin, although they could also be unmarked hatchery fish from facilities 

other than the White River Hatchery. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 48 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 managers are currently updating the system goal. Until then, the co-managers’ escapement goal is to 

2 insure that at least 500 chinook spawn in South Prairie Creek (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and 

3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003). This index of escapement is believed to represent 

4 adequate seeding of the entire system. The estimated geometric mean of annual spawning escapement 

5 was 1,437 from 1971 through 1996 (range 518 to 3,515), and 2,039 from 1997 through 2001 (range 

6 1,193 to 4,995) (Figure 3.3-11) (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). 

7 Total exploitation rate for this population averaged 72 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 60 percent 

8 from 1997 through 2000 (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, December 2002). Because a hatchery 

9 indicator stock has not been developed in the Puyallup River, the South Puget Sound fall fingerling 

10 indicator stock provides the most relevant description of Puyallup River chinook harvest distribution 

11 (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003). 

12 Annual hatchery releases of 2.5 million fall chinook in the Puyallup River accounted for approximately 

13 4 percent of Puget Sound chinook releases from 1991 through 2000. Releases in 2001 were 1.61 

14 million. Hatcheries operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife at Voights’ Creek and 

15 the Puyallup Tribe at Diru Creek account for about 78 percent and 21 percent of releases, respectively. 

16 No estimates have been made of hatchery-contribution to natural spawning. 

17 Nisqually River Chinook. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team identified one fall-timed 

18 chinook population in the Nisqually River watershed (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 20041). 

19 It is a Category 2 population. A partially glacier-fed system, the Nisqually River flows for most of its 

20 length through the Puget Lowland ecoregion. Nisqually chinook spawn in the mainstem and numerous 

21 side channels and tributaries from Rivermile 3 to Rivermile 42 where La Grande Dam blocks further 

22 access. Adult chinook enter the Nisqually River system from July through September, and spawning 

23 activity continues through November. Juveniles typically spend 2 to 6 months in fresh water before 

24 beginning their seaward migration. Forty-five percent of adults are thought to mature at Age 3, and 31 

25 percent at Age 4 (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993; and Washington Department of Fish 

26 and Wildlife 1995, cited in Myers et al. 1998). 

27 Native spring and fall chinook populations have been extirpated from the Nisqually River system, 

28 primarily as a result of blocked passage at the Centralia diversion, dewatering of mainstem spawning 

29 areas by hydroelectric operations, a toxic copper ore spill associated with a railroad trestle failure, and 

30 other habitat degradation (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team 2001). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 49 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-11. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Puyallup River fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goal for Puyallup River Fall Chinook

Estimated Fishing Exploitation Rate on Puyallup River Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Puyallup River Fall Chinook

Alaska 2%

Canada 30%

Puget Sound Net 22%

U.S. Sport 40%

U.S. Troll 6%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to NMFS' 

VSP Guidelines Viable Escapement 

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of southern 

Puget Sound indicator stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Estimated Escapement

VSP Viable Escapement Threshold

Canada

U.S. Sport

U.S. Troll Alaska

Puget Sound Net

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 50 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Prior to 2001, the Nisqually River was managed to achieve egg-take goals for the hatchery 

2 enhancement program. NMFS is currently evaluating critical or viable escapement thresholds for the 

3 Nisqually River chinook population, but will not complete its analysis prior to completion of this 

4 Environmental Impact Statement. In the interim, NMFS has adopted a generic critical escapement 

5 threshold of 200 and a generic viable escapement threshold of 1,100 spawning adults (NMFS 

6 Memorandum 2003). In 2001, the system began to be managed primarily for natural spawning 

7 escapement. The co-managers’ previous natural escapement goal of 900, which was met or exceeded in 

8 48 percent of the years between 1979 and 1999, was increased to 1,100 in 2000 based on an assessment 

9 of available habitat (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

10 2003). The trend in escapement from 1979 through 2001 has been slightly upward. The geometric 

11 mean of escapement was 637 (range 85 to 2,332) from 1979 through 1996, and 883 from 1997 through 

12 2000 (range 340 to 1,399) (Figure 3.3-12) (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). 

13 Based on coded-wire tag data, the exploitation rate on Nisqually River chinook averaged 83 percent 

14 from 1983 through 1996, and 68 percent from 1997 through 2001. From 1997 through 2000, 14 percent 

15 of harvest mortality occurred in Canada, 38 percent in U.S. sport fisheries, 45 percent in Puget Sound 

16 net fisheries, and 3 percent in U.S. troll fisheries. These numbers reflect decreasing harvest impacts in 

17 Canadian fisheries; from 1982 through 1995, Canadian fisheries, U.S. sport fisheries, and U.S. net 

18 fisheries each accounted for roughly 30 percent of harvest mortality (Figure 3.3-12) (Pacific Salmon 

19 Commission, October 2002). 

20 The Kalama Creek and Clear Creek hatcheries operated by the Nisqually Tribe released approximately 

21 2.9 million fall chinook annually (about 6 percent of total Puget Sound chinook releases) from 1991 

22 through 2000. Releases in 2001 were 3.28 million (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

23 December 2002). The hatchery stocks were derived from Puyallup and Green River fall-runs, and 

24 preliminary studies show hatchery and naturally-spawning populations are genetically similar (Puget 

25 Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003; and Washington 

26 Department of Fisheries et al. 1993, cited in Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, April 8, 2002). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 51 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-12. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Nisqually River fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goal for Nisqually River Fall Chinook

Estimated Fishing Exploitation Rate on Nisqually River Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Nisqually River Fall Chinook

Alaska 2%

Canada 30%

Puget Sound Net 22%

U.S. Sport 40%

U.S. Troll 6%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to current 

condition escapement goal

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of southern 

Puget Sound indicator stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Estimated Escapement

Current Condition Escapement Goal

Canada

U.S. Sport

U.S. Troll Alaska

Puget Sound Net

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 52 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Hood Canal

2 Skokomish River Chinook. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team identified one chinook 

3 population in the Skokomish River, one of two identified in Hood Canal. The Skokomish River enters 

4 Hood Canal at its southern end; thus, its chinook salmon population is spatially separated from rivers in 

5 the mid-Hood Canal management unit (see Figure 3.3-7). Historically, the Skokomish River supported 

6 the largest natural chinook run in Hood Canal. Presently, spawning takes place in the Skokomish River 

7 mainstem up to the confluence with the South and North Forks, in the South Fork of the Skokomish 

8 River, and in the North Fork to where Cushman Dam blocks higher access. 

9 Skokomish River chinook are a composite of natural- and hatchery-origin fish that are genetically 

10 indistinguishable. The co-managers classify Skokomish summer-fall chinook as a Category 2 

11 population. A small, self-sustaining population of landlocked chinook is present in Lake Cushman, 

12 upstream of the dams. 

13 Chinook salmon enter the Skokomish River starting in late July, with the majority of the run entering 

14 from mid-August to mid-September, and spawning from mid-September through October. Peak 

15 spawning occurs during mid-October. Adults mature primarily at Age 3 (33%), and Age 4 (43%). 

16 Juveniles emigrate primarily during the spring and early summer of their first year (Lestelle and Weller 

17 1994). 

18 NMFS is currently evaluating critical or viable escapement thresholds for the Skokomish River 

19 population, but will not complete its analysis prior to completion of this Environmental Impact 

20 Statement. In the interim, NMFS has adopted a generic critical escapement threshold of 200 and a 

21 generic viable escapement threshold of 1,250 spawning adults (NMFS Memorandum 2003a). From 

22 1987 (the earliest year for which data are available) through 2001, natural-spawning escapement ranged 

23 from 452 to 2,666. While there has been a downward trend in escapement over this period, it has been 

24 relatively small. The most recent 5-year geometric mean of escapement was 1,105, compared to 937 

25 from 1992 through 1996, and 1,496 from 1987 through 1991. 

26 The overall exploitation rate for all Hood Canal summer-fall chinook salmon averaged 69 percent from 

27 1983 through 1996, and 39 percent from 1997 through 2000 (Fishery Regulation Assessment Model, 

28 December 2002). Coded-wire tag recoveries (from the George Adams hatchery indicator stock) 

29 indicate Canadian fisheries accounted for 37 percent of harvest mortality, U.S. sport fisheries 45 

30 percent, U.S. net fisheries 7 percent, and U.S. troll fisheries 9 percent from 1997 through 2000. This 

31 represents a substantial change from harvest distribution between 1982 and 1995, when Puget Sound 

32 net fisheries accounted for 28 percent of harvest mortality, U.S. sport fisheries 31 percent, and 

33 Canadian fisheries 33 percent (Figure 3.3-13) (Pacific Salmon Commission, October 2002). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 53 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-13. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Skokomish River fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goal for Skokomish River Fall Chinook

Estimated Fishing Exploitation Rate on Skokomish River Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Skokomish River Fall Chinook

Alaska 0%

Canada 37%

Puget Sound Net 7%

U.S. Sport 45%

U.S. Troll 9%

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to current 

condition escapement goal

Estimated exploitation rate based on 

Fishery Regulations Assessment Model 

and George Adams Hatchery indicator 

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries based on 

George Adams Hatchery indicator stock

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

800

1600

2400

3200

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Estimated Escapement

Current Condition Escapement Goal

Canada

U.S. Sport

U.S. Troll

Puget Sound Net

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 54 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Fall-timed chinook, originally derived from Green River broodstock, are reared at the George Adams 

2 Hatchery on the Skokomish River. Approximately 0.4 million fall chinook (less than one percent of 

3 total Puget Sound releases) were released each year between 1991 and 2000 in the Skokomish River 

4 system. Additional production at Hoodsport Hatchery, which utilizes George Adams Hatchery 

5 broodstock, also enhances local fisheries. The contribution of hatchery-origin fish to natural spawning 

6 escapement in the Skokomish River is not known. 

7 Mid-Hood Canal Fall Chinook. The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team determined that summer8 fall chinook salmon from the Dosewalips, Duckabush, and Hamma Hamma Rivers constitute an 

9 independent chinook population within Hood Canal (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, July 22, 

10 2003), but noted that the degree to which chinook salmon spawning in these rivers were historically 

11 demographically linked is not clear. Chinook spawn mostly in the lower reaches of the Dosewalips, 

12 because falls and cascades above Rivermile 14 are only passable in high flow years. Genetic data are 

13 not expected to be informative in reconstructing the historical Dosewalips River chinook population 

14 structure or that of other streams tributary to Hood Canal, since many of the chinook spawning in Hood 

15 Canal appear be genetically similar to hatchery-origin chinook derived from Green River-origin 

16 broodstock (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, July 22, 2003 2004). 

17 Current chinook spawner surveys are typically limited to the lower reaches of each stream. In the 

18 Dosewalips River, the areas surveyed are transit areas and do not include all spawning areas; upper 

19 reaches have been occasionally surveyed since 1998. Prior to 1986, no reliable estimates are available 

20 because all escapement estimates for these rivers were made by extrapolation from the Skokomish 

21 River (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003). Escapement 

22 estimates have averaged 46 since 1998. Escapement estimates have varied so markedly in the 

23 Dosewalips River, that there is no apparent trend. Aggregate escapement to the three mid-Hood Canal 

24 rivers has averaged 452 since 1998. Aggregate escapement showed a marked increase subsequent to 

25 1997. Aggregate escapement to the three mid-Hood Canal rivers has averaged 452 since 1998. The 

26 generic critical escapement threshold and viable escapement threshold for the Mid-Hood Canal 

27 population is 200 and 1,250 adults, respectively. Lack of coded-wire tag data makes direct assessment 

28 of harvest distribution and exploitation rates impossible. Managers assume marine harvest distribution 

29 of Mid-Hood Canal chinook similar to that of chinook from George Adams Hatchery; however, the 

30 terminal-area exploitation rate is lower because chinook fisheries are confined to southern Hood Canal 

31 and the Skokomish River. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 55 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Annual Hood Canal hatchery releases of 2.8 million fall-run and 169,000 spring-run juveniles 

2 accounted for 6 percent of Puget Sound chinook released between 1991 and 2000. Spring chinook 

3 releases, which decreased steadily each year since 1991, were discontinued in 1997. Releases of fall 

4 chinook in 2001 totaled 3.3 million. Fall chinook are reared at numerous satellite locations throughout 

5 this area, but the great majority originate and are released from the Hoodsport facility (79%), and the 

6 Enetai hatchery (8%). The hatchery population is of mixed origin, with significant influence from 

7 transplants from South Puget Sound facilities. 

8 Strait of Juan de Fuca Region

9 The two chinook-bearing streams in this area, the Dungeness and Elwha Rivers, both originate in the 

10 Olympic Mountain Range. The Dungeness River enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the vicinity of 

11 Sequim. The Elwha River enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca west of Port Angeles (see Figure 3.3-14). 

12 Dungeness River. A native-origin, spring-summer chinook run spawns in the Dungeness River to 

13 Rivermile 18.9, where a falls just above the mouth of Gold Creek blocks further access, and in the 

14 Graywolf River, a major tributary. The Dungeness spring-summer chinook run is considered distinct 

15 from other Strait of Juan de Fuca populations based on spawn timing and geographic distribution 

16 (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, April 8, 20022004), and is classified as a Category 1 

17 population. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 56 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-14. Strait of Juan de Fuca Region. 

2 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 57 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Mature chinook salmon enter the Dungeness River from early summer through September, and spawn 

2 from August through mid-October (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993). More than 95 

3 percent of Dungeness River juvenile chinook migrate to sea during their first year (Washington 

4 Department of Fisheries et al. 1993; Smith and Sele 1995; and Washington Department of Fish and 

5 Wildlife 1995, cited in Myers et al. 1998). Sixty-three percent of adults mature at Age 4, 25 percent at 

6 Age 5, and 10 percent at Age 3 (Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 1995; and Washington Department of 

7 Fish and Wildlife 1995, cited in Myers et al. 1998). 

8 The Dungeness River spring-summer chinook population is classified as critical due to chronically-low 

9 spawning escapement levels (NMFS 2000; and Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993). 

10 NMFS has not yet determined critical or viable escapement thresholds for this population. The co11 managers have set an escapement goal of 925 spawners based on an assessment of current suitable 

12 habitat and capacity (Smith and Sele 1994), which NMFS has adopted as the interim viable escapement 

13 threshold. NMFS has determined the critical escapement threshold to be 500 spawning adults (NMFS

14 Memorandum 2003a). Escapement has remained mostly below 250 spawners since 1986. The 

15 geometric mean of escapements was 142 (range 43 to 331) from 1986 through 1996, and 132 from 

16 1997 through 2001 (range 50 to 453). The trend in escapement from 1986 to the present has been 

17 relatively flat, although there has been a marked increase in escapement since 1997 (Figure 3.3-15) 

18 (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation). Elwha River-tagged fingerlings offer the best 

19 available description of harvest distribution for Dungeness River chinook. 

20 A captive broodstock program was implemented on the Dungeness River in 1996, with a goal of 

21 increasing the number of naturally-spawning fish. Approximately 1.5 million spring chinook salmon 

22 reared at the Dungeness hatchery were released annually into the Graywolf and Dungeness Rivers 

23 between 1996 and 2000. Releases in 2001 totaled 2.1 million. The contribution of hatchery fish to 

24 natural spawning is unknown, but believed to be substantial (Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

25 Commission, December 2002; and NMFS 2000). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 58 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-15. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Dungeness River spring chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goal for Dungeness River Spring Chinook

Estimated Fishing Exploitation Rate on Dungeness River Spring Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality on Dungeness River Fall Chinook

Alaska 

Canada

Puget Sound Net

U.S. Sport

U.S. Troll

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to current 

condition escapement goal.

Extremely small population size makes 

estimates problematic.

Extremely small population size makes 

estimates problematic.

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

800

1600

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Estimated Escapement

Current Condition Escapement Goal

NOT AVAILABLE

NOT AVAILABLE

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 59 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Elwha River Chinook. The Elwha population is the westernmost population of the Puget Sound ESU, 

2 with genetic and life history traits more similar to coastal chinook populations than other Puget Sound 

3 populations (Myers et al. 1998; and Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 20041). The Puget Sound 

4 Technical Recovery Team identified one fall-timed chinook population in the Elwha River. It is of 

5 native-origin, supported by hatchery supplementation, and is classed as a Category 1 population. 

6 Adult chinook enter the Elwha River from June through early September. Spawning begins in late 

7 August, and peaks in late September to October (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993). 

8 Elwha River chinook mature primarily at Age 4 (57%), with Age-3 and Age-5 fish comprising 13 

9 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of annual returns (Myers et al. 1998). Naturally-produced 

10 juveniles emigrate primarily in their first year. 

11 The degraded condition of currently usable habitat in the 5-mile reach below the Elwha Dam precludes 

12 a self-sustaining natural population. Prior to dam construction in the early 1900s, the Elwha basin 

13 contained as much as 70 miles of spawning habitat. Recovery of the population depends on restoring 

14 access to high quality habitat in the upper Elwha basin. 

15 NMFS is currently evaluating critical or viable escapement thresholds for the Elwha River chinook 

16 population, but will not complete its analysis prior to completion of this Environmental Impact 

17 Statement. NMFS has determined an interim critical escapement threshold of 1,000 spawning adults 

18 and an interim viable escapement threshold of 2,900 adults for this population (NMFS Memorandum 

19 2003a).There has been a declining trend in escapement since the mid-1980s. The co-managers’ 

20 nominal escapement goal of 2,900, which is a composite of 500 natural spawners and 2,400 adults for 

21 broodstock needs, was exceeded only twice between 1986 and 2001. The geometric mean of 

22 escapements was 950 from 1986 through 1996 (range 163 to 5,228), and 821 from 1997 through 2001 

23 (range 633 to 1,578). Despite an apparent increasing trend in escapement since 1994, the overall trend 

24 in escapement has been downward (Figure 3.3-16). 

25 The Elwha River chinook migrate to northern British Columbia and Southeast Alaska. Coded-wire tag 

26 data from 1991 through 1996, showed British Columbia accounted for 54 percent of harvest mortality, 

27 Alaska 10 percent, Washington sport fisheries 21 percent, Washington troll fisheries 5 percent, and 

28 Puget Sound net fisheries 9 percent (Figure 3.3-16) (Pacific Salmon Commission data cited in NMFS 

29 2000). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 60 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-16. Spawning escapement, fishing exploitation rate, and geographic distribution of fishing 

2 mortality for Elwha River summer-fall chinook. 

Spawning Escapement and Escapement Goal for Elwha River Summer-Fall Chinook

Estimated Fishing Exploitation Rate on Elwha River Summer-Fall Chinook

Geographic Distribution of Fishing Mortality of Elwha River Summer-Fall Chinook

Alaska 

Canada

Puget Sound Net

U.S. Sport

U.S. Troll

Estimated escapement of naturallyspawning adults compared to current 

condition escapement goal

Distribution of fishing mortality based on 

coded-wire tag recoveries of Hoko RiverStrait of Juan de Fuca indicator stock

Estimates problematic

Sources: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (in progress), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and Pacific 

Salmon Commission December 2002.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Estimated Escapement

Current Condition Escapement Goal

NOT AVAILABLE

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

3 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 61 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Approximately 2.5 million fall chinook fingerlings from the Elwha hatchery were released each year 

2 from 1991 through 2000. Releases in 2001 were 2.6 million. The hatchery uses the native Elwha River 

3 population, and now no longer releases yearling smolts. Chinook produced at the Elwha hatchery are 

4 considered essential to run recovery, and thus are included in the listed ESU. The contribution of 

5 hatchery straying to natural spawning is unknown (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

6 December 2002; Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, in preparation; and NMFS 2000). 

7 3.3.1.2 Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) 

8 NMFS listed the Hood Canal summer chum ESU as threatened in 1999. This ESU includes summer9 run populations in Hood Canal and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. Populations within this ESU 

10 exhibit considerable diversity in life-history features. 

11 General Life History 

12 Summer chum spawning occurs from late August through late October, generally within the lowest 1 to 

13 2 miles of the river systems in which they occur. Summer chum fry emerge from stream gravels 

14 between February and the last week of May, and immediately begin migrating to estuarine areas. 

15 Following a brief residence in the estuarine zone, chum fry migrate seaward, returning 2 to 4 years later 

16 along a southerly migration path parallel to the coastlines of southeast Alaska and British Columbia. 

17 Summer chum mature primarily at 3 and 4 years of age, and a few return at Age 5. They enter the Strait 

18 of Juan de Fuca from the first week of July through September, and Hood Canal from early August 

19 through the end of September. 

20 Population Structure 

21 The Hood Canal Summer-Run ESU includes 16 summer-run populations in Hood Canal and the 

22 eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, including seven populations that have become extinct. It is likely that 

23 summer chum were historically distributed among additional streams within the region. These early24 timed populations are genetically distinct from fall and winter chum salmon (Washington Department 

25 of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000). 

26 Of the 16 populations of summer chum identified to have existed in the Hood Canal summer-run chum 

27 ESU, seven are considered functionally extinct extinct: Skokomish River, Finch Creek, Anderson 

28 Creek, Big Beef Creek, Dewatto River, Tahuya River and Chimacum Creek (Washington Department 

29 of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000). A summary of the status of Hood 

30 Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca native summer chum populations is shown in Table 3.3-3. Summer 

31 chum are occasionally observed in other Hood Canal drainages, including the Skokomish River, that 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 62 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 once supported a large summer chum population (see Figure 3.3-7). A re-introduction program began 

2 on the Tahuya River in 2000 and the Dewatto River appears to be undergoing natural re-colonization. 

3 Summer chum salmon populations in the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca occur in Snow and Salmon 

4 Creeks and in Jimmycomelately Creek. The populations in Chimacum Creek and Big Beef Creek were 

5 extirpated, but were re-introduced in 1996. An unknown number of summer chum salmon return to the 

6 Dungeness River.

7 The average spawning escapement of summer chum in Hood Canal from 1968 through 1972 was 

8 22,706 fish. By 1989, spawning escapement had reached its historical low of 519. Annual escapements 

9 began to increase in 1993, with escapements from 1998 through 20031 averagingat 7,829 9,425 

10 (geometric mean). Escapement has been strongest in northern Hood Canal river systems, particularly 

11 on the west side of Hood Canal, including the Big Quilcene River, where a hatchery supplementation 

12 program is operated. Escapement in 1995 2003 was more than 231,000 fish in northern western Hood 

13 Canal. Streams on the east side of Hood Canal continued to have poor or no escapement except for Big 

14 Beef Creek, where a hatchery supplementation program is also operated (Figure 3.3-17) (Washington 

15 Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000; Washington Department 

16 of Fish and Wildlife and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes 20030). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 63 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3-17. Summer chum salmon spawning escapement to the Big Quilcene, other west Hood 

2 Canal streams, and east Hood Canal streams, 1968−2001. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Big Quilcene Other W. Hood Canal East Hood Canal 3 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1974

1975

19761977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

19971998

1999

2000

2001

20022003

East Hood Canal Other West Hood Canal Big Quilcene 4 

5 Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000; Washington 

6 Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes 20030. 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 64 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Summer chum escapements in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Snow, Salmon, and Jimmycomelately 

2 Creeks) averaged 1,401 fish from 1974 through 1977, and 1,332 2,270 from 1998 through 20031

3 (geometric mean) (see Figure 3.3-18). (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No4 Point Treaty Tribes 2000; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point No Point Treaty 

5 Tribes 20030). 

6 Figure 3.3-18. Summer chum salmon spawning escapement to Strait of Juan de Fuca streams, 

7 1971−2001. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

8 

9 Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000; Washington 

10 Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 20003. 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 65 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.3-3. Summary of status of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca native summer chum 

2 salmon populations. 

Population Status Population Status 

Union Healthy Dungeness Unknown 

Hamma Hamma Depressed Big Beef Extinct 1Re-introduced

Duckabush Depressed Anderson Extinct 

Dosewalips Depressed Dewatto Extinct 

Big / Little Quilcene Depressed Tahuya Extinct1Extinct

Snow / SalmonQuilcene CriticalDepressed Skokomish Extinct 

Lilliwaup Snow / Salmon Critical Finch Extinct 

JimmycomelatelyLilliwaup Critical Chimacum Extinct1 Re-introduced

Jimmycomelately Critical

1 3 These populations have re-introduction programs.

4 Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000. 

5 Table 3.3-4. Summary of environmental and harvest-related factors impacting contributing to the 

6 decline of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum populations in the 

7 1970s and 1980s. 

Factor Hood Canal Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Climate Ocean Conditions 

Estuarine Conditions 

Freshwater Conditions 

Undetermined 

Undetermined 

Moderate 

Undetermined 

Undetermined 

Major 

Ecological Interactions Wild fall chum 

Hatchery fall chum 

Other salmonids (including 

hatchery) 

Marine fish 

Birds 

Marine mammals 

Low 

Low 

Moderate 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Habitat Cumulative impacts Major Major 

Harvest Canadian pre-terminal 

U.S. pre-terminal 

Terminal 

Low 

Low 

Major 

Moderate 

Low 

Low 

8 Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 66 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Decline of the Hood Canal summer chum ESU has been attributed to a combination of high fishery 

2 exploitation rates, shifts in climatic conditions that have changed patterns and intensity of precipitation 

3 (thus altering stream flows), and the cumulative effects of habitat degradation (Washington Department 

4 of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000; and Johnson et al. 1997 cited in 

5 NMFS 2000). The co-managers have ranked the relative importance of these factors responsible for the 

6 decline of for Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon during the late 1970s and 

7 early 1980s. 

8 Catch Distribution 

9 Summer chum salmon are taken incidentally in Canadian and U.S. net fisheries targeting coho and 

10 sockeye salmon. They are taken occasionally in troll fisheries off the west coast of Vancouver Island, 

11 and infrequently by trollers or sport fishermen off the Pacific Coast and in the U.S. portion of the Strait 

12 of Juan de Fuca (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 

13 2000). 

14 Historically, summer chum salmon were not a primary fishery target in Hood Canal since fisheries 

15 were focused on chinook, coho and fall chum salmon. However, because summer chum run timing 

16 overlaps that of chinook and coho salmon in many areas, they are caught in fisheries targeting these 

17 species. Prior to 1974, Hood Canal was designated a commercial salmon fishing preserve, and the only 

18 commercial fisheries permitted on Hood Canal were on the Skokomish reservation (Washington 

19 Department of Fisheries et al. 1973, in Johnson et al. 1997). When commercial fisheries were opened 

20 on Hood Canal in 1974, incidental harvest of chum increased rapidly, rising to 50 to 80 percent by the 

21 late 1980s in most parts of Hood Canal, and as high as 90 percent in Marine Catch Area 12A during the 

22 1980s. In 1992, after fishery restrictions were put in place to protect summer chum, exploitation rates 

23 in Hood Canal were reduced to an average of 2.5 percent (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

24 and the Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes 2000). Restrictions in Canadian fisheries that intercept summer 

25 chum also contributed to the decline in exploitation. 

26 Hatchery Production 

27 Hatchery programs have operated at the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery since 1992, rearing the local 

28 population to supplement production in the Quilcene River and the Little Quilcene River, and for re29 introduction into Big Beef Creek. Supplementation programs also operate on Lilliwaup Creek, the 

30 Union River, the Hamma Hamma River, Salmon Creek, Chimacum Creek, and Jimmycomelately 

31 Creek. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 67 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.3.1.3 Listed Columbia River Chinook Salmon 

2 Small numbers of chinook from Columbia River ESUs may be taken in fisheries in Puget Sound and 

3 the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These include the Lower Columbia River, Upper Willamette River Spring4 run, Upper Columbia Summer-Fall-run and Snake River Fall-run ESUs. Of these, the Lower Columbia, 

5 Willamette Spring and Snake River Fall ESUs are listed as threatened. 

6 The exploitation rates on these populations in Puget Sound fisheries between 1984 and 1994 are all 

7 believed to have been less than 1.0 percent; 0.6 percent for the Snake River fall ESU, 0.48 to 0.59 

8 percent for the Lower Columbia River ESU, and 0.21 percent for the Willamette Spring ESU (personal 

9 communication via e-mail from Dell Simmons, NMFS, to Susan Bishop, NMFS Sustainable Fisheries 

10 Division, December 2002). 

11 3.3.1.4 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

12 Puget Sound and Washington coastal bull trout populations were listed as threatened in November 

13 1999 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). At the same time, USFWS issued a 4(d) rule 

14 exempting from take prohibitions fishing activities taking place at that time (U.S. Federal Register, 

15 Volume 64 No. 210, November 1, 1999; proposed special rule: Salvelinus confluentus). 

16 The bull trout is a char endemic to western North America that exhibits a number of life-history forms. 

17 The stream-resident form lives out its life in small headwater streams. The fluvial form lives as an adult 

18 in large rivers but spawns in small tributary streams, sometimes attaining large size. The lacustrine-ad 

19 fluvial form spawns in tributary streams but lives as an adult in lakes. It grows to a large size and 

20 usually reaches sexual maturity in about its fifth year. Little is known about the bull trout’s marine life 

21 history (MacPhail and Baxter 1996). However, Kraemer (2003) found that bull trout from the Skagit 

22 system commonly switched between fluvial and anadromous forms. 

23 Bull trout are declining in numbers throughout their range, especially at the southern edges of their 

24 distribution where a number of populations have become extinct (including streams in the Willamette 

25 River system, Oregon, and the McLeod River, California) (MacPhail and Baxter 1996). 

26 The 1998 bull trout/Dolly Varden population inventory identified 80 populations in Washington. All 

27 bull trout/Dolly Varden populations in Washington are maintained by wild production. Of the 80 

28 populations identified, 14 (18%) are healthy, 2 (3%) are depressed, 6 (8%) are critical, and the status of 

29 58 populations (72%) is unknown. For a detailed inventory of the status of Puget Sound bull trout 

30 populations, the reader is referred to the 1998 addendum to the Washington Salmon and Steelhead 

31 Stock Inventory (SASSI) report, incorporated here by reference. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 68 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Char are occasionally caught in sport and commercial fisheries in Puget Sound, as well as in in-river 

2 net fisheries. These char are (apparently) bull trout. They are common in nearshore marine areas of 

3 Puget Sound from Everett north, and would be vulnerable to beach seine and set net fisheries. Salmon 

4 test fisheries in the Skagit River catch char, especially during the spring. Post-spawning adults may be 

5 taken in coho and chum fisheries. Char, including bull trout, are routinely caught in Skagit Bay while 

6 test seining for juvenile chinook. In marine waters, the char behave much like sea-run cutthroat, 

7 spending most of their time in shallow water (10 feet or less). Bull trout are quite commonly caught in 

8 local sport fisheries in both Port Susan and Skagit Bay, especially along northern Whidbey Island, 

9 Camano Island, and the mainland from Edmonds north (personal communication via e-mail from Curt 

10 Kraemer, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 2002 and April 2003). 

11 3.3.1.5 Listed Columbia River Chum Salmon 

12 In March of 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Columbia River chum 

13 salmon ESU as a threatened. Johnson et al. (1997) apparently found no documented instances of 

14 Columbia River chum salmon being caught in Puget Sound fisheries. Using the presence of 

15 Washington coastal fall chum in Puget Sound catches as a surrogate for Columbia River fall chum, 

16 NMFS concluded the average annual catch of Columbia River fall chum in northern Puget Sound 

17 fisheries would range from 0 to 21 fish, and that it was unlikely that Columbia River fall chinook chum 

18 would be encountered in terminal area fisheries inside Puget Sound (NMFS 2000). 

19 3.3.2 Unlisted Salmonids 

20 3.3.2.1 Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula Coho Salmon (O. kisutch)

21 General Life History 

22 Coho salmon were historically distributed along the Pacific coast from Chamula Bay, Mexico (Miller 

23 and Lea 1972), to Point Hope, Alaska, through the Aleutians, and from the Anadyr River, USSR, south 

24 to Hokkaido, Japan (Scott and Crossman 1973). The Puget Sound and Washington Coastal ESUs are 

25 geographically intermediate in the coho’s range. 

26 More than 95 percent of coho salmon in Washington, Oregon, and California mature in their third year 

27 of life after rearing up to 15 months in fresh water and approximately 16 months in the ocean. 

28 Juvenile coho prefer low-velocity stream habitats such as pools and backwaters. Coho usually migrate 

29 downstream as yearlings, after which they may reside in estuaries for a few months (Drucker 1972; and 

30 Crone and Bond 1976). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 69 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Regional Population Aggregates 

2 The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho ESU includes populations from drainages of Puget Sound and 

3 Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula east of Salt Creek, and the Strait of Georgia from the east side of 

4 Vancouver Island (north to and including Campbell River) and the British Columbia mainland (north to 

5 and including Powell River), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope. Coho salmon from this 

6 region differ genetically from those from the Columbia River and the Oregon and California coastal 

7 regions. Differences between coho salmon from the Puget Sound ESU and populations from the 

8 Olympic Peninsula are more modest (Weitkamp, et al. 1995). 

9 Washington Department of Fisheries et al. (1993) identified 40 coho populations within the boundaries 

10 identified by NMFS for the Puget Sound ESU (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993). While 

11 the majority of the populations were sustained by wild spawning, only three of these populations 

12 (Sumas/Chilliwack, Skagit, and Deer Creek [Stillaguamish River]) were determined to be of native 

13 origin. The rest were classed as being of mixed, non-native or unknown origin. However, natural 

14 production is predominant in the Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish River systems, and comprises a 

15 significant proportion of production in all other management units (Weitkamp et al. 1995). 

16 Status and Abundance Trends. NMFS (Weitkamp et al. 1995) noted that while coho salmon within the 

17 Puget Sound ESU were abundant and, with some exceptions, run sizes and natural spawning 

18 escapements generally stable, there are substantial risks to whatever native production remains. The 

19 Puget Sound Coho ESU remains a candidate species for listing under the federal Endangered Species 

20 Act. 

21 In summarizing assessments of Puget Sound coho salmon population status from four reviews, 

22 Weitkamp et al. (1995) aggregated populations into 15 watersheds and reported considerable variability 

23 in the status of populations from individual tributaries within these watersheds; in many cases, status 

24 ranged from healthy to depressed (Table 3.3-5). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 70 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.3-5. Summary of assessments of population status of Puget Sound coho salmon. 

Population WDF et al. 1993 

 Nehlsen et al. 

1991 1

Origin 2 Prod. Type 3 Status 4

North Puget Sound/ 

Strait of Georgia N, M, U W U 

Nooksack River A+ M C U 

Samish River M C H 

Skagit River N, U C D, U 

Stillaguamish River N, M W D, U 

Snohomish River M, X W, C H, D 

Lake Washington M C H,D 

Puyallup River M C H, D 

Nisqually River M C H 

South Puget Sound 

minor drainages 

A (Chambers 

Creek) M, X W, C 

Hood Canal M W, C H, D 

Strait of Juan de Fuca 

minor drainages 

A 

(Lyre River) M C D 

Dungeness River M C D 

Elwha River A M C H 

2 Source: Weitkamp et al. 1995. 

1 3 A+ possibly extinct; A high risk; B moderate risk; C special concern; X extinct. 

2

 N−native; M−mixed; X−non-native; U−unknown. 3 4 W−wild; C−composite. 4 5 H−healthy; D−depressed; C−critical; U−unknown. 

6 The co-managers group Puget Sound coho populations into six management units and further divide 

7 these into wild and hatchery components. From 1991 through 2000, the annual run size of Puget-Sound 

8 coho populations entering Puget Sound was 669,000, of which 44 percent was naturally spawning. The 

9 management units, and the portion of the wild coho run for which they account, are: Hood Canal 

10 (11%), Nooksack-Samish (6%), Strait of Juan de Fuca (2%), Skagit (8%), Southern Puget Sound (35%) 

11 and Stillaguamish-Snohomish (37%) (Table 3.3-6) (Pacific Fisheriesy Management Council, Ocean 

12 Salmon Fisheries review, 2001). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 71 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.3-6. Summary of run size and escapement trends for Puget Sound wild coho population 

2 groups, 1981 through 2000. 

Population Group Wild Run 

(000s) 

Hatchery 

Run (000s) 

Wild Escapement Trend 

(1981 through 2000) 

Wild Run Size Entering 

Puget Sound 

Hood Canal 902 893 Marked Increase Slight Increase 

Nooksack-Samish 473 2301 Slight Increase Marked Decrease 

Strait of Juan de Fuca 166 289 Steep Increase Slight Increase 

Skagit River 660 374 Marked Increase Slight Increase 

South Puget Sound 2866 7156 Marked Decrease Steep Decrease 

Stillaguamish-Snohomish 3027 1146 Slight Increase Substantial Decrease 

Combined Wild Populations 8093 1146 Moderate Increase Marked Decrease 

3 Source: Based on data from Pacific Fisheries Management Council Ocean Salmon Review for 2000, Table B-41.

4 An analysis of trends in run size and escapement for the wild-spawning components of the six Puget 

5 Sound coho management units shows increases in escapement have come about primarily from a 

6 reduction in Puget Sound fisheries, allowing more fish to reach spawning grounds even though total 

7 run sizes entering Puget Sound decreased. Natural spawning increased for five of the management 

8 units: Hood Canal, Nooksack-Samish, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Skagit, and Stillaguamish-Snohomish, 

9 but runs entering Puget Sound showed slight to marked decreases for three of the populations, 

10 including the Stillaguamish-Snohomish group and the southern Puget Sound group that together 

11 account for 72 percent of the total Puget Sound wild coho run (Table 3.3-6) (Pacific Fishery 

12 Management Council Ocean Salmon Review 2001). 

13 Factors Limiting Natural Production 

14 Because Puget Sound coho spend up to 15 months rearing in fresh water before migrating to the ocean, 

15 availability of suitable riparian habitat plays a large role in determining the status of this ESU. Of 

16 particular concern are: the elimination of off-channel rearing habitat (e.g., slow-moving backwaters, 

17 wetlands) due to channel modification; elevated stream temperatures and increased stream velocity due 

18 to loss of shade vegetation, large woody debris and channel modification; and blockages to spawning 

19 migration caused by culverts and other obstacles. Artificial production has masked the status of natural 

20 productivity for many Puget Sound coho populations. High harvest rates, and a recent decline in 

21 average size of spawners is also a factor for concern, because of the potential for reduced fecundity 

22 and/or productivity (Weitkamp et al. 1995). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 72 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Puget Sound Fisheries 

2 About 9 percent of Puget Sound coho salmon are harvested in British Columbia and Alaska fisheries, 

3 and 13 percent in ocean fisheries off the U.S. Pacific Coast. Puget Sound sport fisheries account for 

4 approximately 30 percent of the catch, freshwater sport fisheries 3 percent, pre-terminal net fisheries 9 

5 percent, and terminal net fisheries 36 percent (Fishery Resource Assessment Model Coho Impact 

6 Summary for 1999 provided by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 

7 Puget Sound coho salmon are caught in directed fisheries, and incidentally in fisheries directed at 

8 sockeye and pink salmon. Because the seasonal peak of most coho runs in Puget Sound is later than 

9 that of chinook runs, their encounter in chinook-directed fisheries increases from earlier to later in the 

10 season. For instance, in the Bellingham Bay chinook-directed fishery, coho comprised less than one 

11 percent of catch during the first week of August, 32 percent of the catch by the second week of 

12 September, and 92 percent by the first week of October. Similar patterns exist in other fisheries. 

13 Hatchery Production 

14 From 1991 through 2000, approximately 24 million juvenile coho were released into Puget Sound 

15 annually. Of these releases, approximately 57 percent were in basins in mid- and southern Puget Sound, 

16 19 percent in the Nooksack-Samish basin, 7 percent each in the Stillaguamish-Snohomish basins, 6 

17 percent in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and 3 percent in the Skagit basin. Over this period, total releases 

18 decreased from about 40 million in 1991 to less than 10 million in 2000 (Pacific States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, December 2002).v 19 

20 Olympic Peninsula Coho ESU 

21 The Olympic Peninsula Coho ESU contains populations from the Quinault, Queets, Hoh and 

22 Quillayute Rivers. Coho from the Olympic Peninsula ESU are rarely encountered in Puget Sound 

23 fisheries. According to coded-wire tag data from 1990 through 2000, 87 percent of coho from the 

24 Olympic Peninsula ESU are caught in Washington coastal fisheries, 10 percent in British Columbia, 

25 and less than 1 percent in Puget Sound fisheries (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

26 December 2002). 

 

v

 Data may be incomplete for 2000. Releases in 1999 were about 12 million. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 73 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.3.2.2 Puget Sound Sockeye Salmon (O. nerka)

2 General Life History 

3 In North America, spawning populations of sockeye salmon range from the Columbia River northward 

4 to the Bering Sea, Alaska. The Strait of Juan de Fuca is considered to be near the southern limit of the 

5 sockeye’s range. Sockeye salmon utilize stream systems with lakes, where fry reside from 1 to 3 years 

6 before migrating to the ocean. Spawning migrations take place from June through August. Sockeye 

7 typically migrate from lakes from March through July, and remain in estuaries for a relatively short 

8 time compared to other species. Sockeye spend 1 to 4 years at sea, returning to spawn as Age-3, Age-4, 

9 or Age-5 fish. 

10 Population Structure 

11 Washington Department of Fisheries et al. (1993) identified four distinct sockeye salmon populations 

12 in Puget Sound. The Baker River (tributary to the Skagit River) contains a native population 

13 maintained through a hatchery culture program, and is considered an Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

14 (ESU) (Gustafson et al. 1997). Historically, prior to construction of the Baker Dam, the run ascended 

15 the Baker River. Currently, sockeye are trapped below the dam and hauled above it to spawn. 

16 Three other populations have been identified in the Lake Washington system, the largest being that 

17 returning to the Cedar River. This non-native population originated from fry plants of Skagit River 

18 sockeye in the 1930s, and is maintained through wild production, spawning throughout the 21 river 

19 miles below the Landsburg Diversion Dam. Returns to the Sammamish Slough and other small Lake 

20 Washington tributaries comprise the Bear Creek Provisional ESU, a population genetically dissimilar 

21 from the introduced Cedar River populations, and one that may be native to the Lake Washington 

22 system. Another distinct and possibly native population spawns on Lake Washington beaches. 

23 Gustafson and Winans (1999) identified groups of river and sea-type spawning sockeye salmon in 

24 Puget Sound that are distinct from Puget Sound lake-type sockeye salmon, but did not reach a 

25 definitive conclusion regarding population structure. Puget Sound sea-/river-type sockeye were not 

26 genetically distinct from other river/sea-type along the Pacific coast. The authors suggested several 

27 likely hypotheses for their occurrence: 1) Puget Sound sea-/river-type sockeye are strays from British 

28 Columbia populations; 2) Puget Sound sea-/river-type sockeye represent one U.S. population; or 3) 

29 Puget Sound sea-/river-type sockeye are part of a larger Pacific west coast population. WDFW is 

30 reviewing the population structure and status of Puget Sound sea-/riverine sockeye as part of an update 

31 of the Washington Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory; the update was not complete at the time of 

32 this writing (personal communication with Ann Blakely, WDFW, Fishery Biologist, August 31, 2004). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 74 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Therefore, the following discussion concentrates on the sockeye salmon populations that have been 

2 identified to-date in Puget Sound.

3 Status 

4 Baker River ESU. The Baker River sockeye population status is considered critical. The 1990 through 

5 1994 average annual spawning escapement was about 2,700, compared to as many as 20,000 fish near 

6 the turn of the century and prior to construction of Baker Dam. Although population abundance has 

7 fluctuated considerably, the abundance trend from 1926 through 1995 decreased by approximately 2 

8 percent per year. More recently (1986 through 1995), abundance has increased by approximately 32 

9 percent a year. The escapement in 1994 of 16,000 fish was the highest since construction of Baker 

10 Dam. Like many sockeye populations, the Baker River ESU returns fluctuate markedly within a 4-year 

11 cycle, with the largest returns occurring regularly in a dominant brood year. The 1994 return and, 

12 subsequently, the 1998 return (13,000 fish) occurred in peak years for the run. 

13 Big Bear Creek Provisional ESU. Recent average abundance in this ESU (10,000 to 20,000 spawning 

14 escapement) was judged by NMFS (Gustafson et al. 1997) to be relatively high, and the ESU is not 

15 considered at risk of extinction or likely to become so. 

16 Cedar River Sockeye. Washington Department of Fisheries et al. (1993) classified this population as 

17 depressed due to a long-term decline in freshwater survival and escapements. Escapements from 1967 

18 through 1991 ranged from 76,000 to 365,000 annually. 

19 Lake Washington Beach Spawning Populations. Washington Department of Fisheries et al. (1993) 

20 classed the Lake Washington beach-spawning sockeye population as depressed due to a long-term 

21 negative trend in escapement. 

22 Factors Limiting Natural Production 

23 The primary limiting factor on Baker River sockeye is the near absence of natural spawning habitat. 

24 This population is vulnerable to dam passage constraints, water quality problems and associated 

25 diseases in its rearing basin. Lake Washington sockeye runs are vulnerable to the effects of human 

26 population growth in the area. The hydrology of the Cedar River has been altered by diking throughout 

27 the majority of its length below the Landsburg Diversion Dam. 

28 Fishery Impacts in Puget Sound 

29 Baker River Sockeye. Because the migration of the Baker River sockeye run occurs well in advance of 

30 the more abundant Fraser River and other more northern sockeye runs, commercial net fisheries, at 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 75 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 least in the Strait of Juan de Fuca region, probably have little impact on this run. Relatively small 

2 numbers (from less than 40 per week in late August to as many as 1,490 per week in mid-September 

3 between 1996 and 2001) of sockeye salmon are taken in the early weeks of the Bellingham Bay and 

4 Samish Bay chinook-directed fisheries, but the origin of these fish is unknown (Washington 

5 Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 2002). Sockeye salmon are rarely taken in marine sport 

6 fisheries in Washington, including those directed at chinook. 

7 Lake Washington Sockeye. Sport and tribal commercial sockeye fisheries in Lake Washington have 

8 occurred sporadically in recent years, when run size is expected to exceed the escapement goal of 

9 350,000. The sport fishery in Lake Washington attracts high angler effort when the season does open, 

10 and the allowable catch is taken within a few days or weeks. Impacts of marine salmon fisheries on 

11 Lake Washington sockeye salmon populations have only recently been estimated by the Fraser Panel 

12 Technical Committee. Because the migration of this run occurs well in advance of the more abundant 

13 summer- and late-run Fraser River stocks, commercial net fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca have 

14 measurable impact on Lake Washington sockeye when they target early Fraser River stocks. 

15 3.3.2.3 Washington Coastal Chinook and Unlisted Columbia River Chinook 

16 Unlisted Columbia River Chinook 

17 There are two unlisted Columbia River chinook ESUs, the mid-Columbia spring-run ESU and the 

18 upper-Columbia summer-fall run ESU. Fish from these ESUs are rarely taken in Puget Sound fisheries. 

19 Based on coded-wire tag recoveries of upper Columbia summer-fall chinook, approximately 0.2 

20 percent of fishery mortalities occurred in Puget Sound fisheries, mostly in the Marine Catch Area 4B 

21 treaty troll fishery and other fisheries in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca. Coded-wire tag recoveries 

22 also show that less than 0.1 percent of fishing mortalities on the mid-Columbia River spring ESU occur 

23 in Puget Sound. 

24 Coastal Populations

25 Chinook from the Washington coastal ESU are taken somewhat more frequently in Puget Sound 

26 fisheries than Columbia River chinook. Coded-wire tag-data show that approximately 3 percent of 

27 fishing mortality on this ESU takes place in Puget Sound fisheries (Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

28 Commission, January 2003). 

29 Chinook from the Oregon Coastal Natural Coho ESU are very rarely encountered in the Puget Sound 

30 Action Area. For the period 1991 through 2000, recoveries of coded-wire tagged chinook from 

31 indicator populations in the Northern Oregon Coastal ESU accounted for less than one-half of one 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 76 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 percent of tags recovered from this ESU (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, December 

2 2002). 

3 3.3.2.4 Puget Sound Chum Salmon (Unlisted) 

4 Washington Department of Fisheries et al. (1993) identified 45 fall chum populations in Puget Sound, 

5 including nine in the northern area (Canada-Washington border to Stillaguamish), 30 in the southern 

6 area (Snohomish watershed south and Hood Canal), and six in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The status 

7 was unknown for 13 of these populations and healthy for all others. 

8 Total estimated run size for Puget Sound fall chum averaged slightly more than 1.0 million from 1968 

9 through 1999, and just fewer than 1.5 million from 1991 through 1999. During the former period, run 

10 sizes have fluctuated from a low of 156,000 to more than 2.4 million fish. The long-term trend has been 

11 upward since the late 1960s. Thirty-seven percent of the total run originates in Hood Canal, 33 percent 

12 in South Puget Sound, 29 percent in North Puget Sound, and 1 percent in the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

13 (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Chum Salmon Web Site). 

14 Chum salmon from Washington appear to migrate northward along the coast along a path closer to 

15 shore than coho, chinook or steelhead. Most chum mature at 3 to 5 years of age. A higher proportion of 

16 chum from Washington mature at Age 3 than do those from more northerly areas. Because the peak of 

17 the mature chum salmon migration in Puget Sound (October-November) occurs later than that for 

18 chinook (August-September), chum are infrequently taken in chinook-directed fisheries (approximately 

19 1 chum per 250 chinook between 1996 and 2001). Conversely, chinook are also rarely taken in 

20 fisheries targeting chum salmon (1 chinook per 476 chum between 1996 and 2001) (Washington 

21 Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 2002). 

22 From 1991 through 2000, an average of more than 5.1 million hatchery chum salmon per year were 

23 released into Puget Sound. Of these, approximately 91 percent were fall chum (i.e., generally spawning 

24 after mid-October), and 1 percent were winter chum (i.e., generally spawning prior to mid-October) 

25 (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, December 2002). 

26 3.3.2.5 Puget Sound Steelhead (O. mykiss)

27 After hatching, steelhead typically spend from 2 to 4 years in their natal stream before migrating to sea. 

28 The juvenile steelhead migration usually occurs from April to June. They then spend up to 3 years in 

29 salt water prior to spawning. Unlike other species of Oncorhynchus, some steelhead populations may 

30 spawn more than once. Steelhead typically live from 6 to 8 years. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 77 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The Puget Sound Steelhead ESU occupies river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and 

2 Hood Canal, Washington. Included are river basins as far west as the Elwha River and as far north as 

3 the Nooksack River. Puget Sound steelhead generally form a coherent group, distinct from populations 

4 elsewhere in Washington. 

5 The majority of steelhead populations in Puget Sound are winter-run, but summer-run steelhead are 

6 also present, usually in subbasins of large river systems and above seasonal hydrologic barriers. Winter 

7 run (also known as ocean-type) steelhead typically spend less time rearing in streams as juveniles than 

8 do summer-run (also known as stream-type). Most summer-run fish are found in the Skagit, 

9 Stillaguamish, and Skykomish River systems. Mature summer-run steelhead enter streams between 

10 May and October. Spawning occurs anywhere from December to April of the following year. In the 

11 Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish systems, winter-run steelhead may enter their streams as early as 

12 mid-October. In contrast, winter-run steelhead enter rivers and streams in the Lake Washington basin, 

13 South Sound, and Hood Canal, beginning in November or December, and the peak of spawning occurs 

14 between March and May of the following year (Busby et al. 1996). 

15 Total run size for Puget Sound steelhead in the early 1980s can be calculated from estimates in Light 

16 (1987) as approximately 100,000 winter steelhead and 20,000 summer steelhead. Light provided no 

17 estimate of hatchery proportions specific to Puget Sound streams, but for Puget Sound and coastal 

18 Washington combined, he estimated that 70 percent of steelhead in ocean runs were of hatchery origin. 

19 The percentage in escapement to spawning grounds would be substantially lower due to differential 

20 harvest and hatchery rack returns. 

21 Washington Department of Fisheries et al. (1993) identified 53 stocks within the Puget Sound 

22 Steelhead ESU, of which 31 were considered to be of native origin and predominantly natural 

23 production. Their assessment of these 31 stocks was: 11 healthy, 3 depressed, 1 critical, and 16 

24 unknown. Their assessment of the remaining (not native/natural) stocks was 3 healthy, 11 depressed, 

25 and 8 unknown. 

26 Recent 5-year average natural escapements for streams with adequate data range from less than 100 to 

27 7,200, with corresponding total run sizes of 550 to 19,800. Total recent run size for major stocks in the 

28 Puget Sound Steelhead ESU was more than 45,000, with total natural escapement of about 22,000. 

29 Johnson et al. (1996) concluded that steelhead stocks in the Puget Sound ESU were probably naturally 

30 self-sustaining, but noted there was concern about summer steelhead stocks that are typically small, 

31 occupy limited habitat, and in most cases are subject to introgression by hatchery fish. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 78 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Washington has maintained an extensive hatchery program for steelhead for several decades. From 

2 1990 through 2001, 2.3 million hatchery-reared steelhead smolts were released in Puget Sound, of 

3 which 80 percent were winter-run. Thirty-seven percent of these smolts were released in the 

4 Stillaguamish and Snohomish basins, 28 percent in mid-Puget Sound streams, 20 percent in the Skagit 

5 system, 8 percent in southern Puget Sound streams, 4 percent in the Nooksack River, and 3 percent in 

6 Hood Canal (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, December 2002). The hatchery program is 

7 intended to augment natural production, and harvest rates on hatchery stocks are typically high (Busby 

8 et al. 1996). 

9 Steelhead sport fishing is very popular in Washington. The most recent (1999 to 2000) annual sport 

10 steelhead catch in Puget Sound rivers was approximately 11,000 fish. Two river systems, the 

11 Snohomish and Stillaguamish, accounted for more than half of this catch (Washington Department of 

12 Fish and Wildlife 2002). In the late 1970s, the Washington Department of Wildlife began requiring 

13 anglers to release steelhead from naturally-spawning parents. 

14 Tribal fishermen also take steelhead in commercial, ceremonial and subsistence fisheries, primarily 

15 with set nets. The tribal steelhead catch within the Puget Sound Action Area averaged approximately 

16 3,600 fish annually from 1991 through 2001 (personal communication with Will Beattie, Conservation 

17 Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, December 2002). 

18 Steelhead are rarely taken in ocean or Puget Sound marine commercial fisheries (NMFS 2000). They 

19 are occasionally taken in near-terminal fisheries or in-river fisheries targeting chinook. However, 

20 because nearly all (98%) of terminal-area commercial chinook landings occur before October, there is 

21 little overlap with migration of winter-run steelhead. Some overlap occurs between summer-run 

22 steelhead and chinook in August and September. Tribal landings data show an average of 91 steelhead 

23 taken in these two months combined between 1990 and 2001 (Washington Department of Fish and 

24 Wildlife commercial fisheries landing data provided by Lee Hoines, Washington Department of Fish 

25 and Wildlife 2002). Steelhead may occasionally be taken by anglers targeting chinook salmon in river 

26 fisheries. 

27 3.3.2.6 Puget Sound Pink Salmon (O. gorbuscha) 

28 Pink salmon mature at the smallest average size of any species of Pacific salmon. Their spawning 

29 distribution ranges from Puget Sound to Norton Sound, Alaska, in North America, and from North 

30 Korea Anadyr Gulf, Russia, in Asia (Heard 1991 and Mathisen 1994). Between 70 and 80 percent of 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 79 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the Washington pink salmon spawning escapement occurs in North Puget Sound (Washington 

2 Department of Fisheries et al. 1993; and Big Eagle & Associates and LGL, Ltd. 1995). 

3 Pink salmon spawn during the late summer and fall in both large and small rivers, and tend to spawn 

4 closer to tidewater than other species of Pacific salmon − generally within 30 miles of a river mouth 

5 (Heard 1991, Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993). Fry migrate downstream primarily in 

6 March and April, although migration can extend into May. Puget Sound pink salmon appear to rear in 

7 nearshore areas for a few weeks to a few months, then move offshore. Some Puget Sound pink salmon, 

8 and possibly some from Hood Canal, spend their entire marine phase in the nearshore environment 

9 (Jewell 1966 and Heard 1991). 

10 Because essentially all pink salmon mature at 2 years of age, this species lacks variable age structure. 

11 Two broodlines (even- and odd-year) result from generations spawning in alternate years. Twelve odd12 year spawning populations have been identified in Washington: four in the Nooksack, Skagit, 

13 Stillaguamish, and Snohomish Rivers in North Puget Sound; two in South Puget Sound in the Puyallup 

14 and Nisqually Rivers; three in Hood Canal in the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosewalips Rivers; 

15 and three on the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the upper Dungeness, lower Dungeness, and Elwha Rivers. 

16 One even-year population in the Snohomish River has been identified (Hard et al. 1996). 

17 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducted a review of pink salmon ESUs in 1996. 

18 Available data suggested the even-year pink salmon population in the Snohomish River had been 

19 increasing since 1980. Most populations of Puget Sound odd-year pink salmon appear to be healthy, 

20 with overall abundance close to historical levels. The NMFS biological review team did express some 

21 concern about populations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca; however, they concluded that neither the Puget 

22 Sound even-year ESU nor the Puget Sound odd-year ESU warranted listing under the Endangered 

23 Species Act. Because the run timing of pink and chinook salmon in Puget Sound overlap considerably, 

24 pink salmon are taken in chinook-directed commercial fisheries. A review of commercial catch data for 

25 1997, 1999 and 2001, showed one pink salmon landed per every 2.4 chinook in areas where there were 

26 chinook-directed fisheries, primarily in Marine Catch Areas 7B (Bellingham Bay) and 8D (Tulalip) in 

27 September. Salmon anglers may also catch pink salmon while targeting chinook. In fact, when pink 

28 salmon presence coincides with chinook presence, pinks are much more frequent in the catch than are 

29 chinook. During the peak of the pink salmon run (August-September), approximately one chinook is 

30 landed per every 37 pink salmon (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 2002.) 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 80 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Relatively small numbers of pink salmon are reared in Puget Sound hatcheries. Approximately 3.0 

2 million pink salmon juveniles were released in each odd-year between 1990 and 2001 (Pacific States 

3 Marine Fisheries Commission, December 2002). 

4 3.3.3 Non-Salmonid Fishes (Groundfish) 

5 At least 80 species of groundfish occur in Puget Sound. Most common are flatfishes such as sole and 

6 flounders, rockfishes, surf perches, halibut, sculpins, spiny dogfish, lingcod and Pacific cod. In recent 

7 history, walleye pollock were also very abundant, but have declined markedly over the past two 

8 decades. Flatfish, which include Pacific sandabs, butter sole, Dover sole, sand sole, starry flounder and 

9 other species, currently make up the largest part of the catch (46%). Rockfish make up 30 percent of 

10 the catch, with most of this occurring on five species: copper, quillback, black, brown, and yellowtail 

11 constitute more than 90 percent of the rockfish catch. Surf perches account for approximately 10 

12 percent of the non-salmonid catch, Pacific halibut 2 percent, sculpins 2 percent, spiny dogfish 1 

13 percent, and lingcod 1 percent. Pacific cod, which, like walleye pollock were formerly abundant, are 

14 now rarely taken. 

15 Status of Puget Sound Groundfish Populations 

16 An assessment by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife classified 55 percent of groundfish 

17 stocks in South Puget Sound and 44 percent of stocks in North Puget Sound as being in poor condition 

18 (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team 2002). Pacific cod are in depressed or critical condition in 

19 most areas, as are walleye pollock and spiny dogfish in South Puget Sound. Lingcod and halibut stocks 

20 in most areas are at or above average levels. The status of rockfish species is considered depressed in 

21 both North and South Puget Sound. The status of flatfish stocks varies by area and species from critical 

22 to above average. 

23 In response to a petition to list Puget Sound rockfish as threatened under the federal Endangered 

24 Species Act (Wright 1999), NMFS conducted a status review of Puget Sound brown, copper and 

25 quillback rockfish, and concluded that ESA listing was not warranted. 

26 Trophic Interactions 

27 Groundfish are widely distributed, and are important components of most ecosystems where they 

28 occur. Larvae and juveniles of several species, including rockfishes, have significant trophic value in 

29 pelagic ecosystems as prey for a variety of fishes, including chinook salmon (Ralston 1990) and coho 

30 salmon (Healy 1980). Sub-adults and adults of many groundfish are important top predators and 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 81 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 competitors in nearshore benthic ecosystems, some species possibly having keystone roles in 

2 structuring biodiversity and promoting energy transfer in these systems. 

3 Incidental Catch of Groundfish Species in Chinook Fisheries 

4 Groundfish species, including rockfish and halibut, are frequently caught by anglers targeting chinook 

5 (or other salmon species) in Puget Sound. Based on data collected through creel surveys between 1986 

6 and 1999, Palsson estimated anglers targeting salmon in Puget Sound caught 0.65 groundfish, including 

7 0.05 rockfish per angler trip. Incidental groundfish catch varied by marine catch area from a high of 

8 2.09 per angler trip in Marine Catch Area 5 (Sekiu-Pillar Point), to a low of 0.024 per angler trip in 

9 Marine Catch Area 11 (Tacoma-Vashon) (personal communication via e-mail from Wayne Palsson, 

10 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 2002). Groundfish species commonly taken 

11 other than rockfish include pollock, dogfish, Pacific cod, lingcod, and ratfish. Halibut are infrequently 

12 caught by anglers targeting salmon (personal communication with Greg Bargmann, Washington 

13 Department of Fish and Wildlife, January 2003). 

14 Commercial net fishers targeting salmon may inadvertently take groundfish species. However, this is 

15 typically disruptive of their salmon fishing, and is therefore avoided to the extent possible. With few 

16 exceptions, groundfish catches are not landed and not reported. 

17 3.3.4 Forage Species (Pacific Herring, Sandlance, Smelt) 

18 Forage fish are so-called because they are an important part of the food chain of other fishes (including 

19 chinook salmon), seabirds, and mammals. Changes in the abundance of forage fish can have impacts on 

20 other species. The base of prey supporting fish-eating species in Puget Sound primarily consists of 

21 herring, sandlance, smelt, juvenile hake and juvenile pollock (West 1997). Puget Sound is typical of 

22 many marine environments that contain a large number of lower trophic-level species such as plankton; 

23 a substantial number of higher trophic-level species such as larger fish, seabirds and mammals; and 

24 relatively few intermediate trophic-level species such as small pelagic fish (Washington Department of 

25 Fish and Wildlife Forage Fish Management Plan). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

26 has established a Priority Habitats and Species List to identify species and habitats of special concern. 

27 Pacific herring, surf smelt and Pacific sandlance are included on this list. Washington Administrative 

28 Code (WAC) 220-110-250 established saltwater habitats of special concern including smelt, herring 

29 and sandlance spawning beds. Construction projects may be prohibited or conditioned in these areas 

30 during certain times of the year (Washington Administrative Code 220-110-217) (Washington 

31 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Forage Fish Management Plan). NMFS conducted a Pacific herring 

32 status review in response to a petition to list this species. The review team concluded that the distinct 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 82 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 population segment represented by stocks in the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound was not at risk of 

2 extinction, nor likely to become so. However, most members expressed concern that they could not 

3 entirely rule out the possibility that the Georgia Basin (Puget Sound) population segment at present is 

4 likely to become in danger of extinction (Stout et al. 2001). 

5 3.3.5 Fish Habitat Affected by Salmon Fishing 

6 Habitat Types Affected 

7 Fish habitat potentially affected by salmon fishing within the Puget Sound Action Area includes 

8 benthic substrate and associated plant and animal communities in marine areas where gillnets, purse 

9 seines and beach seines are used, especially in shallower areas or areas of eelgrass beds. Spawning and 

10 riparian rearing habitat may be affected by in-river fisheries, by wading fishermen, the wakes of fishing 

11 craft, or other mechanical disturbances. 

12 Gear Types with Detectable Habitat Impacts 

13 The most common habitat impact that may result from actively-fished gear would be scouring of the 

14 seabed or river bottom by the weighted line at the bottom of gillnets, purse seines and beach seines. 

15 While this undoubtedly occurs in many areas, fishermen endeavor to avoid entanglement and abrasion 

16 to their fishing gear by minimizing bottom contact. While local effects may be observable, it is unlikely 

17 that impacts are detectable on a broad scale. 

18 Derelict Fishing Gear 

19 Fishing gear in all types of salmon fisheries is lost as a result of entanglement with bottom structures, 

20 logs and debris, or because of storms, flood events and other occurrences. While lost fishing gear is 

21 most commonly associated with marine fisheries, river set-nets are also lost. Salmon, other fishes, 

22 seabirds, mammals and other animals may become entangled in derelict nets or entangle in or ingest

23 monofilament fishing line. Gillnets, in particular, pose a problem as the netsLost nets lying on the 

24 seabed continue to entangle fish or other species long after they are lost or abandoned. Submerged 

25 gillnets typically drift until they become entangled on submerged features or structures where they may 

26 impact bottom-dwelling organisms (personal communication via e-mail from Jeffrey June, Natural 

27 Resources Consultants, November 2002). Palsson reported recent investigations that suggest the direct 

28 and indirect effects of lost fishing gear likely outweigh the negative effects that may occur from contact 

29 with bottom habitat or the incidental entanglement of fishes, mammals or birds during actual fisheries 

30 (personal communication from Wayne Palsson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

31 November 2002). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 83 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 All types of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear can present safety, liability, nuisance and 

2 environmental impact issues in marine waters. Identification, location and safe removal of derelict 

3 fishing gear can reduce these impacts. The Northwest Straits Commission (NWSC) recently teamed 

4 with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to address the issue of derelict 

5 fishing gear in north Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The result of this project is a 

6 comprehensive program to safely remove derelict fishing gear from the marine environment in an 

7 environmentally-acceptable manner. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has recently 

8 published guidelines for derelict fishing gear removal in Washington marine waters based on the 

9 NOAA/NWSC project.

10 In 2004, the Greystone Foundation provided funding to the Northwest Straits Foundation to conduct 

11 derelict fishing gear removal in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the San Juan Islands. Natural Resources 

12 Consultants, Inc. was contracted to manage the derelict fishing gear removal project. The removal 

13 operations were coordinated with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clallam County, 

14 San Juan County, tribal governments, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Northwest Refuge 

15 Program.

16 This project focused on the removal of derelict nets and crab pots in Port Angeles, Dungeness Bay, 

17 Sequim Bay, and off Lopez Island. The removal project was divided into two phases with Phase 1 

18 targeting derelict crab pots detected during a sidescan sonar survey in late June/early July 2003, in Port 

19 Angeles, Dungeness Bay and Sequim Bay. Phase 2 operations targeted derelict nets detected in January 

20 2004, by commercial sea urchin and sea cucumber divers off the south end of Lopez Island. Natural 

21 Resource Consultants is beginning to remove derelict gear in other Puget Sound areas as well, using the 

22 protocols developed with the NWSC (Seattle Times 2004).

23 A total of 65 crab pots, two crab rings, 1 octopus tire trap, 45 gillnets, and one purse seine net was 

24 removed in this project. The total area covered by all of the nets removed was calculated to be 526,000 

25 square feet, or about 12.1 acres. However, this is likely an overestimate of the actual seabed area 

26 impacted since in many cases the nets were overlapping one another. The removed nets weighed 

27 approximately 5,000 lbs. The derelict gillnets encountered were generally still capable of entanglement 

28 and mortality of marine mammals, seabirds, fish and invertebrates, and likely presented a hazard to 

29 divers and vessel navigation. In the 46 nets encountered, 23 dead and 2 live but entangled fish 

30 (including 2 dead salmonids) were recorded from the recovered nets. Divers reported few, if any, 

31 rockfish visible in the areas with nets, contrasting to adjacent areas without nets where a greater 

32 number and diversity of fish and invertebrates were observed. These results are too recent (April 5, 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 84 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 2004) for rigorous estimates of cumulative impacts to populations of fish and benthic organisms to be 

2 available.

3 Of the 41 nets removed from the seabed off Lopez Island, 25 (61%) appeared to be gillnets lost 

4 relatively recently (within the past several years), evidenced by a general lack of biological growth and 

5 the overall condition and strength of the netting material. The other 16 nets appeared much older, were 

6 heavily over-grown, and generally appeared to have been submerged for some extended time. Divers 

7 reported that 27 of the 41 nets removed (66%) had at least some portion of the net surface in 

8 suspension in the water column, either due to entanglement with high-relief rocky substrate or due to 

9 drifting free off a pinnacle or reef edge. The other 14 nets were lying relatively flat against the seabed 

10 without suspensions.

11 Of the 41 nets removed, 29 (71%) were removed from high-relief rocky substrate compared with 12

12 nets (29%) removed from low relief rock, sand or gravel substrate. Generally, newer nets, with 

13 suspension, on high-relief rocky bottom (18 nets met this subjective criteria) were found to have a 

14 greater diversity of species (11 species groups) and number of individual animals entangled and killed 

15 (45) than older nets, lying prone on low-relief rocky substrate (5 nets with 2 species and 2 animals). 

16 However, the sample size and methodology employed did not allow for statistical testing of this 

17 observation. Divers reported that most of the derelict nets were blocking access to important habitat 

18 features such as reef ledges and spaces under and around boulders.

19 Hook and Line Angling and Effects of Stream Wading 

20 Anglers frequently lose terminal tackle in river salmon and steelhead fisheries when their weights 

21 become stuck or tangled. Because many artificial baits used in these fisheries are buoyant, they float 

22 above bottom where they may continue to attract (and hook) fish. 

23 Trampling of spawning redds during stream wading has the potential to cause high mortality of 

24 salmonids. Most information on redd disturbance is anecdotal; however, one study observed 46 to 49 

25 percent mortality of alevins with only one or two passes by wading anglers per day. The extent or 

26 cumulative effect of this type of damage is not known (Roberts and White 1992). 

27 Studies in Alaska and New Zealand have found that in shallow water where boat use is frequent, 

28 developing salmon eggs and alevins in the gravel can suffer high mortalities (Horton 1994; Sutherland 

29 and Ogle 1975). Fishery managers sometimes try to ameliorate these potential effects by closing 

30 important spawning reaches to boating or wading (Pacific Fisheries Management Council 1999, 

31 Appendix A). Ongoing studies on Alaska’s Kenai River (where angler trips exceed 300,000 per year) 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 85 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 have focused on the impact of boats and shore anglers on key riparian rearing habitat for juvenile 

2 chinook. The studies have found a relationship between shore angler use, a decrease in riparian plant 

3 diversity, and bank erosion. The same studies have also found an increase in bank erosion in those 

4 areas of the river with high power boat use (King 2002). 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 86 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.3.6 Marine-Derived Nutrients from Salmon Spawners 

2 Pacific salmon accumulate almost all of their body mass while in the marine environment (Groot and 

3 Margolis 1991). When they return to the streams where they were born, to spawn, adult salmon deliver 

4 a substantial quantity of marine-derived nutrients to freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems,. This 

5 provides as a direct food source for juvenile or and resident salmonids, aquaticand invertebrates, and 

6 terrestrial animals, and as their decomposition supplies basic nutrients to the ecosystem (Larkin and 

7 Slaney 1996; Gresh et al. 2000; Murota 2002; and Wipfli et al. 1998). 

8 Stream biological communities incorporate salmon-derived nutrients through three primary pathways: 

9 1) animals and other organisms consume plants, insects and other primary producers that directly feed 

10 on or derive nutrients from salmon carcasses and eggs; 2) bacteria, algae and other streambed 

11 microfauna consume dissolved organic matter released by salmon carcasses; and 3) animals, juvenile 

12 fish, insects and other organisms directly consume salmon carcasses, eggs and fry (Cederholm et al. 

13 1999; and Bilby et al. 1998). High flow or predation, and scavenging by birds and mammals 

14 (Cederholm et al. 1989; and Ben-David et al. 1998) can deliver salmon-derived nutrients to areas 

15 adjacent to and upland from streams in which salmon spawn (Cederholm et al. 2000; Garten 1993; 

16 Wilson and Halupka 1995; Helfield and Naiman 2001; Hocking and Reimchen 2002; and Reimchen et 

17 al. 20032). 

18 Nutrient recycling by salmon is particularly important in nutrient-limited river and lake systems in the 

19 Pacific Northwest. Addition of nutrients to freshwater systems, in the form of carcasses or inorganic 

20 fertilizer, can influence biological community structure and increase stream productivity at several 

21 levels of the freshwater food chain (Kline et al. 1990; Piorkowski 1995; and Quamme and Slaney 

22 2002; Stockner 2003). Addition of nitrogen and phosphorous during lake enrichment programs has 

23 elevated primary production and increased rearing capacity, for juvenile sockeye salmon in lake 

24 systems (Hyatt and Stockner 1985; Johnston et al. 1990; Kyle et al. 1997; and Bradford et al. 2000). In 

25 river systems, biological benefits of nutrient recycling may also include increased growth and density 

26 of juvenile salmonid populations (Johnston et al. 1990; Bradford et al. 2000; and Ward and Slaney 

27 2002). In turn, increased fish size may result in higher survival of juvenile coho salmon (Bell 2001; 

28 Brakensiek 2002; Hartman and Scrivener 1990; Johnston et al. 1990; Quinn and Peterson 1996; and 

29 Holtby 1988) and steelhead (Ward and Slaney 1988; Hager and Noble 1976; and Bilton et al. 1982). 

30 Preliminary results of research being conducted in Idaho on stream-type chinook suggest that carrying 

31 capacity is better correlated to nutrient loading from the parent generation than to physical measures of 

32 habitat (Achord et al. 2003).
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 87 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The response observed in Keogh River, British Columbia, experiments (Slaney et al. 2003; Ward et al. 

2 2003; Wilson 2003), and Snow/Salmon Creek chum/coho interactions show that modest increases in 

3 nutrient levels exert a strong influence on the production of some species of stream-rearing anadromous 

4 salmonids.

5 Emergent chinook fry may feed directly on the carcasses of late-spawning chum and steelhead, but the 

6 benefits of marine-derived nutrients for juvenile chinook salmon may be more fully realized in 

7 estuaries (Simenstad 1997), where most chinook rear for a critical period prior to migrating seaward. 

8 However, little is currently known about the roles of marine-derived nutrients in estuaries. In some 

9 instances, the eutrophication of estuaries associated with surface water runoff is negatively affecting 

10 fish habitat and survival. The influence of additional marine-derived nutrients on these systems is 

11 uncertain.

12 Each watershed needs to be examined to determine the temporal and spatial aspects of spawner and 

13 juvenile fish distribution. The same can be said for the direct benefits spawning salmon provide to birds 

14 and terrestrial mammals. All of these factors must be evaluated in order to understand likely pathways 

15 of consumption. It is also necessary to understand the mechanisms of nutrient storage and release, as 

16 well as other biotic and physical factors that affect survival. Storage within the epilithic layer, storage 

17 within plants that access hyporheic zone nutrients, and other sites of nutrient storage and release must 

18 be understood in order to maintain ecosystem health. High stream flow during the incubation period is 

19 significantly correlated with egg-to-smolt survival in the Skagit River and Cedar River (Seiler et al 

20 1999). Also, degraded stream and estuarine rearing habitat reduces smolt survival in many Puget Sound 

21 systems (Stillaguamish Technical Advisory Group 2000; WDFW and Puyallup Tribe 2000).

22 Salmon carcasses and eggs have been shown to be an important food source for sockeye salmon, 

23 steelhead trout, cutthroat trout and coho salmon; and appear to benefit stream-resident chinook (Bilby 

24 et al. 1996; Gustafson and Winans 1999; Helfield and Naiman 2001; Kline et al. 1990; Michael 2004; 

25 Piorkowski 1995; and Winter et al. 2000); and may play a critical role when other food items are less 

26 available. Bull trout are known to be significant predators of salmon carcasses and eggs in many Puget 

27 Sound streams. It has also been shown that terrestrial mammals and birds, such as bears (Hildebrand et 

28 al. 1999) and bald eagles, receive direct benefits from salmon carcasses (Cederholm et al. 1989). More 

29 than 138 species have been documented as having a direct or indirect dependence on spawning salmon 

30 or gametes (Cederholm et al. 2000).

31 Direct consumption of salmon carcasses and nutrient contribution is dependent on their retention time 

32 in streams, and so may vary annually due to the intensity of water flow, the size of river systems, type 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 88 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 of habitat, amount of large-woody debris in the river, and the species of salmon (Cederholm and 

2 Peterson 1985; Cederholm et al. 1989; Glock et al. 1980; and Michael 1995).

3 Spatial and temporal variations in presence of carcasses also affect their level of benefit to other 

4 species. Benefits to juvenile steelhead and coho documented by Bilby et al. (1998) were provided by 

5 spawning coho in headwater streams. These benefits would not be delivered by lower-river spawning 

pink, chum, or chinook. However, stream-type chinookvi 6 , as more headwater oriented spawners, could 

7 play a role similar to coho spawners in the delivery of nutrients to upstream areas. On the other hand, 

8 benefits provided by ocean-type spawning chinook could also be provided by pink salmon, since the 

9 two species spawn at essentially the same time in many of the same areas.

10 Further, a run of fish that spawns after bears enter hibernation, or do not reach the area where bears 

11 live, would not contribute to bear diet regardless of carcass abundance. Similarly, wintering bald 

12 eagles, which typically arrive in November, would not make use of carcasses available in September.

13 Salmon carcasses and eggs are also an important food source for freshwater salmon and trout 

14 communities (Bilby et al. 1996; Helfield and Naiman 2001; Kline et al. 1990; Piorkowski 1995; and 

15 Winter et al. 2000), and may play a critical role when other food items are less available. A study by 

16 Cederholm et al. (1989) also revealed significant predation on salmon carcasses by mammals and birds. 

17 Cederholm et al. (2000) also documented more than 138 species having a strong positive life-history 

18 relationship to Pacific salmon.

19 However, results of these studies do not universally indicate the degree of importance or pathways of 

20 marine-derived nutrientsThe degree of importance of marine-derived nutrients across different 

21 freshwater systems . These are dependentdepends on the characteristics of the freshwater river systems 

22 themselves. For example, Bilby et al. (1996) stress the importance of chemical absorption of nutrients 

23 in headwater streams in the Pacific Northwest, typically preferred for spawning by adult coho salmon 

24 (Sandercock 1991), where primary production is limited during winter due to cold temperatures, low 

25 light levels, and frequent scouring by high flow events. On the other hand, Piorkowski (1995) found 

26 that although salmon carcasses and eggs were an important food source for salmon and trout juveniles, 

27 consumption by plants, insects and other primary producers was insignificant. He attributed the 

28 differences between his findings and others to 1) the size of the stream relative to the size of the salmon 

 

vi The majority of Puget Sound chinook salmon are ocean-type chinook, migrating to marine water soon after 

emergence.
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 89 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 run; and 2) the intensity of precipitation that flushed nutrients from the system. Therefore, although 

2 research to-date provides evidence of the role of salmon-derived nutrients in ecosystem function, this 

3 complex relationship remains poorly understood. 

4 Research on salmon and marine-derived nutrients frequently implies that current harvest management 

5 strategies risk further decline or prevent recovery of salmon populations (Michael 1995 and 1998). 

6 Specifically, this research implies that spawning escapements realized under current harvest objectives 

7 are inadequate to provide the nutrient input necessary for ecosystem function. Many studies assert that 

8 declining salmon abundance and escapement currently exacerbate nutrient limitation in many systems. 

9 Gresh et al. (2000) estimated that the current contribution of marine-derived nutrients from adult 

10 Pacific salmon to rivers in the Pacific Northwest is as low as 6 to 7 percent of historic levels, and that 

11 the resulting nutrient deficit could be exacerbating continued declines in salmon abundance or 

12 impeding recovery.

13 In many river systems throughout the Pacific Northwest, returns of chum and pink salmon comprise the 

14 majority of spawner biomass. These species typically spawn in the lower portion of stream and river 

15 systems, implying that chum and pink salmon contribute substantial inputs of marine-derived nutrients 

16 to environments used by ocean-type juvenile chinook salmon. However, analyses of the Skagit system 

17 have not demonstrated a causal relationship between the spawning escapement of pink, chum, or coho

18 salmon, and the size or abundance of coho or chinook salmon smolts (R. Hayman 1999). The strong 

19 influence of incubation period flow on chinook smolt production (Seiler et al. 2003) indicates a limiting 

20 effect on egg or alevin survival, so their current productivity may not be nutrient-limited.

21 Harvest management planning objectives, and the implementation of annual fishing regimes, are 

22 principal determinants of the levels of natural spawning escapement achieved for all salmon species, 

23 and therefore influence nutrient loading in each system. However, chinook harvest management plans 

24 only directly affect chinook escapement (not total population size or productivity), which even under 

25 zero harvest is unlikely to provide more than 5 percent of the carcass nutrient loading when the 

26 contribution of other salmon species is taken into account. Furthermore, with the huge increase in 

27 spawning escapements of pink and chum in recent years, Puget Sound presents opportunities for in situ

28 observations of the effects of marine-derived nutrients on overall salmonid productivity. These 

29 situations merit close monitoring to determine whether relationships can be quantified.research has not 

30 advanced to the point of quantifying threshold nutrient loading levels associated with adult salmon 

31 necessary to support ecosystem function and optimize the survival of post-emergent juvenile salmon.
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 90 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Mesocosm studies by Wipfli et al. (2003) showed a stream-rock-insect-fish system was capable of 

absorbing at least 1.9 kg/m2 (4.2 lbs/1.2 yd2 2 ) of carcass biomass, with resultant increases in fish growth. 

3 Bilby et al. (2001) found that the ability of coho juveniles to capture nitrogen delivered by spawning 

4 coho increased with increasing coho carcass abundance up to an asymptote of about 0.004 pounds per 

5 square foot, above which marine nutrients in juvenile coho salmon rapidly approached a saturation 

6 level. For a small stream (approximately 15 feet wide), this would translate into about 190 4-kg coho 

7 per linear kilometer of stream (approximately 300 fish in a mile of the same stream). Based upon 

8 spawner escapement data and research findings, the authors concluded that the majority of coho salmon 

9 spawning streams in western Washington are well below capacity for incorporating nutrients delivered 

10 by spawning coho into juvenile coho rearing in that stream. Fertilization experiments carried out on the 

11 Keogh River loaded the system, in years when pinks spawned and fertilizer was added, with the 

equivalent of about 0.63-kg/m2 of carcasses (1.4 pounds/1.2 yd2 12 ). These values can serve as 

13 benchmarks against which current biomass loadings can be compared. 

14 From a purely scientific perspective, however, there are limitations to wide application of results from 

15 this work (many of which the researchers acknowledge). First, study sites were purposely chosen to 

16 meet the purposes of each study. For example, Bilby et al. (1996) only include areas with spawning 

17 coho salmon and returns of no other anadromous salmonid species. This implies that results may only 

18 be applicable in such areas, and raises questions whether marine nutrient dynamics would be similar in 

19 systems with returning runs of multiple salmon species. The temporal distribution of spawning by 

20 numerous species of salmon can mean prolonged input of marine-derived nutrients, which may be 

21 more effectively incorporated within a system (due to nutrient flushing) at a lower density of spawners 

22 for a given species. 

23 Second, juvenile coho salmon alone are probably not an appropriate indicator for determining whether 

24 productivity in a system is nutrient-limited (Simberloff 1998). Salmon-derived nutrients found in 

25 juvenile coho salmon have been primarily attributed to direct consumption of salmon carcasses and 

26 eggs. If this is indeed the primary mechanism for nutrient uptake, then juvenile coho salmon are less 

27 revealing of other pathways for incorporation and trophic distribution of marine-derived nutrients 

28 within a system. 

29 Third, uncertainty remains as to whether increasing the input of salmon-derived nutrients to river 

30 systems will subsequently result in higher returns of adult salmon.

31 Overall, the role of salmon-derived nutrients in ecosystem function isNutrient dynamics in aquatic 

32 systems are complex (Northcote 1988; Polis et al. 1997; Bisson and Bilby 1998; Murphy 1998; and 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 91 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Naiman et al. 2000), and depend on numerous site-specific factors including the species of salmon, 

2 spawning density and location, stream discharge regimes, stream habitat complexity, basin geology, 

3 light, temperature and community structure. In particular, the role of adult chinook in this regard must 

4 be examined in the context of 1) the limitations of current research, and 2) chinook life history and 

5 abundance (i.e., escapement) relative to the much higher escapement of coho, pink, and chum salmon 

6 in the large river systems that support chinook populations. At the time of this writing, there is no 

7 published research that quantifies the relationship between marine-derived nutrients and the 

8 productivity of ocean-type chinook salmon, the primary life-history type for Puget Sound chinook. 

9 Ocean-type chinook exhibit relatively short freshwater residence compared to coho, sockeye and 

10 steelhead salmon. The latter species are the focus of most marine-derived nutrients studies. It is not 

11 known whether newly-emerged chinook salmon fry actively feed on chum and steelhead salmon 

12 carcasses and eggs, or if carcasses of other species are retained for a sufficient period of time to enable 

13 their direct consumption, especially in large river systems with peak winter flow events, although it is 

14 possible.

15 The relative contribution by adult returns of all salmon species must be evaluated in terms of benefits 

16 to salmon and other animal populations, as well as to overall ecosystem function. For direct application 

17 in salmon harvest management, it is important to consider the temporal and spatial distribution of 

18 salmon spawners, as well as other physical, biological and environmental variables, on a stream19 specific basis in order to determine the optimal density of carcasses by species. Recent high 

20 escapements of pink, coho and chum salmon afford managers and researchers abundant opportunities 

21 to pursue these investigations.

22 While it appears that salmon-derived nutrients can benefit sockeye salmon, cutthroat trout and coho 

23 salmon populations, at this time there are no research publications that directly establish the 

24 relationship between marine-derived nutrients and chinook salmon. Chinook populations in Puget 

25 Sound primarily exhibit an ocean-type life history, with relatively short freshwater residence compared 

26 to coho, sockeye and steelhead salmon. The latter species are the focus of most marine-derived 

27 nutrients studies. It is not known whether newly-emerged chinook salmon fry actively feed on salmon 

28 carcasses and eggs, or if carcasses are retained for a sufficient period of time to allow direct 

29 consumption, especially in large river systems with peak winter flow events.

30 Bilby et al. (2001) found that enrichment levels increased with increasing coho carcass abundance. 

31 However, the relationship also revealed a point of diminishing enrichment above carcass abundance 

32 levels of 0.004 pounds per square foot (approximately 310 fish per square mile), above which marine 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 92 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 nutrients in juvenile coho salmon rapidly approached a saturation level. Based upon spawner 

2 escapement data and research findings, the authors concluded that the majority of coho salmon 

3 spawning in western Washington streams are well below capacity for incorporating more marine4 derived nutrients. From a purely scientific perspective, however, there are limitations to wide 

5 application of results from this work (many of which the researchers acknowledge). First, study sites 

6 were purposely chosen to only include areas with spawning coho salmon and returns of no other 

7 anadromous salmonid species. This implies that results may only be applicable in such areas, and 

8 questions whether marine nutrient dynamics would be similar in systems with returning runs of 

9 multiple salmon species. The temporal distribution of spawning by numerous species of salmon can 

10 mean prolonged input of marine-derived nutrients, which may be more effectively incorporated within 

11 a system (due to nutrient flushing) at a lower density of spawners for a given species. Second, juvenile 

12 coho salmon alone are probably not an appropriate indicator for determining whether productivity in a 

13 system is nutrient-limited (Simberloff 1998). The nutrients attributable to salmon carcass deposition 

14 found in juvenile coho salmon has been primarily attributed to direct consumption of salmon carcasses 

15 and eggs. If this is indeed the primary mechanism for nutrient uptake, then juvenile coho salmon are 

16 less revealing of other pathways for incorporation and trophic distribution of marine-derived nutrients 

17 within a system. Third, uncertainty remains as to whether increasing the input of salmon-derived 

18 nutrients to river systems will subsequently result in higher returns of adult salmon.

19 While it appears that salmon-derived nutrients can benefit sockeye salmon, cutthroat trout and coho 

20 salmon populations, at this time there are no research publications that directly establish the

21 relationship between marine-derived nutrients and chinook salmon. Chinook populations in Puget 

22 Sound primarily exhibit an ocean-type life history, with relatively short freshwater residence compared 

23 to coho, sockeye and steelhead salmon. The latter species are the focus of most marine-derived 

24 nutrients studies. It is not known whether newly-emerged chinook salmon fry actively feed on salmon 

25 carcasses and eggs, or if carcasses are retained for a sufficient period of time to allow direct 

26 consumption, especially in large river systems with peak winter flow events. Freshwater survival, 

27 through the egg-to-smolt phases, is undoubtedly constrained by other biotic and physical factors. For 

28 example, high streamflow during the incubation period is significantly correlated with egg-to-smolt 

29 survival in the Skagit River and Cedar River (Seiler et al 1999). Degraded stream and estuarine rearing 

30 habitat reduces smolt survival in many Puget Sound systems (Stillaguamish Technical Advisory Group 

31 2000; WDFW and Puyallup Tribe 2000). The benefits of marine-derived nutrients for juvenile chinook 

32 salmon may be more fully realized in estuaries (Simenstad 1997), where most chinook rear for a 

33 critical period prior to migrating seaward. However, little is currently known about the roles of marine-
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 93 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 derived nutrients in estuaries. In addition, in some instances the eutrophication of estuaries associated 

2 with agricultural and urban runoff may be negatively affecting fish habitat and survival.

3 Finally, in many river systems throughout the Pacific Northwest, returns of chum and pink salmon 

4 comprise the majority of spawner biomass. These species typically spawn in the lower portion of 

5 stream and river systems. This implies that chum and pink salmon contribute substantial inputs of 

6 marine-derived nutrients to environments used by ocean-type juvenile chinook salmon. Whether 

7 survival of juvenile chinook salmon is limited by nutrient deficiencies needs to be evaluated in a multi8 species context. Furthermore, the relative contribution by adult returns of different salmon species to 

9 both ecosystem function and salmon populations with unique life-history strategies needs to be more 

10 fully recognized. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that carcass nutrient limitation, as it may 

11 affect secondary production of prey species or direct enhancement of food supply, currently exerts a 

12 significant limitation on the productivity of chinook or other salmon species in Puget Sound systems.
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 94 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.3.7 Selectivity on Biological Characteristics of Salmon 

2 The transfer from parents to offspring (inheritance) of certain biological traits such as age at maturity, 

3 growth rate, and the effect of these traits on each other has been extensively researched and 

4 documented (Clark and Blackbird 1994; Donaldson and Menasveta 1961; Hankin 1993; Hankin et al. 

5 1993; Hard et al. 1985; Heath et al. 1994a; and Silverstein et al. 1998). Under certain circumstances, 

6 fishing may influence the biological traits of salmon that return to spawn, and thus the traits that are 

7 conveyed to their offspring. The potential long-term effects of selective fishing may be two-fold. First, 

8 possible reductions in the long-term yield of the fishery (Ricker 1976) and smaller fish size could erode 

9 the economic viability of the fishery. In other words, fishermen would have to increase catch to 

10 maintain the same level of income (assuming other economic factors remain relatively stable). 

11 Researchers have found that total yields in mixed-stock ocean fisheries may be considerably less than 

12 those that could be achieved if populations could be managed and harvested separately (Ricker 1958; 

13 Henry 1972; Ricker 1976; and Hilborn 1985). Second, selective fishing may affect the diversity of size, 

14 age and sex ratio in the salmon escapement. Diversity in biological traits is necessary if populations are 

15 to respond successfully to changing environmental conditions. For example, numerous studies have 

16 emphasized the possible importance of large size in naturally-spawning populations of chinook salmon 

17 for mate choice and reproductive success (Baxter 1991; Berejikian et al. 2000; Healey 2001; Healey 

18 and Heard 1984; and Silverstein and Hershberger 1992). Since the second issue is the basis for the first, 

19 it is the focus of this discussion. 

20 Selective fishing is defined in this subsection, and the potential consequences of selective fishing are 

21 explored. Generally, a fishery is characterized as selective whenever fish with particular characteristics 

22 are caught more frequently than they occur in the population at large. Salmon fisheries may be size- or 

age- selective within stocks, stock-selective, or species-selective.vii 23 

 

vii Indirect sex-selectivity may result due to different size distributions and age structures between male and 

female chinook. In general, males mature at a younger average age than females (Groot and Margolis 1991). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 95 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Size-Selective Fisheries 

2 Size-selective fisheries catch fish within a certain size range at a greater rate than smaller or larger fish. 

3 For example, ocean commercial and recreational fisheries typically have minimum size limits, thereby 

4 potentially generating greater exploitation rates on larger and older fish than on younger and smaller 

5 fish. Terminal gillnet fisheries may select for fish that are within an intermediate size range because the 

6 size of the net mesh is set to target the size range that characterizes the runs or general size of the target 

7 species. Often, such terminal gillnet fisheries represent age-selective fishing because fish of a certain 

8 age generally fall within a certain size range. For example, in California's Klamath River, the gillnet 

9 fishery uses mesh size that predominantly catches Age-4 fish; most Age-3 and Age-2 fish pass through 

10 the nets, whereas many Age-5 fish are too large to be caught by gillnets. 

11 The “theory of a fishery,” as first advanced by Baranov (1918; see Ricker 1978), proposes that the 

12 direct cumulative effect of removing larger and older fish may be to shift the distribution of a 

13 reproducing fish population toward smaller, younger (Hankin and Healey 1986) and slower-growing 

14 fish. For example, in ocean fisheries for chinook salmon, minimum commercial size limits typically 

15 mean that only a fraction of the Age-3 adults from a given stock are vulnerable to commercial capture. 

16 If those Age-3 fish that are above the legal size limit were genetically programmed fast-growing fish, 

17 then one might conclude that selective fisheries would be generating long-term selection for reduced 

18 growth rates. 

19 Possible fishery-induced selection for reduced growth rates may be complicated, however, by several 

20 factors in chinook salmon fisheries. First, the actual size that a salmon reaches at a particular age may 

21 not be highly correlated with a genetically determined growth rate for several reasons. The realized 

22 size of a fish at a given age must reflect unknown interactions between inherent growth rate, variability 

23 in supply and quality of food, and variability in environment (especially water temperature). Because 

24 of this variability, actual size at age may not, in general, be highly correlated with the underlying 

25 genetically controlled growth rate. 

26 Second, long-term genetic selection due to size-selective fisheries may be stronger for reduced age at 

maturity than for growth rateviii 27 . If age at maturity has a heritable component, older-aged parents will 

28 tend to produce progeny that mature at older ages, whereas younger-aged parents will produce progeny 

29 that mature at younger ages. Therefore, if younger-aged salmon spawned randomly on the spawning 

30 grounds, then size-selective fisheries for larger, older chinook might select for earlier age at maturity. 

 

viii If the heritable component for age is larger than the heritable component for growth rate. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 96 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Third, for chinook salmon, there is substantial evidence that age at maturity depends in part on size at 

2 age (see Hankin et al. 1993 and references therein). For a fixed age, say Age-2, fish that are smaller are 

less likely to mature at that age than are fish that are larger.ix 3 Through this interaction between size at 

4 age and maturity, removal of fish that are larger at age might instead select for fish that mature at later 

ages,x 5 counteracting the effects described in the previous paragraph. This effect probably becomes less 

6 pronounced at older ages. 

7 Finally, spawning behavior of naturally-spawning chinook salmon may, to some extent, alleviate the 

8 kind of long-term genetic shift toward younger age at maturity that might be expected to result from 

9 size-selective fisheries. Baxter (1991) found that larger and older chinook salmon, especially males, 

10 had greater reproductive success on spawning grounds than younger and smaller males. (also argued by 

11 Healey 1986). Thus, even if size-selective fisheries generated substantial shifts toward younger 

12 spawners, the greater reproductive success of larger and older males might at least partially buffer 

13 against such fishery-induced shifts to younger ages. In summary, a long-term shift to younger spawners

14 may result 1) if chinook salmon mate randomly, without regard to age, on spawning grounds, and 2) if 

15 age at maturity is independent of growth rate. However, 3) larger and older male chinook salmon (and 

16 possibly females) generally have greater mating success than smaller and younger male chinook 

17 salmon (and possibly females); 4) fast-growing chinook salmon tend to mature at younger ages than 

18 slow-growing chinook salmon, but are likely to be selected against in size-selective ocean fisheries; 

19 and 5) size at age may have only a weak correlation with some inherent genetically inherited growth 

20 rate. Together, items 3) through 5) may counteract the kinds of long-term genetic effects that one might 

21 expect if items 1) and 2) were valid. 

22 Hard (2004) used age-structured quantitative genetic models to assess the possible long-term 

23 evolutionary effects of size-selective fishing on chinook salmon. Based on genetic data from one Puget 

24 Sound population, Hard concluded that under most conditions, directional selection imposed by size25 selective fishing is likely to produce, at most, modest short-term reductions in size, but the effects 

26 depend critically on the harvest rate, harvest size threshold, the strength of stabilizing natural selection 

27 on size, and most likely the age structure and heritability of each trait, as well. He also found that the 

28 capacity of size-selective fishing to reduce size depends on correlations among size, age and growth 

29 rate. 

 

ix This may be less true at older ages. 

x However, this will depend on the relationship between growth rate and age at maturity. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 97 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Stock-Selective fisheries 

2 Stock-selective fisheries harvest some populations at different rates than other populations. They may 

3 occur in two ways. In marine waters, a large number of salmon populations originating from different 

4 river basins may be vulnerable to fishing at similar times and locations, and may therefore experience 

5 similar marine exploitation rates. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the mixed-stock harvest 

6 problem (see, for example, Bevan 1987). To avoid overexploiting vulnerable populations, harvest 

7 policies would instead call for application of stock-specific exploitation rates that depend on the 

8 underlying stock productivity, which varies among salmon stocks. Fisheries are deliberately structured 

9 to be stock-selective by shaping the time, location or physical attributes of fish that may be caught. 

10 Stock-selective fisheries may also take place in fresh water as a consequence of regulations. For 

11 example, in a large river system with a large number of distinct chinook salmon stocks, each with its 

12 own distinct river entry pattern, open and closed periods for fisheries may result in differential 

13 exploitation rates being applied to different stocks. If harvest is not allowed until a substantial number 

14 of fish have escaped to spawn, then it seems inevitable that exploitation rates are lower for those stocks 

15 that enter earlier as compared to those stocks that enter when fisheries are open. In that case, the 

16 fishery-related mortality rate would be much lower for fish in the early part of the run than for fish in 

17 the late part of the run. Because run timing is thought to be an inherited trait, such fishery harvest 

18 policy may, in the long term, unintentionally select for early-returning fish (see Nicholas and Hankin 

19 1988 for examples of this phenomenon in a hatchery setting).

20 Other examples of stock-selective fisheries for salmon are those that call for the release of all fish 

21 caught without an identifying mark (e.g., intact adipose fins), while a certain number (specified by bag 

22 or possession limits) of fish with marks may be retained. These policies are deliberately designed to 

23 produce, at least in theory, greater exploitation rates for hatchery fish (marked) than for wild fish 

24 (unmarked). 

25 Species-Selective Fisheries 

26 Finally, fisheries may also be species-selective as, for example, results when chinook salmon must be 

27 released if caught, whereas coho salmon may be retained. Harvest managers have implemented stock28 and species-selective fisheries in Puget Sound. There are currently recreational mark-selective fisheries 

29 for chinook salmon in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and limited areas of the Snohomish River . 

30 Selective Effects of Fishing in Puget Sound 

31 Although the potential consequences of size-selective fishing have been recognized, the ability of 

32 fisheries managers to address the potential long-term consequences is limited. In part, this is because 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 98 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 much of the evidence for selective effects of fishing (e.g., change in the size or age composition of 

2 catch or spawners) is circumstantial, and is confounded by other factors such as data quality and 

3 several ecological variables, including marine productivity, density-dependent growth and mate choice 

4 on the spawning grounds (Heath et al. 1999; Ricker 1972; Riddell 1986; Ricker 1995; and Hard 2004). 

5 For example, Bigler et al. (1996) found a decreasing average body size in 45 of 47 salmon populations 

6 in the Northern Pacific. They found that body size was inversely related to population abundance, and 

7 speculated that enhancement programs during the 1980s and 1990s increased population sizes but 

8 reduced growth rates due to competition for food in the ocean. Clearly, these kinds of causes could 

9 result in the same kinds of reductions in size at age as might be caused by long-term fishery selection 

10 against fast-growing fish. 

11 In addition, the magnitude of selective effects will vary depending on the intensity of selective-fishing 

12 on a particular salmon population, the period of time over which those effects are encountered, and the 

13 biological characteristics of the population itself (Heath et al. 1994b; and Hard 2004). Hard (2004) 

14 predicted that, in general, reducing the exploitation rate reduces the selection intensity, and that 

15 changes in life history traits under most of the harvest scenarios he examined were modest, at best, over 

16 a few generations. His study of chinook salmon returning to the Grover’s Creek Hatchery in Puget 

17 Sound predicted that effects fishing is likely to reduce on age, weight, growth rate, and lead to earlier 

18 spawn timing are likely to increase under higher exploitation rates and intensity of natural selection. 

19 Under selective conditions most likely to exist, expected effects on these traits over 25 years were low 

20 to undetectable below exploitation rates of 40 percent. The greatest expected effects were on length at 

21 age and mean weight, which declined by 0.12 to 0.28 of an inch and less than 7 ounces, respectively, 

over this period.xi 22 

23 Information on the effects of fishery selectivity on Puget Sound chinook salmon is very limited. The 

24 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) found a decline in the size of Puget Sound coho spawners 

25 since the 1970s, and noted it as a risk factor (Weitkamp et al. 1995). However, in its review of west 

26 coast chinook salmon populations (Myers et al. 1998), NMFS did not note any trends in recent decades 

27 for size, weight, or age for Puget Sound chinook salmon that might be the result of fishing activities. 

28 The lack of an observed selective-fishing effect may be the result of the way Puget Sound fisheries are 

29 structured. Puget Sound salmon fisheries, including those harvesting chinook salmon, are managed for 

 

xi These effects assumed harvest rates between 50 and 70 percent and strong stabilizing natural selection on size. 

One should be cautious in applying these results widely since the study was limited to a single, hatchery 

population and effects of selection will depend on the characteristics of the individual population. However, it 

does provide some basis for comparison. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 99 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 stock-specific exploitation rates that depend on the underlying productivity of each population. In other 

2 words, fisheries are managed to protect the less abundant, or weaker, populations. Such an approach is 

3 commonly referred to as weak stock management, and often results in foregoing catch on abundant 

4 populations in order to protect less abundant populations. In most areas, Puget Sound chinook salmon 

5 harvest generally occurs throughout their run timing. In a few areas, harvest may be focused on the 

6 early or late part of the chinook salmon run in order to protect the majority of the population while 

7 allowing some harvest on other salmon species that occur earlier or later in timing. However, this 

8 would generally affect 10 percent or less of the population on either end of its run timing, depending on 

9 the specifics of the annual fishing regime. 

10 With regard to the potential age-selectivity of gear types, Puget Sound gillnet fisheries do not appear to 

11 be any more age-selective for chinook than gear types like purse seines that use small mesh and are 

12 thus considered to be relatively non-selective (Table 3.3.7-1 and Figure 3.3.7-1). Ricker (1980, 1981, 

13 1995) documented a decline in the average weight of Puget Sound chinook salmon caught between the 

14 1950s and 1970s, which stabilized at a lower level in the 1980s. However, his analysis was not 

15 population specific and was conducted on mixed-stock fishery data which included populations 

16 returning both to Canada and Puget Sound. Based on the Puget Sound population-specific data that are 

17 available, there are no trends in age structure observed in Puget Sound chinook salmon escapement 

18 over the last 24 to 30 years (including the period observed by Ricker) that one might expect if there 

were fishing-down effectsxii 19 (Figure 3.3.7-2). In addition, the mean age of escapement differs from that 

20 in the catch by only 0.3 year (15 to 16 weeks) over the same period. 

 

xii Although it is possible that shifts in age structure caused by fishing activities occurred before the time period 

for which these are data, any trends from that time do not appear to have continued. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 100 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.3.7-1. Average age composition of the Puget Sound chinook salmon catch by gear type. 

Gear Type Age composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon catch (1980−2000) 

 Age-2 Age-3 Age-4 Age-5 

Gillnet 3% 34% 59% 5% 

Purse seine 7% 37% 54% 4% 

All gear types 3% 35% 56% 6% 

2 Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

3 Figure 3.3.7-1. Age composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon catch: relatively stable since 1980. 

Average age in Puget Sound chinook in catch sampled 1980-2000

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

1980

1981

1982

19831984

19851986

19871988

19891990

1991

19921993

1994

1995

19961997

19981999

2000

Sample Year

Average age (years)

gillnet Seine all gear

4 

5 Source: S. Bishop, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. based on data provided by the 

6 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2001. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 101 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.3.7-2. Age composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon escapement: stable since the 1970s. 

2 Source: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team data. 

3 Analysis not yet Complete

4 The analysis described above examined whether there had been any detectable changes in age 

5 composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon. NMFS is currently conducting also conducted analyses 

6 to determine whether there are were detectable changes in size at a specific age and sex of Puget Sound 

7 chinook salmon and, if so, whether they might be attributable to fishing effects. That is, although there 

8 might not be a change in the age composition, fish of the same age could be getting smaller or larger 

over timexiii 9 . While these analyses were not available for inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact 

10 Statement, they will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. A brief description of 

 

xiii While these analyses were not available for inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

NMFS indicated at the time that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was provided for public 

review and comment that the analyses would be completed and included in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. NMFS included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement a brief description of 

the analysis so the public had the opportunity to comment on the approach that NMFS was taking.

Average Age in Puget Sound Chinook Natural Escapement

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

19711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997

19992001

Calendar Year

Average age (years)

Lower Skagit Skykomish NF Stillaguamish Green River
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 102 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the analyses is included here so that the public is aware of the approach that NMFS is taking and so that 

2 the public has as much information as possible at this time on which to comment. As discussed earlier 

3 in this subsection, diversity in both age and size are important so that populations can respond 

4 successfully to changing environmental conditions. For example, larger females may be able to bury 

5 their eggs more deeply, thereby protecting them from washing away in high water flow conditions. On 

6 the other hand, smaller body size may allow some adults to return to successfully reproduce in drought 

7 years when larger adults become stranded or are more vulnerable to predators under low water flow 

8 conditions. 

9 In conducting its analyses, NMFS examined whether there was a difference in size at age between 

10 Puget Sound chinook salmon caught in the fishery and those that spawn. NMFS focused its analyses on 

11 a subset of Puget Sound chinook salmon populations for which sufficient information was available 

12 and that represented some diversity in life history (spring and fall run types), geographic distribution

13 and fishing intensity. NMFS is also limited its analysis to terminal in-river net and recreational 

fisheriesxiv 14 for which data were available so that it is the analyses were not confounded by the catch of 

15 immature fish that commonly occurs in marine fisheries. While NMFS is aware that marine fisheries 

16 may also be selective through the use of size limits or selective gear, the analyses should were intended 

17 to narrow the number of environmental factors that might account for a change in size at age detected 

18 in the analysis. To do this, the analyses should evaluate adults experiencing as similar an environment 

19 as possible. Otherwise, it would not be possible to determine whether a change in size at age from 

20 analyses that included immature fish was due to a change in the size of returning adults of a particular 

21 age, or due to differences in growth rates from fish that matured at a given age versus those that would 

22 have grown and matured at an older age. While fisheries may act to affect either size directly or growth 

23 rate (see earlier discussion), these analyses are intended to examine the direct effect of fisheries on size. 

24 Although we can theoretically explore the effects of fisheries on growth rate (Hard 2004), it is not 

25 technically feasible with the tools and data available at this time to directly assess the effects of Puget 

26 Sound fisheries on growth rate. 

27 To assess possible change in size at age of Puget Sound chinook salmon, the analyses will bewere

28 broken into two three steps. . First, fFor a selected group of Puget Sound chinook salmon populations: 

29 1) NMFS will compared the average size at age and sex of coded-wire tagged fish recovered in the 

30 terminal net fishery with those recovered in the hatchery escapement during the period 1980-2000

31 1975–2001; 2) size at age and sex information collected from naturally spawning adults was compared

 

xiv These fisheries intercept fish returning to a single river system; the one in which the fishery occurs. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 103 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 with results obtained from the first step for returning hatchery adults; and, 3) analysis was conducted to 

2 see whether the magnitude of change in size could be linked to effects of the terminal fishery. As seen 

3 from Table 3.3.7-2, total exploitation rates for these populations have generally decreased over time. 

4 Terminal fishery rates have remained relatively stable or increased over the same time period,

5 indicating that terminal harvest accounts for a greater proportion of the harvest related mortality in 

6 recent years. The Green River, Skokomish, Nisqually and Samish populations have moderate to high 

7 terminal and total exploitation rates while terminal exploitation rates on the Nooksack and Skagit 

8 spring populations are low. Total exploitation rates for the Skagit spring chinook are moderate.

9 Table 3.3.7-2. Characteristics of populations chosen for size at age analyses.

Average Exploitation Rate

Population Location Life History Type Time Period Total Terminal

Green River Central Puget Sound Fall 1983-2000

1983-1986

1998-2000

56%

64%

36%

19%

19%

21%

Skokomish Hood Canal Fall 1983-2000

1983-1986

1998-2000

60%

72%

36%

18%

23%

17%

Nisqually South Puget Sound Fall 1983-2000

1983-1986

1998-2000

86%

84%

75%

41%

27%

53%

Nooksack North Puget Sound Spring 1983-2000

1983-1986

1998-2000

31%

37%

16%

2%

3%

2%

Samish North Puget Sound Fall 1983-2000

1983-1986

1998-2000

76%

80%

66%

36%

30%

47%

Skagit North Puget Sound Spring 1983-2000

1983-1986

1998-2000

50%

60%

26%

1%

0%

1%

10 Source: Larrie Lavoy, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 20, 2000.
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 104 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Gillnets are the primary fishing gear used in terminal net fisheries. Because of the size of the mesh size 

2 used in the nets, three- and four-year-old fish comprise the majority of the fish caught in the terminal 

3 fisheries (Figure 3.3.7-1). Therefore, if fisheries are exerting a significant effect on size at age, it would 

4 most likely be observed for these ages. Some caution is warranted in the use of the results since the 

5 analyses are based on the best available data and not that which was collected under an experimental 

6 design with the intent of examining changes of mean length over time 

7 In the first step, the average size at age/sex of coded-wire tagged fish recovered in the terminal net 

8 fishery was compared with those recovered in the hatchery escapement during the period 1975–2001

9 (Ryding and Reidinger 2004). TThese coded-wire tag fish are part of the Pacific Salmon Commission 

10 indicator stock program which was implemented specifically to assess survival, distribution and 

11 fishing-related mortality for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. This will The use of coded-wire tagged fish

12 ensured that the analysis included only fish from the same population based on the unique coded-wire 

13 tag code implanted into the fish prior to their release from the hatchery. Results of the length analysis 

14 are presented in Table 3.3.7-3. Estimates are presented as the increase or decrease in the length of a fish 

15 per year. Significant results should be treated with caution because, thus far, no adjustments were made 

16 in the α-level to account for the number of tests in the analysis. The effect of this might be that 

17 currently statistically significant results would not be significant. Therefore, this analysis will 

overestimate the number of significant results.xv 18 

19 Statistically significant trends in size-at-age were detected for at least one age for chinook returning to 

20 all hatchery facilities except the Samish Hatchery. Except for four-year-old fish, there was no 

21 consistent pattern in the trends of size-at-age, with trends being significantly different between males 

22 and females, and trends in female size-at-age more often statistically significant than those of the 

23 males. Where terminal abundance (catch plus escapement) was compared with escapement, the results 

24 were generally similar. For the ages most likely to be affected by fisheries (three- and four-year-old 

25 fish), all statistically significant trends in size-at-age in those populations with moderate to high 

26 exploitation rates were decreasing. All trends in size-at-age for these populations for Age-4 males and 

 

xv The series of tests required to assess length trends across all stocks requires a downward adjustment to the 

significance level under the original null hypothesis of no change in length over time. One method would be to 

divide the α-level (0.05) by the number of tests (48), the “new” significance level (0.001) would indicate that 

the trends for age-3 male Skagit, age-4 male Skokomish (escapement only), age-4 Nisqually and age-4 female 

Green and Skokomish, fish would be significant. However, this is a highly conservative adjustment.

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 105 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.3.7-3. Changes in size-at-age and sex for selected Puget Sound chinook populations (significance level (P) = 0.10).

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 

Males Females Males Females Males Fem

Hatchery

Life 

History

Type

Terminal

Exploitation

Rate Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Estimate 

Green River– Fishery and Escapement

Fall Moderate -0.009 0.908 -0.081 0.561 -0.029 NSD 0.681 -0.124 0.001 -0.150 NSD 0.005 -0.106 

Green River– Escapementonly

Fall Moderate -0.006 0.938 -0.193 0.263 -0.016 NSD 0.819 -0.145 <0.001 -0.116 NSD 0.041 -0.151 

Skokomish–Fishery and Escapement

Fall Moderate 0.131 0.482 -0.118 0.202 -0.032 0.732 -0.221 <0.001 -0.290 NSD 0.011 -0.051 

Skokomish–Escapementonly

Fall Moderate 0.175 0.337 -0.182 0.084 -0.039 NSD 0.714 -0.276 <0.001 -0.450 NSD <0.001 0.025 

Nisqually – Fishery and Escapement

Fall High 0.111 0.484 -0.289 0.050 -0.224 NSD 0.168 -0.276 <0.001 -0.442 NSD <0.001 0.145 

Nooksack– Fishery and Escapement

Spring Low 0.316 0.025 -1.150 0.416 0.326 NSD 0.327 -0.171 0.289 -0.471 NSD 0.113 0.300 

Samish– Fishery and Escapement

Fall High 0.201 0.239 -0.063 0.652 0.043 NSD 0.501 -0.031 0.609 -0.075 NSD 0.357 0.009 

Skagit– Fishery and Escapement

Spring Low 0.591 0.202 NA NA 0.541 <0.001 0.212 0.133 0.026 NSD 0.845 0.281 

2 Notes: Significant results are shaded.3 The abbreviation NSD signifies no significant difference between female and male length trends.4 Source: K. E. Ryding and K.F. Reidinger, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, September, 2004

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 106 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 females were statistically significant and declining. Trends were also significant and declining for Age2 3 females for Skokomish River hatchery escapement and Nisqually River terminal abundance. For 

3 three- and four-year-old fish in those populations with low terminal exploitation rates, only Skagit 

4 spring three-year-old females was statistically significant and the trend were increasing.

5 Therefore, this step of the analysis indicates that there were significant trends in size-at-age and sex for 

6 some Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, and shows some consistency with the expectation that 

7 populations with high exploitation rates would show declining trends in size for ages most likely to be 

8 affected by fishery selectivity. When populations with moderate to high terminal area exploitation rates 

9 are compared with populations with low exploitation rates, the populations with higher exploitation 

10 rates showed a consistent pattern of decreasing size-at-age for both male and female Age-4 chinook, 

11 one of the two ages most likely to experience any selective effects. Declines ranged from 0.11 to 0.45 

12 centimeters/year, or 0.55 to 2.5 centimeters per generation. Whether these changes are biologically 

13 significant is unknown. Where significant, trends in Age-3 chinook were also declining. However, the 

14 majority of size-at-age trends for Age-3 fish were not significant, regardless of fishing intensity. 

15 On the other hand, other aspects of the results suggest factors other than fisheries are equally as likely: 

16 1) the comparison between populations in moderate-high and low exploitation rate categories also 

17 compared populations with different life histories, so the difference could be due to differences in 

18 environmental conditions experienced by the different life history types; 2) the trends did not show 

19 consistent contrasts between the ages most vulnerable to selective fishing effects and those ages that are 

20 not, although this may have resulted from small numbers of samples for two- and five-year-old fish; 3)

21 the trends in Age-3 chinook which are also vulnerable to selective fishing effects were generally 

22 insignificant regardless of fishing intensity; 4) the trends would also have reflected the result of 

23 cumulative selective pressures of fisheries other than Puget Sound terminal net fisheries; 5) the trends 

24 were not entirely consistent between high and low exploitation rate populations when total exploitation 

25 rates are considered. While the terminal area exploitation rates were low for Skagit spring chinook, the 

26 total exploitation rate was similar to those of the Green and Skokomish Rivers and the Samish River 

27 showed no significant trends in size-at-age, although it is classified as a moderate to high exploitation 

28 rate population.

29 SecondlyIn the second step of the analysis, NMFS will use size-at-age and sex information collected 

30 from naturally-spawning adults to was compared with results from the first step. To the extent possible, 

31 the analysis will separate hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally from naturally produced fish 

32 spawning naturally. This aspect of the analyses was intended to compare adult spawners that spawn 

33 naturally produced with the hatchery-based comparison of recovered coded-wire-tagged adults from 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 107 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the same population. Originally, the analysis intended to separate hatchery-origin fish spawning 

2 naturally from naturally-produced fish spawning naturally. However, hatchery-origin and natural-origin 

3 spawners were not separated in the analysis because hatchery-origin adults contribute significantly to 

4 natural escapement for many Puget Sound chinook populations, and are believed to contribute to 

5 subsequent generations of naturally-produced chinook salmon. If size-at-age is a heritable trait, then all 

6 spawners that contribute to subsequent generations of naturally-produced chinook salmon should be 

7 included in the analysis. Since hatchery contribution to natural spawning is significant for most of the 

8 populations in the analysis and the use of mark-selective fisheries for hatchery fish is limited, d. 

9 Therefore, fisheries are thoughtlikely to act in similar waysequally on the hatchery and natural 

10 components of the populations so that there would not be a substantial difference in the response of the 

11 hatchery and natural components. This step of the analyses will test this assumption.

12 The results of the analysis on the natural spawners by each population and age group are summarized 

13 in Table 3.3.7-4. Only three of the six Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, including only one of 

14 the four populations in the moderate-high exploitation rate category evaluated in step 1, had sufficient 

15 data available to conduct the analysis. The trends in size-at-age were significant for five of the six 

16 analyses conducted. The only significant decreasing trend was for Age-3 Nooksack spring chinook 

17 spawners. For all but one (four-year-old Skagit spring chinook) of the six population/age groups 

18 examined, the trends in size-at-age were not significantly different among males and females.

19 Table 3.3.7-4. Changes in size-at-age for selected Puget Sound chinook populations (significance level 

20 (P) = 0.05). Significant results are shaded.

Age 3 Age 4 Age 5

Population Life History Type

Terminal 

Exploitation 

Rate Estimate P-value Estimate P-value Estimate P-value

Green Fall Moderate -0.025 0.647 0.144 <0.001

Nooksack Spring Low -0.360 0.002 0.258 <0.001

Skagit Spring Low 0.246 0.050 0.446 0.003

21 Source: B. Conrad, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, October 5, 2004.

22 Although limited, the results of these analyses did not indicate declining trends in size with higher 

23 exploitation rates as might be expected. However, the increase in size-at-age for the Green River 

24 population was less than the increases for the other two populations that fall into the low exploitation 

25 rate category. On the other hand, three-year-old Nooksack spring chinook (low exploitation rate) 

26 showed a significant decreasing trend in size-at-age that is not seen in the Green River population 

27 (moderate exploitation rate). Although the results are consistent across Age-4 natural spawners, 1) the 

28 trends were increasing for both high and low exploitation rate populations; 2) the trend of size-at-age is 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 108 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 mixed among ages most likely to experience selective effects of fisheries; and 3) as in the step 1 

2 analysis, the apparent differences in magnitude of change between the high and low exploitation rate 

3 populations could be the result of difference in environmental effects on different life history strategies.

4 A comparison of results from step 1 (hatchery escapement and terminal abundance) and step 2 (natural 

5 escapement) is summarized in Table 3.3.7-5. The results in steps 1 and 2 are consistent in direction and 

6 significance of trends for only two of the six analyses that were compared, and the magnitude of 

7 change was substantially different between the analyses that were similar. For example, the analysis of 

8 naturally-spawning Skagit spring chinook indicated an increase in size-at-age almost 60 percent greater 

9 than that in the analysis of hatchery escapement. Whereas the analysis of hatchery escapement and 

10 terminal abundance consistently indicated significant declining trends in size-at-age for ages most 

11 likely to be vulnerable to selective effects of fisheries, the statistically significant trends in the analysis 

12 of natural escapement indicated primarily increasing trends in size-at-age for those ages. Although only 

13 one population in the moderate-high exploitation rate category was included in the analysis of natural 

14 escapement, that analysis indicated an increasing trend in size-at-age rather than a declining trend as 

15 seen in the step 1 analysis, although the increase (0.6 centimeter/generation) was much less than for the 

16 other two populations that fell into the low exploitation rate category. Both analyses indicated that 

17 trends between male and female chinook spawners were similar.

18 The results of the analyses in step 2 seem to indicate that trends of size-at-age and sex between the 

19 hatchery and naturally-spawning components are different (rejecting the original assumption). The 

20 results also do not indicate that fisheries are affecting the naturally-spawning component of the 

21 population in the ways that might be expected from the earlier discussion; i.e., declining size-at-age 

22 with increasing exploitation. However, it is possible that the fishery has a dampening effect since the 

23 increasing trend in size-at-age for the population with the moderate exploitation rate is substantially 

24 less than those of the two populations with low exploitation rates. The differences in the two analyses 

25 could reflect actual differences between trends in size-at-age in hatchery and naturally-spawning adult 

26 chinook, differences in the sampling and data collection in the two environments, or differences in life 

27 history.
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 109 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.3.7-5. Comparison of size-at-age analyses for hatchery and natural-spawning escapement 

2 analysis for those population and age strata in common to both analyses.

Hatchery Escapement Natural Escapement

Population

Life History 

Type

Terminal 

Exploitation Rate Age Estimate P-value Estimate P-value

Green Fall Moderate 3 -0.193 0.263 -0.025 0.647

4 -0.145 <0.001 0.144 <0.001

Nooksack Spring Low 3 -1.150 0.416 -0.360 0.002

4 -0.171 0.289 0.258 <0.001

Skagit Spring Low 4 0.212 0.133 0.246 0.050

5 0.281 0.013 0.446 0.003

3 Source: B. Conrad, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, October 5, 2004; Ryding and Reidinger, 

4 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, September 2004.

5 Note: Significant results are shaded.

6 From the discussion above, it is evident that analyses of observed trends alone cannot confirm that 

7 harvest is primarily responsible for declines in size-at-age; therefore, an Finally, if there is a detectable 

8 change in size-at-age, further analysis wasill be conducted to see whether the magnitude of change in 

9 size can could be linked to the intensity of the fishery. To do this, the populations will be divided into 

10 high and low exploitation rate groups based on the conclusions of Hard (2004) to determine whether 

11 there is a pattern in the results of the size at age analysis that corresponds to the magnitude of 

12 exploitation rate were assessed using the models of Hard (2004) to determine to what extent fisheries 

13 might be a factor where statistically significant patterns in size-at-age and sex were identified in the 

14 first two steps. Some key genetic and life history parameters were based on data obtained from the 

15 Grovers Creek Hatchery chinook population, which may or may not be representative of the 

16 populations in this analysis. However, it was the best available information for the purpose of this 

17 modeling exercise. The model examined four possible scenarios: two levels of legal size threshold (50 

18 and 70 centimeters), and two levels of natural selection intensity (strong and weak) on size (personal 

19 communication with Jeff Hard, Research Fishery Biologist, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

20 September 16, 2004). This step compares what the trends in size-at-age would be under different levels 

21 of environmental and fishing conditions with the results in step 1 to see if the observed trends are 

22 consistent with any of the scenarios. The same general conclusions with regard to increasing and 

23 decreasing trends are equally applicable to results from step 2.

24 The results of the analyses of the populations under the four harvest scenarios are summarized in 

25 Tables 3.3.7-6 through 3.3.7-9. There are two general cases where the expected trends are not 

26 particularly informative: first, where the observed trend is increasing over time (the expected trend 

27 under size-selective harvest involving directional selection toward smaller size is always predicted to 

28 be decreasing if there is genetic and phenotypic variation for size); and second, where the decreasing 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 110 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 expected trend is much larger than a decreasing observed trend (which implies the presence of one or 

2 more strong environmental factors acting to increase mean size-at-age over time). In the first case,

3 expected trends from the model runs do nothing more than reflect the presence of a large positive 

4 composite environmental effect acting to oppose fishing effects. The second case is most evident for 

5 particular cases involving two- and three-year-old males (especially in the Green River and Skokomish 

6 hatchery populations, but also in the Samish population) – fish that are less susceptible to harvest. The 

7 model predicts a much more dramatic effect of harvest on size of these fish than was observed in any of 

8 the populations, but it is likely that the largely insignificant positive trends observed in some of these 

9 cases arise primarily from weak environmental factors favoring more rapid growth during the first year 

10 at sea. For most of the other comparisons, the harvest model accounts for less than half the observed 

11 declines in length under all scenarios.

12 In general, for those populations that exhibit declining trends, the harvest model can account for only a 

13 modest fraction (<50%) of the trend when natural selection on length is weak and the size threshold is 

14 relatively small (50 centimeters), and it appears to be somewhat larger in the Green River and 

15 Skokomish hatchery populations. The fraction of the trend explained by the harvest model tends to 

16 increase when the intensity of natural selection on size is high. It also increases, but to a lesser extent, 

17 when the selection differential on size imposed by harvest (a function of the harvest rate and the 

18 threshold size of harvestable fish) increases.

19 Collectively, the mixture of upward and downward observed trends and the fact that the expected 

20 trends estimated by the harvest model generally explain only a modest fraction (<50%) of 

21 corresponding observed trends suggest that environmental influences on the observed size trends are 

22 large. For decreasing observed trends, these influences may include factors such as environmental 

23 conditions that reduce growth and size, or artificial or domestication selection in the hatchery. 

24 However, these influences also appear to vary considerably among the populations, pointing to the 

25 possibility of marked population-environment interaction effects. For increasing observed trends, these 

26 influences are likely to reflect environmental conditions that enhance growth and size that could result 

27 from more favorable marine conditions, improvements in hatchery practices, reductions in harvest 

28 intensity, changes in migration patterns, or other factors that affect growth and size. Unfortunately, it is 

29 not possible from the present analysis to determine the directions or magnitudes of these environmental 

30 effects for any particular population with confidence, because harvest and environmental effects on 

31 growth and size cannot be reliably discriminated.

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 111 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.3.7-6. Observed trends in Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon adult lengths (cm/year) and corresponding expected tr

directional harvest selection (Ryding and Reidinger 2004). Model runs incorporated strong stabilizing selection threshold for legal harvest of 50 cm.

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 

Males Females Males Females Males Fema

Hatchery

Run 

Type

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Green River 

Fall -0.006ns -0.053

(883.3)

-0.193ns -0.037

(19.2)

-0.016ns -0.056

(350.0)

-0.145*** -0.059

(40.7)

-0.116* -0.062

(53.4)

-0.151* 

Skokomish Fall 0.175ns -0.088 -0.182* -0.069

(37.9)

-0.039ns -0.126

(323.1)

-0.276*** -0.053

(19.2)

-0.450*** -0.063

(42.0)

0.025* 

Nisqually Fall 0.111ns -0.064 -0.289* -0.031

(10.7)

-0.224ns -0.031

(13.8)

-0.276*** -0.040

(14.5)

-0.442*** -0.032

(7.2)

0.145ns 

Nooksack Spring 0.316* -0.015 -1.150ns -0.022

(1.9)

0.326ns -0.028 -0.171ns -0.007

(4.1)

-0.471ns -0.019

(4.0)

0.300ns 

Samish Fall 0.201ns -0.087 -0.063ns -0.048

(76.2)

0.043ns -0.041 -0.031ns -0.046

(883.3)

-0.075ns -0.044

(58.7)

0.009ns 

Skagit Spring 0.591ns -0.012 NA -- 0.541*** -0.020 0.212ns -0.045 0.026ns -0.034 0.281* 

Source: Jeff Hard, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, September 16, 2004.Percent of observed trend in parentheses, where applicable.ns Not significantly different from zero.* P < 0.10*** P < 0.001
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 112 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.3.7-7. Observed trends in Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon adult lengths (cm/year) and corresponding expected tr

directional harvest selection (Ryding and Reidinger 2004). Model runs incorporated weak stabilizing selection othreshold for legal harvest of 50 cm.

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 

Males Females Males Females Males Fema

Hatchery

Run 

Type

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Green River 

Fall -0.006ns -0.036

(600.0)

-0.193ns -0.056

(29.0)

-0.016ns -0.056

(350.0)

-0.145*** -0.063

(43.4)

-0.116* -0.062

(53.2)

-0.151* 

Skokomish Fall 0.175ns -0.046 -0.182* -0.062

(34.1)

-0.039ns -0.065

(166.7)

-0.276*** -0.049

(17.8)

-0.450*** -0.040

(8.9)

0.025* 

Nisqually Fall 0.111ns -0.047 -0.289* -0.041

(14.2)

-0.224ns -0.042

(18.8)

-0.276*** -0.050

(18.1)

-0.442*** -0.038

(8.6)

0.145ns 

Nooksack Spring 0.316* -0.012 -1.150ns -0.028

(2.4)

0.326ns -0.014 -0.171ns -0.014

(8.2)

-0.471ns -0.015

(3.2)

0.300ns 

Samish Fall 0.201ns -0.081 -0.063ns -0.065

(100.3)

0.043ns -0.060 -0.031ns -0.063

(200.3)

-0.075ns -0.063

(84.0)

0.009ns 

Skagit Spring 0.591ns -0.015 NA -- 0.541*** -0.020 0.212ns -0.043 0.026ns -0.040 0.281* 

Source: Jeff Hard, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, September 16, 2004.Percent of observed trend in parentheses, where applicable.ns Not significantly different from zero.* P < 0.10*** P < 0.001
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 113 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.3.7-8. Observed trends in Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon adult lengths (cm yr-1) and corresponding expected tre

directional harvest selection (Ryding and Reidinger 2004). Model runs incorporated strong stabilizing selection threshold for legal harvest of 70 cm.

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 

Males Females Males Females Males Fem

Hatchery

Run 

Type

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expecte

d Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Green River 

Fall -0.006ns -0.033

(550.0)

-0.193ns -0.097

(50.2)

-0.016ns -0.091

(568.8)

-0.145*** -0.095

(65.5)

-0.116* -0.092

(79.3)

-0.151* 

Skokomish Fall 0.175ns -0.022 -0.182* -0.093

(51.1)

-0.039ns -0.047

(120.5)

-0.276*** -0.061

(22.1)

-0.450*** -0.033

(7.3)

0.025* 

Nisqually Fall 0.111ns -0.048 -0.289* -0.076

(26.3)

-0.224ns -0.076

(33.9)

-0.276*** -0.083

(30.1)

-0.442*** -0.062

(14.0)

0.145ns 

Nooksack Spring 0.316* -0.009 -1.150ns -0.064

(5.6)

0.326ns -0.008 -0.171ns -0.037

(21.6)

-0.471ns -0.022

(4.7)

0.300ns 

Samish Fall 0.201ns -0.097 -0.063ns -0.119

(188.9)

0.043ns -0.112 -0.031ns -0.113

(364.5)

-0.075ns -0.114

(152.0)

0.009ns 

Skagit Spring 0.591ns -0.011 NA -- 0.541*** -0.011 0.212ns -0.089 0.026ns -0.051 0.281* 

Source: Jeff Hard, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, September 16, 2004.Percent of observed trend in parentheses, where applicable.ns Not significantly different from zero.* P < 0.10*** P < 0.001
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 114 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.3.7-9. Observed trends in Puget Sound hatchery chinook salmon adult lengths (cm yr-1) and corresponding expected tre

directional harvest selection (Ryding and Reidinger 2004). Model runs incorporated weak stabilizing selection othreshold for legal harvest of 70 cm.

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 

Males Females Males Females Males Fema

Hatchery

Run 

Type

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Expected 

Trend

Observed 

Trend

Green River 

Fall -0.006ns -0.027

(450.0)

-0.193ns -0.054

(28.0)

-0.016ns -0.053

(331.3)

-0.145*** -0.059

(40.7)

-0.116* -0.056

(43.3)

-0.151* 

George Adams

Fall 0.175ns -0.041 -0.182* -0.069

(37.9)

-0.039ns -0.065

(166.7)

-0.276*** -0.056

(20.3)

-0.450*** -0.046

(10.2)

0.025* 

Nisqually Fall 0.111ns -0.047 -0.289* -0.052

(18.0)

-0.224ns -0.051

(22.7)

-0.276*** -0.063

(22.8)

-0.442*** -0.048

(10.9)

0.145ns 

Nooksack Spring 0.316* -0.006 -1.150ns -0.027

(2.3)

0.326ns -0.007 -0.171ns -0.015

(8.8)

-0.471ns -0.012

(2.5)

0.300ns 

Samish Fall 0.201ns -0.077 -0.063ns -0.068

(107.9)

0.043ns -0.064 -0.031ns -0.069

(222.6)

-0.075ns -0.069

(92.0)

0.009ns 

Skagit Spring 0.591ns -0.009 NA -- 0.541*** -0.009 0.212ns -0.045 0.026ns -0.029 0.281* 

Source: Jeff Hard, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, September 16, 2004.Percent of observed trend in parentheses, where applicable.ns Not significantly different from zero.* P < 0.10*** P < 0.001
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 115 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.3.8 Hatchery-Related Fishery Effects on Salmon 

2 Salmon harvest management plans, such as the Proposed Action and alternatives addressed in this 

3 Environmental Impact Statement, set management objectives for individual populations or 

4 management units. The alternatives are different fishing regimes that set management objectives in 

5 terms of exploitation rates and/or escapement goals. The Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource 

6 Management Plan alternatives encompass 15 natural management units and 22 chinook salmon 

7 populations. Many of these units have associated hatchery programs that are managed either to enhance 

8 fisheries or supplement natural production. Achieving appropriate conservation objectives for this 

9 diverse group of units presents a highly complex technical and political task. Fisheries objectives can 

10 exert substantial control over the escapement of hatchery- and natural-origin chinook, as well as the 

five other salmon species.xii 11 

12 This subsection examines some of the possible, ancillary ecological and genetic effects that may result 

13 from hatchery programs associated with the harvest regimes considered in this evaluation. These 

14 effects associated with any of the alternatives may potentially lead to different levels of escapement of 

15 natural- and hatchery-origin fish, and varying interactions between wild and hatchery-origin chinook 

16 on the spawning grounds. 

17 3.3.8.1 Effects of Hatchery-Origin Chinook on Natural-Spawning Chinook Salmon 

18 Artificial propagation programs may lead to beneficial effects and/or risks for natural-origin chinook 

19 salmon populations. 

20 Benefits 

21 Beneficial effects that may result from the use of hatchery techniques have been summarized by 

22 Waples (1996) and Cuenco et al. (1993). Hatchery supplementation may be used to reduce the short23 term risk that a population on the verge of extirpation will be lost by expeditiously boosting the number 

24 of emigrating juveniles in a given brood year. Supplementation may be used to preserve or increase 

25 salmon populations while other factors causing decreased abundance are addressed. Supplementation 

26 may be used to accelerate recovery of populations by increasing abundances in a shorter time frame 

27 than may be achievable through natural production. Supplementation programs may be used to create a 

28 reserve population for a particular chinook salmon genetic profile to prevent loss of the entire 

 

xii The principal factor controlling abundance is ocean cycling/productivity. Other major factors affecting 

abundance include dams and habitat quantity and quality. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 116 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 population due to natural or human-caused catastrophes. Hatchery techniques may also be used to 

2 reseed vacant habitat capable of supporting salmon through reintroduction to streams where 

3 populations have been eliminated, assuming that the causes that led to elimination of the population are 

4 being addressed. Finally, artificial propagation may be used to provide scientific information regarding 

5 the use of supplementation in conserving natural populations.

6 The potential benefits of hatchery production to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

7 Evolutionarily Significant Unit were recognized by NMFS in its 1999 listing determination (FR 64 

8 14308, March 24, 1999). Chinook salmon produced by hatcheries operating in the Elwha, Dungeness, 

9 Nooksack, Stillaguamish, and White River watersheds were listed with the natural populations in Puget 

10 Sound, because the juvenile and adult fish produced by these programs were deemed essential to the 

11 recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Management of fisheries to 

12 ensure adequate escapement of returning hatchery-origin chinook salmon produced for conservation 

13 purposes will benefit recovery of the listed Evolutionarily Significant Unit. 

14 Risks 

15 Fisheries managed to achieve an exploitation rate appropriate for harvesting returning hatchery-origin 

16 chinook salmon may reduce the abundance and status of commingled, less productive natural-origin 

17 chinook populations. Conversely, if fishery managers choose a harvest rate that is less than the ideal 

18 harvest rate for the hatchery population, the escapement of hatchery fish will increase above 

19 broodstock requirements. Not all of the hatchery fish in the escapement return to their release point 

20 where they may be captured and removed. The fidelity of return and subsequent level of removal varies 

21 with the physical location of the hatchery, the efficiency of the trapping and removal system, weather 

22 conditions and flows, and other factors. As discussed above, straying may be the objective of wild 

23 population supplementation or reintroduction programs. However, where the primary objective of the 

24 hatchery program is to harvest the returning adults, fish that are not captured and removed may spawn 

25 naturally in areas used by the local population, or stray into other watersheds. The unintentional 

26 escapement and straying of hatchery-origin chinook salmon produced for harvest augmentation 

27 purposes may lead to adverse impacts to the survival and productivity of indigenous, naturally28 spawning chinook salmon populations. 

29 Adverse effects to natural-origin chinook salmon that may result from the use of artificial propagation 

30 may be ecological, genetic, or demographic in nature. Potential adverse effects of this nature on 

31 natural-origin chinook salmon are summarized below. These descriptions are provided to identify 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 117 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 hatchery-related issues that may be germane to the fishery management alternatives analyzed and 

2 compared within this Environmental Impact Statement. 

3 Ecological Effects 

4 Hatchery-origin adults may compete with naturally-spawning fish for spawning habitat, or may 

5 interbreed with naturally-spawning fish. Adverse effects of competition may result from direct 

6 interactions, whereby hatchery-origin fish interfere with the accessibility of wild fish to limited 

7 resources; or through indirect means, such as when utilization of a limited resource by hatchery fish 

8 reduces the amount of that resource available to wild fish (Species Integration Work Group 1984). 

9 For adult salmonids, the potential for hatchery/wild fish competition in fresh water is assumed to be 

10 greatest in the spawning areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Hatchery-origin adult salmonids 

11 may home to, or stray into, natural production areas during wild fish spawning or egg incubation 

12 periods, posing an elevated competitive and behavioral modification risk. Returning or straying 

13 hatchery fish may compete for spawning habitat. Superimposition of redds by similarly-timed or later 

14 spawners disturbs or removes previously-deposited eggs from the gravel, and has been identified as an 

15 important source of natural salmon mortality in some areas (Bakkala 1970). Adult salmonids 

16 originating from hatcheries can also compete with wild fish of the same species for mates. If the 

17 hatchery fish are a non-indigenous population, or have substantially diverged from the native 

18 population, interbreeding between hatchery- and natural-origin chinook salmon may lead to an 

19 increased potential for outbreeding depression, to the detriment of the natural-origin population. 

20 Juvenile salmonids rearing in fresh water and estuaries compete for food and space (Species Integration 

21 Work Group 1984). The progeny of the hatchery fish that have spawned in the wild may compete for 

22 suitable habitat, reduce access to food, or cause behavior that makes wild fish more susceptible to 

23 predation (Hillman and Mullan 1989; Steward and Bjornn 1990; and Species Integration Work Group 

24 1984). 

25 Genetic Effects

26 Native salmon populations have developed a complex set of local adaptations that promote the 

27 productivity of the population within their local environment. Characteristics such as body size, return 

28 timing, egg size, migration timing, and many others are tailored by natural selection to adapt the 

29 population to its environment. Hatchery-reared salmon are subject to different selective pressures in the 

30 hatchery environment that may cause them to genetically diverge from their wild ancestors. When 

31 hatchery fish are imported from another basin, this difference between local and hatchery populations 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 118 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 is exacerbated. When hatchery strays interbreed with wild fish, the resulting progeny may be less fit, 

2 and the genetic integrity of the local wild population may be permanently affected. 

3 The genetic risks from hatchery fish spawning in the wild, or interbreeding with wild fish, are 

4 associated with reduction in the genetic variability (diversity) within and among populations (Cuenco 

5 et al. 1993; Hard et al. 1992; National Research Council 1996; and Waples 1996). Specifically, these 

6 risks involve genetic drift, inbreeding depression, or domestication. Genetic traits are carried at specific 

7 places in the genetic material of fish called alleles. The type and frequency of the alleles in a 

8 population constitutes the genetic diversity of the population. In the discussion that follows, the 

9 processes that cause a loss of diversity or genetic divergence within the hatchery population are 

10 considered, along with how the introduction of hatchery fish into wild populations may impact the 

11 productivity of the wild population. 

12 Loss of Within-Population Diversity. Reisenbichler and Rubin (1999) cite five studies indicating that 

13 hatchery programs for steelhead and stream-type chinook salmon (i.e., programs holding fish in the 

14 hatchery for one year or longer) genetically change the population and thereby reduce survival for 

15 natural rearing. The authors report that substantial genetic change in fitness can result from traditional 

16 artificial propagation of salmonids held in captivity for one-quarter or more of their life. Bugert et al. 

17 (1992) documented morphological and behavioral changes in returning adult hatchery spring chinook 

18 salmon relative to natural adults, including younger age, smaller size, and reduced fecundity (number 

19 of eggs per female). Information on Puget Sound chinook salmon is limited. However, as described in 

20 Subsection 3.3.7, no decline in average age has been detected for Puget Sound chinook salmon 

21 populations for which data are available, including the Green-Duwaumish in which there has been a 

22 substantial hatchery augmentation program since the early 1900s. In most years, hatchery-origin adults 

23 constitute the majority of the naturally-spawning chinook salmon in the Green River (Puget Sound 

24 Technical Recovery Team 2003). 

25 Leider et al. (1990) reported diminished survival and natural reproductive success for the progeny of 

26 non-native hatchery steelhead when compared to native wild steelhead in the lower Columbia River 

27 region. The poorer survival observed for the naturally-produced offspring of hatchery fish could have 

28 been due to the long-term artificial and domestication selection in the hatchery steelhead population, as 

29 well as maladaptation of the non-indigenous hatchery stock in the recipient stream (Leider et al. 1990). 

30 Chilcote (1997 and 2003) reported a strong negative correlation between the proportion of naturally31 spawning hatchery steelhead and population productivity, when examining spawner-recruit 

32 relationships for a range of Oregon steelhead populations. Nickelson (2003) found negative 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 119 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 correlations between the average number of hatchery coho released and the population productivity of 

2 wild coho in fourteen Oregon river and lake basins. 

3 Berejikian (1995) reported that wild-origin steelhead fry survived predation by prickly sculpins (Cottus 

4 asper) significantly better than size-matched offspring of locally-derived hatchery steelhead that were 

5 reared under similar conditions. Alteration of the innate predator avoidance ability through 

6 domestication was suggested by the results of this study. However, Joyce et al. (1998) reported that an 

7 Alaskan spring chinook stock under domestication for four generations was not significantly different 

8 from offspring of wild spawners in the ability of individuals within this population to avoid predation. 

9 The domesticated and wild chinook groups tested showed similar growth and survival rates in 

10 freshwater performance trials. 

11 Loss of Genetic Diversity Among Different Populations. Loss of genetic diversity among different 

12 populations is caused by the introduction of genes from outside the population (e.g., from hatchery13 origin spawners or strays from other systems), at rates greater than what would naturally occur. This 

14 process can affect the genetic uniqueness of a population, and may reduce its fitness through a process 

15 called outbreeding depression. Outbreeding depression arises because natural salmonid populations 

16 adapt to the local environment, and this adaptation is reflected in the frequency of specific alleles that 

17 improve survival in that environment. When excessive gene flow occurs, alleles that may have 

18 developed in a different environment are introduced. These new alleles may not benefit the survival of 

19 the receiving population, leading to outbreeding depression. Outbreeding depression from gene flow 

20 can also occur when eggs and fish are transferred among populations, and/or when out-of-basin 

21 hatchery populations are released to spawn with the local population (Busack and Currens 1995). 

22 Evidence indicating local adaptation of salmonid populations exists, but the only empirical data on 

23 outbreeding depression in fish involves extremely distantly-related populations (Busack and Currens 

24 1995). Pacific Northwest hatchery programs historically contributed to the loss of genetic diversity 

25 among populations through routine transfer between watersheds of eggs and fish from different 

26 hatchery populations. The release of hatchery fish into populations different from the introduced fish 

27 has also resulted in gene flow above natural levels (genetic introgression), reducing the genetic 

28 diversity among populations. Research based primarily on findings in the Kalama River, Washington, 

29 for summer-run steelhead has suggested that interbreeding between non-indigenous Skamania hatchery 

30 stock steelhead (a highly selected, inbred stock) and native wild fish may have negatively affected the 

31 genetic diversity and long-term reproductive success of wild steelhead (Hulett et al. 1996; and Leider et 

32 al. 1990). Non-indigenous hatchery and native wild steelhead crosses may be less effective at 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 120 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 producing adult offspring in the natural environment compared to wild fish (Chilcote et al. 1986 and 

2 1997). 

3 Campton (1995) examined the risks of genetic introgression to wild fish, and noted the need to 

4 distinguish the biological effects of hatcheries and hatchery fish from the indirect and biologically5 independent effects of fisheries management actions. In his review of the scientific literature for 

6 steelhead, Campton found that most genetic effects detected to date appear to be caused by fisheries 

7 management practices such as stock transfers and mixed-stock fisheries, not by biological factors 

8 intrinsic to hatcheries or hatchery fish. However, loss of among-population genetic diversity as a result 

9 of these types of hatchery practices has been documented for western trout, where unique populations 

10 have been lost through hybridization with introduced rainbow trout (Behnke 1992). Phelps et al. (1994) 

11 found evidence for introgression of non-native hatchery steelhead stock into a number of natural 

12 populations within southwest Washington. However, in other areas where hatchery production has been 

13 extensive, native steelhead genotypes have been shown to persist (Phelps et al. 1994). 

14 Hatchery programs can be managed to minimize the risk of among-population diversity reduction 

15 effects by limiting the duration of the hatchery program to a few salmon generations, using the local, 

16 natural-origin chinook population as broodstock, and by applying rearing and releasing strategies that 

17 promote high fidelity of return of adult fish to the hatchery release location. 

18 Demographic Effects 

19 Hatchery programs may also lead to adverse demographic effects on natural-origin populations through 

20 masking of the status of natural chinook salmon population abundance and productivity, and through 

21 overfishing. 

22 Masking. If hatchery- and natural-origin fish are indistinguishable in appearance, the presence of 

23 hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds may mask the status of the wild population by causing 

24 over-estimation of the abundance and productivity of the naturally-produced population. Failure to 

25 detect the declining or critical status of natural populations may prevent or delay the implementation of 

26 conservation measures. Masking the status of natural productions was cited in listing the Puget Sound 

27 Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (FR 64 

28 14308, March 24, 1999; and Myers et al. 1998). This risk may be mitigated through application of a 

29 mark or tag to juvenile hatchery-origin chinook salmon prior to their release from the hatchery. In 

30 Puget Sound, almost all of the hatchery fish have been marked in recent years so that the hatchery 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 121 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 chinook salmon may be readily differentiated from natural-origin fish in rearing, migration, and 

2 spawning areas. 

3 3.3.8.2 Overfishing 

4 Subsection 3.3.8.1 described the potential benefits and risks of hatchery fish interacting with wild fish 

5 on the spawning grounds once they have escaped the fisheries. This subsection discusses the potential 

6 effect of managing fisheries to meet harvest mortality objectives on wild and hatchery populations. 

7 Fisheries exploitation rates or escapement goals may be established for each salmon population or 

8 management unit that will best achieve its conservation objective. These harvest objectives are 

9 primarily a function of the productivity of the population and the capacity of freshwater habitat. Higher 

10 productivity populations can withstand higher exploitation rates than lower productivity populations. In 

11 the ideal case, each population will be harvested at the rate appropriate for its unique productivity and 

12 capacity. However, many fisheries take place on mixtures of populations, some of which are productive 

13 and can withstand a higher exploitation rate, and others that are less productive and have a lower ideal 

14 harvest rate. If mixed-stock fisheries are managed to achieve a high exploitation rate appropriate to 

15 productive populations, the commingled weaker populations will be over-harvested, leading to 

16 decreased spawner escapement abundances, and potentially, a declining natural-origin chinook 

17 population trend. 

18 This mixed-stock problem is apparent where hatchery and wild fish commingle. Hatchery populations 

19 can sustain very high harvest rates, provided that escapement meets broodstock requirements. When 

20 hatchery and wild populations are commingled in fisheries, managers are faced with the decision 

21 whether to constrain fisheries and lower exploitation rates to levels appropriate to weak populations, or 

22 allow fisheries to remove the entire harvestable surplus of hatchery fish, and “overfish” some 

23 commingled natural populations. In some areas, fisheries can harvest hatchery production selectively, 

24 without undue impact on weak natural populations. Selective fisheries are implemented by the co25 managers in some areas as part of the suite of regulations comprising the annual fishing regime that 

26 would be implemented through the framework of the Proposed Action or one of its alternatives (see 

27 Subsection 3.3.6 of this Environmental Impact Statement). 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 122 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibilities 

2 3.4.1 Introduction 

3 There are 17 Indian tribes located in Washington State with adjudicated fishing rights in Puget Sound. 

4 The Proposed Action or alternatives to the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan 

5 could potentially affect fishing rights guaranteed by treaty and recognized in U.S. v. Washington

6 (commonly known as the Boldt decision). This section contains a brief history of federal-tribal 

7 relations, and a general legal description of the treaty rights of Northwest tribes. It concludes with a 

8 discussion of the trust obligation of the federal government to protect those rights. 

9 3.4.2 Federal−Tribal Relations 

10 From the formation of the United States to the present, federal law has recognized Indian tribes as 

11 independent political entities with powers over their members and territory (Worcester v. Georgia

12 1832). The Constitution provides Congress with the authority to regulate commerce “among the several 

13 states, and with the Indian tribes” (United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 3). This 

14 power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes includes the exclusive authority to deal with Indian 

15 tribes respecting their rights to aboriginal lands, which have always been protected from trespass or 

16 other interference by states or private parties. Central to the protection of lands has always been, and 

17 continues to be, the need to provide for Indian hunting, gathering and fishing rights. In addition, the 

18 federal government has a legal obligation to act in the best interest of Indian tribes. 

19 Prior to 1871, most dealings pertaining to tribal lands were accomplished pursuant to treaties entered 

20 into between the United States government and Indian tribes. The treaties typically provided for the 

21 surrender of large areas of land owned and occupied by the Indians to allow the westward expansion of 

22 non-Indians. In exchange, the United States recognized permanent homelands (reservations), and 

23 sometimes explicitly provided for off-reservation hunting and fishing rights. Treaties with Indian tribes 

24 are recognized as the supreme law of the land and trump any conflicting state law. Treaty language 

25 securing fishing rights is not “a grant of rights [from the federal government] to the Indians, but a grant 

26 of rights from them − a reservation of those not granted” (U.S. v. Winans 1905). In other words, the 

27 tribes retain rights not surrendered. Courts “interpret Indian treaties to give effect to the terms as the 

28 Indians themselves would have understood them” (Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa 1999). 

29 In addition, the Supreme Court has established “that Indian treaties are to be interpreted liberally in 

30 favor of the Indians, and that any ambiguities are to be resolved in their favor” (Minnesota v. Mille 

31 Lacs Band of Chippewa 1999). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 123 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.4.3 The Trust Responsibility 

2 The United States government has assumed the duty of protecting Indian land and ensuring the exercise 

3 of hunting and fishing rights. This duty is generally known as the federal trust responsibility. As 

4 described by the Supreme Court, “under a humane and self-imposed policy which has found expression 

5 in many acts of Congress and numerous decisions of this Court, [the United States] has charged itself 

6 with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” (Seminole Nation v. U.S. 1942). Most 

7 recently, in Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association (2001), the 

8 Supreme Court noted that: 

9 The fiduciary relationship has been described as “one of the primary cornerstones of Indian law,” 

10 F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 221 (1982), and has been compared to one existing 

11 under a common law trust, with the United States as trustee, the Indian tribes or individuals as 

12 beneficiaries, and the property and natural resources managed by the United States as the trust 

13 corpus. 

14 This trust responsibility has been interpreted to require that federal agencies carry out their activities in 

15 a manner that is protective of Indian treaty rights. For example, in cases involving the management of 

16 Bureau of Reclamation water projects, the United States must exercise any discretion for the benefit of 

17 Indian tribes (see Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton 1973); Klamath Water Users 

18 Protective Association v. Patterson 2000; and Klamath Drainage District v. Patterson 2000). Courts 

19 have also ruled that the United States has an obligation to ensure that tribal oil and gas lessees obtain 

20 the best possible return on their leases, (Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. U.S. 1992); and

21 Woods Petroleum v. U.S. 1993), and to consult with the tribes before taking administrative action that 

22 may affect tribal services (see Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Babbitt 1996). In Executive Order No. 

23 13175, the President affirmed the trust responsibility of the United States, and directed all federal 

24 agencies to consult with Indian tribes when taking action affecting such rights (Executive Order No. 

25 13175, November 6, 2000). These substantive and procedural rules, discussed below, must be 

26 considered in evaluating the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan and 

27 alternatives (Secretarial Order No. 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

28 Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, June 5, 1997). 

29 3.4.4 Indian Treaty Rights in Puget Sound 

30 In 1854 and 1855, many Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest signed treaties with the United States 

31 that ceded much of the tribes’ aboriginal territory and established several reservations for tribal 

32 occupancy. Essential for securing Indian consent to the treaties was the promise that continued access 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 124 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 to fisheries would be guaranteed for future generations. This guarantee was included in the Treaty of 

2 Medicine Creek, in a provision typical of that found in Treaties with other Northwest tribes: 

3 The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said 

4 Indians, in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the 

5 purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing 

6 their horses on open and unclaimed lands: Provided, however, That they shall not take shell fish 

7 from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens. 

8 Treaty of Medicine Creek , Article III, 10 Statute 1132. See also, Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Statute 927; 

9 Treaty of Point-No-Point, 12 Statute 933; Treaty of Neah Bay, 12 Statute 939; and Treaty of Olympia, 12 

10 Statute 971, hereinafter referred to as the “Stevens Treaties”.

11 These fishing clauses of the Stevens Treaties have been at the center of litigation for more than 100 

12 years. In U.S. v. Winans, the Supreme Court construed the fishing rights provisions of these treaties as 

13 securing the right to cross privately-owned lands to reach usual and accustomed fishing stations within 

14 a tribe’s ceded territory (U.S. v. Winans 1905). Private landowners had blocked tribal members from 

15 access that was necessary to reach a usual and accustomed fishing site. The Supreme Court rejected the 

16 argument that the Indians lost the access since no easement across the private land appeared on the face 

17 of the treaty, or on the patent issued to the private landowners territory (U.S. v. Winans 1905). The 

18 treaty was said to “impose a servitude upon every piece of land [adjacent to a usual and accustomed 

19 fishing place] as though described therein.” The Supreme Court applied the same rule to guarantee 

20 access to usual and accustomed stations outside the ceded area involved in Winans (Seufert Brothers 

21 Company v. U.S. 1919). State attempts to limit the exercise of treaty fishing rights by a licensing 

22 scheme were also rejected (Tulee v. Washington 1942). Despite these favorable rulings, Indian treaty 

23 rights were ignored by the State of Washington at the time, and State officials frequently subjected 

24 tribal members to harassment and prosecution. This led to intense litigation. 

25 In 1974, Judge Boldt ruled that the Stevens Treaties reserved to the Tribes the right to take up to 50 

26 percent of the harvestable surplus of fish passing their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” 

27 (U.S. v. Washington 1974). The Supreme Court affirmed the substance of the Boldt decision following 

28 several years of resistance on the part of Washington State (Washington v. Washington State 

29 Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association 1979). 

30 Subsequent proceedings determined that the treaty rights pertain to hatchery fish, shellfish and all other 

31 species found at the usual and accustomed grounds and stations of a given tribe (U.S. v. Washington, 

32 reporter volume 759, 1985; and (U.S. v. Washington 1998 and 1999). There are no restrictions on the 

33 methods that tribes may use to take fish, and the fish may be taken for any purpose (U.S. v. 

34 Washington 1974). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 125 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Private parties, the state, or the federal government may not limit access to tribal usual and accustomed 

2 grounds and stations without congressional approval (Muckleshoot v. Hall 1988; and Northwest Sea 

3 Farms v. Army Corps of Engineers 1996). The State may regulate the exercise of treaty fishing rights 

4 when necessary for conservation purposes, provided that the state regulations do not discriminate 

5 against Indian treaty fisheries (Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Department of Fish and Game 1968; 

6 Washington Game Department v. Puyallup Tribe 1973; Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game 

7 Department 1977; and U.S. v. Washington 1975 and 1976). In other words, the State may not directly 

8 regulate Indian fisheries until after it has established the absolute conservation necessity for its action 

9 (U.S. v. Washington 1985). This authority has rarely been exercised, in part, because the Tribes and 

10 State manage fisheries cooperatively through agreements such as the one that is the subject of this 

11 Environmental Impact Statement (Secretarial Order No. 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal12 Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, June 5, 1997). The same principles 

13 apply when the United States regulates treaty fisheries, since the federal trust responsibility requires 

14 that the actions of the government support the exercise of treaty fishing rights. 

15 3.4.5 Tribal Regulation and Usual and Accustomed Grounds and Stations 

16 The tribes of Washington State, prior to western contact (Secretarial Order No. 3206, American Indian 

17 Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, June 5, 1997), 

18 governed the fisheries of Puget Sound with a set of rules that were dependent upon inter-tribal relations 

19 and kinship ties between tribal groups (U.S. v. Washington 1974). Tribal authority to regulate member 

20 fishing on and off the reservation has been recognized in the modern era as well (U.S. v. Washington, 

21 1975 and 1976; and Settler v. Lameer 1974). In recent years, tribal regulators have worked in 

22 conjunction with state and federal managers on a variety of matters that address conservation and 

23 habitat protection. 

24 There has been a significant amount of litigation over what constitutes a particular tribe’s usual and 

25 accustomed grounds and stations. Judge Boldt originally ruled that: 

26 . . . every fishing location where members of a tribe customarily fished from time to time at and 

27 before treaty times . . . is a usual and accustomed ground or station at which the treaty tribe 

28 reserved, and its members presently have, the right to take fish stations. 

29 U.S. v. Washington 1974.

30 This interpretation was applied to determine the usual and accustomed grounds and stations of a 

31 number of intervening tribes (U.S. v. Washington 1975), which continue to be refined through 

32 additional litigation (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation 1998; and Muckleshoot Indian 

33 Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation 2000). Tribal fishermen can exercise treaty fishing rights only at the 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 126 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations of their respective tribe. Determining tribal usual 

2 and accustomed areas can sometimes be complex due to the fact that many of the modern tribes are 

3 federally-imposed confederations of differing bands and tribes of various treaty signatories. For 

4 purposes of this Environmental Impact Statement, however, it is not critical to determine with precision 

5 which tribe may fish at a particular site. Instead, the task is to ensure that the Puget Sound Chinook 

6 Harvest Resource Management Plan and alternatives are evaluated for consistency with treaty rights 

7 and the federal trust responsibility to recognize that all locations within the action area comprise the 

8 usual and accustomed grounds and stations of one or another of the Puget Sound tribes. 

9 3.4.6 Limitations on the Exercise of Indian Treaty Rights 

10 Congress has the authority to abrogate or limit the exercise of Indian treaty rights, but such abrogation 

11 will be found only if there “is clear evidence that Congress actually considered the conflict between its 

12 intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict 

13 by abrogating the treaty” (U.S. v. Dion 1986). The Supreme Court has ruled that Indian treaty rights are 

14 property rights (Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States 1968; and Hynes v. Grimes Packing 

15 Company 1949). Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the United States pay 

16 “just compensation” for the taking of Indian treaty rights (U.S. v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians 1938). 

17 Accordingly, courts will not lightly imply a finding that treaty rights have been abrogated (Menominee 

18 Indian Tribe v. U.S. 1968). 

19 Whether the Endangered Species Act applies directly to limit the exercise of Indian treaty rights has not 

20 been resolved, and the two courts that have directly addressed the issue reached conflicting results 

21 (compare U.S. v. Dion 1985 and 1986, with U.S. v. Billie 1987; also see Application of the Endangered 

22 Species Act to Native Americans With Treaty Hunting and Fishing Rights 1980). 

23 Because tribes and the federal government have vital interests in salmon recovery, the tribes and the 

24 federal government jointly developed a way to harmonize treaty rights and recovery efforts under the 

25 Endangered Species Act. The Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce signed an Order in 1997, 

26 directing both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to engage 

27 in government-to-government negotiations with affected Indian tribes when exercising their authorities 

28 under the Endangered Species Act (Secretarial Order No. 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, 

29 Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, June 5, 1997). The purpose of 

30 the Secretarial Order is to ensure that the agencies that administer the Endangered Species Act “carry 

31 out their responsibilities under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to 

32 tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 127 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid 

2 or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation” (Secretarial Order No. 3206, Section 1). In 

3 addition, an appendix to that Secretarial Order spells out federal obligations to consult with tribes in 

4 evaluating candidate species, the listing process, section 7 consultations, habitat conservation planning, 

5 recovery planning and in carrying out law enforcement functions that follow (see Wilkinson 1997). 

6 The National Marine Fisheries Service acknowledges that it has a “trust obligation to minimize impacts 

7 on tribes as much as possible while still meeting agency responsibilities under the Endangered Species 

8 Act. As provided in the Secretarial Order (Wilkinson 1997): 

9 In cases involving an activity that could raise the potential issue of an incidental take under the Act, 

10 such notice shall include an analysis and determination that all of the following conservation 

11 standards have been met: 

12 (i) the restriction is reasonable and necessary for conservation of the species at issue 

13 (ii) the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved by reasonable regulation of non14 Indian activities 

15 (iii) the measure is the least restrictive alternative available to achieve the required conservation 

16 purpose 

17 (iv) the restriction does not discriminate against Indian activities, either as stated or applied 

18 (v) voluntary tribal measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. 

19 Secretarial Order No. 3206, Principle 3. 

20 Salmon recovery efforts must strive to achieve two goals: 1) the conservation and delisting of 

21 endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act; and 2) the restoration of salmon 

22 populations to a level sufficient to allow for the full exercise of treaty fishing rights (letter from 

23 Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere to Ted Strong, Chairman of the Columbia River Inter24 Tribal Fish Commission, July 21, 1998). However, any conservation burden required under the 

25 Endangered Species Act must be allocated in a manner that ensures, among other things, that it does 

26 not discriminate against Indian treaty fishing, and is implemented in the least restrictive manner 

27 necessary to provide self-sustaining natural- and hatchery-produced salmon (U.S. v. Washington 1985). 

28 The Endangered Species Act provides a basic level of protection for conservation and survival of listed 

29 species with the goal of bringing them to the point at which the measures provided by the Act are no 

30 longer necessary. The trust obligation of the federal government to the Tribes to restore salmon stocks 

31 to commercially-harvestable levels is an additive trust and treaty-based obligation above that prescribed 

32 by the Endangered Species Act (letter from Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere to Ted 

33 Strong, Chairman of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (July 21, 1998). 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 128 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.5 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses 

2 Introduction 

3 Salmon is a key resource for each of the 17 treaty Indian tribes within the Puget Sound Action Area. 

4 Tribes with adjudicated fishing rights include the Makah, Elwha Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, Port 

5 Gamble S’Klallam, Skokomish, Squaxin Island, Nisqually, Puyallup, Muckleshoot, Suquamish, 

6 Tulalip, Stillaguamish, Sauk-Suiattle, Swinomish, Upper Skagit, Nooksack, and Lummi. Their right to 

7 fish for salmon is previously described in Subsection 3.4. The Samish and Snoqualmie tribes are also 

8 federally-recognized tribes within the action area whose ancestors were parties to the Treaty of Point 

9 Elliott (Figure 3.5-1). These two tribes do not have federally-recognized treaty fishing rights at the 

10 present time. Although their access to fish is limited (as described in Subsection 4.5 of this 

11 Environmental Impact Statement), their utilization of salmon for ceremonial and subsistence purposes 

12 is similar to that of the tribes with adjudicated fishing rights. 

13 Salmon is ubiquitous (omnipresent) in Indian culture within the action area. It is regularly eaten by 

14 individuals and families, and served at gatherings of elders and to guests at feasts and traditional 

15 dinners. Salmon is treated ceremoniously by Indians throughout the action area at present as it has been 

16 for centuries. Salmon is of nutritional, cultural, and economic importance to tribes. To Indians of the 

17 action area, salmon is a core symbol of tribal identity, individual identity, and the ability of Indian 

18 cultures to endure. It is a constant reminder to tribal members of their obligation as environmental 

19 stewards. Traditional Indian concepts stress the relatedness and interdependence of all beings including 

20 humans within the action area. Thus, the survival and well-being of salmon is seen as inextricably 

21 linked to the survival and well being of Indian people and the cultures of the tribes. Many Indian 

22 people within the action area share traditional stories that explain the relationship between mountains, 

23 the origins of rivers, and the origins of salmon that inhabit the rivers (Ballard 1929). In traditional 

24 stories, even the humblest of creatures play important roles in sustaining life and balance in the 

25 ecological niche that has supplied food for Indian people for generations (Ballard 1927). Stories 

26 recount the values Indian people place on supporting healthy, welcoming rivers and good salmon runs. 

27 Salmon is also a symbol used in art and other representations of tribal identity. 

28 Definition of Terms 

29 The word sustainable, or sustaining, as used in this subsection, refers to the way indigenous people use 

30 resources to meet their present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet 

31 their own needs. This use is consistent with that employed by tribal members. Many Indian people 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 129 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.5-1. Location of federally-recognized Puget Sound Indian tribes that are parties to the 

2 proposed action. 

3 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 130 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 speak of current environmental concerns regarding salmon in the context of their concern for children 

2 and grandchildren. 

3 The words traditional or traditionally in this subsection refer to continuity between the past and the 

4 present in terms of Indian perception and use of salmon, as well as Indian ideas about allocation and 

5 management. Occasionally, traditional refers to the ethnographic description of practices and beliefs of 

6 the action area’s indigenous people at the time the United States government made treaties with 

7 western Washington Indian tribes (e.g., during the mid-nineteenth century). 

8 The term subsistence is used in the anthropological sense. In part, subsistence refers to the ways in 

9 which indigenous people utilize the environment and resources provided by it in order to survive; that 

10 is, to meet the nutritional needs of members of the society. The interplay of resources, technology and 

11 work created a unique economy in which Indian people of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, and 

12 North and South Puget Sound thrived. Subsistence encompasses the relationships between people and 

13 their environment, between people, and between people and their past. Salmon species provided a 

14 major part of the subsistence resource within the action area. 

15 Ceremonial and subsistence fish refers to non-commercial fish caught by tribal members and used by 

16 tribes for either ceremonial or subsistence purposes. Fishers engaged in commercial fisheries may take 

17 a portion of their catch for ceremonial and subsistence use, and designate that as “take home fish.” Or a 

18 tribe may open a fishery specifically to catch fish for a ceremony or other community use when there is 

19 no concurrent commercial opening. 

20 3.5.1 Historic Fisheries 

21 3.5.1.1 The Ethnographic Record 

22 The ethnographic record is unequivocal: all tribes in the Puget Sound Action Area share a long 

23 tradition of fishing. The cultures and societies of Indian people within the action area at treaty time 

24 were well adapted to the riverine and marine environments of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, 

25 North Puget Sound and South Puget Sound. Indian people developed economies based primarily on 

26 anadromous fish. These cultures and economies developed subsequent to the stabilization of shorelines 

27 within the action area; that is, around 5,000 years ago. After that time, the conditions of water in the 

28 rivers and streams could support the returning fish populations. The abundance and predictability of the 

29 fish supported permanent human settlement along these rivers and streams as well as along the 

30 saltwater shorelines of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, North Puget Sound and South Puget 

31 Sound. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 131 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Some archaeological surveys have been conducted within the action area. Data from these sites by no 

2 means provide a comprehensive view of ancient fishing practices. Geological research demonstrates 

3 significant alterations in elevations and land deformations in parts of Puget Sound associated with a 

4 major earthquake approximately 1,100 years ago. Older sites may have been submerged at that time. 

5 The few sites that have been systematically excavated and analyzed demonstrate a long tradition of 

6 fishing. These are dated to at least 1,000 years before present, the time of the alteration in water levels 

7 (Stein 2000; and Croes 1996). Some sites indicate occupation up to and through treaty time (Stein 

8 2003). 

9 Fisheries, for the most part salmon fisheries, were the defining feature of the cultures and economies of 

10 indigenous people of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, North Puget Sound, and South Puget 

11 Sound in late eighteenth century descriptions of the area. The entire action area was characterized by its 

12 dependence upon seafood (Gunther 1950). George Gibbs, the lawyer/ethnologist who helped to draft 

13 and negotiate the Indian treaties in western Washington, wrote that “the great staple food” of the region 

14 was salmon, and noted the extraordinary quantities available in Puget Sound and elsewhere in the 

15 region. “Salmon,” he said, “form the most important staple of subsistence” (Gibbs [1856] 1877). In 

16 anthropological terms, the relationship to salmon among indigenous people formed a “culture core.” 

17 Salmon were the focus of economic activities, technological development, and ideologies. The 

18 interface of these supported the invention and application of highly successful harvesting, processing, 

19 and storage techniques. The Indian people of the action area acquired finely-tuned local knowledge 

20 regarding salmon resources, and developed sustainable methods of harvest. 

21 Salmon were harvested using a variety of techniques, including trolling, spearing, gaffing, and taking 

22 fish in nets. Gear included several kinds of weirs, traps, dip nets, gill nets, seines, and, in certain 

23 localities, reef nets. Technologies were developed for particular circumstances, locations, and species. 

24 Harvesting technologies were extremely successful. Efficient techniques made it possible to harvest 

25 large numbers of fish as they ascended the rivers. These techniques were designed to allow selectivity 

26 in harvest, shaping of runs, and adequate escapement to the spawning grounds. William Elmendorf, an 

27 anthropologist, produced an ethnographic monograph describing the Twana (Skokomish) people of 

28 Hood Canal, including their use of weirs, based upon his fieldwork in the 1930s and 1940s. He wrote 

29 that, “Ordinarily one or more lattice sections were removed for a time each day or at night except 

30 during dip-net operations, to allow some fish to proceed to the spawning grounds or to weirs farther 

31 upstream. The Twana people believed that the ‘salmon people’ would be angered if this was not done, 

32 and would refuse to return for the next year’s run” (Elmendorf [1960] 1992). Arthur Ballard, whose 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 132 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 observations of South Puget Sound Indian peoples were made at the end of the nineteenth and during 

2 the early twentieth century, also discussed the practice of opening weirs (Ballard 1957). Escapement 

3 allowed sufficient fish to continue upstream to spawn. Escapement also allowed sufficient fish for 

4 Indian people fishing further upriver. Fisheries were managed with an eye to sustainability, and runs 

5 were interrupted only by unanticipated natural events such as climatic or geologic incidents. Later, runs 

6 were interrupted by dams, water diversions, and other impediments constructed by non-Indians. 

7 Winter village sites were established along drainage systems of salmon rivers and streams. The 

8 economic lives of indigenous people were organized around the seasonal runs of fish in these streams. 

9 The abundance of these fish, along with the technologies developed to harvest, process, and store the 

10 fish, sustained families and communities year-around. Salmon were eaten fresh, were cured in a variety 

11 of ways, and were stored to be consumed later or traded. Trade and commerce in fish were extensive 

12 among Indian people in western Washington and with tribal people beyond this region. Curing methods 

13 assured that harvest could be kept over an extended time for later consumption and for inter-tribal 

14 commerce. 

15 3.5.1.2 Tribal Areas, Reservation Locations, and the Importance of Salmon 

16 In the mid-nineteenth century, at the time of the 1850s treaties, Indian tribes occupied river drainages 

17 and marine areas throughout the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, North Puget Sound and South 

18 Puget Sound. Tribal members fished in the lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, bays, inlets, and open waters 

19 of the action area. Salmon returned to and were harvested from any stream that was not otherwise 

20 impassable to the fish. In general, where there were fish, there were Indian people fishing. 

21 Anthropologist Marian Smith, who worked with the Puyallup and Nisqually people, wrote that, 

22 “Fishing was the most constant occupation and whatever a man’s economic specialty, it did not greatly 

23 interfere with the fishing routine” (Smith 1940). 

24 Reservations established by the treaties were located on or near these drainage systems or marine areas 

25 because the framers of the treaties recognized the importance of the fisheries. For example, George 

26 Gibbs noted in 1855 in the official treaty journal that the proposed Puyallup reservation “affords a good 

27 site for a village, with ground for potato patches and a small stream at which the Indians take their 

28 winter salmon,” and that “the Indians will require the shore only, this tribe being exclusively fishing 

29 Indians” (Swindell 1942). The treaties acknowledged that tribes reserved their right to continue to fish; 

30 the treaties guaranteed access to traditional fishing grounds (see Subsection 3.4 of this Environmental 

31 Impact Statement). 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 133 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.5.1.3 Post Treaty Period Fishing 

2 Tribal fisheries in Washington faced many obstacles during the decades following statehood in 1889. 

3 These included state fishing regulations, dam construction, river diversions, development and 

4 urbanization, and pollution. In spite of these obstacles, Indian peoples maintained their identity with 

5 salmon and exhibited resistance and resiliency in their commitment to maintain their access to salmon. 

6 1899−1920s

7 In the early years following statehood, fishing continued to be a primary subsistence activity for Indian 

8 people. Indian fishermen were a common sight in and around the action area. Photographs from this 

9 period show western Washington Indians fishing or processing fish. Some of these photographs have 

10 been identified by archivists as Puget Sound Indian men fishing at weirs (1890−1895), Makah women 

11 drying fish on racks (1900), Snohomish people at Tulalip processing salmon (1907), and Lummi men 

12 trolling for salmon (1900) (American Indians of the Pacific Northwest Digital Collection). By the end 

13 of the second decade of the twentieth century, Indian rights to fish off-reservation had been disregarded 

14 repeatedly by the state. Indian people were often arrested for “unlawful fishing” by state game 

15 wardens. 

16 Fishing regulations passed by the state prohibited use of traditional Indian fishing gear such as weirs 

17 and traps. Indians were not allowed to fish in usual and accustomed places and were often challenged 

18 by enforcement officers. Treaties were invoked by tribal members who asserted their right to fish. 

19 Dams, lacking fish passage facilities, were constructed in the years just prior to World War I. Urban 

20 populations grew, non-Indian fishing proliferated, and development destroyed prime salmon habitat. 

21 Fish runs were threatened. Tribal members predicted serious environmental consequences for fish 

22 habitat. They also saw that the decline in fish habitat and runs threatened Indian livelihoods and 

23 indigenous cultures. Tribes struggled to retain their access to salmon and their rights to harvest salmon. 

24 1930s−1960s

25 In the mid-twentieth century, with increasing state regulation of fishing, salmon became less available 

26 and it became more difficult for Indian people to fish in their traditional places, or with their traditional 

27 gear. However, salmon retained their symbolic and nutritional significance to Indian people because 

28 fishing itself retained its value and importance as a focus for cultural teaching, learning, and activity. 

29 Tribal people found ways to fish and continued to value and consume fish whenever they were 

30 available. Indian people defied state laws in order to obtain traditional foods from traditional locations 

31 and affirm their core cultural identity and treaty-guaranteed right to fish. Many tribal members 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 134 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 regularly recount stories of family members who fished under cover of darkness or confronted game 

2 wardens. Indian people went to jail and to court in the 1930s to assert their treaty rights. 

3 In spite of the obstacles, during the depression in the 1930s many Indian people fished and ate salmon 

4 year-around. Some Indian people report that because Indians were part of a fishing culture, they fared 

5 better through this period than some of their non-Indian neighbors. Indian people continued fishing in 

6 the 1940s. Adults born and reared during this period remember being taught how to fish by elders. 

7 Some elders were still making nets and fish spears and passing the knowledge on to the youth. Indian 

8 people continued to cure and smoke fish and eat fish year-around. Youth were expected to help in all 

9 chores connected with curing fish, including helping to hang the fish in the smokehouse and keeping 

10 the fires stoked in the smokehouse. Young people were taught to maneuver canoes in the rivers, and 

11 witnessed and participated in the expression of tribal values such as the distribution of catches to elders 

12 and other family members. 

13 1960s and 1970s

14 During the 1960s and 1970s, tribal fishermen continued to assert their treaty-protected rights, 

15 sometimes at considerable risk to themselves. Indian people who participated in “fish-ins” in this 

16 period were beaten or jailed for their actions in asserting treaty rights. Local knowledge of streams and 

17 fishing technologies were retained and passed on to young people during these times. Traditional 

18 methods of welcoming salmon continued throughout the period, though less publicly than at present. 

19 Ceremonies were observed by families rather than by the community at large. The struggle in some 

20 ways reinforced the value of the fish to the people and their cultures. Tribal oral and written histories 

21 have incorporated the story of the struggle for treaty-protected fishing rights (Isely 1970, Deloria 1977; 

22 Wilkinson 2000; and Wray 2002). 

23 1974 and Later: Co-Management and the Centrality of Salmon to the Culture

24 The 1974 Boldt decision in U.S. v. Washington, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United 

25 States Supreme Court affirmed tribal treaty rights to fish, and ushered in a new era for Indian fisheries. 

26 The Boldt decision mandated that the state share management of fisheries with Indians throughout the 

27 case area. Tribes adopted new technologies. Tribal people of the area now engage in ancient fisheries 

28 with up-to-date equipment. The Indian fisheries continue to be informed by generations-old social and 

29 cultural traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation. No culture stands still. 

30 Technologies are always changing, being modified, reinvented, or refined. Core values, beliefs, and 

31 traditions and their practice in daily life, that is, the non-material components of culture, sustain 

32 community and relationships despite these material changes. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 135 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.5.2 Contemporary Fisheries 

2 3.5.2.1 Salmon Species, Availability, and Cultural Preferences 

3 Six species of salmon have been fished and continue to be fished by Indians in Puget Sound, Hood 

4 Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These are: 

5 • Sockeye or blueback salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

6 • Chinook (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) 

7 • Coho or silver (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

8 • Chum (Oncorhynchus keta) 

9 • Pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) 

10 • Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 

11 Not all species enter each river; however, all species are available in the open waters of the Strait of 

12 Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, and Puget Sound. It is likely that there was year-around availability in these 

13 open marine waters in the past. 

14 Species vary as to nutritional value, including fat content. Many Indian people express preferences 

15 regarding the desirability of certain species for consumption. Some species are appreciated as good 

16 smoking fish. For example, chum is a leaner fish that can be smoked and kept for a year or more. 

17 Smoked “Nisqually chum” is relished as a special treat even by those who live outside the Nisqually 

18 area. Coho are said to have similar qualities to chum for drying. Indian people look forward to the first 

19 spring chinook for fresh eating. Spring chinook is cured with a special soft smoke. Some Indian people 

20 say that salmon caught in salt water has a different flavor than that caught in fresh water, and that 

21 flavor differences vary even by the part of the river from which the salmon is harvested. Some fish of 

22 the same species are thought to be better (fatter and tastier, for example) in some rivers than in others. 

23 3.5.2.2 Fishing Areas 

24 The boundaries of traditional fisheries were fluid rather than confining during and before treaty time. 

25 Indigenous people in the area traveled seasonally, and often shared or traded resources and engaged in 

26 commerce outside of their winter village territories. Currently, fishing areas for individual tribes are not 

27 as fluid, and tribes fish within defined management areas. These areas have been allocated and 

28 established in accord with the Facts and Findings of U.S. v. Washington in 1974, and in subsequent 

29 court rulings. In general, tribal usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations encompass the action 

30 area. The freshwater and marine areas within the Puget Sound Action Area are fished by one Puget 

31 Sound tribe or another. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 136 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.5.2.3 Gear 

2 Gear used in contemporary fisheries include: set gillnets, drift gillnets, purse seine, trap, hook and line, 

3 dip nets, trolling gear, beach seine, and round haul. 

4 3.5.3 Salmon Uses and the Cultural Significance of Salmon 

5 “We're salmon people and the Northwest is salmon. We still have hope” Billy Frank (Clausen 2000). 

6 The relationship of tribal people to salmon is spiritual, emotional, and cultural as well as economic. 

7 Salmon evoke sharing, gifts from nature, responsibility to the resource, and connection to the land and 

8 the water. Salmon are strongly associated with the use and knowledge of water, use and knowledge of 

9 appropriate harvesting techniques, and knowledge of traditional processing techniques. The struggle to 

10 affirm the right to fish has made salmon an even more evocative symbol of tribal identity. 

11 3.5.3.1 Use, Distribution and Sharing 

12 Introduction 

13 Indian people of the Puget Sound Action Area who fish today and carry on the salmon culture were 

14 raised in that culture and identify whole periods of their lives in relationship to the salmon. They 

15 remember teething on smoked salmon and talk about eating salmon eggs for breakfast, as a snack, or in 

16 salmon egg soup. Adult fishermen today remember catching fish, sometimes by hand, as children. As 

17 youngsters, they made a fire, and cleaned and cooked the salmon on the riverbank as a treat. Salmon is 

18 not just the primary traditional food but also a food that represents to the Indian all that is his or her 

19 history, a spiritual connection to the resource, and a responsibility to that resource. It must be present at 

20 all traditional ceremonies and functions, and is served during naming ceremonies, funerals, during one21 year memorials after a death, and when students are honored. No ceremony, no gathering, is complete 

22 if salmon is not present. It is served to guests and during winter ceremonials. It is served to elders for 

23 their dinners, and shared or donated widely by fishermen with elders or family members. If a person 

24 doesn’t fish him or herself, “all it takes is saying ‘I’m really hungry for fish’ and a salmon appears.” If 

25 there is an abundance of fish, they are delivered around the reservation so everyone has a share. Some 

26 fishermen are known to fish regularly and to be ready to give some to tribal people who want to smoke 

27 fish or have some fresh fish to eat. Though between tribal people, the exchange of money for fish is not 

28 always a concern, some people make a substantial amount of their livelihood by selling smoked salmon 

29 to other members of the tribe, or to members of other tribes. Some fishermen, hit hard by the low per30 pound return of commercial fisheries, have turned to “roadside sales” of fresh and smoked salmon to 

31 supplement income. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 137 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The sections below describe the role of salmon in the culture of action area tribes, and the role of 

2 salmon in the lives of many individual tribal members today. Examples here are taken primarily from 

3 interviews with tribal members. Examples are also drawn from tribal newsletters and other 

4 publications. The ways in which salmon is part of the lives of Indian people are as varied as the 

5 individual Indian people and Indian cultures of the action area. There are some important 

6 commonalities, and most items described below express those commonalities. 

7 Personal and Family Consumption/Everyday Eating 

8 Indian people within the action area value and eat salmon whenever it is available. This includes fresh, 

9 frozen, vacuum-packed, canned, and smoked salmon. Salmon is prepared in many ways. Some Indian 

10 people consume nearly every part of the salmon in some form, including eggs, flesh, skin, and bones. 

11 Some tribes help individual members with processing and storing salmon for home use. Some tribes 

12 have community smokehouses, pressure cookers (for canning), and machines for vacuum packing that 

13 tribal members may borrow. 

14 Informal Interpersonal Distribution and Sharing 

15 Sharing and informal distribution of fish help to bind the community in a system of relationships and 

16 obligations. There are many informal, everyday ways that salmon are shared and distributed within 

17 each tribe and between tribes. For example, community members who are not able to acquire salmon 

18 for themselves are given salmon by others. Indian people gift friends and neighbors on the reservation 

19 with salmon. Surplus is distributed or placed in tribal lockers and freezers for future distribution to 

20 individuals (or for traditional dinners or ceremonies). Smoked salmon is sold from the back of trucks 

21 and cars in tribal parking lots. Tribal people who have smokehouses take shares of the catch of 

22 fishermen in exchange for smoking fish for them. Fish, fresh, frozen, or smoked, is given as a gift to 

23 those who help a friend or relative with a task. Fish are commonly given to food banks for the needy, 

24 both Indian and non-Indian. The tradition of feeding others and sharing with non-Indian neighbors is 

25 one that goes back to the earliest accounts of Indian relations with Europeans and Americans within the 

26 action area. Reciprocity and exchange among kin and even non-related groups, including those with 

27 whom connections have been established throughout the action area, is a foundation of meaningful 

28 human interaction between and among Indian peoples in the area. 

29 Formal Community Distribution and Sharing 

30 There are formal, frequent or periodic occasions during which salmon is expected or required to be 

31 served. Among these are: 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 138 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Elders’ dinner or luncheons. Tribal fishermen contribute salmon to these meals. Tribes buy salmon or 

2 they stock donated salmon for these lunches and dinners. Salmon is served often, if not at least weekly, 

3 at luncheons. Some tribes serve lunches to elders at least three days a week. Dinners for elders are held 

4 frequently. These dinners include reciprocal intertribal dinners held for elders throughout the area. 

5 Traditional food is always present at these dinners, and salmon is an essential part of the dinners. 

6 Elders are often offered salmon to take home at the conclusion of both luncheons and dinners. 

7 Distribution to elders. Tribes commonly deliver salmon to elders, who are regarded with special 

8 respect by tribal members and are not always able to fish for themselves. Some tribes make fresh 

9 salmon available at central distribution points for elders and others to take home and cook. When 

10 available, salmon make up a substantial portion of an elder’s diet. 

11 Community-wide and intertribal traditional dinners. Community-wide and intertribal dinners may 

12 be held for any number of reasons (e.g., funerals, celebrations, intertribal ties). Fish are contributed or 

13 the tribe sends out special boats for ceremonial and subsistence harvests in order to harvest salmon for 

14 these dinners. Those who fish commercially may put aside a portion of the catch for personal 

15 subsistence use, and also donate or be paid by the tribe for a portion to be stored and used for 

16 traditional community dinners at times of the year when salmon are not readily available. Tribes 

17 provide storage facilities so that catches can be kept on-hand for these dinners. Some tribes tax 

18 fishermen and use the tax money to buy additional salmon from other tribes to keep on-hand for 

19 traditional dinners. 

20 Cultural dinners with other tribes. An example of a cultural dinner with other tribes is the annual 

21 Canoe Journey that involves tribes from throughout the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, Puget 

22 Sound, and beyond. Welcoming dinners for event participants feature salmon. 

23 Dinners for guests and invited outsiders feature traditional foods. Often these meals, featuring 

24 salmon, are to honor someone or some event. Hosting guests and serving traditional food, including 

25 salmon, is an important part of traditional culture. 

26 Honoring students. Salmon is used in events that honor students and others for special achievements. 

27 Food basket distribution. Some tribes distribute food baskets to tribal members at Thanksgiving and 

28 Christmas, and include smoked fish in the baskets. 

29 Weddings. Salmon is part of the traditional meal served whenever a wedding takes place. 

30 Health fairs. Traditional foods, including salmon, are featured at health fairs. The value of a traditional 

31 diet comprised of traditional foods is emphasized among many tribal leaders and educators who voice 

32 concern with health issues, such as diabetes, prevalent among tribal people. Many of these health issues 

33 are, they believe, linked to the loss of the plant, fish, and animal diet that was available to and followed 

34 by their ancestors. 

35 Ceremonial Uses 

36 In addition to tribally-sponsored dinners, salmon is a key food, among other traditional foods, in 

37 ceremonies. Tribes whose fisheries are depleted buy salmon from other tribes or receive donations of 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 139 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 fish for use or distribution for ceremonial and subsistence needs. Tribes make an effort to keep salmon 

2 on-hand or send out special boats for these occasions. 

3 Examples of other ceremonies that require traditional meals, including salmon, are winter ceremonials, 

4 naming ceremonies, giveaways and feasts, and funerals. Winter ceremonials serve guests who have 

5 traveled from throughout the action area. These ceremonies may last many days, and are held 

6 frequently during the winter months. Naming ceremonies, as well as giveaways and feasts, which are 

7 held frequently, are common throughout the action area. Indian funerals in the action area are large 

8 gatherings typically attended by the community at large, usually by more than 100 people. Funerals are 

9 accompanied by traditional meals that include salmon. These meals may take several days of 

10 preparation. Those who cook and serve must be fed, as well. The death of a tribal member is marked by 

11 remembrances or memorials a year later. Burnings are held to feed the deceased at other times. All of 

12 these events require the use of traditional foods, including salmon. 

13 The First Salmon Ceremony and the Cultural Foundation of Contemporary Management 

14 Practices 

15 Traditionally, Indians throughout the action area have treated salmon ceremoniously (Gunther 1926 

16 and 1928). These ceremonies, based on ancient teachings and practices, continue today and underscore 

17 the need to welcome the fish by providing a clean place to which the salmon will want to return. 

18 According to Indian teachings, the fish come to feed the Indian people, but they will not come back if 

19 the environment is not suitably maintained or salmon are not treated properly. Elmendorf is specific 

20 about this requirement: “Most ritually-determined acts with reference to river fishing had to do with the 

21 salmon run and were directed toward insuring its continuance. The river had to be kept clean before 

22 salmon started running. HA (an informant) defined the period as starting in early August (for the 

23 Skokomish), before the first king salmon came. From this time, no rubbish, food scraps or the like, 

24 might be thrown in the river; canoes were not baled out in the river; and no women swam in the river 

25 during menstrual seclusion. The object of these precautions was to insure that the salmon would want 

26 to come” (Elmendorf [1960] 1992). Traditional first salmon ceremonies varied from location to 

27 location, depending upon species, time of the run, and cultural differences from tribe to tribe (Gunther 

28 1927; Stern 1934; and Smith 1940). Several of the tribes within the action area use the spring salmon 

29 (chinook) in their first salmon ceremony. 

30 Currently, first salmon ceremonies focus on thanking the fish for returning and assuring the entire 

31 community of a successful harvest. These ceremonies also draw attention to the responsibility Indian 

32 people have for providing a clean, welcoming habitat for the returning fish. Many tribes incorporate a 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 140 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 blessing of the Indian fishing fleets or individual fishermen or fisherwomen with these ceremonies. 

2 Some ceremonies welcome non-Indian people as witnesses who are typically served salmon dinners. 

3 This welcoming of non-Indian people to be present at first salmon ceremonies is an effort to engage 

4 more of the action area’s residents in sharing responsibility for the salmon and for the habitat. 

5 First salmon ceremonies were not always publicly, or even communally, celebrated during a period of 

6 years preceding U.S. v. Washington. Some fishermen and fisherwomen continued a more private 

7 version of this ceremony, individually sharing out the first catch of the season with other community 

8 members. This practice still continues in some tribes in addition to the public ceremony. These 

9 ceremonies, once again public, are common in many communities, especially since U.S. v. Washington

10 and the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in 1978. The ceremony reiterates and 

11 reinforces the special relationship of the Indian people to the salmon, and their respect and concern for 

12 the well-being of the salmon. Furthermore, the ceremony exhibits cultural continuity with the past and 

13 contemporary linkages to traditional cultural practices. 

14 Modern fisheries and fishing practices of tribes are built on long-standing traditional ideas of 

15 responsibilities to fish and habitat. These practices and ideals underlie tribal approaches to management 

16 of individual salmon runs and commitment to do what is necessary to sustain runs. As one tribal 

17 member put it, “the first salmon ceremony contains the elements of fisheries management that we use 

18 today.” That is, tribes manage fisheries with the assumption that fish need a clean, welcoming 

19 environment and a respectful, nurturing approach to maintaining and restoring habitat, especially 

20 spawning grounds. 

21 3.5.3.2 Tribes and Relationship to Salmon: Responsibility and Stewardship 

22 During the post U.S. v. Washington period, tribes have developed fisheries that promote the centrality 

23 of fish to the community and the community’s responsibility to the fish. This responsibility is, as 

24 articulated by tribal people, based upon traditional teachings. While fishermen are trained in the use of 

25 new equipment and safety regulations, the status and role of the fishermen is based upon traditional 

26 understandings of the resource and habitat. The fishermen continue to contribute to the health of the 

27 tribal members by bringing in food for the community. Tribal hatcheries and stream restoration projects 

28 take advantage of new science, but are developed in the context of local knowledge and traditional 

29 regard for responsible stewardship of the land, the rivers, and the fish runs. 

30 Tribes are working in partnerships with local, state, and federal governments, businesses, and farmers 

31 to repair degraded habitats and the polluting effects of urbanization and agricultural practices. New fish 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 141 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 processing plants are being developed at the same time as traditional and contemporary preservation 

2 methods are being taught and passed on to younger tribal members. Fish cured in traditional ways are 

3 still a focus of community trade in fish, carrying the added value of history and custom. 

4 In many ways, since U.S. v. Washington, because fishing is open and religious practices are protected, 

5 fish have become even more central to tribal identities than they were 50 years ago. Fishing is not the 

6 “under cover of darkness” activity it was by necessity for so many years. But because of the difficulties 

7 encountered during those many years, salmon are not just a food or even simply a symbol of a long and 

8 proud tradition, but a reminder of the tribal struggle to assert rights. Many of those who fish today lived 

9 that struggle and pass on their commitment to their history and their right to fish to the younger 

10 generation (Deloria 1977). In the words of one tribal person, the fish “feed the Indian” not just in body, 

11 but in spirit. 

12 3.5.3.3 The Transmission of Fishing Culture 

13 Youngsters, as in the past, are taught from an early age to fish and to understand that they, as tribal 

14 members, have a special responsibility to the salmon and the habitat in which it thrives. Indian 

15 fishermen and women take their children fishing and remember being taken fishing by relatives when 

16 they were growing up. When children fish with older friends and relatives, they not only learn the skills 

17 of taking and processing fish, but also hear the history and tradition of the tribes and are taught how to 

18 be a responsible member of the community. For example, beach seining is a multi-generational, group 

19 activity during which elders sit on beaches watching and advising while young people harvest the fish. 

20 During the work of fishing, everyone joins in conversations about the place, the salmon, and the history 

21 of salmon fishing, and youngsters listen to the stories shared by the elders. 

22 Fishing is considered to be an activity that is a critical part of a tribal member’s identity. No matter 

23 what else one does, learning to fish is part of one’s education. Specific examples of this education 

24 include: 

25 • Young people are taught how to work with fishing gear, how to maintain gear, how to fillet fish, 

26 and how to prepare fish for curing, freezing, and canning. 

27 • Young people are encouraged to help elders and relatives or older tribal members with smoking 

28 fish and thus learn all the skills required for traditional smoking. This includes learning to how 

29 fillet the fish, carve the sticks on which the fish are smoked, gather and split wood for the 

30 smokehouse, thread the fish on sticks, hang the fish in the smokehouse, assure proper air 

31 circulation in the smokehouse, and tend the fires. 

32 • Elders teach younger tribal members about smoking and other traditional skills associated with 

33 fish in less direct ways. For example, an elder may sample fish smoked by a younger tribal 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 142 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 member and comment on flavor and degree of dryness. An elder may visit and assess a smoke 

2 house put up by a younger tribal member. 

3 • Elders teach awareness of the environment and the place of fish in the environment. The whole 

4 landscape is a reminder of the salmon and its centrality to the culture. For example, in South 

5 Puget Sound, the elders watch the salal berries and, if there are plenty, they say there will be 

6 plenty of salmon. Because the sword fern is part of the First Salmon Ceremony, even seeing 

7 sword fern in the environment reminds one of the salmon, and elders comment on it. 

8 3.5.3.4 Other Activities That Underscore The Significance of Salmon in Contemporary Indian 

9 Culture 

10 One has to participate in a culture in order for it to survive. Fishing for salmon is a part of tribal life 

11 among the Indians of the Puget Sound Action Area. Tribes have developed many ways for tribal 

12 members of all ages to feel connected with the tribe and tribal culture, and to participate in community 

13 life. Fishing and responsibility for salmon and salmon habitat is a core area for participation. There are 

14 other ways to make a living, but fishing is “in the blood,” Indian people say. You “develop a 

15 relationship with salmon” from the time you are a youngster. Fishing is central to the identity of the 

16 tribes within the action area. Tribal members continue to invest in boats and nets and go fishing even if 

17 fishing is not always economically viable. Indian people teach younger family members to feel 

18 responsibility to the fish. Ways other than fishing that sustain participation in the fish culture include: 

19 School programs. The transmission of culture and the importance of salmon to tribal identity is taught 

20 through curricula and special school programs, including language programs that feature stories of 

21 salmon and first salmon ceremonies. 

22 Headstart programs: participation in restocking programs. 

23 Fishing derbies for children and teens. 

24 Strategies for protection and restoration. The “Wild Stock Restoration Initiative” created in 1996 by 

25 the tribes in conjunction with the State of Washington is an example of a strategy for protection and 

26 restoration of salmon. Tribes have voluntarily reduced harvests in order to respond to the issue of 

27 endangered salmon stocks, thus showing that they are willing to live with self-imposed restrictions to 

28 get the fish back − “if we [Indians] don’t take care of the fish, we too will expire.” Large numbers of 

29 fisheries biologists are employed by tribes, further signifying the tribes’ commitment to the resource. 

30 Publications/public relations that depict tribal involvement with fisheries, habitat enhancement, and 

31 fisheries programs in general. Tribal partnerships with businesses and state, federal and local 

32 government to enhance fish habitat. 

33 On-the-job options within tribes to take time off work to fish. These options recognize both the 

34 importance of the food to families and the value to tribal identity of supporting involvement with 

35 fishing. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 143 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Cultural resource management programs. Creation of culture and heritage and tribally-operated 

2 cultural resource management programs to enhance and celebrate relationship with the past and 

3 especially recognize and maintain cultural resources that support long-standing relationship to salmon. 

4 Tribal plaques and logos on shirts, hats, and tribal stationary that feature salmon. 

5 Art that features salmon iconography. 

6 Museums and exhibits that feature fish technology and relationships to water and fisheries; 

7 repatriation of items of significance to salmon fisheries. Also exhibits, including historic and 

8 contemporary photographs, that honor generations of fishermen and their contributions to the tribes. 

9 3.5.3.5 Summary 

10 The availability of salmon as an economic base and a cultural, ceremonial, and religious staple has 

11 provided for enhanced social cohesion and promoted cultural vitality among Puget Sound tribes. Its 

12 centrality to the Indian culture has been reaffirmed by court cases like U.S. v. Washington. Some refer 

13 to it as “a calling back home.” In many instances, Indian people came back to live with relatives and 

14 friends on reservations because there was economic opportunity. The enhanced fisheries opportunities 

15 demanded that new generations of fishermen and women be trained. The core group of elders and 

16 fishermen who had local knowledge of the waters, the currents, the tides, the habits of fish, and the 

17 requirement of habitat came forward to train others in this specialized cultural knowledge. New 

18 technologies were learned and taught along with the guidance of local, traditional knowledge. 

19 Indian people express a holistic relationship to the land and the waterways, as well as to the salmon and 

20 other creatures dependent upon the health of the land and environment. Little differentiation is made 

21 between and among spirit, nature, and culture when they speak of their obligations. Tribal people 

22 characterize their relationship to salmon as a dynamic and demanding one. The relationship draws upon 

23 indigenous teachings and insights. 

24 The obligation to salmon articulated by Indian people is one concerned with renewal, reciprocity, and 

25 balance. Salmon is of economic importance to Indian people, and it embodies cultural, ceremonial, and 

26 social dimensions of their lives to the degree that it is a significant symbol of Indian and tribal identity. 

27 Tribal identity is realized and expressed in the many daily acts in which they engage. For the Indian 

28 people within the Puget Sound Action Area, many of those acts involve or include salmon. Tribal 

29 people have a strong present connection with salmon, and share a passionate concern for the future of 

30 salmon in the marine waters, rivers, lakes, and streams in the action area. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 144 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.6 Economic Activity and Value 

2 This section describes current conditions and recent trends in economic activity and value associated 

3 with commercial and sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound. Annual average levels of 

4 salmon harvest by commercial fishermen and Puget Sound tribes are identified, and the annual average 

5 levels of fishing activity and catch by sport fishermen are also presented. The distribution of fishing 

6 activity in Puget Sound is described, including the levels of activity that occur in marine waters and 

7 fresh waters. The contribution made by salmon and steelhead fishing activity in Puget Sound to the 

8 local and regional economy also is described. Sectors of the regional economy that are most affected by 

9 fishing activity are described in terms of total sales, employment, and income generated. This 

10 information is presented for three multi-county regions that comprise the Puget Sound Action Area: the 

11 Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, North Puget Sound region, and South Puget 

12 Sound/South Hood Canal region. In addition to identifying the magnitude and distribution of fishing 

13 activity, the value of this activity to persons participating in commercial and sport fishing for salmon 

14 and steelhead in Puget Sound is characterized. 

15 Where available, data for the 10-year period between 1991 and 2000 are used to characterize trends in 

16 fishing activity and associated economic values; however, in some cases, data are available for only a 

17 portion of this time period. More detailed tables of information on fishing activity and associated 

18 economic values that include annual levels of salmon harvest and fishing activity between 1991 and 

19 2000 are included in Appendix D to this Environmental Impact Statement, Technical Methods −

20 Economics.

21 In addition to the value that salmon resources have to commercial and sport fishers and the local and 

22 regional economy, it should be recognized that these resources have value to persons that don’t directly 

23 use or consume the resources. These values are often referred to as non-use or passive use values. 

24 Avoiding extinction of endangered species has been recognized as a source of passive use values 

25 (Meyer, 1974; Randall and Stoll, 1983; Stoll and Johnson, 1984). Existence values are defined as the 

26 benefit received from simply knowing the resource exists even if no use is made of it. Wild stocks of 

27 Puget Sound Chinook salmon clearly fit into this definition. As noted by Olsen et al. (1991) in his study 

28 of existence value of doubling the size of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs, "Existence 

29 value represents the benefit that individuals gain from the knowledge that doubling of salmon and 

30 steelhead runs would provide the runs with greater ecological stability and diversity.” Passive use 

31 values also are considered public goods, in that the benefits can be simultaneously enjoyed by millions 

32 of people all across the region and the country (Loomis, 1996). Although nonuse values associated with 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 145 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the recovery of listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon are theoretically measurable and likely differ to 

2 some extent between the alternatives, existing data on recovery rates are too limited to reliably estimate 

3 these values.

4 3.6.1 Commercial Salmon Harvesting and Processing 

5 3.6.1.1 Salmon Harvesting 

6 The annual average ex-vessel value (i.e., the dollar value that commercial fishermen receive for their 

7 product once it leaves the fishing vessel) of salmon landed at Puget Sound ports between 1991 and 

8 1998, is shown by county in Figure 3.6-1. The sources of these landings include salmon harvested in 

9 Alaska, British Columbia, Coastal Oregon, and Washington, in addition to Puget Sound. The average 

10 annual value over the 8-year period was $16.2 million, with landings in Whatcom County accounting 

11 for about 45 percent of this value ($7.4 million). Ports in King County and Clallam County contributed 

12 $1.99 and $1.94 million, respectively. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 146 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Whatcom San Juan Skagit Snohomish

King

Pierce

Thurston

Mason

Jefferson

Kitsap

Clallam

Total

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Ex-Vessel Value (in thousands of dollars)

1 Figure 3.6-1. Annual average ex-vessel value of commercial salmon landed at Puget Sound ports 

2 between 1991 and 1998, by county. 

3 The annual ex-vessel value of commercial salmon landings from Puget Sound averaged about $12.2 

4 million between 1991 and 2000 (Figure 3.6-2), or about 75 percent of the annual average value of 

5 salmon landings at ports in the Puget Sound area between 1991 and 1998. Landings of sockeye salmon 

6 caught in Puget Sound averaged $7.01 million annually, accounting for more than 57 percent of the 

7 average ex-vessel value of all salmon landings. Landings of chum salmon averaged $2.68 million 

8 annually (about 22% of the average annual value). Landings of chinook, coho, and pink salmon, which 

9 are only harvested during odd-numbered years, averaged less than $1.0 million annually over the 10-

10 year period from 1991 through 2000. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 147 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.6-2. Annual average catch (tribal and non-tribal) and ex-vessel value of commercially-caught 

2 salmon in Puget Sound between 1991 and 2000. 

3 The annual average commercial catch (both tribal and non-tribal) of salmon harvested in Puget Sound 

4 is also shown in Figure 3.6-2. In terms of pounds landed, chum salmon accounted for the largest 

5 percentage of the salmon harvest, averaging 7.22 million pounds per year over the period 1991 though 

6 2000. This share represents about 38 percent of the average annual salmon landings (19.2 million 

7 pounds) over the 10-year period. Average annual landings of sockeye salmon accounted for 5.71 

8 million pounds (about 30% of the average annual salmon landings), pink salmon accounted for 3.62 

9 million pounds (about 19%), coho salmon accounted for 1.47 million pounds (about 8%), and chinook 

10 salmon accounted for 1.16 million pounds (about 6%). More than 83 percent of the commercially11 caught Puget Sound salmon in 2001 was taken by commercial fishermen using purse seines, and about 

12 15 percent was taken by commercial fishermen using gillnets (see Economics Table D-7 in Appendix 

13 D). 

14 Salmon landings from Puget Sound and the ex-vessel value of these landings decreased substantially 

15 over the 10-year period 1991 through 2000 (see Economics Table D-2 in Appendix D). During the 

16 period 1991 through 1995, total annual landings averaged about 27.4 million pounds, and the ex-vessel 

17 value of these landings averaged about $18.3 million. Between 1996 and 2000, total annual landings 

Chinook Chum Coho Pink Sockeye All Salmon

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Ex-Vessel Value (in thousands of dollars) Pounds Landed (in thousands of pounds)
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 148 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 averaged about 11.0 million pounds, and the ex-vessel value of these landings averaged about $6.0 

2 million. The decline in landings and ex-vessel value was particularly sharp in 1999 and 2000. 

3 Figure 3.6-3 shows the percentage of the annual average commercial harvest (both tribal and non4 tribal) of Puget Sound salmon by Marine Catch Area. (Figure 3.6-4 identifies the geographic 

5 boundaries of Marine Catch Areas.) In terms of pounds landed, Marine Catch Area 7 accounted for the 

6 largest share of the salmon harvest, averaging 55 percent of the total pounds of salmon landed annually 

7 in marine waters of Puget Sound between 1991 and 2000. More than 84 percent of the salmon caught 

8 in Marine Catch Area 7 were pink salmon and sockeye salmon (see Economics Table D-3 in Appendix 

9 D). Marine Catch Area 12 had the second-largest share of salmon caught, accounting for 17 percent of 

10 the 19.34 million pounds landed, on average, between 1991 and 2001. Marine Catch Areas 4, 6, and 9 

11 each accounted for less than 1 percent of the average annual amount of salmon landed in Puget Sound 

12 between 1991 and 2000. 

13 Figure 3.6-3. Percent of the annual average commercially-caught salmon in Puget Sound between 

14 1991 and 2000, by marine catch area (in pounds landed). 

15 Figure 3.6-5 shows the annual average commercial harvest (both tribal and non-tribal) caught in 

16 freshwater areas of Puget Sound, most of which is tribal harvest. The Skagit River system accounted 

17 for 29 percent of the commercial harvest in freshwater areas between 1991 and 2000. The next most 

18 productive freshwater areas included the Nisqually (16%), Nooksack-Samish River (14%), GreenArea 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Area 9 Area 10 Area 11 Area 12 Area 13

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent of Total Pounds of Salmon Landed
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 149 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Duwamish River (14%), and the Puyallup River (14%). In terms of species taken (see Economics Table 

2 D-4 in Appendix D), chum salmon accounted for the largest share (about 41%) of the commercial 

3 harvest (pounds landed) in freshwater areas, followed by coho (29%), chinook (18%), pink (12%), and 

4 sockeye (less than 1%). 
RIVER

WHATCOMSKAGIT 

SNOHOMISH

KING

PIERCE

RSTON

KITSAP

I SLAND I S L A N D

NO

VER

SH

RIVER

ISH

G

R

EEN RI

T

RI ER

NISQUALLY RIVER

CEDAR

RIV

PUYALLUP RIVRE

Tacoma

5

8

11

13

12

9

Legend

Sport and Commercial Fishing Catch Areas100,00 - 250,000 Population> 500,000 Population

Figure 3.6-4.Action and impact analysis areafor the Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan.

N

Scale in Miles

20 20 10 10 0

90

101

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 151 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.6-5. Percent of annual average commercially-caught (tribal and non-tribal) harvest of salmon 

2 in freshwater areas of Puget Sound. 

3 The number of non-tribal licenses issued for commercial salmon fishing in Puget Sound has declined 

4 each year over the period 1991 though 2000, with the exception of the year 2000 when the same 

5 number of permits were issued as in 1999 (see Economics Table D-5 in Appendix D). In 1991, 1,512 

6 licenses were issued for commercial salmon fishing in Puget Sound, of which about 94 percent were 

7 issued to Washington residents. By 2000, the number of licenses issued had declined to 987, of which 

8 about 96 percent were issued to Washington residents. 

9 To evaluate the regional effects of fishing activity, counties that border Puget Sound are grouped into 

10 three regions: North Puget Sound, consisting of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Island and San Juan 

11 counties; South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal, consisting of King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, and 

12 Kitsap counties; and the Strait of Juan De Fuca/North Hood Canal, consisting of Clallam and Jefferson 

13 counties (see Figure 3.2-2). About 56 percent of the 9.9 million pounds of salmon landed in 2001 was 

14 taken by commercial fishermen who live in the North Puget Sound region, and about 38 percent of the 

15 pounds landed was taken by commercial fishermen who live in the South Puget Sound/Hood Canal 

16 region (see Economics Table D-6 in Appendix D). Commercial fishermen who reside in the Strait of 

17 Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region accounted for about 4 percent of the salmon harvested in 2001, Nooksack-Samish Skagit Stillaguamish Snohomish Lake Washington Green-Duamish Puyallup Nisqually S. Puget Sound Mid-Hood Canal Skokomish JDF Strait

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of Total Pounds of Salmon Landed
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 152 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 and residents from outside the Puget Sound region accounted for the remaining 2 percent of the salmon 

2 harvest in 2001. 

3 The economic value of the Puget Sound commercial salmon fishery can be measured in terms of its 

4 monetary value to producers and consumers. Producers include the commercial fishers, including 

5 operators (or permit holders) and crewmembers, and fish processors. Consumers include the public that 

6 consumes salmon. Revenues received by the commercial fishers for their harvest represent gross 

7 economic value, also referred to as ex-vessel value. Net economic value is the amount of total revenues 

8 received by the vessel operators less the costs of production, including wages, operational expenses 

9 such as fuel and equipment, and fixed costs such as insurance and depreciation. 

10 As discussed in a 1988 study of the economic value of non-tribal salmon fisheries (Washington 

11 Department of Community Development 1988), many non-tribal commercial fishermen fishing for 

12 salmon in Puget Sound are part-time or occasional fishermen and operate at a loss, indicating negative 

13 net economic values. In some cases, the operating losses associated with salmon fishing are offset by 

14 profits from fishing for non-salmon species. Based on a literature review of existing studies (National 

15 Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 2002), the net economic value of commercial salmon fishing along 

16 the West Coast ranges from about 7 percent to about 53 percent of the ex-vessel value. These values 

17 reflect “average” conditions over different time periods and across different gear types and species. 

18 Recent analyses of net economic values for commercial salmon fisheries in the Pacific Northwest 

19 prepared by The Research Group (personal communication with Hans Radtke pers. comm., The 

20 Research Group, October 21, 2003) indicate that net economic values for commercial salmon fishing 

21 and processing are roughly 50 percent of the ex-vessel value for harvesting and 20 percent of the ex22 vessel value for processing. These estimates also represent averages across different vessel types and 

23 species. Based on the average annual ex-vessel value of $12.2 million for salmon commercially-caught 

24 (both tribal and non-tribal) in Puget Sound over the 10-year period 1991 through 2000, the net 

25 economic value is estimated at $8.5 million. 

26 The net economic value to consumers of the Puget Sound salmon fishery is represented by the effect of 

27 harvesting Puget Sound salmon on salmon prices. Based on a literature review conducted for a 2002 

28 study (National Marine Fisheries Service 2002), reductions in the supply of commercially-caught 

29 salmon have been found to affect the price of salmon to consumers; however, this effect depends on 

30 many factors, including the quantity of change in supply. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 153 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.6-6. Annual average catch and ex-vessel value of salmon harvested by tribes in Puget Sound 

2 (1991-2000). 

3 In summary, the annual ex-vessel value of salmon commercially-caught (tribal and non-tribal) in Puget 

4 Sound averaged about $12.2 million over the 10-year period between 1991 and 2000. This value 

5 represents about 75 percent of the ex-vessel value of all salmon landed at ports in the Puget Sound area; 

6 salmon caught elsewhere, including Alaska and Canada, also are landed at ports in the Puget Sound 

7 area. The value of the Puget Sound commercial salmon fishery has declined sharply over the 10-year 

8 period, from $24.4 million in 1991 to $5.9 million in 2000. Sockeye salmon is the most valuable 

9 salmon fishery to both tribal and non-tribal commercial fishermen, accounting for about 50 percent of 

10 the annual average value to tribal fishermen, and about 57 percent to non-tribal commercial fishermen. 

11 About 83 percent of salmon landings by non-tribal commercial fishermen is caught using purse seines. 

12 Of the salmon caught in the marine waters of Puget Sound, about 57 percent are caught in Marine 

13 Catch Area 7; about 29 percent of salmon caught in fresh waters around the Puget Sound are caught in 

14 the Skagit River system. The net economic value of the annual average harvest of Puget Sound salmon 

15 between 1991 and 2000 is estimated at $8.5 million. 

Chinook Chum Coho Pink Sockeye Steelhead All Salmon

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Ex-Vessel Value (in thousands of dollars) Pounds Landed (in thousands of pounds)
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 154 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.6.1.2 Processing of Commercial Salmon Catch 

2 Salmon processing in the Puget Sound region, as well as within Washington as a whole, consists 

3 primarily of cleaning, gutting, heading, and icing operations, and, to a much lesser extent, smoking and 

4 curing operations (Washington Department of Community Development 1988). Salmon canneries have 

5 not operated in the region since the early 1990s, with the exception of small, speciality operations 

6 focused on pink salmon (personal communication with Richard Ranta, National Marine Fisheries 

7 Service, April 4, 2003). 

8 Processors and buyers of salmon include persons who purchase salmon from tribal and non-tribal 

9 commercial fishermen, and either process the product themselves or sell it to a third party for 

10 processing. Based on information compiled by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (1999), about 

11 195 processors/buyers operated in the Puget Sound region and purchased salmon between 1994 and 

12 1998. King County and Whatcom County had the largest number of reported processors/buyers, with 

13 33 and 29 processors/buyers, respectively. Other counties in the Puget Sound region with a significant 

14 number of processors/buyers include Clallam County (27), Pierce County (23), Mason County (16), 

15 and Skagit, and Snohomish counties (each with 14 processors/buyers). 

16 During 2002, 127 tribal and non-tribal buyers of salmon purchased 23 million pounds of salmon 

17 directly from Puget Sound gillnet and purse seine vessels. The top seven buyers (all of whom 

18 purchased at least one million pounds of salmon) accounted for 62 percent of the purchases. According 

19 to industry representatives, the number of buyers has declined over the years because of heavy Alaska 

20 production and poor market conditions. At least one major buyer did not operate in 2002 (personal 

21 communication with Stephen Freese, National Marine Fisheries Service, March 14, 2003). 

22 Additional information on the contribution made by processors and buyers to the regional economies is 

23 described in Subsection 3.6.3, Regional Economic Activity. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 155 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.6.2 Sport Fishing Activity, Catch, and Value 

2 Sport fishing for salmon and steelhead is a very popular recreational activity in the Puget Sound region. 

3 Between 1991 and 2000, the number of sport fishing trips for salmon and steelhead averaged about 

4 578,000 trips annually (see Economics Table D-10 in Appendix D). The most popular areas are, in 

5 descending order of popularity, Marine Catch Areas 11, 5, 10, 9, and 8. (Marine Catch Areas are 

6 identified on Figure 3.6-3.) The number of sport fishing trips for salmon and steelhead declined 

7 substantially over the 10-year period, with an estimated 923,700 trips taken in 1991, decreasing to only 

8 319,200 trips taken in the year 2000. 

9 Figure 3.6-7 shows the annual average catch of salmon by species in marine and freshwater areas of 

10 Puget Sound between 1991 and 2000. About 76 percent of all fish caught by sport anglers were in 

11 marine waters. In terms of the distribution by salmon species, chinook and coho salmon are the primary 

12 species caught by sport anglers, and are predominantly caught in the marine waters of Puget Sound, 

13 whereas pink, chum salmon, and sockeye salmon are predominantly caught in freshwater areas. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 156 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Figure 3.6-7. Annual average sport catch (number of fish caught) of salmon in marine and freshwater 

2 areas of Puget Sound, by species (1991-2000). 

3 Economics Table D-12 in Appendix D shows the proportion of the 2001 sport catch of salmon in 

4 marine waters of Puget Sound caught by anglers who reside in the three regions of the Puget Sound 

5 Action Area, and from outside the area. As shown, 52 percent of the 2001 sport catch of salmon was 

6 taken by anglers who live within the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region, and about 30 

7 percent was caught by anglers who reside in the North Puget Sound region. Major launching areas and 

8 marinas used by anglers in the three regions are shown on Figure 3.6-8 (North Puget Sound), Figure 

9 3.6-9 (South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal), and Figure 3.6-10 (Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood 

10 Canal). 

Chinook Coho Chum Pink Sockeye All Salmon

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Sport Catch in Fresh Waters Sport Catch in Marine Waters
Figure 3.6-8. Salmon ports and major launch areas in North Puget Sound region.

 

 

 

 

RIVER

W HAT COM

SKAGIT

SNOHOMISH

SAN JUAN

ISLAND

JEFFERSON KITSAP

CLALLAM

NOOK AC RIV

R

SKAGIT RIVER

STILLAGUA ISH RIVER

SNOHOMISH

D

UNGENESS

R

VI ER

Blaine

Point Roberts Point Roberts

Area

Point Roberts

Area

Bellingham Bellingham ellingham

Fisherman's Fisherman's

Cove

Fisherman's

Cove

Anacortes Anacortes

Area

Anacortes

Area Howard Miller

Fort Casey

Camano Island a Island

Deception Deception

Pass

Deception

Pass

Bush Point Bush Point ush Point

Mukilteo Mukilteo ukilteo

Edmonds Edmonds

Monroe Area Monroe Area onroe Area

Skagit RiverHamilton

Friday Harbor Friday Harbor riday Harbor

West Sound West Sound est Sound

Anaco

Legend

Major Salmon Ports

Other Salmon Ports

Ports

Major Launch Areas

N

Scale in Miles

0 10 20

River

Nooksac

River

Roche

Harbor

Roche

Harbor

* Major Salmon Ports are those that had one million dollars

 or more in salmon landings in at least one year between

 1990 and 1998, as reported by the Pacific Fishery

 Management Council. 

Strait of Juan de Fuca Strait of Juan de Fuca Strait of Juan de Fuca

Strait of Georgia Strait of Georgia trait of Georgia

, 

 

KING

PIERCE

THURSTON

MASON

KITSAP

SN

GREEN R

RI R

NISQUALLY RIVER

HAMMA RIVER

DUCKABUSH RIVER

Bremerton Bremerton

Des Moines Des Moines es Moines

Tacoma

Point Defiance- Point DefianceTacoma

Narrows Marina- arrows Ma arrows Ma arrows Ma arrows Ma arrows Ma rrows Marina- r ws MarinaTacoma

Point DefianceTacoma

Don Arm on Arm

Point No Point N Point No P int N P

T

Bremerton

Port of Allyn Port of Allyn

Hood Cana Hood Canal Hood Canal ood Cana

T

Port of Allyn

a

5

90

5

101

Figure 3.6-9. Salmon ports and major launch areas in South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region.

Legend

Major Salmon Ports

Other Salmon Ports

Ports

Major Launch Areas

N

Scale in Miles

0 10 20

* Major Salmon Ports are those that had one million dollars

 or more in salmon landings in at least one year between

 1990 and 1998, as reported by the Pacific Fishery

 Management Council. 

SAN JUAN

ISLAND

CLALLAM

JEFFERSON

MASON

HAMMA RIVER

DUCKABUSH RIVER

D

UNGENESS

R

VI ER

ELWHA

RI VER

HOKO

RIVER

Port Townsend Port Townsend

Port Angeles Port Angeles ort Angeles

Neah Bay Neah Bay

Neah Bay Area Neah Bay Area

Neah Bay

Neah Bay Area

Seiku Area Seiku Area

Port Angeles Area Port Angeles Area

Seiku Area

Port Angeles Area

Port Townsend

Strait of Juan de Fuca Strait of Juan de Fuca trait of Juan de Fuca

Figure 3.6-10. Salmon ports and major launch areas in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region.

Legend

Major Salmon Ports

Other Salmon Ports

Ports

Major Launch Areas

N

Scale in Miles

0 10 20

* Major Salmon Ports are those that had one million dollars

 or more in salmon landings in at least one year between

 1990 and 1998, as reported by the Pacific Fishery

 Management Council. 

HOTT RIVER

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 160 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Similar to the commercial salmon fishery, the economic value of the Puget Sound sport salmon fishery 

2 can be measured by the value it generates for consumers and producers. Consumers include sport 

3 anglers that engage in salmon fishing, both in marine waters and fresh waters. Producers are those 

4 businesses that provide goods and services to anglers participating in salmon sport fishing, including 

5 guides, charter boat operators, and other businesses such as bait and tackle stores, lodging places, food 

6 stores and restaurants, and miscellaneous retail stores. 

7 Even though sport-caught salmon do not have a market price, the value to anglers can be measured by 

8 their willingness to pay (WTP) for fishing trips. Willingness to pay includes what anglers actually pay 

9 (i.e., angler spending) plus the additional amount that they would be willing to pay to continue sport 

10 fishing for salmon. The amount that anglers would be willing to pay over and above what they actually 

11 pay measures the net economic value (or the value received) to anglers. The net economic value of the 

12 sport fishery to producers (e.g., charter boat operators, guides, and other sport fishing-related 

13 businesses) can be measured by the net income (or profit) generated by sales to recreational anglers. 

14 Based on two previous studies (The Research Group 1991 and Gentner et al. 2001) of expenditures 

15 associated with sport fishing in marine and fresh waters in the Pacific Northwest, spending by anglers 

16 who sport fish for salmon and steelhead in marine waters of Puget Sound is estimated to average about 

17 $55 per angler day for fishing from the shore, $50 per angler day for fishing from private boats, and 

18 $156 per angler day for fishing from charter boats (in 2000 dollars). Expenditures associated with sport 

19 fishing for salmon and steelhead in fresh waters of Puget Sound are estimated at about $66 per angler 

20 day. Based on the average number of sport fishing trips (assumed to be equivalent to angler days) taken 

21 during the period 1991 through 1998 (578,000 trips, roughly split evenly between marine and fresh 

22 waters), annual trip-related spending associated with sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in the 

23 Puget Sound area averaged $35.1 million. Washington-resident anglers are estimated to account for 

24 about 95 percent of all sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound. 

25 As indicated above, the net economic value of the recreational salmon fishery is comprised of the 

26 additional (or net) willingness by anglers to pay to fish for salmon, plus the net income to charter boat 

27 operators, guides, and other businesses that provide goods and services to recreational anglers. Based 

28 on a study of sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest (Olsen et al. 1991), the net 

29 economic value of sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound waters (including tributaries) 

30 was estimated at about $47 per angler day (in 1989 dollars). When adjusted to 2000 dollars using the 

31 consumer price index, this dollar amount is $65 per angler day. Based on the average number of sport 

32 fishing trips (assumed to be equivalent to angler days) taken between 1991 and 2000 (578,000 trips), 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 161 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 the annual average net economic value associated with sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in Puget 

2 Sound waters is estimated at $37.6 million. The annual average net income to sport fishing-related 

3 businesses is estimated at $6.5 million, based on angler spending of $35.1 million and an average net 

4 income coefficient (derived from the Impact Model for Planning [IMPLAN] data for the Puget Sound 

5 Region) of 18.4 percent for sport fishing-related businesses. This profit margin overestimates, to a 

6 limited extent, the net income to sport fishing-related businesses because the coefficient used in the 

7 calculation includes sources of income such as rents and dividends that are not directly related to sales 

8 of sport fishing-related goods and services. 

9 In summary, the number of sport fishing trips for salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound waters averaged 

10 about 578,000 trips annually between 1991 and 2000. The number of trips declined sharply over the 

11 10-year period, from 923,700 trips in 1991 to 319,200 in 2000. Chinook and coho salmon are the 

12 primary species caught by sport anglers, and these are predominantly caught in marine waters of Puget 

13 Sound. Anglers who reside in the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region caught about 52 percent 

14 of the 2001 sport catch of salmon; anglers who reside in the North Puget Sound region caught about 30 

15 percent of the 2001 sport catch of salmon; anglers who reside in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Puget 

16 Sound region caught about 9 percent of the 2001 sport catch of salmon; and persons who live outside 

17 the Puget Sound region caught the remaining 9 percent of the catch. Trip-related spending by sport 

18 anglers fishing for salmon and steelhead in the Puget Sound area is estimated to average about $35.1 

19 million annually between 1991 and 2000. The net benefits to anglers of sport fishing for salmon and 

20 steelhead in the Puget Sound area are estimated to have averaged about $37.6 million annually between 

21 1991 and 2000. Net income to sport fishing-related businesses is estimated to have averaged about $6.5 

22 million annually between 1991 and 2000. 

23 3.6.3 Regional Economic Activity 

24 This section describes the level of economic activity within the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood 

25 Canal region, North Puget Sound region, South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region, and the action 

26 area as a whole to provide context for evaluating the effects of commercial and sport fishing for salmon 

27 in Puget Sound. Economic activity in these three regions is characterized by levels of industrial output, 

28 employment, and personal income. As shown in Tables 3.6-1 through 3.6-6, economic data are 

29 presented for major industrial sectors and for the individual industrial sectors that would be most 

30 affected by changes in sport fishing activity and commercial fishing/processing that would result from 

31 the Proposed Action or alternatives. Economic conditions are characterized using 2000 data available 

32 from secondary sources through the IMPLAN economic input-output model database (Minnesota 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 162 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 IMPLAN Group 2002). The underlying sources for the IMPLAN data generally include U.S. 

2 Department of the Census County Business Patterns data, U.S. Department of Labor ES-202 data, and 

3 Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Economic Information System data (Minnesota IMPLAN 

4 Group 2000). 

5 3.6.3.1 Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal Region 

6 Clallam County and Jefferson County border the Strait of Juan de Fuca and North Hood Canal and 

7 comprise this region of the Puget Sound Action Area. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the Strait of Juan de 

8 Fuca/North Hood Canal region generated $3.5 billion in industrial output (i.e., sales of goods and 

9 services) in 2000, which accounted for about 0.9 percent of statewide industrial output. Manufacturing; 

10 services; and finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) were dominant within the Strait of Juan de 

11 Fuca/North Hood Canal region sectors, together accounting for 54 percent of total regional output in 

12 2000. Among the specific sectors potentially affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives (Table 

13 3.6-2), the eating and drinking places sector was the largest, generating $102.4 million in revenue in 

14 2000. The commercial fishing and fish/seafood processing (i.e., canned and cured seafood and prepared 

15 fresh or frozen fish or seafood) sectors generated $37.7 million and $15.8 million, respectively, in 

16 output, together representing 1.5 percent of industrial output in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood 

17 Canal region. 

18 In 2000, employment within the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, including full- and 

19 part-time jobs, totaled about 45,500 jobs (Table 3.6-3), representing 1.8 percent of total employment 

20 within the three regions and 1.3 percent of statewide employment. Among major industrial sectors, the 

21 largest employers included the services sector (29.6% of regional employment), and the wholesale and 

22 retail trade sector (20.8%). Among the potentially affected sectors, eating and drinking places provided 

23 6.7 percent of jobs in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and food stores generated 

24 3.6 percent of jobs in this region (Table 3.6-4). Commercial fishing and fish/seafood processing 

25 generated 449 and 110 jobs, respectively, together accounting for 1.2 percent of employment in the 

26 Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal regional economy. 

27 As measured by employee compensation, proprietary income (i.e., payments received by self-employed 

28 persons as income), and other property income (i.e., payments from interest, rents, royalties, dividends, 

29 and corporate profits), the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region-wide income totaled almost 

30 $1.9 billion in 2000 (Table 3.6-5), with the majority of the income produced by the government, FIRE, 

31 and services sectors. Among the potentially affected sectors, the food stores sector and eating and 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 163 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 drinking places sector together accounted for $99.2 million in income, or 5.4 percent of total income 

2 within the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region (Table 3.6-6). 

3 3.6.3.2 North Puget Sound 

4 The North Puget Sound region includes Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Island, and San Juan counties. 

5 As shown in Table 3.6-1, the North Puget Sound region generated $52.2 billion in industrial output in 

6 2000, which accounted for about 14 percent of statewide industrial output. Manufacturing was the 

7 dominant sector in the North Puget Sound region, producing 39 percent of its total output in 2000. 

8 Among the specific sectors potentially affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives, the eating and 

9 drinking places sector was the largest, generating $1.0 billion in output (Table 3.6-2). The commercial 

10 fishing and fish/seafood processing sectors generated $240.6 million and $270.7 million, respectively, 

11 together representing about 1.0 percent of North Puget Sound regional output. Similar to the Strait of 

12 Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, commercial fishing and processing in the North Puget Sound 

13 region are minor industries relative to the overall level of industrial output within the regional 

14 economy. 

15 In 2000, employment within the North Puget Sound region totaled about 480,800 jobs (Table 3.6-3), 

16 representing 18.6 percent of total employment within the three-region action area and 13.4 percent of 

17 statewide employment. Among major industrial sectors, the largest employers included the services 

18 sector (25.1% of regional jobs), and the wholesale and retail trade sector (21.4%). Among the 

19 potentially affected sectors, eating and drinking places provided 5.9 percent of jobs within the North 

20 Puget Sound region, and the miscellaneous retail sector generated 3.3 percent of regional jobs (Table 

21 3.6-4). Commercial fishing and fish/seafood processing generated 2,373 and 1,696 jobs, respectively, 

22 together accounting for 0.8 percent of North Puget Sound regional employment. 

23 Regionwide, income totaled almost $24.2 billion in 2000 (Table 3.6-5), with the majority of the income 

24 produced by the manufacturing, government, and FIRE sectors. Among the potentially affected sectors, 

25 the service stations and automobile dealers sector and the eating and drinking places sector together 

26 accounted for $1.0 billion in income, or 4.2 percent of total income within the North Puget Sound 

27 region (Table 3.6-6). 

28 3.6.3.3 South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal 

29 Five counties comprise the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region: King, Pierce, Thurston, 

30 Mason, and Kitsap. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region 

31 generated $194.1 billion in industrial output in 2000, representing 52.3 percent of statewide output. The 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 164 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 services and manufacturing sectors were dominant within the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal 

2 region, together accounting for about half of regional output in 2000. Among the specific sectors 

3 potentially affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives, the eating and drinking places sector was 

4 the largest, generating $4.9 billion in output (Table 3.6-2). The commercial fishing and fish/seafood 

5 processing sectors generated $368.2 million and $1.1 billion, respectively, in output, together 

6 representing about 0.7 percent of total Puget Sound regional output. Similar to the Strait of Juan de 

7 Fuca/North Hood Canal and North Puget Sound regions, commercial fishing and processing in the 

8 South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region are minor industries relative to the overall level of 

9 industrial output within the regional economy. 

10 In 2000, employment within the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region totaled nearly 2.1 

11 million jobs (Table 3.6-3), representing 79.6 percent of total employment within the three regions of 

12 the action area, and 57.3 percent of statewide employment. The largest employers among major 

13 industrial sectors included the services sector (32.9% of regional jobs), and the wholesale and retail 

14 trade sector (21.2%). Among the potentially affected sectors, eating and drinking places provided 5.2 

15 percent of regional jobs, and the miscellaneous retail sector generated 4.0 percent of regional jobs 

16 (Table 3.6-4). Commercial fishing and fish/seafood processing generated 3,345 and 5,312 jobs, 

17 respectively, together accounting for 0.4 percent of South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal regional 

18 employment. 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 165 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.6-1. County, regional, and state industrial output by major industrial sector in 2000 (in millions of 2000 dolla

Region/ 

County 

Agriculture, 

Forestry 

and Fishing 

Construction 

and Mining Manufacturing 

Transportation, 

Communications 

and Utilities 

Wholesale 

and Retail 

Trade 

Finance, 

Insurance 

and Real 

Estate Services G

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal: 

 Clallam 

 Jefferson 

 Total 

$71.88 $35.84 

$107.72 

$328.27 $149.79 $478.06 

$415.20 $291.73 $706.93 

$116.33 

$48.43 

$164.76 

$305.16 $100.89 $406.05 

$408.86 $173.88 $582.74 

$402.89 $187.42 $590.31 

 North Puget Sound: 

Whatcom 

Skagit 

Snohomish 

Island 

San Juan 

Total 

$448.16 $328.11 $362.01 

$32.68 $26.58 

$1,197.54 

$1,200.06 

$730.36 

$3,480.96 

$311.01 $173.97 

$5,896.36 

$4,085.56 $2,917.95 

$13,133.07 

$111.37 

$48.41 

$20,296.36 

$484.51 $350.06 

$1,171.81 

$94.47 $55.82 

$2,156.67 

$1.065.76 

$654.13 

$3,307.42 

$225.90 

$65.69 

$5,318.9 

$1,081.40 

$591.01 

$3,855.22 

$572.44 $184.93 

$6,285.00 

$1,326.03 

$734.66 

$3,797.15 

$358.71 $156.77 

$6,373.32 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal: 

King 

Pierce 

Thurston 

Mason 

Kitsap 

Total 

$890.28 $245.30 $186.61 

$53.86 

$145.39 

$1,521.44 

$13,526.95 

$3,333.16 

$904.87 $166.79 $943.97 

$18,875.74 

$35,840.25 

$4,796.27 

$896.60 $352.71 $372.15 

$42,257.98 

$16,252.61 

$2,149.89 

$566.50 

$53.40 

$381.52 

$19,403.92 

$25,882.38 

$4,044.56 $1,513.75 

$149.94 $994.76 

$32,585.39 

$26,220.05 

$4,498.52 $1,307.32 

$237.88 

$1,240.29 

$33,504.06 

$45,958.83 

$5,586.95 $1,737.58 

$190.21 

$1,739.94 

$55,213.51 

Three-Region 

Total $2,826.7 $25,250.16 $63,261.27 $21,725.35 $38,3120.34 $40,371.80 $62,177.14 

Statewide 

Total 

$8,216.14 $33,982.75 $84,991.94 $31,118.31 $49,159.25 $50,885.03 $77,160.95 

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2002. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 166 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.6-2. County, regional, and state industrial output by specific industrial sectors in 2000 (in millions of 2000 d

Region/ 

County 

Commercial 

Fishing 

Canned 

and Cured 

Seafood 

Prepared 

Fresh or 

Frozen Fish 

or Seafood 

Food 

Stores 

Service 

Stations and 

Automobile 

Dealers 

Eating and 

Drinking 

Places 

Miscellaneous 

Retail 

Ho

L

P

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal: 

 Clallam 

 Jefferson 

 Total 

$24.88 $12.79 $37.67 

$0.66 

$0 

$0.66 

$10.90 

$4.23 

$15.13 

$49.56 $21.98 $71.54 

$41.98 

$9.96 

$51.94 

$67.17 $35.19 

$102.36 

$26.12 

$8.24 

$34.36 

North Puget Sound: 

Whatcom 

Skagit 

Snohomish 

Island 

San Juan 

Total 

$69.40 $48.89 

$105.40 

$3.60 

$13.28 

$240.57 

$1.17 

$16.02 $10.91 

$2.78 

$0 

$30.88 

$118.72 

$81.10 $38.89 

$1.10 

$0 

$239.81 

$147.86 

$64.65 

$353.59 

$32.15 $16.58 

$614.83 

$105.11 $144.65 $597.03 

$29.79 

$3.11 

$879.69 

$208.50 $136.96 $624.97 

$55.50 $19.51 

$1,045.44 

$78.40 $59.96 

$269.64 

$34.75 

$8.91 

$451.66 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal: 

King 

Pierce 

Thurston 

Mason 

Kitsap 

Total 

$235.69 

$36.66 $15.13 

$6.98 

$73.74 

$368.20 

$72.96 

$0 

$0.37 

$0 

$0.34 

$73.67 

$961.79 

$7.04 $3.81 

$30.23 

$0.49 

$1,003.36 

$1,214.00 

$347.09 $105.23 

$25.63 

$144.69 

$1,836.64 

$1,429.24 

$655.68 $111.45 

$16.66 

$168.13 

$2,381.16 

$3,645.79 

$757.96 $191.13 

$37.86 

$238.87 

$4,871.61 

$3,348.39 

$327.75 

$76.44 

$7.55 

$79.04 

$3,839.17 

Three-Region Total $646.44 $105.21 $1,258.30 $2,523.01 $3,312.79 $6,019.41 $4,325.19 Statewide Total $902.14 $122.71 $1,362.10 $3,626.67 $4,575.73 $7,996.43 $5,345.88 Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2002. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 167 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.6-3. County, regional, and state employment1 by major industrial sector in 2000. 

Region/ 

County 

Agriculture, 

Forestry and 

Fishing 

Construction 

and Mining Manufacturing 

Transportation, 

Communicatio

ns and Utilities 

Wholesale 

and Retail 

Trade 

Finance, 

Insurance 

and Real 

Estate Services Gov

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal: 

 Clallam 

 Jefferson 

 Total 

1,275 

585 

1,860 

2,766 1,329 4,095 

2,449 1,369 3,818 

989 246 

1,235 

6,845 2,607 9,452 

2,252 

958 

3,210 

9,348 4,113 

13,461 

North Puget Sound: 

Whatcom 

Skagit 

Snohomish 

Island 

San Juan 

Total 

5,397 4,826 5,570 

873 570 

17,236 

9,307 5,586 

27,121 

2,692 1,492 

46,198 

10,227 

6,783 

56,852 

898 305 

75,065 

3,329 2,073 6,885 

501 307 

13,095 

21,410 13,452 60,887 

5,664 1,638 

103,051 

5,647 3,161 

19,165 

2,839 

932 

31,744 

26,517 15,247 68,042 

7,840 3,092 

120,738 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal: 

King 

Pierce 

Thurston 

Mason 

Kitsap 

Total 

14,649 

5,474 3,133 

680 

1,898 

25,834 

98,028 26,053 

7,391 1,422 7,633 

140,527 

155,447 

23,541 

4,658 2,233 2,984 

188,863 

83,631 11,948 

2,874 

447 

2,363 

101,263 

317,774 

71,294 21,191 

3,476 

21,608 

435,343 

114,394 

24,311 

6,497 1,305 6,761 

153,268 

507,713 100,654 

31,246 

4,553 

31,760 

675,926 

Three-Region Total 44,930 190,820 267,746 115,593 547,846 188,222 810,125 Statewide Total 137,115 261,023 371,402 156,152 762,495 245,736 1,084,962 Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2002. 1 Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 168 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.6-4. County, regional, and state employment1 by specific industrial sectors in 2000. 

Region/ 

County 

Commercial 

Fishing 

Canned 

and Cured 

Seafood 

Prepared 

Fresh or 

Frozen Fish 

or Seafood Food Stores 

Service 

Stations and 

Automobile 

Dealers 

Eating and 

Drinking 

Places 

Miscellaneous 

Retail 

Hot

Lo

P

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal: 

 Clallam 

 Jefferson 

 Total 

286 163 449 

7 0 7 

74 29 

103 

1,102 

531 

1,633 

714 158 872 

1,995 1,056 3,051 

911 364 

1,275 

North Puget Sound: 

Whatcom 

Skagit 

Snohomish 

Island 

San Juan 

Total 

779 557 843 

44 

150 

2,373 

11 

135 

80 24 

0 

250 

742 485 212 

7 0 

1,446 

2,911 1,498 7,580 

756 388 

13,133 

1,715 1,852 6,844 

405 

54 

10,870 

5,973 3,812 

16,500 

1,664 

514 

28,463 

2,912 2,151 9,176 1,416 

330 

15,985 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal: 

King 

Pierce 

Thurston 

Mason 

Kitsap 

Total 

2,110 

424 196 

92 

523 

3,345 

491 

0 3 0 3 

497 

4,562 

56 25 

169 

3 

4,815 

21,606 

7,333 2,350 

574 

3,077 

34,940 

14,468 

7,317 1,469 

301 

2,258 

25,813 

74,215 20,184 

5,233 1,109 6,605 

107,346 

65,481 10,948 

2,711 

348 

3,078 

82,566 

Three-Region Total 6,167 754 6,364 49,706 37,555 138,860 99,826 Statewide Total 9,315 889 7,015 75,619 56,009 194,661 133,101 Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2002. 1 Employment includes full- and part-time jobs. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 169 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.6-5. County, regional, and state personal income1 by major industrial sector in 2000 (in millions of 2000 doll

Region/ 

County 

Agriculture, 

Forestry and 

Fishing 

Construction 

and Mining Manufacturing 

Transportation, 

Communications 

and Utilities 

Wholesale 

and Retail 

Trade 

Finance, 

Insurance 

and Real 

Estate Services 

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal: 

Clallam 

 Jefferson 

 Total 

$58.75 $23.38 $82.13 

$117.00 

$48.50 $165.5 

$151.82 

$89.34 

$241.16 

$49.44 $25.89 $75.33 

$180.06 

$58.38 

$238.44 

$247.40 $106.15 $353.55 

$221.22 

$92.28 

$313.50 

North Puget Sound: 

Whatcom 

Skagit 

Snohomish 

Island 

San Juan 

Total 

$167.30 $166.43 $205.63 

$20.50 $22.33 

$582.19 

$472.98 $190.71 

$1,365.10 

$104.93 

$59.60 

$2,193.32 

$778.74 $526.55 

$4,070.20 

$43.79 $16.16 

$5,435.44 

$218.26 $154.03 $552.80 

$47.74 $27.40 

$1,000.23 

$618.56 $380.02 

$1,937.45 

$132.57 

$39.92 

$3,108.52 

$651.13 $356.08 

$2,322.69 

$354.45 $113.03 

$3,797.38 

$747.19 $433.05 

$2,172.78 

$190.23 

$80.83 

$3,624.08 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal: 

King 

Pierce 

Thurston 

Mason 

Kitsap 

Total 

$613.02 $166.07 

$88.11 $25.46 

$112.10 

$1,004.76 

$5,691.66 $1,300.58 

$335.22 

$57.55 

$353.18 

$7,738.19 

$12,399.57 

$1,607.93 

$287.89 $128.80 $130.52 

$14,554.71 

$8,161.81 

$959.54 $277.29 

$24.64 

$191.91 

$9,615.19 

$14,965.09 

$2,338.59 

$923.54 

$87.88 

$588.59 

$18,903.69 

$15,866.53 

$2,651.81 

$794.75 $146.51 $747.46 

$20,207.06 

$31,608.10 

$3,299.57 $1,025.08 

$107.87 $963.30 

$37,003.92 

Three-Region Total $1,669.08 $10,097.01 $20,231.31 $10,690.75 $22,250.65 $24,357.99 $40,941.50 Statewide Total $4,175.18 $13,435.35 $26,996.56 $14,959.04 $28,509.56 $30,744.60 $49,595.20 Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2002. 1 Personal income includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income. 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 170 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table 3.6-6. County, regional, and state personal income1 by specific industrial sectors in 2000 (in millions of 2000 d

Region/ 

County 

Commercial 

Fishing 

Canned 

and Cured 

Seafood 

Prepared 

Fresh or 

Frozen Fish 

or Seafood Food Stores 

Service 

Stations and 

Automobile 

Dealers 

Eating and 

Drinking Places 

Miscellaneou

s Retail 

H

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal: 

Clallam 

 Jefferson 

 Total 

$22.60 $11.63 $34.23 

$0.04 $0.00 $0.04 

$1.44 $0.51 $1.95 

$37.15 $16.48 $53.63 

$25.04 

$5.94 

$30.98 

$29.96 $15.60 $45.56 

$16.39 

$5.17 

$21.56 

North Puget Sound: 

Whatcom 

Skagit 

Snohomish 

Island 

San Juan 

Total 

$24.91 $44.40 $95.50 

$3.28 

$12.06 

$180.15 

$0.18 $3.22 $3.24 $0.49 $0.00 $7.13 

$22.45 $17.79 $10.89 

$0.25 $0.00 

$51.38 

$110.85 

$48.47 

$265.09 

$24.10 $12.43 

$460.94 

$62.69 $86.27 

$356.07 

$17.76 

$1.86 

$524.65 

$95.01 $63.42 

$297.54 

$24.62 

$9.30 

$489.89 

$49.18 $37.62 

$169.15 

$21.80 

$5.59 

$283.34 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal: 

King 

Pierce 

Thurston 

Mason 

Kitsap 

Total 

$213.68 

$33.30 $13.76 

$6.35 

$105.07 $372.16 

$25.20 

$0.00 $0.09 $0.00 $0.05 

$25.34 

$347.16 

$1.70 $0.55 $7.97 $0.07 

$357.45 

$910.16 $260.22 

$78.89 $19.22 

$108.48 

$1,376.97 

$852.41 $391.05 

$66.47 

$9.94 

$100.27 

$1,420.14 

$1,936.09 

$359.28 

$89.29 $17.03 

$111.01 

$2,512.70 

$2,100.67 

$205.61 

$47.96 

$4.74 

$49.58 

$2,408.56 

Three-Region Total $586.54 $32.51 $410.78 $1,891.54 $1,975.77 $3,048.15 $2,713.46 Statewide Total $818.70 $37.04 $428.19 $2,718.95 $2,728.99 $3,956.59 $3,353.77 Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2002. 1 Personal income includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income. 
Section 3 – Affected Envrionment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 171 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Total income within the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region was almost $127.4 billion in 

2 2000 (Table 3.6-5), with the majority produced by the services, FIRE, and wholesale and retail trade 

3 sectors. Among the potentially affected sectors, the eating and drinking places sector and the 

4 miscellaneous retail sector together accounted for $4.9 billion in income, or 3.9 percent of total income 

5 within the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region (Table 3.6-6). 

6 3.6.3.4 Three-Region Summary 

7 Together, the three regions (Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal, North Puget Sound, and South 

8 Puget Sound/South Hood Canal) generate a substantial portion of Washington’s total industrial output. 

9 Led by the manufacturing and services sectors, the three regions generated a total of $249.8 billion in 

10 output in 2000, accounting for more than two-thirds of the statewide total (Table 3.6-1). Among the 

11 sectors potentially affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives within the three-region action area, 

12 the eating and drinking places sector was the largest in the year 2000, generating $6.0 billion in output, 

13 representing 75.3 percent of the sector’s statewide output (Table 3.6-2). The commercial fishing sector 

14 in the three-region action area generated output valued at $646.4 million, representing 71.7 percent of 

15 the statewide total, and the area’s fish/seafood processing sector produced $1.3 billion in output, or 

16 91.8 percent of the state’s total output for that sector. 

17 Industries within the three-region action area provided about 2.6 million jobs in 2000, accounting for 

18 72.0 percent of Washington’s total employment (Table 3.6-3). The leading major employment sector 

19 within the three-region area was the services sector, generating 31.4 percent of all jobs within the three20 region area. Within the employment sectors potentially affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives, 

21 key employment sectors include the eating and drinking places sector, producing 5.3 percent of total 

22 jobs within the three-region action area, and the miscellaneous retail sector, generating 3.9 percent of 

23 jobs (Table 3.6-4). Commercial fishing within the three-region action area provided 6,167 jobs in 2000, 

24 an amount that represented two-thirds of statewide commercial fishing jobs. The fish/seafood 

25 processing sector within the three-region action area produced 7,128 jobs, or 90.2 percent of the state’s 

26 total fish/seafood processing jobs. 

27 The three-region action area generated $153.4 billion in income in 2000, with the services, FIRE, and 

28 government sectors producing the majority of the income (Table 3.6-5). Income generated within the 

29 three-region action area accounted for 77.2 percent of statewide income. For the potentially affected 

30 sectors, eating and drinking places and miscellaneous retail businesses together generated 3.8 percent 

31 of total income within the three-region action area. 
Section 3 – Affected Envrionment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 172 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 In summary, the three regions in the Puget Sound Action Area (Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood 

2 Canal, North Puget Sound, and South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal) account for 67 percent of 

3 statewide output of goods and services (industrial output). The Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood 

4 Canal region accounts for 1.8 percent of the employment within the three-region action area. 

5 Manufacturing, services, and the FIRE sector are the major sectors within the Strait of Juan de 

6 Fuca/North Hood Canal region; the commercial fishing and fish/seafood processing sectors comprise 

7 about 1.5 percent of the industrial output of the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region. The 

8 North Puget Sound region accounts for 18.7 percent of the employment within the three-region action 

9 area. Manufacturing is the dominant sector within the North Puget Sound region, accounting for 39 

10 percent of the region’s industrial output; the commercial fishing and fish/seafood processing sectors 

11 comprise about 1.0 percent of the industrial output of the North Puget Sound region. The South Puget 

12 Sound/South Hood Canal region accounts for 79.6 percent of the employment within the three-region 

13 action area. The services and manufacturing sectors are the major sectors within the South Puget 

14 Sound/South Hood Canal region; the commercial fishing and fish/seafood processing sectors comprise 

15 about 0.7 percent of the industrial output of the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 173 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.7 Environmental Justice 

2 3.7.1 Background 

3 Executive Order 12898 signed February 11, 1994, requires each Federal agency to: 

4 . . . make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

5 appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

6 programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998a). 

8 The presidential memorandum to all federal agencies accompanying the Executive Order established 

9 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “when reviewing environmental effects of the 

10 proposed action of other Federal agencies under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. section 

11 7609, shall ensure that the involved agency has fully analyzed environmental effects on minority 

12 communities and low-income communities, including human health, social and economic effects.” To 

13 assist other federal agencies to fully comply with this Executive order, EPA has prepared guidance for 

14 conducting Environmental Justice analyses. 

15 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with the Enforcement Subcommittee of the 

16 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), has developed technical guidance for 

17 conducting Environmental Justice assessments, in order to achieve consistency between analyses. That 

18 1998 guidance provides the basis for the assessment presented here. 

19 An Environmental Justice analysis is intended to determine potential human health or environmental 

20 effects that could have significant and disproportionate adverse effects on low-income and/or minority 

21 populations potentially impacted by proposed federal actions. The Environmental Justice analysis 

22 should also determine whether such populations or communities have been sufficiently involved in the 

23 decision-making process. 

24 The Environmental Justice discussion in this assessment is presented in three parts: a description of 

25 methodology; a discussion of opportunities for minority self-identification and involvement in the 

26 decision-making process; and resultant conclusions concerning a baseline for Environmental Justice 

27 assessment. 

28 3.7.2 Methodology 

29 The methodology employed here considers the range of analytical procedures identified in the U.S. 

30 Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice guidelines, and the particular circumstances 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 174 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 of the present assessment, then selects an appropriate methodology from within the guidance 

2 framework provided by the NEJAC. 

3 3.7.2.1 Establish the Target Area 

4 A target area is the geographical study area that is potentially affected by the Proposed Action or 

5 alternatives analyzed in this Environmental Impact Statement. For this assessment, the target area is 

6 defined by the counties that border Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and is synonymous 

7 with the Puget Sound Action Area discussed elsewhere in this Environmental Impact Statement. These 

8 12 counties are shown on Figure 3.2-2, and include: 

Clallam Snohomish Pierce 

Jefferson Island Thurston 

Whatcom San Juan Mason 

Skagit King Kitsap 

9 3.7.2.2 Identify the Population Areal Unit 

10 A population areal unit is the geopolitical unit containing populations which in aggregate are used to 

11 define the target area. For this analysis, the population areal unit used is each county.

12 3.7.2.3 Identify the Target Population 

13 In this assessment, a target population includes the potentially affected residents of each county within 

14 the target area. Because this Environmental Impact Statement analyzes alternative plans for 

15 management of salmon harvest in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the primary target 

16 populations for analysis will be non-tribal commercial, sport and tribal fishermen harvesting these 

17 stocks. Once salmon are landed, there may also be secondary effects on associated peoples within the 

18 target area. 

19 3.7.2.4 Identify the Reference Area 

20 A reference area is the area used as a benchmark of comparison when determining whether a target 

21 area would suffer from disproportionate effect(s) to its identified minority or low-income populations. 

22 The reference area for the Environmental Justice analysis in this assessment is the State of 

23 Washington. 

24 3.7.2.5 Define Disproportionate Effect 

25 A disproportionate effect is an incidence (or prevalence) of an effect, a risk of an effect, or likely 

26 exposure to environmental hazards that would potentially cause adverse effects on a minority and/or 

27 low-income population that significantly exceeds that experienced by a comparable reference 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 175 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 population. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines with respect to measurement of 

2 significance are applied to identified effects in Section 4.7 of this assessment. 

3 3.7.2.6 Identify Environmental Justice Area(s) of Concern 

4 An Environmental Justice Area of Concern is defined as a target area that has been demonstrated to 

5 experience disproportionate effects and has a significant minority or low-income population relative to 

6 an appropriate reference area. 

7 A Potential Environmental Justice Area of Concern is a target area that contains a significant minority 

8 and/or low-income population, but the existence of disproportionate effects has not yet been shown. 

9 3.7.3 Public Outreach to Identify Significant Minority and/or Low-Income Groups 

10 As part of the public scoping process for an Environmental Impact Statement on the 2004 Resource 

11 Management Plan that is proposed for implementation during the 2005-2009 fishing seasons, the 

12 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) attempted to directly notify the potential target populations 

13 for this assessment: non-tribal commercial, sport and tribal fishermen. NMFS contacted local sport and 

14 commercial fishing organizations, magazines and newsletters by email, facsimile (FAX), or telephone 

15 to notify them that public comment was being sought. In this way, a diverse population located over a 

16 broad geographic area was reached quickly and efficiently. 

17 Representatives of the Puget Sound treaty tribes are actively participating as members of the team 

18 tasked with completing the Environmental Impact Statement on the 2003 Resource Management Plan, 

19 and the Environmental Impact Statement on the 2004 fishing plan that is proposed for implementation 

20 during the 2005-2009 fishing seasons. Tribal representatives provided information necessary for the 

21 Environmental Impact Statement and document review, and sought input from the broader tribal 

22 communities. 

23 3.7.4 Low Income Populations 

24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines offer a range of measures useful for identification of 

25 low-income populations. This analysis identifies potential low-income populations by comparing 

26 percentages of persons below the poverty threshold in each targeted county against a U.S. 

27 Environmental Protection Agency-recommended absolute threshold of 20 percent or more below the 

28 poverty level, based on U.S. Bureau of the Census data (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

29 1998a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance notes: 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 176 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 An advantage of using the poverty thresholds as benchmarks for low-income status is that 

2 associated data adhere to Federal statistical standard. 

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998a). 

4 Poverty percentages for target counties from the U.S. Bureau of the Census are provided in Table 3.7-1. 

5 Table 3.7-1. Percentage of persons below the poverty level, by county, within the target area. 

County Percent of Persons Below 

Poverty Level 1

Clallam 12 

Jefferson 11 

Island 7 

San Juan 9 

Whatcom 14 

Skagit 11 

Snohomish 7 

King 8 

Pierce 10 

Thurston 9 

Mason 12 

Kitsap 9 

1 6 Developed from U.S. Census 2000, Summary File 3. 

7 None of the target counties identified in Table 3.7-1 exhibit poverty levels equal to or greater than 20 

8 percent. 

9 3.7.5 Racial Minorities 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance has recommended that a minority populations in the 

11 State of Washington be determined significant if theyit represents 15.72 percent or more of the 

12 population for any specified population areal unit within a target area (E.O. 12898; U.S. 

13 Environmental Protection Agency 1998a). Data on racial minorities, by target county, are presented in 

14 Table 3.7-2. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 177 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 3.7-2. Percentage of minority persons by county, by race, within the target area. 1 1 

County 

Black/ 

African 

American 

American 

Indian/Alaska 

Native Asian 

Native 

Hawaiian 

Pacific 

Islander Other Total

Clallam 1 5 1 – 1 8

Jefferson – 2 1 – – 3

Island 2 1 4 – 2 9

San Juan – 1 – – 1 2

Whatcom 1 3 3 – 3 10

Skagit – 2 1 – 7 10

Snohomish 2 1 6 – 2 11

King 5 1 11 – 3 19

Pierce 7 1 5 1 2 16

Thurston 2 2 5 1 2 12

Mason 1 4 1 1 2 9

Kitsap 3 1 5 1 2 12

1 2 Developed from U.S. Census 2000, Summary File 3. 

3 None of the counties identified in According to Table 3.7-2, King and Pierce counties exceed the state 

4 minority criteria contain racial minorities that qualify for targeted Environmental Justice analysis, 

5 based on the criteria identified above. of 15.72 percent of the county population. 

6 While this county-by-county assessment did not identify any significant minorities, tTwo further 

7 fishing-related inquiries were conducted, to determine whether significant minority salmon-fishing 

8 groups might be distributed across counties within the target area as a whole and might require targeted 

9 Environmental Justice analysis. 

10 First, expert opinion regarding the possible prevalence of significant non-tribal racial minorities among 

11 salmon fishermen in the target area was sought through literature search and oral inquiry. U.S. Fish and 

12 Wildlife Service survey data, collected in 1996, indicate that 91 percent of resident sport anglers in the 

13 State of Washington are white, “other races” represent 8 percent, and participation in sport fishing by 

14 African-Americans was not significant enough for reliable tabulation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

15 1998). These findings are generally consistent with national angling characteristics (U.S. Fish and 

16 Wildlife Service 2000). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 178 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Experts from federal and state agencies responsible for management of commercial non-tribal salmon 

2 fisheries in the target area were also contacted. They indicated that they did not collect data on race of 

3 fishermen, and knew of no substantial aggregations of minority fishermen in the state, with the 

4 exception of Indians (personal communication with Jim Segar, Pacific Marine Fisheries Council, and 

5 Lee Hoines, Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, December 2002). (Also Subsection 

6 3.7.3, above.) 

7 Based on these inquiries, NMFS concluded, and EPA concurred (personal communication with Mike 

8 Letourneau, EPA, July 1, 2004), that non-tribal minority impacts would not be disproportionate in the 

9 counties within the target area.

10 In the second area of inquiry, Indian tribes were specifically identified as having significant status 

11 under Environmental Justice proceedings. Their status is discussed below in Subsection 3.7.6. 

12 3.7.6 Indian Tribes 

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance regarding Environmental Justice extends beyond 

14 statistical threshold analysis to explicitly consider Environmental Justice effects on Indian tribes. 

15 Federal duties under the Environmental Justice E.O. (“Executive Order”), the Presidential directive 

16 on government-to-government relations, and the trust responsibility to Indian tribes may merge 

17 when the action proposed by a federal agency or EPA potentially affects the natural or physical 

18 environment of a tribe. The natural or physical environment of a tribe may include resources 

19 reserved by treaty or lands held in trust; sites of special cultural, religious or archaeological 

20 importance, such as sites protected under the National Historic Preservation Act or the Native 

21 American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; other areas reserved for hunting, fishing, and 

22 gathering (usual & accustomed), which may include “ceded” lands that are not within reservation 

23 boundaries. Potential effects of concern . . . may include ecological, cultural, human health, 

24 economic, or social impacts when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or 

25 physical environment. 

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998b). 

27 Seventeen treaty tribes have ongoing treaty-based fishing activities within the target area that may be 

28 potentially affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives considered in this assessment. Two 

29 additional tribes are federally-recognized and demonstrate historic linkages with fisheries. 

30 Consequently, tribal effects will be a specific focus of the Environmental Justice analysis provided in 

31 Section 4.7. The 17 treaty tribes, together with the county in which their reservations are located, are 

32 presented in Table 3.7-3. Fishing activities of these tribes often extend more broadly, due to treaty33 based usual and accustomed fishing areas sometimes located at a distance from reservation lands. The 

34 term usual and accustomed is contained in the treaties between the United States and the 17 treaty 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 179 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 fishing tribes considered in this assessment (see Subsection 3.4.4 of this Environmental Impact 

2 Statement). 

3 Usual and accustomed places (are) Those areas in, on and around the freshwater and saltwater 

4 areas within the Western District of Washington, which were understood by the Indian parties to 

5 the Stevens treaties to be embraced within the treaty terms “usual and accustomed” “grounds,” 

6 “stations” and “places.” 

7 United States v. Washington (1974). 

8 The two additional federally-recognized tribes are also identified in the table. 

9 General information respecting these tribes and their use of the salmon resource is presented in 

10 Subsections 3.4 and 3.5 of this Environmental Impact Statement. 

11 Table 3.7-3. Tribes considered in the environmental justice analysis. 

Tribe County Location of 

Reservation 

Treaty Fishing Tribes: 

Makah Clallam 

Lower Elwha Clallam 

Jamestown Clallam 

Port Gamble Jefferson 

Suquamish Kitsap 

Skokomish Mason 

Squaxin Island Mason 

Nisqually Thurston 

Puyallup Pierce 

Muckleshoot King 

Tulalip Snohomish 

Stillaguamish Snohomish 

Swinomish Skagit 

Upper Skagit Skagit 

Sauk Suiattle Skagit 

Lummi Whatcom 

Nooksack Whatcom 

Additional Federally-Recognized Tribes: 

Samish Whatcom/ Island 

Snoqualmie King 

12 

Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 180 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.8 Wildlife 

2 This affected environment section includes descriptions of the marine wildlife and benthic invertebrate 

3 resources important in predicting impacts that could occur as a result of the Proposed Action or 

4 alternatives. This section focuses primarily on the seabird and marine mammal species that are known 

5 or thought to be directly or indirectly impacted by commercial fisheries, but also provides a succinct 

6 overview of all wildlife resources that might be encountered by any Puget Sound commercial and sport 

7 fishery. Important information gaps are identified. 

8 3.8.1 Marine Habitats 

9 The diversity and distribution of marine wildlife in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca are 

10 strongly influenced by the distribution of marine habitats, and nearshore terrestrial habitats that provide 

11 substrate for resting or breeding. These habitat types in Puget Sound have been variously classified 

12 depending on the intended use of the system. Buchanan et al. (2001) developed a classification more 

13 reflective of the distribution and composition of marine organisms. Buchanan et al. (2001) recognizes 

14 estuarine habitat as tidal flats and river mouths like Padilla Bay and mouth of the Nooksack River. 

15 Nearshore marine habitats include the marine areas of Puget Sound between high tide and the end of 

16 the photic zone (66 feet depth), and inland marine deeper water as waters greater than 66 feet deep. 

17 Further, Buchanan et al. (2001) classified the deeper water of the Strait of Juan de Fuca west of a line 

18 from the mouth of the Elwha River north to Race Rocks on the southeastern tip of Vancouver Island 

19 (see Figure 3.3.14) as marine shelf due to the influence of oceanic currents on the western half of the 

20 strait. While Buchanan et al. (2001) are not the only scientists to develop a habitat classification system 

21 (e.g., Dethier 1990), this classification system was developed specifically for determining habitat 

22 relationships of wildlife inhabiting Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O’Neill 2001); therefore, it is 

23 the system followed in this assessment. 

24 The inland marine deeper water habitat comprises nearly 2 million acres in Puget Sound and the Strait 

25 of Juan de Fuca. At least 63 species of marine birds and marine mammals are known to frequent this 

26 habitat zone, although 40 percent are found only during the winter (Johnson and O’Neill 2001). The 

27 seabirds most closely associated with this habitat include white-winged/black scoters, 

28 Bonaparte’s/Heermann’s/Thayer’s/glaucous-winged/glaucous gulls, pigeon guillemots, common 

29 murres, rhinoceros auklets, tufted puffins, marbled/ancient murrelets, Brandt’s/double-crested/pelagic 

30 cormorants, western/Clark’s grebes, and Pacific/common/red-throated loons (Table 3.8-1), most of 

31 which reach their highest abundance during the winter months (Angell and Balcomb 1982; and 

32 Nysewander et al. 2001a; Table 3.8-2) when most commercial salmon fishing has concluded. This zone 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 181 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 also provides foraging habitat for seven species of marine mammals: harbor seal, California sea lion, 

2 Steller sea lion, harbor porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, minke whale, and killer whale (Johnson and O’Neill 

3 2001; Table 3.8-1). 

4 The marine shelf habitat of the western half of the Strait of Juan de Fuca generally supports the same 

5 marine mammals found in inland marine deeper water. The proximity of these waters to the open ocean 

6 allows the intrusion of more open ocean species such as humpback whales and Pacific white-sided 

7 dolphins (Table 3.8-1). The seabirds most commonly found in this habitat type within the strait include 

8 Pacific loon, western/Clark’s grebe, northern fulmar, sooty/short-tailed shearwater, red-necked/red 

9 phalarope, Thayer’s/western/glaucous-winged/Sabine’s gull, black-legged kittiwake, common/Arctic 

10 tern, common murre, Cassin’s/rhinoceros auklet, and tufted puffin (Nysewander et al. 2001a; Table 

11 3.8-1). 

12 The marine nearshore habitat comprises nearly the entire shoreline of Puget Sound, Hood Canal, San 

13 Juan Islands, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Strait of Georgia. About 75 species of marine birds are 

14 associated with this habitat, including nearly all the same species found in deeper water habitat. 

15 Important additions to the avian assemblage in this habitat include red-necked grebes, brown pelicans, 

16 surf scoters, red-breasted mergansers, mew/herring gulls, and Caspian/common terns (Table 3.8-1). 

17 The marine mammals most commonly associated with this habitat type are the sea lions, harbor seal, 

18 and harbor porpoise, minke whale, killer whale and humpback whale. Resident gray whales and 

19 wintering sea otters can be found at the western end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca Both resident and 

20 migratory gray whales occur from Cape Flattery to Port Townsend, and sea otters can be found in 

21 marine nearshore habitat in the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Cape Flattery to Pillar Point.
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 182 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.8-1. Presence and association of marine birds and mammals with the marine habitats of 

2 Puget Sound. 

Species 

Bays and 

Estuaries 

Inland Marine 

Deeper Waters 

Marine 

Nearshore 

Marine 

Shelf 

Loons 

Red-throated Loon    

Pacific Loon    

Common Loon    

Grebes 

Horned Grebe    

Red-necked Grebe    

Eared Grebe  

Western/Clarke's Grebe    

Fulmars and Shearwaters 

Northern Fulmar 

Sooty Shearwater    

Short-tailed Shearwater   

Pelicans 

Brown Pelican  

Cormorants 

Double-crested Cormorant   

Brandt's Cormorant    

Pelagic Cormorant    

Geese/Swans 

Snow Goose 

Canada Goose  

Brant   

Tundra Swan 

Trumpeter Swan 

Dabbling Ducks 

Northern Pintail  

American Wigeon   

Mallard   

Green-winged Teal 

Gadwall 

Sea Ducks 

Greater Scaup   

Lesser Scaup  

Harlequin Duck  

Long-tailed Duck   

Black Scoter    

Surf Scoter    

White-winged Scoter    

Common Goldeneye  

Barrow's Goldeneye  

Bufflehead  
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 183 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.8-1. Presence and association of marine birds and mammals with the marine habitats of 

2 Puget Sound (continued). 

Species 

Bays and 

Estuaries 

Inland Marine 

Deeper Waters 

Marine 

Nearshore 

Marine 

Shelf 

Mergansers 

Common Merganser  

Red-breasted Merganser  

Osprey 

Osprey  

Eagles 

Bald Eagle    

Oystercatcher 

Black Oystercatcher  

Phalaropes 

Red-necked Phalarope    

Red Phalarope  

Gulls 

Bonaparte’s Gull    

Heermann’s Gull    

Mew Gull    

Ring-billed Gull    

California Gull    

Herring Gull    

Thayer’s Gull    

Western Gull    

Glaucous-winged Gull    

Glaucous Gull    

Sabine’s Gull   

Black-legged Kittiwake   

Terns 

Caspian Tern  

Elegant Tern   

Common Tern    

Arctic Tern    

Alcids 

Common Murre    

Pigeon Guillemot    

Marbled Murrelet    

Ancient Murrelet   

Cassin’s Auklet   

Rhinoceros Auklet    

Tufted Puffin   
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 184 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.8-1. Presence and association of marine birds and mammals with the marine habitats of 

2 Puget Sound (continued). 

Species 

Bays and 

Estuaries 

Inland Marine 

Deeper Waters 

Marine 

Nearshore 

Marine 

Shelf 

Marine Mammals 

Pinnipeds 

Steller Sea Lion    

California Sea Lion     

Harbor Seal     

Northern Elephant Seal    

Otter 

Sea Otter  

River Otter  

Baleen Whales 

Minke Whale   

Gray Whale    

Fin Whale 

Humpback Whale 

Toothed Whales and Dolphins 

Killer Whale    

Pacific White-sided Dolphin  

Short-finned Pilot Whale  

Risso's Dolphin  

Harbor Porpoise    

Dall's Porpoise    

3 Source: Johnson and O'Neill 2001

4 Present  Generally Associated  Closely Associated 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 185 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 3.8-2. Seasonal abundance of birds and marine mammals in Puget Sound. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

Marine Birds 

Loons          

Grebes            

Shearwaters      

Fulmars        

Pelicans    

Cormorants             

Herons             

Geese/Swans         

Dabbling Ducks             

Bay Ducks         

Sea Ducks            

Mergansers           

Osprey            

Eagles             

Oystercatcher             

Phalaropes        

Gulls             

Terns           

Alcids            

Marine Mammals 

Harbor Seal 





    

























Elephant Seal            

California Sea Lions        

















Steller Sea Lions            

Minke Whale            

Gray Whale            

Harbor Porpoise            

Dall's Porpoise            

Killer Whale 

  







      

2 Sources: Angell and Balcomb 1982; and Nysewander et al. 2001a and personal communication with 

3 Steve Jeffries, WDFW, Research Scientist, July 30, 2004. 

4 Occasional  Common  Very Common  Abundant  
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 186 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Based solely on the importance of estuarine tidal flats to wintering and migrating waterfowl and 

2 shorebirds, this habitat ranks as one of the richest and most diverse in the state of Washington. Some of 

3 the most prominent species include the double-crested cormorant, great blue heron, American wigeon, 

4 northern pintail, snow goose, sanderling, western sandpiper, several species of gulls, osprey, and bald 

5 eagle (Table 3.8-1). Harbor seals commonly forage in the tidal channels. 

6 3.8.2 Marine Birds 

7 The breeding seabird population in the United States’ waters of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de 

8 Fuca comprises about 38,000 pairs. More than 90 percent of these birds are rhinoceros auklets, 

9 glaucous-winged gulls (or intergrades with western gulls), and pigeon guillemots. The only other 

10 breeding seabirds are double-crested and pelagic cormorants, marbled murrelets, and a very few tufted 

11 puffins (Speich and Wahl 1989). These birds, plus variable numbers of non-breeding common murres 

12 and Brandt’s cormorants, comprise the summer (June-August) seabird community (Table 3.8-2). 

13 The winter marine bird community is dramatically larger with the influx of tens of thousands of scaups, 

14 dabbling ducks, western grebes, common murres, scoters, and loons (Table 3.8-2). Manuwal et al. 

15 (1979) and Wahl et al. (1981) estimated that 200,000 common murres alone migrated into 

16 Washington’s inland waters in September 1978, although those numbers may be considerably less 

17 today (Nysewander et al. 2001a). 

18 3.8.2.1 Rhinoceros Auklet 

19 Rhinoceros auklets are one of the few seabirds that breed within the inland waters of Washington. 

20 Speich and Wahl (1989) estimated that approximately 34,000 of these birds nest annually at Protection 

21 Island, and about 2,500 nest on nearby Smith Island in the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (see 

22 Figure 3.3-14 in Subsection 3.3 of this Environmental Impact Statement). Survey efforts by 

23 Nysewander et al. (2001a) (based on summer aerial surveys) suggest the summer population of 

24 rhinoceros auklets has gradually declined since Speich and Wahl’s 1978 to 1982 colony surveys. 

25 During the summer (July), rhinoceros auklets are generally confined to deeper water regions of the 

26 northern two-thirds of greater Puget Sound (mainly Marine Catch Areas 6, 7, and 9; Figure 3.3-1), 

27 within 30 to 50 miles of the Protection Island and Smith Island breeding colonies. Rhinoceros auklets 

28 are especially abundant near offshore banks and tide-rips where they forage mainly on Pacific 

29 sandlance and Pacific herring (Leschner 1976). Pierce et al. (19946) found that 92 percent of the 2,383 

30 rhinoceros auklets recorded during August 1994 surveys in the San Juan Islands were located more 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 187 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 than 2,000 feet from the nearest shoreline. Localized densities of 381 birds per square mile have been 

2 recorded (WDFW 2002). 

3 By winter, most rhinoceros auklets have migrated out of greater Puget Sound, likely to Washington’s 

4 outer coast (Angell and Balcomb 1982). Some, however, overwinter in south Puget Sound (Paulson 

5 1980 as cited in Angell and Balcomb 1982). 

6 Rhinoceros auklets have been incidentally entangled in purse seine nets during the Puget Sound coho 

7 fishery (Anderson 1993), and in gillnets in the Puget Sound sockeye/pink salmon fishery (Wolf et al. 

8 19956; Thompson et al. 1998; and Melvin et al. 1999). The 1994 non-treaty sockeye gillnet fishery 

9 entangled an estimated 787 rhinoceros auklets in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A (Wolfe et al. 1995). 

10 Thompson et al. (1998) determined that 79 percent of the rhinoceros auklets confirmed killed in the 

11 1993 and 1994 sockeye and chum fisheries in Marine Catch Areas 7, 7A, 10, 11, and 12 were hatch12 year (i.e., born that year; 63%) or subadult (i.e., non-breeding; 16%) birds, likely originating from the 

13 Protection Island and Smith Island colonies. The large percentage of hatch-year birds probably reflects 

14 the high number of these young birds on the water at the peak of the sockeye fishery (Wilson and 

15 Manuwal 1986; and Thompson et al. 1998). 

16 3.8.2.2 Common Murre 

17 Common murres do not nest within Washington’s inland waters, although a few non-breeders can be 

18 found in the summer (WDFW 2002). They are, however, the predominant winter alcid in the greater 

19 Puget Sound area, with tens of thousands of birds originating from the Oregon and Washington outer 

20 coasts. Manuwal et al. (1979) and Wahl et al. (1981) estimated that 200,000 birds entered the Strait of 

21 Juan de Fuca in September 1978. Most of these birds, however, were gone by November, likely 

22 moving north through the Strait of Georgia (although about 80,000 remained through the winter). 

23 Hamel and Parrish (2001) radio-tracked Tatoosh Island murres and found them to move inland to the 

24 eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca where, presumably, food resources are more predictable and 

25 waters more calm than the outer coast. Surveys conducted by Wahl et al. (1981) in 1978−1979 

26 indicated that the most important winter habitat for murres occurs throughout the Strait of Juan de 

27 Fuca, through Rosario Strait, to the Strait of Georgia (Marine Catch Areas 4, 5, 6, and 7; Figure 3.3-

28 14). Aerial surveys conducted between 1992 and 1999 (Nysewander et al. 2001a) found similar results 

29 for wintering common murres with the exceptional note of high murre concentration on the British 

30 Columbia side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca near Victoria, and relatively high densities in Admiralty 

31 Inlet (northern Marine Catch Area 9). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 188 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Common murre populations in the Pacific Northwest have been greatly impacted by several events 

2 over the past few decades (Carter et al. 2001). Breeding activity was greatly reduced from colony 

3 abandonment during the El Nino events of 1982−1983, 1987−1988, and 1992−1993. Further, major oil 

4 spills in 1988 (NESTUCCA) and 1991 (TENYO MARU) collectively killed between 34,000 and 50,000 

5 murres. Military activity, aircraft overflights, and entanglement in gillnet fisheries have also been 

6 implicated in common murre population declines within Washington State (Carter et al. 2001). Annual 

7 declines of 32.9 percent were reported between 1979 and 1986, and 13.3 percent between 1979 and 

8 1995. The Washington breeding population, estimated at 53,000 in 1979 (Carter et al. 2001), was 

9 reduced to an estimated 13,600 by 1995 (TENYO MARU Oil Spill Natural Resources Trustees 2000) 

10 with the steepest decline coinciding with the 1982−1983 El Nino coupled with military activity and 

11 fishing boat disturbance documented in 1984 and 1985 (Speich et al. 1987; and Carter et al. 2001). 

12 Nysewander et al. (2001a) found higher densities of common murres in the deeper water regions of 

13 greater Puget Sound, which is not surprising given the ability of these birds to dive to depths of nearly 

14 600 feet (Piatt and Nettleship 1985). Similarly, Pierce et al. (19946) found 95 percent of 5,889 common 

15 murres sighted in Marine Catch Area 7 were more than 2,000 feet from shore. Because of their deep16 diving capability, common murres are able to exploit a variety of prey. Nevertheless, schooling baitfish 

17 such as Pacific herring, Pacific sand lance, northern anchovy, Pacific whiting, smelt, and market squid 

18 universally dominate their diet (Manuwal and Carter 2001). Wilson and Thompson (1998) found 

19 murres in the San Juan Islands to have fed largely on Pacific herring, Pacific sand lance, salmon smolts, 

20 and Pacific tomcod. 

21 Gillnet-associated deaths have been identified as a chronic mortality factor for common murres in 

22 Washington (Carter et al. 2001). The 1994 non-treaty sockeye gillnet fishery entangled an estimated 

23 2,700 common murres in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A (Wolfe et al. 19965). Thompson et al. (1998) 

24 determined that 63 percent of the common murres confirmed killed in the 1993 and 1994 sockeye and 

25 chum fisheries in Marine Catch Areas 7, 7A, 10, 11, and 12 were adults (which may reflect a large 

26 number of failed or non-breeding adults within the marine catch areas at the peak of the sockeye 

27 fishery). It is likely that many, if not most, of the murres killed in Puget Sound gillnet fisheries 

28 originate not from the lightly populated (13,600 in 1995; TENYO MARU Oil Spill Natural Resources 

29 Trustees 2000) and later-breeding Washington colonies, but from the much larger (breeding population 

30 averaging about 700,000 birds during the 1990s; personal communication with Roy Lowe, U.S. Fish 

31 and Wildlife Service, Refuge Biologist, February 25, 2003) and earlier (one month) nesting 

32 Oregon colonies. The hatch-year chicks killed in the 1993 and 1994 sockeye fisheries likely originated 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 189 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 from Oregon, as much the fishery occurred prior to the fledging of chicks at the Washington colonies 

2 (Thompson et al. 1998). 

3 3.8.2.3 Pigeon Guillemot 

4 The pigeon guillemots are perhaps the most widespread nesting seabirds in Puget Sound and the Strait 

5 of Juan de Fuca. They are especially prevalent along the Washington shoreline of the Strait of Juan de 

6 Fuca from Crescent Bay east to Admiralty Inlet (Marine Catch Area 6), within the San Juan Islands 

7 (Marine Catch Area 7), and in the South Puget Sound region (Marine Catch Area 13; see Figure 3.3-7). 

8 They are conspicuously absent west of Crescent Bay, Hood Canal, and Puget Sound’s scattered 

9 estuarine and beach areas. Speich and Wahl (1989) estimated the breeding population to be about 3,600 

10 at 121 breeding locations. Since that time, Evenson et al. (20031) have identified more than 35000 new 

11 breeding locations. These sites, along with the original 121, support nearly 165,000 guillemots based 

12 on surveys conducted in 20030 (Evenson et al. 2001 and 2003). It is unclear whether the difference in 

13 population estimates between Speich and Wahl (1989) and Evenson et al. (2001) reflects a population 

14 increase or decrease, or simply an increase in survey effort or difference in survey protocol, although 

15 Evenson et al.’s results suggest they may have concentrated more effort on the smaller-sized colonies 

16 (62% of the colonies surveyed in 2000 supported less than or equal to 25 birds) perhaps missed by 

17 Speich and Wahl (1989). This will be determined in the future when standardized surveys are repeated. 

18 However, comparable data from aerial surveys during winter along selected nearshore waters in 

19 Washington state suggested some degree of decline (55%) over 20 years (Nysewander et al. 2001a) for 

20 this species.

21 Pigeon guillemots generally forage along the shallow nearshore zone for epibenthic fish such as 

22 gunnels, blennies, pricklebacks, and sculpins (Drent 1965, Koelink 1972). Ewins (1993) compiled 

23 dietary information from 11 different studies and found salmonids to be completely absent. Pigeon 

24 guillemots are cavity-nesters and generally nest in rock rubble, but will use driftwood piles, bird and 

25 mammal burrows, and artificial structures such as wharves, bridges, navigation aids, drainage pipes, 

26 and even spent shell casings (Speich and Wahl 1989). When cavities are in short supply, they will 

27 excavate their own burrows in loose earth or sandy banks (Speich and Wahl 1989; and Vermeer et al. 

28 1993). They generally nest within small “colonies” or isolated pairs, although there are several colonies 

29 in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca that support more than 50 pairs (Evenson et al. 2001). 

30 Pigeon guillemots have been incidentally captured in coho purse seine fisheries off Kingston-Edmonds 

31 (Anderson 1993). However, entanglement of guillemots in the Marine Catch Area 7/7A sockeye 

32 salmon gillnet fisheries is apparently rare compared to rhinoceros auklets and common murres (Pierce 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 190 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 et al. 19946; and Melvin et al. 1997, 1999). Only one pigeon guillemot was one captured during 642 

2 observed net sets during the 1996 test sockeye gillnet fishery (Melvin et al. 1999). 

3 3.8.2.4 Gulls and Terns 

4 Seventeen species of gulls and terns at least occasionally inhabit greater Puget Sound, but only four 

5 species – glaucous-winged and western gull, and Caspian and arctic tern – nest here (Speich and Wahl 

6 1989). Speich and Wahl (1989) estimated the greater Puget Sound breeding population of glaucous7 winged gulls to be 20,000 with more than 11,000 on Protection Island (located in Marine Catch Area 6) 

8 alone (Figure 3.3-14). These gulls nest in a variety of situations throughout greater Puget Sound, from 

9 large colonies to isolated pairs using both natural and man-made substrates. The presence of western 

10 gull breeding populations in Washington inland waters is somewhat confusing. Speich and Wahl 

11 (1989) did not identify western gull breeding colonies per se in greater Puget Sound, but they did refer 

12 to Hoffman et al.’s (1978) contention that they hybridize with glaucous-winged gulls in the inland 

13 waters of Washington State. Angell and Balcomb (1982) did state that a small population of western 

14 gulls nests among the glaucous-winged gulls on Protection Island, and Nysewander et al (2001a) noted 

15 some western/glaucous-winged intergrade gulls during their surveys. A small colony of arctic terns 

16 have nested at Jetty Island off Everett (Angell and Balcomb 1982), and approximately 1,000 Caspian 

17 terns nested on the ASARCO slag piles along the Commencement Bay shoreline in 2000 (personal 

18 communication with Christopher Thompson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Research 

19 Biologist, February 26, 2003; Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-7). 

20 The Nysewander et al. (2001a) surveys found gulls and terns to comprise by far the largest component 

21 (73%) of the summer marine bird population. Besides glaucous-winged gulls, this summer population 

22 is supplemented with a sizable population of Heermann’s gulls and smaller numbers of non-breeding 

23 Bonaparte’s, California, ringed-billed, and mew gulls (Angell and Balcomb 1982). Heermann’s gulls 

24 breed in Mexico during the winter months and spend their off-season in more northern climes (Angell 

25 and Balcomb 1982). 

26 The winter gull and tern population is comprised largely of resident glaucous-winged gulls and 

27 wintering Thayer’s, mew, and Bonaparte’s gulls. California and ring-billed gulls, and common terns 

28 are common spring and fall migrants (Angell and Balcomb 1982). Most gulls exhibit a more nearshore 

29 life history strategy reflecting their inability to dive to more than marginal depths. Nysewander et al. 

30 (2001a) found gull distributions to be quite variable, but to average more than a dozen times higher in 

31 nearshore habitat than offshore. Nevertheless, large flocks of glaucous-winged and Heermann’s gulls 

32 are commonly seen feeding on surfacing herring in deeper channel waters. Nysewander et al. (2001b) 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 191 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 estimated that the gull densities between surveys conducted in 1978 and 1979 (Wahl et al. 1981) and 

2 their surveys conducted between 1992 and 1999 (Nysewander et al. 2001a) had declined 43 percent. 

3 However, Carter et al. (1995a2002) stated that breeding glaucous-winged gull numbers are either stable 

4 or increasing. The numbers of breeding glaucous-winged gulls in the San Juan Islands vicinity, covered 

5 in a recent survey effort in 2001, appear to have declined by approximately 60% overall, with 3,568 

6 gulls seen in 2001 where 8,851 were seen during the 1973-82 period. The reasons behind these declines 

7 are probably a mixture of changes over the last 20 years: (1) Increases in avian predators have 

8 disrupted the breeding success of surface nesters like gulls; (2) reductions in winter food availability at 

9 dumps and waste treatment facilities affect survival of juvenile gulls; (3) decreases in the abundance of 

10 forage fish stocks near breeding areas affect survival; (4) increased protection of breeding areas at 

11 Smith and Protection Islands may have resulted in movement of breeding efforts. Areas where breeding 

12 populations are stable or increasing may be due to stable or abundant food resources (personal 

13 communication with Dave Nysewander, WDFW, Wildlife Biologist, July 30, 2004).

14 Gulls and terns are apparently not susceptible to net entanglement from Puget Sound commercial 

15 fisheries based on the results from studies in Puget Sound (Anderson 1993; Melvin and Conquest 1996; 

16 Pierce et al. 19946; and Melvin et al. 1997). They are, however, occasionally hooked in the sport 

17 fisheries (Noviello 1999). However, during Noviello’s (1999) study to determine rates of bird and 

18 marine mammal encounters in the Puget Sound sport fisheries (Marine Catch Areas 4, 5, 8, and 10), 

19 only 4 bird captures were recorded in 1,090 apparent “hook-ups” − all immature gulls. All were 

20 released apparently unharmed. 

21 3.8.2.5 Grebes, Loons, and Cormorants 

22 FourSix species of grebes − western, Clark’s, red-necked, and horned, eared and pied-billed − winter in 

23 or are seen near the marine waters of greater Puget Sound. The three most common species are the 

24 western, Clark’s and horned,, with western grebes comprising about 85 percent of all grebes 

25 (Nysewander et al. 2001a). Together, the four three grebe species comprise about 4 percent of all 

26 wintering marine birds (Nysewander et al. 2001a). Western grebes generally rest in large flocks in deep 

27 waters, then scatter at night to feed on schooling baitfish (Clowater 1998). They are most common in 

28 the protected inlet and bay waters of Puget Sound, and tend to avoid the open waters of the straits. 

29 Angell and Balcomb (1982) showed grebes arriving in the Puget Sound area in November and peaking 

30 December to February (Table 3.8-2). Morgan (19897) and Clowater (1998), however, found western 

31 grebe populations in the Strait of Georgia to reach high numbers in October, and then gradually build to 

32 a peak in March. Courtney et al. (1997) surveyed various locations of Puget Sound in Fall 1996. Both 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 192 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 found western grebes to be one of the more common marine birds, comprising more than 20 percent of 

2 all marine bird sightings. Consequently, considerable numbers of western grebes can be found in Puget 

3 Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca coincident with the fall chum fishery. Between surveys conducted 

4 1978 to 1979 (Wahl et al. 1981), and 1992 to 1999 (Nysewander et al. 2001a), these birds have 

5 apparently experienced severe (95%) population declines in the greater Puget Sound (Nysewander et al. 

6 2001b). Recorded loon densities on aerial surveys conducted each winter by WDFW between 1999 and 

7 2003 have shown some differentiating trends by species. Common Loon densities, even though low, 

8 have shown some slight recovery while Red-throated Loons have exhibited even more significant and 

9 dramatic decreases since 1999 (Nysewander et al. 2003), making this loon species the one loon species 

10 of most concern regarding declines.

11 Three species of loons winter in Washington inland marine waters. The most common, the red-throated 

12 loon, occurs in several habitats, but generally prefers nearshore waters where they forage along tidal 

13 fronts. In contrast, the Pacific loon feeds in the deeper offshore inland marine waters, primarily on 

14 herring. Common loons are intermediary, using both nearshore and offshore habitats. Loons are 

15 primarily a winter resident in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca with large numbers first 

16 arriving in October (Angell and Balcomb 1982; and Morgan 19897). Collectively, the greater Puget 

17 Sound population of loons has declined 79 percent since 1978−79 (Nysewander et al. 2001b). 

18 Cormorants are year-around residents of greater Puget Sound. Only two, the double-crested and pelagic 

19 cormorants, nest within the marine inland waters of Washington, although non-breeding Brandt’s 

20 cormorants (an outer coast nester) contribute significantly to the summer greater Puget Sound 

21 population (Nysewander et al. 2001a). Speich and Wahl (1989) stated that about 1,100 double-crested 

22 cormorants nest in the inland waters, most of them in three colonies at the south end of Rosario Strait 

23 (Marine Catch Area 7/7A; Figure 3.3-1). Approximately twice as many pelagic cormorants nest in 

24 greater Puget Sound, most at the Protection Island and Smith Island colonies at the east end of the 

25 Strait of Juan de Fuca (Marine Catch Area 6). Nysewander et al. (2001a) found double-crested and 

26 pelagic cormorants to occur mainly in nearshore waters close to drying perches (their feathers are not 

27 waterproof), but Brandt’s cormorants were commonly found in deeper offshore waters in winter. 

28 Nysewander et al. (2001b) found little change in overall wintering cormorant populations in 

29 Washington inland marine waters between 1992 and 1999. They found a significant 53 percent decline 

30 since 1978−79, 62 percent among double-crested cormorants alone. Chatwin et al. (2002) saw similar 

31 declines in breeding populations of pelagic and double-crested cormorants in the nearby Strait of 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 193 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Georgia, attributing these declines to variable herring populations, and harassment by bald eagles and 

2 recreational boaters. 

3 Although common in nearshore waters in the summer (Angell and Balcomb 1982; Table 3.8-2), 

4 especially in Marine Catch Area 7, cormorants have not been recorded as a bycatch in the Puget Sound 

5 salmon driftnet fishery, although they have been recorded as entangled in fishing nets elsewhere 

6 (Terres 1991). Large numbers of grebes and loons occur in Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of 

7 Juan de Fuca coincident with the fall chum fishery, yet information on these birds as a bycatch of this 

8 fishery is lacking. It is unknown whether this is due to low susceptibility to entanglement on the part of 

9 the birds (western grebes forage at night when gillnet fishing has ceased), or a lack of interaction 

10 studies during October and November. 

11 3.8.2.6 Sea Ducks 

12 Thousands of sea ducks (including diving ducks that use marine waters) winter each year in the inland 

13 waters of Washington. The most common of these are the scoters, buffleheads, goldeneyes, scaups, 

14 long-tailed ducks, and harlequin ducks (Nysewander et al. 2001a). Scoters alone comprise nearly half 

15 of all sea ducks during the winter and migration periods (Nysewander et al. 2001a). Most are either surf 

16 or white-winged scoters; black scoters comprise less than 10 percent of all sea ducks. Overall, scoters 

17 have declined 57 percent since between 1978−79 and 1999 (Nysewander et al. 2001b), and the decline 

18 has continued even lower over the last five years, with nearly all of this decline occurring in South 

19 Puget Sound (Nysewander et al. 20031b). Examination of scoter densities recorded by aerial surveys in 

20 five different subregions of greater Puget Sound show that densities have remained low in the northern 

21 areas while declining in all other subregions, except that of central Puget Sound around the greater Port 

22 Orchard area. Buffleheads comprised 23 percent of the sea ducks recorded between 1991 and 1999 

23 (Nysewander et al. 2001a), and goldeneyes about 17 percent. Both have declined about 20 percent 

24 since 1978−79. Common goldeneyes were found to be more common than Barrow’s goldeneyes except 

25 at certain bay locations. Scaups made up 8 percent of the sea ducks recorded during surveys by 

26 Nysewander et al. (2001a), with greater scaups comprising the overwhelming majority of the two 

27 species (the other the lesser scaup). Both scaup species have declined significantly since 1978−79 

28 (72%; Nysewander et al 2001b). Puget Sound represents the southern end of the long-tailed duck’s 

29 winter range. Long-tailed ducks comprise about 1 to 2 percent of the winter sea duck population, and 

30 are largely found in the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and around the San Juan Islands 

31 (Marine Catch Areas 6 and 7; Nysewander et al. 2001a0). Although they do not occur in great numbers 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 194 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 within the inland marine waters of Washington, the few sea ducks that do winter here have declined 92 

2 percent (Nysewander et al. 2001b). 

3 Declines in the sea duck species described above may represent a movement northward into the 

4 Canadian Strait of Georgia (where sea duck surveys have not been conducted in recent years), rather 

5 than major population declines. However, surveys conducted at other sea duck wintering locations do 

6 suggest a universal decline in this group. Only the harlequin ducks, which occur in low numbers during 

7 winter, have significantly increased (189%) in Puget Sound between the late 1970s and the 1990s 

8 (Nysewander et al. 2001b). But even these birds have fallen off considerably since peaking in 1996 at a 

9 little over a 1,000 individuals (Nysewander et al. 2001a). 

10 Buffleheads, goldeneyes, and scaup feed largely on blue mussels, snails, and small crabs, although 

11 scaup also supplement their diet with sea lettuce and seasonally forage on herring spawn (Vermeer and 

12 Ydenberg 19897). Scoters and long-tailed ducks feed chiefly on small clams and snails, with some 

13 crustaceans and herring eggs when available (Vermeer and Ydenberg 19897). Harlequin duck diets in 

14 marine waters are much more diversified. Vermeer (1983) found snails, limpets, small fish, fish eggs, 

15 crabs, chitons, algae, and clams all of relative importance. 

16 Sea ducks do not appear as bycatch in the Puget Sound gillnet fisheries, probably because they do not 

17 begin arriving in the Puget Sound area until November (Angell and Balcomb 1982; and Morgan 1987), 

18 when the annual salmon fishery has nearly concluded. 

19 3.8.3 Marine Mammals 

20 The inland marine waters of Washington support a diverse group of marine mammals. Year-around 

21 residents include harbor seals, minke whales, harbor porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, and killer whales. All 

22 these animals occur primarily in north Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and around the San Juan 

23 Islands (Marine Catch Areas 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 9; Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-14), except harbor seals, which 

24 are well distributed throughout Puget Sound. Regular winterSeasonal visitors include California and 

25 Steller sea lions. Groups of male sea otters winter in the western end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

26 between Neah Bay and Port Angeles. More infrequent visitors include humpback and gray whales and 

27 elephant seals, although the latter may become a more important regional member, including possibly 

28 breeding on islands in the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the future as its west coast population continues to 

29 expand (Jeffries et al. 2000). Oceanic species that occasionally enter the Straits of Juan de Fuca include 

30 Pacific white-sided and Risso’s dolphins. Short-finned pilot whales also used to visit the area in the 

31 past (Angell and Balcomb 1982, Green et al. 1992), and on at least one occasion a group of false killer 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 195 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 whales reached Puget Sound (Baird et al. 1989). Virtually all the marine mammals forage in subtidal 

2 and deeper waters, especially the tidal channels. However, harbor seals and sea lions will also forage 

3 intertidally, and resident minke whales and wintering sea otters occur relatively close to shore. 

4 3.8.3.1 Harbor Seal 

5 Harbor seals are year-around residents and the most common marine mammal inhabiting the inland 

6 waters of Washington. Unlike many other marine wildlife species, observed harbor seal abundance in 

7 Washington has increased an estimated 7- to 10-fold since 1970, and 3-fold since 1978 (Jeffries et al.

8 2003)s have experienced an average annual population growth of 6 to 8 percent during the 1980s and 

9 1990s. An inland waters population estimated in 1978 at 2,600 by Everitt et al. (1979) had grown to 

10 more than 14,000 by 1999 (Jefferies et al. 20031). Food habit studies have shown that the significance 

11 of salmon in the diets of Puget Sound harbor seals depends on location and season. Besides salmon, 

12 harbor seals prey on herring, Pacific whiting, anchovy, tomcod, flounder, sticklebacks, and eelpouts 

13 (Scheffer and Sperry 1931; Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Keyes 1968; Calambokidis et al. 19798; Lance et 

14 al. 2001; and London et al. 2002). A recent study at Gedney Island (near Everett; Figure 3.3-1) showed 

15 that these Puget Sound harbor seals were preying almost exclusively on Pacific whiting and Pacific 

16 herring (National Marine Fisheries Service 1997). Similarly, London et al. (2002) found Pacific 

17 whiting and Pacific herring to dominate the diet of harbor seals in Hood Canal. Regardless, London et 

18 al. (2002) concluded that harbor seals do have the capability to negatively impact recovering salmon 

19 runs where escapement is small (e.g., Hood Canal chum salmon), and London et al. (2002) did identify 

20 salmon remains in 24.5 percent of 608 scat samples collected in Hood Canal. 

21 Harbor seals can dive to 295 feet and remain underwater for 20 minutes (Angell and Balcomb 1982), 

22 but prefer to haul out on rocky shores, intertidal reefs, sandbars, mudflats, docks, log booms, buoys, 

23 and other structures. For this reason, they are distributed across both nearshore and deeper water habitat 

24 zones. 

25 As with harbor seals elsewhere in the world (Northridge 1991; Lennart et al. 1994), Puget Sound 

26 harbor seals have been entangled in set and drift gillnets. In Puget Sound, Pierce et al. (1996) estimated 

27 that 15 harbor seals were entangled in the Marine Catch Area 7A gillnet fishery in 1994, based on an 

28 observed capture of two live (and released) and one dead seal during a study of that fishery. 

29 3.8.3.2 California Sea Lion 

30 California sea lions breed at island rookeries off southern California, the west coast of Baja California, 

31 and in the Gulf of California. A post-exploitation (mainly for meat and oil) population of about 1,000 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 196 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 animals breeding in California in the 1920s (Cass 1985) had increased to between 161,000 and 181,000 

2 by 1994 (Barlow et al. 1995). After the breeding season, males migrate north to Oregon, Washington, 

3 and British Columbia. Annual populations peak off the Washington coast during March and May at 

4 numbers between 3,000 and 5,000 (Gearin et al. 2001). In recent years, peak abundances of over 5,000 

5 California sea lions have been recorded on the Olympic Peninsula in the fall from September to 

6 December (personal communication with Steve Jeffries, WDFW, Research Scientist, July 30, 2004). 

7 The percentage of California sea lions using inland marine waters of Washington has varied 

8 considerably. Systematic counts of Puget Sound California sea lions began in 1979, but intensified after 

9 the 1985 to 1986 season amid concerns of impacts these pinnipeds were having on steelhead stocks 

10 passing through the Hiram Chittendon Locks in Seattle (Pfeifer 1987; and Pfeifer et al. 1989). More 

11 than 1,000 animals were recorded in Puget Sound during 1986 (1,031), and 1995 (1,234), while counts 

12 between 1998 and 2001 ranged between 177 and 323 (Gearin et al. 2001). However, these smaller 

13 Puget Sound counts have corresponded with higher counts on the outer coast, suggesting a change in 

14 use away from inland waters (Gearin et al. 2001). Haulout sites include North Waadah Island near 

15 Neah Bay in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, logbooms at Everett Harbor in north Puget Sound, and Eagle 

16 Island, bouys or floats at Edmonds Scuba Float, Commencement Bay, Shilshoe Bay, and 22 channel as 

17 well as all navigation bouys from the Nisqually River to Port Townsendbuoys in south Puget Sound

18 (Jefferies et al. 2000). 

19 Although California sea lions often feed in the deeper inland waters of Washington, and commonly 

20 dive to extreme depths in oceanic waters, they are more closely associated with nearshore 

21 environments. Important prey in Washington include Pacific whiting, herring, squid, spiny dogfish, 

22 gadids, and salmonids (Everitt et al. 1981; and Gearin et al. 1986, 1988). Scat samples from near 

23 Everett and at Shilshole Bay show that Pacific whiting and herring dominate their diet (Gearin et al. 

24 2001). While only 6 percent of the scats collected near Everett contained salmonids, 25 percent did 

25 from the Shilshole Bay sample. However, Shilshole Bay is located at the entrance to the Lake 

26 Washington Ship Canal where the Hiram Chittendon Locks concentrate migrating winter-run steelhead, 

27 which these sea lions heavily exploit. 

28 California sea lions are clearly susceptible to gillnet mortality along the Washington Coast and areas 

29 outside Washington. In Washington, an estimated four to 42 California sea lions were killed annually 

30 in the Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor (Beach et al. 1985). The California set-gillnet 

31 fishery for halibut and angel sharks is estimated to have killed about 1,000 California sea lions annually 

32 between 1994 and 1998, based on an observed mortality of more than 100 animals (NMFS 2000a). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 197 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 However, while monitoring the 1994 Puget Sound sockeye gillnet fishery in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 

2 7A, Pierce et al. (1996) noted little interaction with California sea lions, and no entanglements. For the 

3 most part, California sea lions do not arrive in Puget Sound until after most salmon fisheries are 

4 complete. Two fisheries that are still open when the California sea lion abundance increases s arrive, 

5 and with which the sea lions interact include the late season river chum salmon and the winter run 

6 steelhead fisheries. Although sea lion entanglement in gillnets has not been reported, a small number of 

7 these animals are legally harvested by tribal fishermen (usually to protect fisheries and fishing gear) 

8 under subsistence regulations pursuant to tribal treaties (personal communication with Will Beattie, 

9 Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, December 19, 2003). 

10 3.8.3.3 Gray Whale 

11 Nearly the entire Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale, recently estimated at 26,635 individuals 

12 (Hobbs and Rugh 1999), passes twice annually along Washington’s outer coast, in transit between 

13 Mexican breeding lagoons and Alaskan summer feeding grounds. Calambokidis described four patterns 

14 of gray whale use in Washington (personal communication with John Calambokidis, Cascadia 

15 Research, Senior Research Biologist, December 16, 2002). The first is the regular migrating herd that 

16 passes quickly through Washington outer coast waters. The second involves a group of about 250 

17 whales that have taken up residency between northern California and southeastern Alaska. Although 

18 these whales move around considerably within this range, they do not partake in the annual migration 

19 to Alaska. A few of these whales can be found in the Strait of Juan de Fuca as far east as Protection 

20 Island, but most typically spend their time in Neah Bay (Figure 3.3-14). The third group is composed of 

21 what are thought to be migration stragglers, such as sick whales that do not complete the migration and 

22 find themselves exhausted and emaciated in south and central Puget Sound. These whales, generally 1 

23 to 12 annually, suffer high mortality rates. The fourth group is comprised of about a half-dozen 

24 identified whales that annually (since 1991) spend March to May in the shallow, mud-bottomed areas 

25 of Saratoga Passage, Port Susan, Port Gardner, and Everett (Marine Catch Area 8; Figure 3.3-1), where 

26 they feed on dense populations of ghost shrimp. 

27 Gray whales have been entangled in a variety of fishing gear (Hill and DeMaster 1999) including 

28 gillnets (Gearin et al. 1994; and Cameron and Forney 1999). Single gray whales were killed in the 

29 Makah set-gillnet fishery (Marine Catch Area 4) in 1990 and 1995, and a third was entangled but 

30 released unharmed in 1996 (personal communication with Patrick Gearin, NOAA-National Marine 

31 Mammal Laboratory, Research Biologist, December 30, 2002). Healthy gray whales are most likely to 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 198 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 be encountered in Marine Catch Areas 4 and 8, but not Area 7 where most gillnet fishing in Puget 

2 Sound presently occurs. 

3 3.8.3.4 Killer Whale 

4 Killer whales in the Pacific Northwest are classified in three two distinct forms: resident, and transient

5 and offshores. The resident form is further divided into three two population segments: northern, and 

6 southern., and offshore. It is the southern residents, composed of three pods (J, K, and L) that frequent 

7 the San Juan Islands and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and enter Puget Sound on a semi-regular basis. The 

8 southern residents, like the other resident forms, feed almost exclusively on fish, especially salmon 

9 (Ford et al. 1998; Wiles 2004). These killer whale populations were exploited in the 1960s and early 

10 1970s by the marine display trade. From a low of 7067 in 19743, this population grew to 987

11 individuals in 1996 (Wiles 2004). However, the number of animals in these groups declined 

12 dramatically to only 8078 by 2001. Attributing the decline to increased vessel traffic (including whale 

13 watching), declining salmon populations, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination (Ross et 

14 al. 2000; and Taylor 2001 and Wiles 2004), several groups petitioned in 2001 for listing the southern 

15 resident group as an entity (threatened or endangered) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 

16 2002, NMFS did not find that a listing was justifiable, but did designate the population as “depleted” 

17 under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, citing recent declines that may be attributed to pollution, 

18 prey reduction, and disturbance. In late 2003, NMFS was ordered by a federal judge to review its 

19 decision not to list the whales under the ESA. In April, 2004, the Washington Fish and Wildlife 

20 Commission added the killer whale to Washington’s endangered species list.

21 The transient form of killer whales is morphologically and behaviorally different from resident whales. 

22 In general, transients travel in smaller groups (usually less than 76), are less vocal, range from northern 

23 California to southeastern Alaska, and prey mostly on marine mammals (Bigg et al. 1987; and Ford et 

24 al. 1998). Harbor seals and harbor porpoise apparently constitute most of their diet in coastal and inland 

25 waters of the Pacific Northwest (Ford et al. 1998). The number of transients in 1995 was is currently

26 estimated at 300-400179 whales (Wiles 2004). Transients occur regularly in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 

27 the San Juan Islands, and northern Puget Sound.

28 Although mortalities have occurred with fishery interactions in Alaska (Small and DeMaster 1995), 

29 there are no recent reports (e.g., Anderson et al. 1993; Melvin and Conquest 1996; Pierce et al. 1996; 

30 and Melvin et al. 1997, 1999) that suggest Puget Sound gillnet fisheries pose an entanglement threat to 

31 killer whales. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 199 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.8.3.5 Harbor Porpoise and Dall’s Porpoise 

2 The distribution of harbor porpoise in the inland marine waters of Washington is dramatically different 

3 compared to what it once was. Today, harbor porpoise are rarely observed in southern Puget Sound 

4 where they were once considered common (Scheffer and Slipp 1948). Pollutants, vessel traffic, 

5 fisheries, and other factors (including competition with an increasing population of Dall’s porpoise) are 

6 thought to have contributed to this change in distribution (Osmek et al. 1995, 1996). In contrast, harbor 

7 porpoise population densities in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the San Juan Islands appear to have 

8 remained stable. The most recent estimate for this region is 3,509 animals, about two-thirds found in 

9 the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Calambokidis et al. 1997; and Laake 1997a,b). 

10 Inland water harbor porpoise inhabit nearshore and offshore waters (Pierce et al. 1996), where they 

11 feed largely on schooling fishes, such as herring, and cephalopods such as squid and octopus (Wilke 

12 and Kenyon 1952; and Angell and Balcomb 1982). Salmon do not appear to be an important 

13 component of their diet. Harbor porpoise are, however, encountered in Washington gillnet fisheries. In 

14 1988, at least 102 harbor porpoise were killed in the outer coast Marine Catch Area 4 and 4A gillnet 

15 fishery (Figure 3.3-14), and another 52 were taken between 1989 and 1992 (Osmek et al. 1996). Only 

16 two porpoise were taken in Marine Catch Areas 4B and 5 between 1988 and 1993, and two were 

17 entangled (one released) in the 1994 sockeye gillnet season in Marine Catch Area 7 (Osmek et al. 1996; 

18 and Pierce et al. 1996). Melvin et al. (1999) report that two harbor porpoise were captured (fate 

19 unknown) in a 1996 test sockeye fishery in Marine Catch Area 7. NMFS observers monitored the 

20 northern Washington marine set gillnet fishery during 1994-1998 and in 2000. There was no observer 

21 program in 1999, however, the total fishing effort was only 4 net days (in inland waters) and no marine

22 mammal takes were reported. No mortalities were observed in the inland portion of the fishery between 

23 1994 and 2000 (Carretta et al. 2004).

24 Dall’s porpoise are commonly found in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and through Admiralty Inlet (Marine 

25 Catch Areas 4B, 5, 6, 7, and 9), but rarely extend farther south into Puget Sound than Possession Bar 

26 (Marine Catch Area 9), or north into the Strait of Georgia (Marine Catch Area 7A; see Figure 1.1-1) 

27 (Angell and Balcomb 1982). Nysewander et al.’s (2001a) observations suggest that movements of 

28 Dall’s porpoise into South Puget Sound is most likely to occur during winter. The most recent estimate 

29 for this region is a weighted average of 1,509 animals after combining porpoise abundance surveys in 

30 1991 and 1996 (Carretta et al. 2004).

31 During 1994 boat surveys in Marine Catch Area 7, Pierce et al. (1996) observed 18 Dall’s porpoise, all 

32 in Haro Strait (Figure 3.3-1). Seventeen (94%) of these were greater than one mile offshore (averaging 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 200 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 more than 3 miles), indicating their preference for deep-water habitats. Morejohn (1979) described 

2 their diet as predominately deep-water schooling fish and squid. Although diet information from inland 

3 waters is limited (Scheffer and Slipp 1948), Dall’s porpoise inhabiting the Strait of Juan de Fuca likely 

4 feed on Pacific whiting, Pacific herring, and squid. Although animals from the 

5 California/Oregon/Washington stock are often captured in oceanic drift gillnet and trawl fisheries 

6 (Perez and Loughlin 1991; and Cameron and Forney 1999), there is little evidence of interaction with 

7 inland water salmon gillnet fisheries. Dall’s porpoise have been killed incidental to gillnet fisheries in 

8 southern Puget Sound (personal communication with Steve Jeffries, WDFW, Research Scientist, July 

9 30, 2004). The only report is ofIn 1996, three Dall’s porpoise were incidentally taken in a 1996 test 

10 sockeye fishery in Marine Catch Area 7 (Melvin et al. 1999). 

11 3.8.3.6 Sea Otter 

12 In 1969 and 1970, 59 sea otters were translocated from Alaska to the Washington outer coast (Bowlby 

13 et al. 1988; and Jameson and Jeffries 2001). This population grew to an estimated 555 individuals in 

14 2001In 2003, surveys for sea otter in Washington resulted in a count of 672 animals (Jameson and 

15 Jeffries 20031). Virtually the entire sea otter population inhabits the nearshore zone of the outer coast, 

16 although a large group of males has been observed since 1995 wintering along the south shore of the 

17 Strait of Juan de Fuca, 20 to 30 miles east of Tatoosh Island, in the vicinity of Sekiu and Pillar Point, 

18 respectively (Jameson and Jeffries 2000). A single otter was observed near Pillar Point (Marine Catch 

19 Area 5) in summer 2000 (Jameson and Jeffries 2000), and confirmed sightings of wandering single 

20 otters were recorded near Olympia and Tacoma (Marine Catch Areas 11 and 13; see Figure 3.3-7) in 

21 summer 2001 (Jameson and Jeffries 2001).Sea otters occur along the Washington coast from 

22 Destruction Island to Pillar Point. Seasonal shifts in the distribution of sea otter have been observed as 

23 the population has increased with 50 to 100 otters entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca and moving east 

24 to between Slip Point and Pillar Point (Marine Catch Area 5). Confirmed sightings of individual sea 

25 otters from inland waters includes individuals near Freshwater Bay, San Juan Islands, Dumas Bay, 

26 Nisqually Reach, Totten Inlet, Budd Inlet, and Hammersly Inlet (Marine Catch Areas 7, 11 and 13); see 

27 Figure 3.3-7)(Richardson and Allen 2000).

28 Sea otters have been entangled in gillnet fisheries outside Washington, but encounters within Puget 

29 Sound are rare. Wendell et al. (1985) estimated that net entanglement killed an average of 80 sea otters 

30 per year off California in the 1970s and 1980s. Lennart et al. (1994) estimated that the set-net gillnet 

31 fishery for Pacific angel shark and California halibut killed 33 sea otters during the second half of 

32 1990. Currently, non-treaty gillnet fishing is prohibited within the sea otter range in Washington. One 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 201 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 otter was taken in the outer coast Marine Catch Area 4 gillnet fishery in 1989 (Figure 3.3-14)(Kajimura 

2 1990). In Washington from 1988 to 2001, a total of 11 sea otters were incidentally killed in set net 

3 fisheries for chinook salmon in Marine Catch Areas 3 and 4. In addition, to incidental mortality in 

4 gillnet fisheries (Richardson and Allen 2000).

5 3.8.4 Benthic Invertebrates 

6 Kozloff (1996) described the intertidal and subtidal communities found in the marine waters of 

7 Washington. His habitat divisions relevant to the inland waters of Washington include the intertidal and 

8 subtidal zones with rocky, sandy, or muddy sand substrates, and salt marsh. All are discussed below. 

9 The rocky shores of greater Puget Sound support a diversity of marine invertebrates with a community 

10 composition that changes quickly with water depth. Marine invertebrates that occur in the upper 

11 reaches of the rocky intertidal zone include periwinkle snails, limpets, shore crabs, and barnacles. 

12 These invertebrates are able to withstand long periods exposed to open air and corresponding changes 

13 in temperature. As the water deepens, Nucella snails, hermit crabs, blue mussels, goose barnacles, 

14 Pisaster sea stars, and chitons dominate the intertidal community. The lower limit of the intertidal is 

15 also occupied sea anemones, sea urchins, northern abalone, and scallops. The rocky subtidal includes 

16 sea stars, anemones, urchins, abalone, and scallops, but also species unable to withstand periods of air 

17 exposure, such as octopus, broken-back shrimp, and sea slugs. 

18 Marine invertebrates that typically inhabit the sandy intertidal zone include sand dollars, crangon 

19 shrimp, basket whelks, and burrowing sea cucumbers. Moon snails are also common in this zone, 

20 preying on a variety of clams including bent-nosed, sand, tellina, and heart cockles. Intertidal zones 

21 with muddy sand substrates support an even more diverse clam population including gaper, geoduck, 

22 littleneck, Manila, bent-nosed, butter, soft-shelled, and heart cockle. Ghost shrimp supplant the crangon 

23 shrimp. Burrowing shore crabs extend their distribution from this habitat up into the salt marshes. 

24 Invertebrates characterizing the deeper water subtidal zone of both these habitats include brittle stars, 

25 mediaster sea stars, sea pens, and Dungeness, red, and helmet crabs. 

26 None of the major Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca marine salmon fishing types (drift and set27 gillnet, seine, troll, or sport) occur on the sea floor in a manner that would significantly disturb benthic 

28 invertebrate communities. The one exception is beach seine fisheries in Hood Canal and South Puget 

29 Sound, where nets are cast out and dragged back in to the beach. However, these fisheries are small in 

30 size, limited to the nearshore shallow zone, and occur in beach areas without potential snagging rocks 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 202 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 (where few invertebrates live on the seafloor surface). Thus, the impact of beach seine fisheries on 

2 marine invertebrates is probably insignificant. 

3 3.8.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

4 The National Marine Fisheries Service is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and with 

5 itself on the effects of the Proposed Action or alternatives on these listed species. NMFS is 

6 incorporating these evaluations into the NEPA process in order to coordinate the environmental review 

7 processes as required by NEPA (40 CFR Part 1502.25). The biological evaluations and biological 

8 opinion are included in Appendix H. 

9 3.8.5.1 Marbled Murrelet 

10 The marbled murrelet was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1992 after decades 

11 of population decline. Ralph et al. (1995) identified several possible causes for this decline, including 

12 loss of forest nesting habitat due to logging, mortality from gillnets and oil spills, and high predation 

13 rates. Marbled murrelets forage in nearshore marine waters and nest in inland old-growth and mature 

14 conifer forests (Hamer and Nelson 1995). Booth (1991) concluded that 82 to 87 percent of this forest 

15 that existed in 1840 has now been eliminated. Speich et al. (1992) estimated the Washington marbled 

16 murrelet population at 5,000 individuals, with 2,600 of these birds occurring in the Strait of Juan de 

17 Fuca, San Juan Island, and Puget Sound waters. Beissinger (1995), Beissinger and Nur (1997), and 

18 Nysewander et al. (2001b) have concluded that the marbled murrelet population has declined 

19 significantly since that time. 

20 Thompson (1997) conducted surveys for marbled murrelets along the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Marine 

21 Catch Areas 4 and 5) in 1996 and 1997, and found about 20 to 50 birds between Neah Bay and Pillar 

22 Point, and a large aggregation of 500 to 1,000 between Pillar Point and Port Angeles (Figure 3.3-14). 

23 The highest densities of birds were found 656 feet offshore. The San Juan Islands and Rosario Straits 

24 area (Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A) has the highest concentrations of marbled murrelets in greater 

25 Puget Sound. On August 15, 1995, Ralph et al. (1996) observed between 404 and 467 murrelets during 

26 systematic boat surveys of the islands. Burrows Bay (east of the San Juan Islands in Marine Catch 

27 Area 7) apparently supports significant numbers (100 to 200) of murrelets from August to October 

28 (Courtney et al. 1997; Stein and Nysewander 1999; and Raphael et al. 2000). Courtney et al. (1997) 

29 surveyed Admiralty Inlet and Hood Canal south to Quatsop Point and found numbers of marbled 

30 murrelets varying between 205 and 476. Surveys conducted in waters east of Whidbey Island (Skagit 

31 Bay, Saratoga Passage, and Everett Bay) − Marine Catch Area 8 − by Courtney et al. (1997) showed a 

32 decline from more than 250 birds in 1995 to about 125 in 1996. South Puget Sound has been surveyed 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 203 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 by Courtney et al. (1997), Raphael et al. (2000), and Nysewander et al. (2001a), none of whom found 

2 murrelets in any abundance. 

3 Because marbled murrelets have been incidentally caught in the Puget Sound salmon gillnet fisheries 

4 (Pierce et al. 1994, Erstad et al. 1994; Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 1994; Lummi Nation 

5 1994; and Gearin et al. 1994), Pierce et al. (1996) monitored the 1994 Puget Sound sockeye gillnet 

6 fishery (Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A) to quantify the impact to murrelets. After observing more than 

7 2,200 gillnet sets (7% of the total sets), and recording only one marbled murrelet entanglement, the 

8 authors estimated that the fishery may have killed approximately 15 murrelets. Melvin et al. (1997) 

9 recorded one murrelet entanglement in 642 sets (at Burrows Bay) of modified test gillnets designed to 

10 reduce seabird mortality. 

11 3.8.5.2 California Brown Pelican 

12 The California brown pelican is a colonial nester in Mexico and southern California that wanders north 

13 as far as British Columbia during the non-breeding period. The population segment that nests in 

14 California represents about 10 percent of the total population, and nesting colonies are currently 

15 confined to a few locations in the Channel and Santa Barbara Islands. These colonies suffered dramatic 

16 declines in the 1960s from the effects of chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT, DDE). Eggshell thinning 

17 from these pesticide derivatives resulted in dramatic nesting failures to such an extent that the 1969 and 

18 1970 nesting seasons were virtually shut down (Anderson et al. 1975; Anderson and Gress 1983; and 

19 Carter et al. 1992). Consequently, the California population of brown pelican was federally listed as 

20 endangered in 1970. The population was further impacted in the mid-1970s by crashes in stocks of 

21 their principal prey, northern anchovy. Since that time, the brown pelican population has recovered 

22 dramatically with the West Anacapa Island (Channel Islands) colony supporting 4,000 to 6,000 nesting 

23 attempts annually, and the nearby Santa Barbara Island colony supporting 400 to 700 nesting attempts. 

24 Since recovery, brown pelicans have become more prevalent along the Washington coast, especially 

25 during the fall. By 1991, more than 7,000 brown pelicans were observed using the Washington coast, 

26 mostly in the vicinity of the Columbia River and Grays Harbor (Jaques 1994). Angell and Balcomb 

27 (1982) stated that brown pelicans make only rare appearances in Puget Sound. Brown pelicans feed 

28 primarily on schooling baitfish, especially anchovy, and are not known to interact with salmon 

29 fisheries. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 204 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.8.5.3 Bald Eagle 

2 The bald eagle was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1978 after decades of 

3 persecution (despite the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940), nest failure due to chlorinated 

4 hydrocarbon (DDT) contamination, loss of prey due to declining salmon runs, and habitat loss due to 

5 logging and human development. The summer population of bald eagles prior to European settlement 

6 of Washington was estimated at about 6,500 birds (Stinson et al. 2001). By 1980, this population had 

7 declined to only 105 pairs (103 in western Washington). Increased protection and recent recovery 

8 efforts since then have resulted in a dramatic increase in the state’s breeding population. In 1998, the 

9 number of occupied nests had increased to 664 (active pairs), and the number of nesting territories to 

10 817. These populations are continuing to grow toward a predicted carrying capacity of 733 active pairs 

11 (Stinson et al. 2001). One of the more dramatic population increases occurred in the San Juan Islands 

12 where five nesting territories in 1962 had grown to 102 by 1998 (Stinson et al. 2001). Collectively, the 

13 12 counties encompassing Washington’s inland marine waters currently support 76 percent (617) of the 

14 state’s bald eagle nesting territories. Overall, the Washington nesting population exhibits the high 

15 productivity expected of a growing population. One exception, however, is the Hood Canal nesting 

16 population, which, despite increasing from three to 33 pairs between 1980 and 1998, has consistently 

17 exhibited low reproductive success (Mahaffy et al. 2001). Studies of this population were initiated in 

18 the late 1990s (Mahaffy et al. 2001) after high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other 

19 contaminants were found, but the results were inconclusive. (PCBs were used in a variety of industrial 

20 and electrical applications, including as hydraulic fluid. Hydraulic fluid leaks and spills from shipyards 

21 and industrial-complex machinery are likely sources of Puget Sound PCB contamination.) 

22 Between 1982 and 1989, approximately 1,000 to 3,000 bald eagles wintered annually in Washington, 

23 80 percent coming from Alaskan and Canadian breeding areas. While the majority of these birds 

24 concentrate on major salmon rivers (especially the Skagit, Nooksack, and Columbia Rivers), the Puget 

25 Sound shorelines annually support 400 to 600 of these birds (Taylor 1989). 

26 Watson and Pierce (1998) concluded that coastal eagles preyed more on birds, while inland (river) 

27 eagles foraged more on fish. Differences in surface behavior of fish and abundance of waterfowl and 

28 seabirds may account for these differences. However, Retfalvi (1970) found rockfish and lingcod 

29 important in the diets of San Juan Island bald eagles, and diet studies by Knight et al. (1990) and 

30 Watson and Pierce (1998) did show that both groups of bald eagles prey on a wide variety of fish and 

31 birds (perhaps a close reflection of what is available). Common bird prey included glaucous-winged 

32 gulls, scoters, grebes, and cormorants, while common fish prey included flounders, herring, Pacific 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 205 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 whiting, plainfin midshipman, dogfish shark, and sculpins (Retfalvi 1970; Knight et al. 1990; and 

2 Watson and Pierce 1998). Salmonids were also present in the diet of bald eagles, but do not contribute 

3 as greatly to the marine diet as they do to the diet of bald eagles foraging along inland rivers and 

4 reservoirs (especially during fall and winter salmon runs). 

5 Bald eagles do not interact with the Washington salmon gillnet fisheries, and coastal breeding birds are 

6 probably not impacted by harvest because they rarely feed on salmon at this time of the year (Watson 

7 and Pierce 1998). However, fall and winter spawning salmon are a critical food source for winter bald 

8 eagles, especially along the major spawning rivers of western Washington. 

9 3.8.5.4 Steller Sea Lion 

10 The Steller sea lion was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, after a decade 

11 of 12 percent annual population declines in the Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 2001a). 

12 However, the eastern population segment that ranges from southeastern Alaska to California, has 

13 remained stable or increased slightly (NMFS 2001a,b). There is no indication that Steller sea lions 

14 breed in Washington, but each year a few hundred overwinter in the inland waters (Everitt et al. 1979), 

15 likely originating from rookeries in Oregon and British Columbia (NMFS 2001b). A known haulout is 

16 located on Sucia Island immediately north of Orcas Island within the San Juan Islands (Marine Catch 

17 Area 7; Figure 3.3-1) (Angell and Balcomb 1982). 

18 Steller sea lions use both nearshore and deeper (greater than 60 feet) waters. Diet studies in Oregon 

19 showed a preference for Pacific whiting and lampreys, although Pacific herring, eulachon, anchovy, 

20 sculpin, and salmon, were also important (Beach et al. 1985; Reimer and Brown 1996). Steller sea lions 

21 are caught incidentally in fisheries. Perez and Loughlin (19910) estimated that 20,000 of these animals 

22 were incidentally caught in the Alaska trawl fisheries between 1966 and 1988. Matkin and Fay (1980) 

23 calculated that more than 300 were shot while interfering with the 1978 Copper River gillnet fishery. 

24 Stellar sea lions have been occasionally taken in gillnets and trawls off Oregon and Washington 

25 (NMFS 1992), but there are no reports of incidental captures in Washington inland waters. 

26 3.8.5.5 Humpback Whale/Fin Whale 

27 Humpback whales occur seasonally off the Washington coast, inhabiting continental shelf and shelf28 edge waters (Green et al. 1992; and Calambokidis et al. 2000, 2001). They rarely enter Washington 

29 inland marine waters, although they were once so common that a whaling station was established at 

30 Victoria, British Columbia (Schmitt et al. 1980). Today, just a very few humpback whales annually 

31 frequent the Canadian side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and about every other year, humpbacks stray 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 206 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 into Puget Sound (personal communication with John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research, Senior 

2 Research Biologist, December 16, 2002). Humpback whales use of greater Puget Sound is likely too 

3 infrequent to interact with the salmon gillnet fisheries. 

4 There are no recently confirmed sightings of fin whales in the inland marine waters of Washington, 

5 although they have been reported in the Strait of Georgia. However, in the past few years, three large 

6 ships have docked in Puget Sound (Cherry Point, Everett, and Port of Seattle) with struck fin whales 

7 still adhering to their bows (personal communication with John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research, 

8 Senior Research Biologist, December 16, 2002). It is suspected that one of the whales was part of the 

9 Strait of Georgia group, and another was struck in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca. However, there 

10 are no reports of encounters with fin whales in Puget Sound salmon fisheries. 

11 3.8.5.6 Pacific Leatherback Turtle 

12 Pacific leatherback turtles were listed as endangered throughout their range under the jurisdiction of the 

13 Endangered Species Act after experiencing precipitous declines in their nesting populations (NMFS 

14 and USFWS 1998). Although they do not nest in U.S. Pacific waters, Pacific leatherback turtles do 

15 inhabit the shelf and offshore Pacific Ocean waters of the United States, including Washington 

16 (Bowlby et al. 1994), during the summer months. Their entanglement with fishing gear has been well17 documented in other areas (NMFS and USFWS 1998). However, leatherback turtle use of the inland 

18 waters of Washington is accidental at best; therefore, this species is unlikely to interact with Puget 

19 Sound salmon fisheries. 

Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 207 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.9 Ownership and Land Use − Parks and Recreation 

2 The Puget Sound Action Area includes marine and freshwater systems, and associated riparian and 

3 nearshore areas. The majority of the surrounding land ownership is private (53%), followed by federal 

4 (36%), state/local (10%), and tribal (1%) (see Figure 3.2-4). 

5 Recreational land use within the action area includes state and federal parks, and privately-owned and 

6 developed recreational facilities, including facilities with boat landings. The Interagency Committee for 

7 Outdoor Recreation provides a website displaying information about Washington’s motorboat launches 

8 by county (Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation 2003). Information presented was collected 

9 during a 1998 field survey of all publicly-accessible motorboat launches in Washington State. Boat 

10 launches within the Puget Sound Action Area, by county, are presented in Table 3.9-1. 

11 Table 3.9-1. Freshwater and saltwater boat launches in the 12 counties within the Puget Sound action 

12 area. 

Region Washington 

County 

Freshwater Boat 

Launches 1

Saltwater Boat 

Launches 1

Total Boat 

Launches 1

Strait of Juan de Fuca Clallam 2 19 21 

Jefferson 5 16 21 

Hood Canal Kitsap 13 19 32 

Mason 18 13 31 

King 34 6 40 

South Puget Sound Pierce 18 20 38 

Thurston 14 6 20 

Snohomish 23 6 29 

Skagit 30 8 38 

Whatcom 20 9 29 

Island 1 18 19 

North Puget Sound 

San Juan 4 13 17 

Total 12 182 153 335 

1 13 Boat launches within the Puget Sound Action Area. Clallam, Jefferson, Thurston, and Mason Counties have 

14 additional boat landings outside the action area. 

15 Many of these publicly-accessible boat launches are owned and managed by either Washington 

16 Department of Fish and Wildlife or Washington State Parks. The diverse Washington State Parks 

17 system includes 125 parks and 250,000 acres of land managed. It ranks sixth among all 50 states in 

18 number of areas managed, fourth in day-use attendance, and eighth in number of overnight visitors 

19 served. Many of these parks are located on river banks, beaches and estuaries within the Puget Sound 
Section 3 – Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 208 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Action Area. Most offer opportunities for either saltwater or freshwater fishing (Washington Parks and 

2 Recreation Commission 2002). 

3 In a survey conducted by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, it was estimated that 13 

4 percent of the Washington state population annually participates in fishing (Interagency Committee for 

5 Outdoor Recreation 2002). Using the results of the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation 

6 survey, the state’s 12-county population within the Puget Sound Action Area on April 1, 2000, 

7 estimated at 3,978,513 citizens (Table 3.2-2), would translate into approximately 517,000 recreational 

8 fishermen. This estimate includes persons fishing for salmon (within the scope of this Environmental 

9 Impact Statement), and persons fishing for non-salmon species (not addressed by this Environmental 

10 Impact Statement). 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 209 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 3.10 Water Quality 

2 Marine water quality is a function of natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) processes. Natural 

3 factors include climate (winds, tides, rainfall, upwelling processes), and biological processes such as 

4 phytoplankton blooms. Primary anthropogenic factors include: 

5 • Urban stormwater runoff 

6 • Treated wastewater effluent 

7 • Industrial discharges 

8 • Agricultural practices (e.g., tilling that results in wind and water erosion of soil; applications of 

9 fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides; runoff from dairy farms) 

10 • Releases from failing septic systems 

11 • Land management practices that affect runoff quantity and quality 

12 • Other point and non-point source releases of contaminants. 

13 Within the area encompassed by the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, over 1,300 streams and river segments 

14 and lakes do not meet Federally approved, state and Tribal water quality standards and are now listed 

15 as water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (DOE 2004). Tributary water 

16 quality problems contribute to poor water quality where sediment and contaminants from the tributaries 

17 settle in mainstem reaches and the estuary. The Washington Department of Ecology rated Puget Sound 

18 water quality as generally good in most areas (Newton et al. 2002). The report identified a number of 

19 specific locations where water quality has declined, due to low dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform 

20 bacteria contamination, or an indication of sensitivity to eutrophication based on persistent layering of 

21 waters of different densities (stratification) or nutrient conditions. Eutrophication is an increase in 

22 nutrients, typically nitrogen or phosphorus, that can result in very large algal blooms. As the nutrients 

23 are depleted, the algae die and sink to lower depths. The decomposition of the dead algae depletes the 

24 dissolved oxygen in the water, reducing the ability of the water to support life. In Puget Sound, 

25 eutrophication occurs due to a combination of weather patterns and nutrient inputs, typically from 

26 runoff or wastewater sources, like wastewater treatment plant discharges or failing septic systems. 

27 Areas of highest concern include southern Hood Canal, Budd Inlet, Penn Cove, Commencement Bay, 

28 Elliott Bay, Possession Sound, Saratoga Passage, and Sinclair Inlet. The Puget Sound Water Quality 

29 Action Team (PSWQAT 2002) provides a similar overview of water quality in Puget Sound with a 

30 somewhat different focus that includes toxic contaminants and biological resources. In particular, this 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 210 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 report identifies areas with sediment contamination due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) −

2 the most likely contaminants from vessel operations. 

3 The potential for water quality impacts associated with implementing the Proposed Action or 

4 alternatives is discussed in this Environmental Impact Statement in the context of vessel operations for 

5 commercial, tribal, and recreational fishing. Potential impacts could occur in the form of turbidity and 

6 sedimentation, and/or non-point source pollution from hydrocarbon spills or releases. Estimates of the 

7 amount of vessel traffic on Puget Sound associated with fishing are not readily available, so it is not 

8 possible to quantify the impacts of fishing versus other boating activities. However, there were 191,426 

licensed vessels in 2002∗ 9 , with a corresponding 293 licensed non-treaty commercial fishers. Using 

10 these figures, non-treaty commercial fishing vessels represent only one-tenth of one percent of the total 

11 vessels registered by Washington Department of Licensing in Puget Sound. However,Because salmon 

12 fishing is just one of many boating activities that take place on Puget Sound, so it is not expected that 

13 fishing operations, either sport or commercial, will be a major factor in vessel activity. 

14 3.10.1 Turbidity and Sedimentation 

15 Vessel operations in and around moorage facilities and in other shallow areas have the potential to stir 

16 up bottom sediments and cause short-term increases in turbidity in marine and freshwater areas. Boat 

17 wakes may contribute to bank erosion in some areas. 

18 3.10.2 Non-Point Source Pollution 

19 The most likely pollutants attributable to the operation of fishing vessels are in the class of compounds 

20 known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These include diesel fuel, gasoline and lubricants 

21 that might be spilled directly into the water; unburned fuels and oils associated with the operation of 

22 two-cycle engines such as outboard motors; and deposition of the products of combustion from larger 

23 vessel engines. PAHs have limited solubility in water (Varanasi 1989), and are typically not found free 

24 in the water column. Lighter fractions tend to come to the surface where they evaporate. Heavier 

25 versions tend to sink to the bottom and adsorb to sediments. These contaminants can reenter the water 

26 column if sediments are disturbed, and are known to cause problems for benthic organisms and fishes 

27 that are in direct contact with the sediments (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team 2002). 

 

∗ Treaty-Indian vessel owners are not required to register with Washington Dept. of Licensing. The count 

of fishers includes licenses issued to non-treaty-Indian purse seine and gill net gears, and does not include fixed 

reef net gear. 
Section 3 − Affected Environment 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 3 - 211 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Central and South Puget Sound have been identified as areas where PAH contamination is significant 

2 (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team 2002). This contamination primarily resulted from historic 

3 use of creosote (a wood preservative) at specific locations, stormwater runoff from urban areas 

4 (petroleum product residues in runoff from parking lots and roadways), and the byproducts of 

5 combustion (wood burning, coal burning, and vehicle exhaust). Existing water quality problems 

6 attributable to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are the result of a multitude of small, chronic 

7 contaminations, to which the operation of fishing vessels likely contributes. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

2 4.1 Introduction 

3 This section describes the predicted impacts to those components of the natural, built, and human 

4 environment described in Section 3 (Affected Environment) for each alternative defined in Section 2 

5 (Alternatives Including the Proposed Action). NEPA requires that the analysis of alternatives consider 

6 seven types of impacts: direct, indirect, cumulative, short-term, long-term, irreversible and irretrievable 

7 (CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.25; NEPA section 102[2][C][iv][v]). The alternatives analyses in 

8 this section focus on the assessment of direct, indirect and cumulative effects. 

9 Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (CEQ Regulations at 

10 40 CFR 1508.8). 

11 Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are 

12 still reasonably foreseeable (CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.8). 

13 Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

14 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.7). 

15 Predicted environmental effects of this nature are described in this section by environmental resource. 

16 Given the six-year duration of the Proposed Action, the effects are predicted to be primarily short-term 

17 in nature. No irreversible impacts associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives are predicted to 

18 occur. Long-term and irretrievable impacts are discussed with direct effects. 

19 In order to evaluate the potential severity of environmental effects, metrics are used to characterize the 

20 magnitude and intensity of the effect. The metrics used in this analysis include: 

21 No effect: Not measurable or expected, or of such a rare occurrence that it would be impossible to 

22 measure or detect. 

23 Low effect: Measurable but of small amount or infrequent occurrence. 

24 Moderate effect: Measurable at some level between low and substantial. 

25 Substantial effect: A high impact that is measurable and/or expected, or likely to occur more 

26 frequently than anticipated. 

27 Predicted environmental effects are quantified where possible, but for several resources where 

28 quantifiable information is not available, the analysis relies on qualitative assessments and best 

29 professional judgment. 

30 Section 4.2 (following) describes the basis for the comparison of alternatives, and describes the 

31 analysis approach. The analyses in this section follow the order of resource issues described in 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Section 3, Affected Environment. For example, the fish resource was described in Subsection 3.3, and 

2 the alternatives analysis for fish is found in Subsection 4.3. Discussions of the natural, built and human 

3 environment are organized as follows: 

Section 4 Subsections Natural 

Environment 

Built 

Environment 

Human 

Environment 

4.3.1 and 4.3.2: Status of salmonid species X 

4.3.3: Other fishes X 

4.3.4: Fish habitat X 

4.3.5 through 4.3.7: Potential ecological effects of alternative 

harvest activities 

X 

4.4: Tribal treaty rights and trust responsibilities X 

4.5: Non-commercial use of salmonids by Puget Sound tribes X 

4.6: Regional economics of commercial and sport fisheries X 

4.7: Environmental justice X 

4.8.1 through 4.8.3 and 4.8.5: Seabirds, marine mammals, and 

other wildlife species 

X 

4.8.4: Lower trophic-level species X 

4.9: Land ownership and land use X 

4.10: Water quality X 

4 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.2 Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis 

2 The basis for comparing the alternatives described in Section 2, and the approach to the alternatives 

3 analysis is briefly described in this section to introduce the methods for predicting the effects of the 

4 Proposed Action and alternatives. Technical modeling tools used to analyze the Proposed Action and 

5 alternatives are also described. 

6 4.2.1 No Action Alternative 

7 NEPA essentially asks how current environmental conditions would change with the Proposed Action 

8 or alternatives. Therefore, the environmental consequences analysis of the alternatives requires 

9 defining a baseline against which the Proposed Action and alternatives can be evaluated and contrasted. 

10 In practice, this baseline is usually either existing conditions (i.e., the affected environment), or the no 

11 action alternative (CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.15). However, although NEPA requires that the 

12 alternatives considered for detailed analysis include a no action alternative, neither NEPA nor the CEQ 

13 implementing regulations require that the no action alternative be used as the baseline. 

14 For this analysis, the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) most closely approximates current baseline 

15 conditions, because the same type of chinook salmon harvest management plan has been implemented 

16 since 2000. In situations where the proposed activity is fundamentally the continuation of a current 

17 management activity, the proposed action may be defined as the no action alternative because the 

18 proposed action represents no change from the baseline environmental condition (CEQ 40 Questions, 

question 3).i 19 This may raise some confusion in relation to the settlement agreement with Washington 

20 Trout v. Lohn, in which no authorized take of listed chinook in Puget Sound (Alternative 4) is 

21 identified as the no action alternative to describe the case where literally no harvest of listed Puget 

22 Sound chinook salmon would occur. For the purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1 (the Proposed 

23 Action) is the baseline for comparison of alternatives under NEPA, and Alternative 4 represents the 

24 case in which the Proposed Action would not occur. The alternatives analyzed in detail in this 

 

i

 CEQ interpreted the ‘no action’ alternative in two ways (CEQ 40 Questions, question 3): 

1) For a continuing action, such as a long-term plan or program of action, ‘no action’ is defined as ‘no 

change’ from current management direction or level of management intensity. 

2) For a project, ‘no action’ is defined as ‘the proposed activity would not take place, and the resulting 

environmental effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects of permitting the 

proposed activity or an alternative activity to go forward.” 

Fundamentally, these two interpretations are the same since each is intended to define the environmental 

baseline conditions that exist prior to the implementation of the proposed activity or its alternatives. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 4 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Environmental Impact Statement are compared to one another, as required by NEPA, to obtain a clear 

2 understanding of the comparative merits of each alternative. 

3 4.2.2 Technical Approach to Impact Assessment 

4 The Affected Environment section of this Environmental Impact Statement (Section 3) describes the 

5 effects of fishing that have occurred in the past; however, it does not accurately describe the baseline 

6 conditions from which the effects of the Puget Sound chinook salmon harvest alternatives can be 

7 determined, due to changing environmental conditions, population abundance and market conditions. 

8 Every year, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound treaty tribes (the comanagers) use a technical modelii 9 to evaluate the effects of harvest management regimes against the 

10 predicted salmon abundances for the coming year. Therefore, this model could be used to examine the 

11 effects of various alternatives on the salmon resource by comparing them under the same set of 

12 baseline environmental conditions. 

The 2003 fishing year is representative of salmon abundance and fishing patterns in recent years;iii 13 

14 therefore, 2003 pre-season expectations and modeling information are used to describe the general 

15 pattern of fisheries that would reasonably be expected to occur under Alternative 1, the Proposed 

16 Action, over the time period it would be in effect (the 2004 2005−2009 fishing seasons). The model 

17 was then adjusted from these baseline conditions to predict impacts to salmon for the three harvest 

18 management alternatives described in Section 2. This information formed the basis for the alternatives 

19 analysis in this Environmental Impact Statement. A detailed description of the modeling assumptions is 

20 provided in Appendix C. 

21 The environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and alternatives are affected by the 

22 distribution and magnitude of catch or mortality (catch and exploitation rate), available opportunities 

23 (sport angler trips), and numbers of fish that remain to reproduce (escapement). For example, the 

24 amount of money that comes into a community from fishing depends largely on the amount of fish 

25 commercial fishermen catch to sell, the opportunities available to sport fishermen to catch fish, and 

26 where those opportunities are available. Predicted effects to Puget Sound tribal treaty rights or 

27 subsistence uses are also dependent on access to fish and the available amount of fish. Predicted effects 

 

ii The model is called the Fisheries Regulation and Assessment Model (FRAM). 

iii Pink salmon return to Puget Sound only during odd-numbered years, so 2003 is the most recent year that would 

include impacts resulting from pink salmon fisheries. Using a year that includes pink salmon fisheries and 

returning pink salmon adults ensures that impacts to all salmon species are accurately represented. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 5 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 on fish and wildlife resources are influenced by the encounters of these species with fishing activities 

2 and the number of fish that survive to reproduce. The technical model and other sources of available 

3 data were used to predict this core set of parameters: catch, exploitation rates, angler trips and 

4 escapement. 

5 4.2.3 Scenarios for Alternatives 

6 The outcome of implementing any of the alternatives evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement 

7 as measured by the core set of parameters described above will depend on the Puget Sound chinook 

8 salmon abundance available to the fisheries in any individual year, and the amount of Puget Sound 

9 chinook harvest taken in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries prior to chinook salmon reaching Puget Sound 

10 fisheries. For example, chinook salmon populations are more likely to achieve management objectives 

11 at higher abundance and/or lower levels of Canadian/Alaskan fisheries, and therefore, fishing 

12 opportunity would be expected to be more widely distributed throughout Puget Sound. At lower 

13 abundance and/or high levels of Canadian/Alaskan fisheries, the geographic scope of fisheries and the 

14 amount of catch would be expected to be substantially reduced. Therefore, the Environmental 

15 Consequences analyses incorporate assumptions about the range of chinook salmon abundances and 

16 levels of chinook harvest in Canadian/Alaskan fisheries that could reasonably be expected to occur for 

17 the duration of the Proposed Action (the 2004 2005−2009 fishing seasons). 

18 These different scenarios are used only to explore the range of possible impacts to chinook salmon. The 

19 assumptions regarding the range of abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries for coho, sockeye, pink, 

20 chum and steelhead are the same among scenarios for two reasons: 1) the purpose of the Proposed 

21 Action is to manage Puget Sound chinook salmon. It does not include management objectives for other 

22 species or describe how fisheries will respond to changes in abundance of those other salmon species; 

23 and, 2) the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Annex provides the necessary information to model 

24 chinook impacts under higher levels of fishing than those observed in recent years, but which might 

25 occur in the next few years. However, there is insufficient information to allow modeling how catch of 

26 salmon species other than chinook would vary in response to changes in Canadian/Alaskan fisheries. 

27 Therefore, the analysis assumes abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fishery impacts for non-chinook 

28 salmon species will remain similar to those experienced in recent years. 

29 4.2.3.1 Abundance 

30 Abundance fluctuates due to changes in survival in the marine and freshwater environments through 

31 which salmon pass during their life cycle. Evidence suggests that marine survival of salmon species 

32 fluctuates in response to 20 to 30-year cycles of climatic conditions and ocean productivity (Mantua 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 6 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 1997; Cramer 1999). Declines in marine survival began to be detected in the early 1990s so marine 

2 survival would be expected to continue to be low for the next 10 to 20 years, although there has been 

3 some indication that marine survival has increased in the last several years, resulting in increased 

4 abundance of West Coast chinook salmon populations. To look at the level of abundance that might be 

5 reasonable to expect over the duration of the Proposed Action (the 2004 2005−2009 fishing seasons), 

6 the pattern of Puget Sound chinook salmon abundance over the last thirteen years (1991 through 2003) 

was examined since it included periods of low marine survival (1990s),iv 7 and what is believed to be 

8 higher marine survival (2000 through 2003). Freshwater conditions have not been found to fluctuate in 

9 cycles, but the changes in these environments have contributed to the variation in chinook salmon 

10 abundance observed in this same period. Total Puget Sound chinook salmon abundance in the 1990s 

averaged approximately 30 percent less than abundance observed in recent years,v 11 so a 30 percent 

12 reduction in Puget Sound chinook abundance from the 2003 predicted Puget Sound chinook abundance 

13 was chosen for the low abundance condition. It is possible that marine survival could continue to 

14 increase, but there are some indications, based on ocean interceptions of immature Columbia River 

15 chinook, that abundance of West Coast salmon may decrease in the next few years (personal 

16 communication with D. Simmons, NMFS, February 2, 2004). Therefore, the 2003 abundance was 

17 chosen to represent the high abundance condition. 

18 4.2.3.2 Canadian and Alaskan Fisheries 

19 In their ocean migration, Puget Sound chinook salmon travel north along the west coast into Canadian 

20 waters, and at times as far north as Alaskan waters (Figure 1.4-1). Depending on the population, 

21 Canadian fisheries on average can account for as much as 75 percent of the fishing-related mortality on 

22 Puget Sound chinook salmon (see Subsection 4.3.1). Alaskan fisheries harvest a low proportion (1 to 

23 2%) of Puget Sound chinook salmon. Although the management of Canadian fisheries is outside the 

24 jurisdiction of the co-managers, the level of Canadian/Alaskan fisheries is an important consideration 

25 in assessing the total impact of fishing on Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, and the 

26 contribution of Puget Sound fisheries to that total impact. 

 

iv Marine survival in the 1990s was the lowest observed since the early 1970s. 

v

 Although Puget Sound chinook salmon showed the same general trend in abundance, not all populations showed 

an increasing trend over the same period, and the variability in abundance varied from population to population. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 7 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 The major Canadian fisheries that currently or in the past have harvested large numbers of Puget Sound 

2 chinook salmon include the West Coast Vancouver Island troll and sport fisheries, the Georgia Strait 

3 troll fishery and the Georgia Strait and Canadian Strait of Juan de Fuca sport fisheries. In recent years, 

4 Canadian fisheries have not harvested chinook salmon at levels allowed under the Pacific Salmon 

5 Treaty due to internal Canadian conservation issues (NMFS 2003). The Georgia Strait troll fishery has 

6 been virtually eliminated since 1995 (CTC 2003), and that situation is expected to continue because of 

7 changes in Canadian management priorities. Also, many of the fishermen previously in the Georgia 

8 Strait troll fishery have sold their fishing gear or moved to other fisheries. However, effort and catches 

9 in the other Canadian fisheries have been increasing from the record low levels in the most recent few 

10 years (CTC 2003). Fishery restrictions implemented in the mid-1990s to address Canadian chinook and 

11 coho salmon conservation concerns are likely to be relaxed to some degree in these fisheries in the next 

12 several years and may result in increased fisherman participation and catch. Therefore, the 

13 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries regime projected to occur in 2003 was chosen as the low northern fisheries 

14 condition because for Canadian fisheries other than the Georgia Strait troll fishery, it is unlikely that 

15 Canadian catch levels will decrease from those projected to occur in 2003, and more likely that total 

16 effort and catch will continue to increase from 2003 levels. 

17 Maximum harvest levels expected to occur under the Pacific Salmon Treaty during implementation of 

18 the 2004−2009 RMP were modeled to represent the upper range of impacts associated with Canadian 

19 fisheries (i.e., worst case scenario). These maximum expected levels are not the maximum allowed 

20 under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, but the maximum reasonably expected to occur during the 2004

21 2005−2009 fishing seasons, based on recent fishing patterns, shifts in fishing sector allocation over the 

22 past 10 years, and discussions with Canadian fishing managers (personal communication with D. 

23 Simmons, NMFS, Pat Pattillo, WDFW, and Larrie Lavoy, WDFW, July 2003). The maximum 

24 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries expected to occur during the 2004−2009 fishing seasons assumed: 1) the 

25 West Coast Vancouver Island troll and sport fishery would occur under the maximum level allowed 

26 under the Pacific Salmon Treaty; 2) the Georgia Strait troll fishery would remain at very low levels; 

27 and, 3) the Georgia Strait and Canadian Strait of Juan de Fuca sport fisheries would occur at the highest 

28 estimated catch level observed for the period 1994−2002. A more detailed discussion of Canadian 

29 harvest patterns and the basis of the maximum northern fisheries scenario is included in Appendix B.

30 Taking into account the information on both abundance and expected northern fishing patterns 

31 described above, four scenarios were developed by the Interdisciplinary Team that encompass the 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 8 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 range of abundance and northern fishing conditions that might reasonably be expected to occur during 

2 the implementation of the Proposed Action (Table 4.2-1). 

3 Table 4.2-1. Scenarios associated with estimated harvest levels within the Puget Sound Action Area. 

Scenario Abundance Alaskan/Canadian Fisheries 

Scenario A 2003 Puget Sound abundance 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest 

Scenario B 2003 Puget Sound abundance high Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest 

Scenario C 30% reduction from 2003 abundance 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest 

Scenario D 30% reduction from 2003 abundance high Alaskan/Canadian fisheries harvest. 

4 The indications of a plateau or potential reduction in marine survival and expectations that Canadian 

5 fisheries will continue to increase as they have in recent years led the Interdisciplinary Team to 

6 conclude that Scenario B is the most likely to occur during the implementation of the Proposed Action. 

7 Consequently, the assessment of environmental consequences in the following subsections focus on 

8 comparisons to this alternative. The results under Scenarios A, C, or D are also reported, but in less 

9 detail. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 9 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 4.3 Fish

2 4.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Fish Species

3 This section discusses the predicted, direct, environmental consequences of the Proposed Action or

4 alternatives with respect to listed salmonid species found within the action area: Puget Sound chinook

5 salmon, Hood Canal summer chum salmon, bull trout, Columbia River chinook salmon, and Columbia

6 River chum salmon. The following discussion will address these species in this order. Indirect and

7 cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.8.

8 Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer Chum

9 Standards of Comparison for Puget Sound Chinook

10 The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) was listed as threatened in

11 1999 because the potential for these populations to become endangered in the foreseeable future was

12 believed to be high if current conditions continued (Meyer et al. 1998). Harvest is identified as one

13 factor of decline in the listing decision. The co-managers anticipate the vast majority of the harvest14 related mortality to listed Puget Sound chinook salmon over the duration of the Resource Management

15 Plan (RMP) will be incidental to fisheries directed at other stocks or species (NMFS 2004WDFW and

16 PSIT 2004 [4(d) determination]). Nevertheless, over the past decade, the co-managers have constrained

17 harvest mortality, severely for some populations in the ESU, to avoid escapement falling to the point of

18 instability. These harvest reductions have been in response to significant reductions in productivity and

19 capacity of chinook salmon-bearing watersheds throughout Puget Sound, largely as a result of habitat

20 degradation. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has found these harvest actions are

21 consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (NMFS 1999; NMFS 2001;

22 NMFS 2003; Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003).

23 The potential impacts of the Proposed Action or alternatives on listed Puget Sound chinook salmon are

24 quantified in terms of the projected total fisheries exploitation rate and resulting spawning escapement

25 for each population. In general terms, exploitation rate is the number of fish harvested from each

population divided by the number of fish in the populationvi 26 (see Appendix C). Spawning escapement is

27 the estimated number of fish that return to the spawning grounds each year. For some populations,

 

vi The total exploitation rate is technically defined as the proportion of adult chinook, from all year-classes,

prior to the onset of fishing in a given year, harvested or killed incidentally as a result of fishing.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 10 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 spawning escapement is measured in terms of those fish whose parents spawned naturally rather than in

2 hatcheries or by other artificial propagation means.

3 Survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU will depend, over the long term, on necessary

4 actions in other sectors, especially habitat actions, and not on harvest actions alone. There is an

5 ongoing recovery planning effort for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. Completion of the recovery plan

6 and decisions regarding the form and timing of recovery efforts described in the recovery plan will

7 determine the kinds of harvest actions that may be necessary and appropriate in the future. Absent that

8 guidance at the time of this writing, NMFS must evaluate the proposed harvest actions by examining

9 the impacts of harvest within the current context. Therefore, NMFS has evaluated the future

10 performance of populations in the ESU under recent productivity conditions; i.e., assuming that the

11 impact of hatchery and habitat management actions remain as they are now. The actual performance of

12 the populations will vary due natural variability in freshwater and marine survival, and may also vary

13 due to actions in the habitat and hatchery sectors. For example, if habitat and hatchery actions improve

14 conditions over currently existing conditions, the current NMFS conservation standards would be

15 conservative, likely overestimating the impact that harvest actions would have on the ESU.

16 Where available, exploitation rates and spawning escapement are compared to population-specific

17 conservation standards established by the NMFS to ascertain whether fisheries will appreciably reduce

18 survival and recovery of the ESU, as required by the ESA 4(d) Rule. Conservation standards are

19 represented by rebuilding exploitation rates, critical escapement thresholds, and viable escapement

20 thresholds.

21 The rebuilding exploitation rates (RERs) represent the highest rate of harvest that will achieve the

22 following ESA conservation criteria. Over the long term (25 years), harvest at the RER level will

23 achieve: 1a) a high (80%) probability of rebuilding, or 1b) no more than a 10 percent reduction in the

24 probability of rebuilding, and 2) a very low (5%) probability of the population falling to the critical

25 threshold (see Appendix A) compared with a zero-harvest baseline. Fishing regimes that exert harvest

26 rates below the RER level, by definition, do not pose jeopardy to the ESU. Fishing regimes above the

27 RERs may also not pose jeopardy to the ESU depending on the status and distribution of the chinook

28 salmon populations throughout the ESU.

29 The critical escapement threshold (CET) represents a point of biological instability, below which the

30 risk of extinction increases significantly, due to declining spawning success, depensatory mortality, or

31 risk of loss of genetic integrity. This threshold is not precisely known for any population, but may be

32 estimated by risk assessment if the current productivity of a population can be estimated. Based on
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 11 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 theoretical assessment of ecological and genetic risk (McElhaney et al. 2000; and NMFS 2001), a

2 generic critical threshold of 200 adults has been used for other populations for which population3 specific data are unavailable or insufficient to estimate productivity. Viable escapement thresholds

4 (VETs) in the context of this EIS analysis are a level of spawning escapement associated with

5 rebuilding to recovery, consistent with current environmental conditions. For most populations, these

6 thresholds are well below the escapement levels associated with recovery, but achieving these goals

7 under current conditions is a necessary step to eventual recovery when habitat and other conditions are

8 more favorable. Where data are available, viable escapement thresholds have been defined consistent

9 with the current productivity and capacity of spawning habitat. Where such information is not

10 available, the generic viable threshold (1,250 adults) defined by NMFS for Viable Salmonid

11 Populations (McElhany et al. 2000; NMFS 2001) is used as a reference point. By definition, these

12 thresholds offer only general guidance as to what generally represents points of stability or instability.

13 Some populations may be fairly robust at very low abundances, while chinook salmon populations in

14 large river systems may become unstable at higher abundances depending on resource location and

15 spawner density. However, without population-specific information, NMFS believes these generic

16 guidelines offer the best available information.

17 NMFS has developed specific conservation standards for 12 of the 22 populations and one management

18 unit (Nooksack early) within the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Table 4.3-1). Nine of these 12

19 populations and one management unit have estimates of rebuilding exploitation rate (RER), critical

20 escapement threshold (CET), and viable escapement threshold (VET). Although RERs have not been

21 established for the Upper Cascade spring or Snoqualmie chinook populations, ancillary information

22 indicated that the RERs developed for other populations within their management units should be

23 protective of these populations (Susan Bishop, NMFS, April 20, 2003; and Skagit Rebuilding

24 Exploitation Rate Workgroup 2003). The remaining populations have a mixture of specific and generic

25 standards  also developed by NMFS (McElhany et al. 2000). Standards for all populations are

26 summarized in Table4.3-1. NMFS uses all of this information to assess the status and distribution of the

27 chinook salmon populations throughout the ESU, and then to determine whether the harvest action

28 would pose jeopardy to the ESU as a whole.

29 The model used for this EIS analysis estimated fishery impacts to chinook salmon and other species in

30 Alaska, British Columbia, and Southern U.S. Fisheries  those occurring in Puget Sound and off the

31 Pacific coast of Washington, Oregon, and California (see Technical Appendix B). Within the Southern
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 12 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 U.S. area, more than 95 percent of the catch of species discussed here occurs within Puget Sound

2 (Pacific Salmon Commission 2002).

3 Subsection 4.3.1 compares the impacts of the Proposed Action or alternatives on Puget Sound chinook

4 under each of four scenarios as described in Subsection 4.2, Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and

5 Approach to Alternatives Analysis. Each scenario defines a different baseline condition in terms of

6 forecast abundance of Puget Sound Chinook and harvests occurring in fisheries in Canada and Alaska.

7 These different scenarios are used only to explore the range of possible impacts to chinook salmon. The

8 assumptions regarding the range of abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries for coho, sockeye, pink,

9 chum, and steelhead are the same among scenarios for two reasons: 1) the purpose of the Proposed

10 Action is to manage Puget Sound chinook salmon. It does not include management objectives for other

11 species or describe how fisheries will respond to changes in abundance of those other salmon species;

12 and 2) the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Annex provides the necessary information to model

13 chinook salmon impacts under higher levels of fishing than those observed in recent years, but which

14 might occur in the next few years. However, there is insufficient information to allow NMFS to model

15 how catch of salmon species other than chinook would vary in response to changes in

16 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries. Therefore, the analysis assumes abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fishery

17 impacts for non-chinook salmon species will remain similar to those experienced in recent years.
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Nooksack Spring 12% 500

 North Fork 200

 South Fork 200

Skagit Summer-Fall

 Lower Skagit 49% 251 2182

 Lower Sauk 51% 200 681

 Upper Skagit 60% 967 7454

Skagit Spring

 Upper Cascade 170

 Upper Sauk 38% 130 330

 Suiattle 41% 170 400

Stillaguamish Summer-Fall

 North Fork 32% 300 552

 South Fork 24% 200 300

Snohomish Summer-Fall 18%

 Skykomish 18% 1650 3500

 Snoqualmie 400

Green 53% 835 5523

Lake Washington

 Sammamish 200 1200

 Cedar 200 1200

Puyallup 200 1200

White River Spring 200 1000

Nisqually 200 1100

Mid- Hood Canal / Dosewallips 200 1250

Skokomish 200 1250

Dungeness 200 925

Elwha 200 2900

Hood Canal 11% 4070

Strait of Juan de Fuca 9% 920

Hood Canal – Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Populations

Table 4.3-1. Rebuilding Exploitation Rates, and critical and viable escapement standards for listed 

Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum, against which impacts of Alternatives were 

assessed.

Population Rebuilding 

Exploitation Rate

MSY, viable, or capacity 

escapement level Critical escapement

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 13 December 2004
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 14 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1

Pre-Action Resource Status vii

Scenario Abundance Harvest in Canadian/Alaskan Fisheries

Scenario A 2003 2003

Scenario B 2003 Maximum expected under the 1999-2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty Annex

Scenario C 70% of 2003 2003

Scenario D 70% of 2003 Maximum expected under the 1999-2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty Annex

2 Scenario B is considered the most likely scenario during the RMP implementation period; therefore,

3 the analysis emphasizes this scenario. However, the performance of each alternative is compared both

4 across the four scenarios, and with each of the other alternatives for a given scenario. For example,

5 Alternative 2 is evaluated for Scenarios A through D. Then Alternative 2, Scenario A is compared with

6 Alternative 1, Scenario A, and so forth.

7 Table 4.3-3 in Subsection 4.3.1.5, Summary Discussion of Alternatives, summarizes the performance

8 of each alternative (under Scenario B) in relation to the conservation standards for those populations.

9 Table 4.3-4 in Subsection 4.3.1.5 summarizes the impacts of Alternatives 2 through 4 relative to

10 Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, under Scenario B. Table 4.3-5 in Subsection 4.3.1.5 summarizes

11 performance of each alternative under all scenarios relative to conservation standards, and Table 4.3.6

12 summarizes impacts of Alternatives 2 though 4 for all scenarios. Additional tables in this Subsection

13 4.3.1.5 (and in Appendix B) provide more detailed information on exploitation rates, total fishery14 related mortality for hatchery and natural chinook salmon (landed and non-landed), and escapement of

15 hatchery and naturally-spawning chinook salmon.

16 Standards of Comparison for Hood Canal Summer Chum

17 There are seven summer chum salmon populations in the listed Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca

18 summer chum ESU. NMFS has determined that over the long term, fisheries exploitation rates should

19 be constrained to an average of 10.9 percent or less for Hood Canal component salmon and 9 percent or

20 less for Strait of Juan de Fuca component of the Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca ESU. This standard

 

vii Represents preseason projections of 2003 fisheries and abundance.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 15 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 allows that, in any one year, exploitation rates may vary from 3 to 15 percent for the Hood Canal

2 component, and from 3 to 12 percent for the Strait of Juan de Fuca component. Fisheries should result

3 in appropriate distribution of escapement among the various populations in each region, and should not

4 otherwise impede the survival and recovery of the ESU (NMFS 2000). For summer chum, exploitation

5 rates are expressed as total catch (in all fisheries) as a proportion of the sum of catch and escapement.

6 However, returns to the Quilcene River Quilcene summer-chum stock (Quilcene/Dabob Bay

7 Management Unit) (for which the run is dominated by a large summer chum hatchery program) are

8 excluded from the exploitation rate calculation. Critical escapement goals have also been designated:

9 4,070 for the Hood Canal summer chum region, and 920 for the Strait of Juan de Fuca region.

10 Bull Trout, and Columbia River Chinook and Chum Salmon

11 A small number of anadromous char, presumed to be bull trout, are caught in freshwater sport fisheries

12 and may be caught in near-shore salmon net fisheries primarily in northern Puget Sound. Listed

13 Columbia River-origin chinook and chum salmon are infrequently caught in Puget Sound (personal

14 communication via e-mail from Dell Simmons, NMFS, to Susan Bishop, NMFS Sustainable Fisheries

15 Division, December 2002).

16 Fishery closures under Alternative 2, 3 or 4 would slightly reduce the rare catch of these species that

17 might occur under Alternative 1, but neither the Proposed Action nor the Alternatives would exert a

18 measurable impact on these species under any of the harvest management scenarios. Therefore, bull

19 trout and the Columbia River ESUs will not be discussed further in this document.

20 Metrics for Comparison of Impacts

21 The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) serves as the baseline against which the other alternatives are

22 measured. The magnitude of the impacts of Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 relative to the baseline are classified

23 as follows:

Term When the impact varies by:

None Not measurable, rare, infrequent

Low Less than 10 percent

Moderate 10 percent to 30 percent

Substantial More than 30 percent

24 Although it is useful and necessary to provide some system of metrics against which to assess the

25 effects of the Proposed Action or alternatives, the complexity of salmon life history means that the

26 magnitude of changes in effect may not translate into realized benefits or risks to the populations of the
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 16 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 same magnitude. Therefore, it is important to note that there are several limitations to the application of

2 these metrics to fish that should be taken into account in interpreting the results of applying these

3 metrics. First, substantial increases in spawning escapements may not result in commensurate increases

4 in the progeny of those spawners. The objective for salmon fisheries management is to constrain

5 fishing mortality to the extent necessary to optimize the production of subsequent generations. The

6 productivity of salmon populations, often defined in terms of the number of recruits produced per

7 female spawner, increases over a range of escapement, then reaches a plateau or declines at higher

8 levels of escapement due to density-dependent survival; i.e., too many spawners for the available

9 habitat, or too many juvenile salmon for the available food in the river. The escapement level

10 corresponding to the point of optimum productivity varies widely among individual populations due to

11 the accessible area of suitable spawning and rearing habitat within a river system, and the very complex

12 array of physical and biological factors that influence the annual survival of salmon eggs and juveniles

13 through their freshwater life history. However, the influence of these physical and biological factors

14 varies greatly from year to year, so that were fisheries management to achieve optimum escapement

15 consistently from year to year, the actual production from those spawners would still vary widely. The

16 marine environment exerts even greater influence on the number of juvenile salmon that reach

17 adulthood. Consequently, this Environmental Impact Statement can compare the predicted escapement

18 for populations against specific or general escapement standards, but cannot accurately project the

19 resulting abundance of subsequent generations of adult salmon. Also, changes in risk relative to

20 achievement of the Rebuilding Exploitation Rates may not be the same as changes in risk measured by

21 changes in escapement. That is, the changes in achieving the Rebuilding Exploitation Rates are likely

22 to be more beneficial or adverse relative to recovery than changes in escapement.

23 It should also be noted that changes in exploitation rates are expressed in the discussion below as the

24 difference  in percentage points  between two rates, whereas changes in escapement are expressed as

25 the percent difference between two values. For example, if the exploitation rate for Nooksack early

26 chinook is 20 percent under Alternative 1 and 15 percent under Alternative 2, the change is 5

27 percentage points (20% minus 15% = 5%). If the escapement of Nooksack early chinook changes from

28 200 under Alternative 1 to 250 under Alternative 2, the change is 25 percent ([250 minus 200] divided

29 by 200).

30 4.3.1.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo

31 Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) is the alternative that most closely resembles recent historical

32 harvest management plans. Its implementation is predicted to result in exploitation rates below
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 17 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 rebuilding exploitation rate (RER) ceilings for five of the nine populations and one management unit

2 that have RER standards. With the exception of the Nooksack early management unit, escapements

3 under this alternative are predicted to exceed critical thresholds for all populations under all scenarios,

4 in most cases by substantial margins. Viable escapement thresholds (VETs) are predicted to be met or

5 exceeded for nine of the 18 populations and one management unit that have VET standards.

6 Summary of Scenario Differences

7 Under Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or D, representing conditions similar to 2003 (A); decreased

8 forecast abundance (C); or decreased forecast abundance with maximized Canadian/Alaskan fisheries

9 (D), the predicted Southern U.S. catch from listed Puget Sound populations is 106 percent, 74 percent,

10 and 71 percent respectively of that under Scenario B (see Table 4.3-2 in Subsection 4.3.1.5, Summary

11 Discussion of Alternatives). Catch of other species is discussed in Subsection 4.3.2, Basis for

12 Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis.

13 Exploitation rates under Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, and D are predicted to vary from those under

14 Alternative 1, Scenario B, by 1 to 5 percent. Exploitation rates for the Nooksack population, which

15 exceeded RER ceilings under Alternative 1, Scenario B, also are predicted to exceed RER ceilings

16 under Scenarios A, C, or D by margins of 8 to 14 percent. Exploitation rates for the Skykomish River

17 chinook salmon population are also predicted to exceed the RER ceiling under all scenarios by margins

18 of 1 percent to 5 percent. Exploitation rates for the Lower Skagit River fall and Lower Sauk River

19 summer chinook populations, which were not predicted to meet RER ceilings under Alternative 1,

20 Scenario B, were below the ceiling under Alternative 1, Scenarios A or C, by 1 to 3 percent, and above

21 the RER ceiling under Scenario D by 5 to 7 percent. The exploitation rate for the Green River fall

22 chinook population is predicted to exceed the RER ceiling under Alternative 1, Scenario A, by 9

23 percent, but is predicted to be 4 to 5 percent below the ceiling under Scenarios C or D (see Table 4.3-5

24 and Table 4.3-7a through Table 4.3-7d in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

25 Except for the Nooksack early populations, all populations that met CETs under Alternative 1, Scenario

26 B, are predicted to meet them under Scenarios B, C, or D, as well. The North Fork Nooksack River

27 early chinook salmon population is not predicted to meet CETs in any scenario under Alternative 1.

28 The South Fork Nooksack population is not predicted to meet its CET under Scenarios C or D. The

29 Upper Skagit River summer chinook population, which was predicted to meet its VET goal under

30 Alternative 1, Scenario B, was also predicted to meet it under Alternative 1, Scenario A, but to fall

31 slightly below goal under Alternative 1, Scenarios C or D. This was also true for the South Fork

32 Stillaguamish fall population. Other populations that would meet or exceed VET goals under Scenario
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 18 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 B would meet or exceed them under the other scenarios, and those that were predicted to fall below

2 goal under Scenario B also did so under the other scenarios (see Table 4.3-5 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

3 Impacts to Puget Sound Chinook Populations

4 Under Alternative 1, Scenario B (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries at the maximum

5 allowed by treaty), the fishery model projected Southern U.S. catches of 52,720 chinook from

6 naturally-spawning Puget Sound populations, and 1,663 chum from listed Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de

7 Fuca summer populations. An additional 81,570 chinook from hatcheries and streams outside the

8 action area are predicted to be caught (see Table 4.3-2 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

9 Under Alternative 1, Scenario B, exploitation rates are predicted to be below their RERs for five of the

10 nine populations and one management unit for which RERs have been derived (see Table 4.3-3 in

11 Subsection 4.3.1.5). Exploitation rates are predicted by the fisheries model to exceed RER standards for

12 the Nooksack early management unit by 13 percentage points, despite the fact that the Southern U.S.

13 exploitation rate is predicted to be only 7 percentage points. The Lower Skagit River population is

14 predicted to exceed its RER ceiling by 6 percentage points, the Lower Sauk River population by 4

15 percentage points, the Skykomish River population by 4 percentage points, and the Green River

16 chinook salmon population by 10 percentage points. However, owing to peculiarities associated with

17 the 2003 base year data for the Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon populations, it is likely that the

model predicts higher exploitation rates than may actually occur viii 18 during implementation of the

19 Proposed Action (NMFS 2004 [4(d) determination]). It is also important to note that for the Skagit

20 River summer-fall chinook populations, the predicted Southern U.S. exploitation rate (16%) accounted

21 for less than one-fourth of the total predicted exploitation rate (55%) (see Table 4.3-3 and detail Table

22 4.3-7b in Subsection 4.3.1.5). The model predicted that exploitation rates for six populations would fall

23 below RER ceilings under Alternative 1, Scenario B, by margins of 5 to 13 percentage points. These

24 include exploitation rates for the upper Skagit, Upper Sauk and Suiattle chinook populations (11% and

25 14%, respectively, below the RER ceiling), the North Fork Stillaguamish and the South Fork

26 Stillaguamish chinook populations (13% and 5%, respectively, below the RER ceiling) (see Table 4.3-

27 7b in Subsection 4.3.1.5). The model predicted that, under Alternative 1, Scenario A, exploitation rates

 

viii Anomalous age structure and the presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 make the estimates of

exploitation rates liberal, The Southern United States exploitation rates are more likely to be similar to recent

years; i.e., 6 to 18 percent
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 19 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 for two additional populations  the lower Skagit fall and Lower Sauk summer populations  would

2 fall below their RER ceilings (1% and 3%, respectively) (see Table 4.3-7a in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

3 The majority of harvest for the Nooksack early and Skagit summer/fall occurs in Canadian fisheries.

4 The RER for the Nooksack early chinook management unit is predicted to be exceeded even without

5 Southern U.S. fishing. For the Nooksack early chinook management unit, harvest mortality in Southern

6 U.S. fisheries is predicted to increase the probability of falling below its CET by 21 percentage points

7 and decrease the probability of rebuilding by 6 percentage points, measured over 25 years. For the

8 Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon populations, harvest mortality in Southern U.S. fisheries is

9 predicted to keep the probability of falling below its CET below 5 percentage points and decrease the

10 probability of rebuilding by 26 percentage points, measured over 25 years. It should be noted that these

11 are probably maximum estimates since the calculations are based on low marine survival assumptions,

12 and recent information indicates that marine survival may be improving. Both the Skagit River

13 summer/fall populations are currently above their VETs and have shown increasing trends in

14 escapement.

15 Under Alternative 1, Scenario B, only the North Fork Nooksack chinook salmon population is

16 predicted to not meet its CET. For most other populations, escapements are predicted to exceed critical

17 thresholds by more than 100 percent. Escapement is predicted to exceed the viable escapement

18 threshold for nine populations, including: Upper Skagit River, Upper Sauk River, Suiattle River, North

19 Fork Stillaguamish and South Fork Stillaguamish, Green River, White River, Puyallup River, and

20 Nisqually River. Escapement under Alternative 1, Scenario B, is predicted to be below the VET for 10

21 chinook populations and one management unit, including: Nooksack River early, Lower Skagit River,

22 Lower Sauk River, Skykomish River, Sammamish River, Cedar River, Mid-Hood Canal, Skokomish,

23 Dungeness, and Elwha chinook salmon populations (see Table 4.3-3 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

24 In summary, implementation of Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action), Scenario B, is predicted to result

25 in exploitation rates below RER ceilings for five of the nine populations and one management unit with

26 RER standards. Critical escapement thresholds are predicted to be exceeded for all populations except

27 the Nooksack early management unit, in most cases by substantial margins. Viable escapement

28 thresholds are predicted to be met or exceeded for nine of the 18 populations and one management unit

29 with thresholds, including Upper Skagit; Upper Sauk and Suiattle, North Fork and South Fork

30 Stillaguamish, Green River, Puyallup, White, and Nisqually River chinook salmon populations (see

31 Table 4.3-5 and Tables 4.3-7a through 4.3-7d in Subsection 4.3.1.5).
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 20 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT) has identified five distinct geographic/life history

2 regions in the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU: the Strait of Georgia, North Puget Sound, South

3 Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca. Current TRT guidance recommends that a

4 recovered ESU would have two to four low-risk populations within each region, representative of the

5 range of life histories within each of the regions. Under Alternative 1, the Nooksack early management

unit that makes up the Strait of Georgia region is predicted to exceed its RER; five of the eight ix 6 North

7 Puget Sound populations are predicted to meet their RER and/or exceed the VETs; four of the six

8 South Puget Sound populations are predicted to exceed their VETs; and none of the populations in the

9 Strait of Georgia, Hood Canal, or Strait of Juan de Fuca regions are predicted to exceed their VETs.

10 Except for the North Fork Nooksack chinook population, all populations in all regions are predicted to

11 exceed their CETs.

12 NMFS is currently evaluating Alternative 1, as proposed by the co-managers in the Puget Sound

13 Chinook Management Plan, under the ESA 4(d) Rule. Taking into account the distribution of

14 population status throughout the ESU and other relevant factors, NMFS has preliminarily concluded

15 that Alternative 1 would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU

16 (NMFS 2004in press).

17 Impacts to Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

18 The fisheries modeled under Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) are predicted to result in a Southern

19 U.S. catch of 141 1,651 Hood Canal and 12 Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon (excluding

20 those from the Quilcene/Dabob Bay management unit., However, the majority of the Hood Canal

21 summer chum catch is comprised of fish from the Quilcene/Dabob Bay Management Unit, which are

22 managed for an escapement goal and treated separately under the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation

23 Initiative). Escapement in this management unit is dominated by production from the Big Quilcene

24 hatchery. Excluding the Quilcene/Dabob Bay Management Unit harvest, the Southern U.S. catch of

25 Hood Canal summer chum is expected to be 214 and Tthe exploitation rates (including Canadian catch)

26 are predicted to be 32 percent for the Hood Canal region and 0.4 percent for the Strait of Juan de Fuca

27 region, well below the long-term goals of the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative of 10.9

28 percent for Hood Canal summer and 9 percent for Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum (Washington

29 Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes, Summer Chum Salmon

 

ix There are ten populations in the North Puget Sound Region, but only eight currently have identified

management standards.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 21 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Conservation Initiative, April 2000). The predicted escapement of 11,454 7,437 Hood Canal summer

2 chum (11,454 including the Quilcene/Dabob Bay Management Unit) and 6,955 Strait of Juan de Fuca

3 summer chum exceeds the critical escapement goals for these regions by 181 83 percent and 656

4 percent, respectively (see Table 4.3-7a in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

5 4.3.1.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

6 Alternative 2 represents a more restrictive fishing regime than Alternative 1, especially for populations

7 in North Puget Sound. With three notable exceptions (discussed below), escapements are predicted to

8 be higher for most populations compared to Alternative 1.

9 Summary of Scenario Differences

10 Under Alternative 2, Scenarios A, C, or D, representing conditions similar to 2003 (A); decreased

11 forecast abundance (C); or decreased forecast abundance with maximized Alaskan and Canadian

12 fisheries (D), Southern U.S. catch of naturally-spawning chinook salmon is predicted to be 123 percent,

13 71 percent, and 69 percent respectively of that under Scenario B. Catch of other species is discussed in

14 Subsection 4.3.2, Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis.

15 Exploitation rates for the Nooksack early chinook management unit, the North Fork Stillaguamish

16 population, and the South Fork Stillaguamish population, which are predicted to exceed RER ceilings

17 under Alternative 2, Scenario B, are also predicted to exceed RER ceilings under Scenarios A, C, or D.

18 Exploitation rates for the Skykomish River and Green River populations are predicted to exceed the

19 RER ceilings under Scenarios A or B, but are predicted to be below the RER ceilings for Scenarios C

20 or D. Escapements for Alternative 2, Scenario A, are predicted to be generally lower than escapements

21 under Alternative 2, Scenario B and escapements under Alternative 2, Scenarios C or D are predicted to

22 be generally higher (see Table 4.3-5 and Tables 4.3-8a through 4.3-8d in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

23 Nevertheless, populations (other than the Nooksack River population) predicted to meet CETs under

24 Scenario B are also predicted to meet CETs under Scenarios A, C, or D, as well. The South Fork

25 Stillaguamish population is not predicted to meet its CET in any scenario under Alternative 2.

26 Populations predicted to meet or exceed VET goals under Alternative 2, Scenario B, are also predicted

27 to meet or exceed them under Alternative 2, Scenario A. With one exception, (Lower Sauk River),

28 populations predicted to meet or exceed VETs under Alternative 2, Scenario B, would meet or exceed

29 VETs under Alternative 2, Scenarios C or D (see Table 4.3-5 and Tables 4.3-8a through 4.3-8d in

30 Subsection 4.3.1.5).
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 22 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Comparison of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level) to

2 the Proposed Action

3 Impacts to Puget Sound Chinook Populations

4 Under Alternative 2, Scenario B (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries at the maximum

5 allowed by treaty), the fishery model projected Southern U.S. catches of 42,793 chinook from

6 naturally-spawning chinook Puget Sound chinook populations, or 11,743 fewer than with Alternative 1,

7 Scenario B. It is predicted that an additional 36,074 chinook salmon from hatcheries and from streams

8 outside the action area would be caught, which is 75,857 fewer than under Alternative 1, Scenario B

9 (see Table 4.3-2 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

10 Under Alternative 2, Scenario B, the total exploitation rate for the Nooksack early management unit is

11 predicted to exceed its RER ceiling by 7 percentage points, despite the fact that the Southern U.S.

12 exploitation rate is predicted to be only 1 percent. The exploitation rate for the North Fork

13 Stillaguamish population is predicted to exceed the RER ceiling by 35 percentage points, the South

14 Fork Stillaguamish population by 43 percentage points, the Skykomish River population by 5

15 percentage points, and the Green River population by 3 percentage points. Modeled exploitation rates

16 for the five other populations with RERs range from 8 to 25 percentage points less than their RER

17 ceilings. Escapements under Alternative 2, Scenario B, are predicted to exceed the CET for all

18 populations except the North Fork Nooksack and South Fork Stillaguamish populations. In all but five

19 cases (South Fork Nooksack, Skykomish, Sammamish, Cedar and Dungeness populations),

20 escapements are predicted to exceed critical thresholds by more than 100 percent. Escapement under

21 Alternative 2, Scenario B is predicted to meet or exceed VET for 9 of the 18 populations and one

22 management unit for which VETs have been established, including: the Lower Sauk River, Upper

23 Skagit River, Upper Sauk River, Suiattle River, White River, North Fork Stillaguamish, Green24 Duwamish, Puyallup River and Nisqually River populations. Modeling results indicate that viable

25 escapement thresholds would not be met for the 10 other populations and one management unit with

26 Alternative 2, Scenario B (see Table 4.3-3 and Table 4.3-8b in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

27 For the Nooksack early management unit, model results indicate that the RER would be exceeded even

28 without salmon fishing in Southern U.S. waters. For the Nooksack early chinook management unit, the

29 probability of falling below its CET due to Southern U.S. fishing-related mortality is predicted to

30 increase by 1 percentage point, and the probability of rebuilding is predicted to decrease by 1

31 percentage point, measured over 25 years.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 23 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Relative to Alternative 1, Scenario B, implementing Alternative 2, Scenario B, is predicted to result in

2 low to moderate reductions in exploitation rates for nine Puget Sound chinook populations and one

3 management unit, with resulting increases in spawning escapement. Impacts to these populations would

4 be classed as beneficial and of low to moderate magnitude. Under Alternative 2, Scenario B, chinook

5 salmon spawning escapements are predicted to decrease in the North and South Forks of the

6 Stillaguamish, the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers, and in the Puyallup, White and Nisqually

7 Rivers. Impacts are predicted to be substantially negative for the North Fork Stillaguamish, the South

8 Fork Stillaguamish, the Puyallup and the White River populations. Impacts to populations in the

9 Skykomish, Snoqualmie and Nisqually Rivers are predicted to be negative but low. For the South Fork

10 Stillaguamish population, the decreased escapements are predicted to be approximately 32 percent

11 below the VET. Despite the predicted decrease in spawning escapement in the Puyallup, White, and

12 Nisqually Rivers, these populations are all expected to meet or exceed VETs under Alternative 2,

13 Scenario B. Escapements for the Green, Sammamish, Cedar, and Skokomish River populations are

14 predicted to change by less than 1 percent relative to Alternative 1, Scenario B. These impacts are

15 considered immeasurable. The pattern of impacts from applying Alternative 2 under Scenarios A, C, or

16 D is predicted to be similar to its application under Alternative 2, Scenario B. In most cases, the type of

17 impact (beneficial or negative) under Alternative 2, Scenario B, would be the same under Scenarios A,

18 C, or D. However, as can be seen from Table 4.3-6 in Subsection 4.3.1.5, there is a tendency for the

19 magnitude of beneficial impacts to increase and negative impacts to decrease going from Scenario B to

20 Scenarios C or D. See Tables 4.3-8a-1 and 4.3-8d-2 in Subsection 4.3.1.5 for additional detail.

21 In summary, because Alternative 2 represents a more restrictive fishing regime than Alternative 1

22 (especially for populations in North Puget Sound), escapements are predicted to be higher for most

23 populations compared to Alternative 1, Scenario B (see Tables 4.3-4 through 4.3-6 in Subsection

24 4.3.1.5). The notable exceptions are predicted to be escapements to the North and South Fork

25 Stillaguamish, the Skykomish, and Snoqualmie populations where exploitation rates are predicted to be

26 higher and escapements lower than under Alternative 1, Scenario B. The increased exploitation would

27 result from the additional harvest opportunity available in Tulalip Bay (Marine Catch Area 8D) and the

28 Stillaguamish River under Alternative 2 that is not anticipated to occur under Alternative 1.

29 The TRT has identified five distinct geographic/life history regions in the Puget Sound Chinook

30 Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit: the Strait of Georgia, North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound,

31 Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Current TRT guidance recommends that a recovered ESU

32 would have two to four low-risk populations within each region, representative of the range of life
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 24 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 histories within each of the regions. Under Alternative 2, the Nooksack early management unit that

makes up the Strait of Georgia region is predicted to exceed its RER; six of the eightx 2 North Puget

3 Sound populations are predicted to meet their RER and/or exceed the VETs; four of the six South

4 Puget Sound populations are predicted to exceed their VETs; and none of the populations in the Strait

5 of Georgia, Hood Canal, or the Strait of Juan de Fuca regions are predicted to exceed their VETs.

6 Except for the North Fork Nooksack (Strait of Georgia) and South Fork Stillaguamish (North Puget

7 Sound) chinook populations, all populations in all regions are predicted to exceed their CETs.

8 Impacts to Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon

9 Because virtually all marine salmon fisheries would be closed under Alternative 2, incidental impacts

10 to summer chum predicted to occur under Alternative 1 would be eliminated, and the Southern U.S.

11 catch of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon is predicted to be zero.

12 Consequently, the exploitation rate is predicted to decrease to less than 1 percent (including Canadian

13 fishery impacts), and escapement increase by approximately 76 3 percent. The exploitation rate

14 standards  10.9 percent for populations in the Hood Canal region, and 9 percent for populations in the

15 Strait of Juan de Fuca region – are predicted to be achieved. The changes in exploitation rate and

16 escapement would be classified as a substantial low, beneficial effect for Hood Canal summer chum.

17 The impact on Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum is expected to be immeasurable. Impacts under

18 Alternative 2, Scenarios A, C, and D were the same as under Alternative 2, Scenario B (see Tables 4.3-

19 8a and 4.3.8b in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

20 4.3.1.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level

21 Alternative 3 represents a more restrictive fishing regime than Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, especially

22 for populations in North Puget Sound. Escapements in North Puget Sound watersheds are predicted to

23 be higher under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 1. For all but two South Puget Sound chinook

24 salmon populations (Puyallup River and White River), changes relative to Alterative 1 are predicted to

25 be minimal.

26 Summary of Scenario Differences

27 Under Alternative 3, Scenarios A, C, or D, representing conditions similar to 2003 (A); decreased

28 forecast abundance (C); or decreased forecast abundance with maximized Canadian/Alaskan fisheries

 

x

 There are ten populations in the North Puget Sound Region, but only eight currently have identified

management standards.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 25 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 (D), Southern U.S. catch of naturally-spawning Puget Sound chinook salmon is predicted to be 107

2 percent, 53 percent, and 49 percent, respectively, of that under Alternative 3, Scenario B. Catch of

3 other species is discussed in Subsection 4.3.2, Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to

4 Alternatives Analysis.

5 It is predicted that critical escapement thresholds would be met for all populations except the North

6 Fork Nooksack chinook population under Alternative 3, Scenario A. Under Alternative 3, Scenarios C

7 or D, it is predicted that CETs would be met for all populations except the Nooksack early chinook

8 population. With the exception of the Lower Sauk population (20 to 25% below VET under Scenarios

9 C or D), it is predicted that VETs would be met for the same populations under Alternative 3, Scenarios

10 A, C, or D as they were under Alternative 3, Scenario B (see Table 4.3-5 and Tables 4.3-9a through

11 4.3-9d in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

12 Comparison of Alternative 3 to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

13 Impacts to Puget Sound Chinook Populations

14 Under Alternative 3, Scenario B (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries at the maximum

15 allowed by treaty), the Southern U.S. catch of chinook salmon from naturally-spawning Puget Sound

16 populations is predicted to be 39,231, or 6,018 fewer than with Alternative 1, Scenario B. An additional

17 30,201 chinook salmon from hatcheries and from streams outside the action area are predicted to be

18 landed, which is 81,730 fewer than with Alternative 1, Scenario B. The catch of listed Hood

19 Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum (excluding those from the Quilcene/Dabob Bay

20 Management Unit) is predicted to be zero, or 1,663 214 fewer than with Alternative 1, Scenario B.

21 Catch of other species is discussed in Subsection 4.3.2, Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and

22 Approach to Alternatives Analysis. See Table 4.3-9a through 4.3-9d in Subsection 4.3.1.5 for a detailed

23 listing of fishery-related impacts to individual populations of Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal

24 summer chum salmon.

25 Under Alternative 3, Scenario B, RERs are predicted to be met except for the Nooksack early chinook

26 management unit and the Green River chinook population, and in these cases, exploitation rates are

27 predicted to exceed the RER ceilings by 7 percentage points and 3 percentage points, respectively. As

28 with Alternative 2, it should be noted that the Southern U.S. exploitation rate for the Nooksack early

29 management unit is predicted to be only 1 percent while the total exploitation rate is predicted to be 19

30 percent. For the other populations in this group, predicted exploitation rates range from 8 to 25

31 percentage points below the RER ceilings. Critical escapement thresholds are predicted to be exceeded
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 26 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 for all populations except the North Fork Nooksack population, in most cases by margins well over 100

2 percent. Escapements are predicted to exceed VETs for ten populations. Notably, the VET for the

3 South Fork Stillaguamish population is predicted to be met with Alternative 3, Scenario B, whereas it is

4 not under Alternative 2, Scenario B. Those populations that are not predicted to exceed VETs under

5 Alternative 3, Scenario B, include Nooksack early, Lower Skagit, Skykomish, Dungeness, Elwha,

6 Sammamish, Cedar, Mid-Hood Canal, and Skokomish chinook salmon populations (see Table 4.3-5

7 and Tables 4.3-9a-1 through 4.3-9d-2 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

8 For the Nooksack early management unit, model results predict that the RER would be exceeded even

9 without salmon fishing in Southern U.S. waters. For the Nooksack early chinook management unit, the

10 probability of falling below its CET due to Southern U.S. fishing-related mortality is predicted to

11 increase by 1 percentage point, and the probability of rebuilding is predicted to decrease by 1

12 percentage point, measured over 25 years.

13 Because Alternative 3 is very similar to Alternative 2, the impacts of its implementation relative to

14 Alternative 1 would be nearly identical to those described for Alternative 2 (see Tables 4.3-3 and 4.3-4

15 in Subsection 4.3.1.5). The notable exception would be in the Stillaguamish watershed, where

16 application of Alternative 3 is predicted to result in a small reduction in exploitation rate and low

17 beneficial impacts to spawning escapement for populations within the Stillaguamish and Snohomish

18 management units. Under Alternative 3, the South Fork Stillaguamish population is predicted to meet

19 its CET under all scenarios, whereas it is not predicted to meet its CET under Alternative 2 for any

20 scenario. Relative to Alternative 1, Scenario B, impacts associated with the application of Alternative

21 3, Scenario B, would be beneficial and of low to moderate impact for 14 populations, substantially

22 negative for two populations (Puyallup and White River), and of a low negative magnitude for one

23 population (Nisqually River). Model results of the effects of Alternative 3 on the Green, Sammamish,

24 and Cedar River chinook salmon populations were less than 1 percent and therefore classed as

25 immeasurable. For Scenarios A, C, or D, predicted impacts (relative to Alternative 1 Scenarios A, C, or

26 D) would be nearly identical to those under Scenario B. Although small changes in escapement (Cedar,

27 Sammamish and Skokomish populations) shifted impacts from low negative, to low beneficial, or no to

28 low impact in some cases, the actual percentage changes were very small (see Table 4.3-4, Table 4.3-6,

29 and Tables 4.3-9a-2 through 4.3-9d-2 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

30 In summary, Alternative 3 represents a more restrictive fishing regime than Alternative 1 or Alternative

31 2, especially for populations in North Puget Sound; therefore, it is predicted that escapements in North

32 Puget Sound watersheds would be higher compared to Alternative 1. For all but two South Puget
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 27 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Sound populations (Puyallup River and White River), changes relative to Alterative 1 are predicted to

2 be minimal (see Tables 4.3-4 and 4.3-5 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

3 The TRT has identified five distinct geographic/life history regions in the Puget Sound Chinook

4 Salmon ESU: the Strait of Georgia, North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait

5 of Juan de Fuca. Current TRT guidance recommends that a recovered ESU would have two to four

6 low-risk populations within each region, representative of the range of life histories within each of the

7 regions. Under Alternative 3, the Nooksack early management unit that makes up the Strait of Georgia

region is predicted to exceed its RER; all eight xi 8 North Puget Sound populations are predicted to meet

9 their RER and/or exceed the VETs; four of the six South Puget Sound populations are predicted to

10 exceed their VETs; and none of the populations in the Strait of Georgia Strait, Hood Canal, or the Strait

11 of Juan de Fuca regions are predicted to exceed their VETs. Except for the North Fork Nooksack

12 chinook population, all populations in all regions are predicted to exceed their CETs.

13 Impacts to Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

14 The catch of listed Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum (excluding those from the

15 Quilcene/Dabob Bay Management Unit) is predicted to be zero, or 214 fewer than with Alternative 1,

16 Scenario B. Under Alternative 3, there would be no summer chum harvested in Puget Sound fisheries.

17 Therefore, the consequences would be the same as those described for Alternative 2. See Table 4.3-9a

18 through 4.3-9d in Subsection 4.3.1.5 for a detailed listing of fishery-related impacts to individual

19 populations of Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum salmon.

20 4.3.1.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take

21 Alternative 4, the most restrictive of the harvest management alternatives, is predicted to reduce catch

22 and increase escapement of all populations of naturally-spawning Puget Sound chinook salmon relative

23 to Alternative 1.

24 Summary or Scenario Differences

25 Under Alternative 4, Scenarios A, C, or D, representing conditions similar to 2003 (A); decreased

26 forecast abundance (C); or decreased forecast abundance with maximized Canadian/Alaskan fisheries

27 (D), Southern U.S. catch of naturally-spawning chinook is predicted to be 99 percent, 73 percent, and

 

xi There are ten populations in the North Puget Sound Region, but only eight currently have identified

management standards.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 28 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 73 percent, respectively, of that with Alternative 3, Scenario B. Catch of other species is discussed in

2 Subsection 4.3.2, Basis of Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis.

3 Modeled escapement patterns under Alternative 4, Scenarios A, C, or D were similar to those under

4 Alternative 4, Scenario B. Decreased abundance under Scenarios C or D would result in predicted

5 escapement for the Nooksack early populations falling below their CETs under Scenarios C or D,

6 whereas escapement was above CET for Scenarios A or B for the North Fork Nooksack population.

7 Decreased abundance under Scenarios C or D would result in predicted escapement for the Lower

8 Skagit population falling below its VET in Scenarios C or D, whereas it exceeded VET in Scenarios A

9 and B (see Table 4.3-5 and Tables 4.3-10a-1 through 4.3-10d-1in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

10 Comparison of Alternative 4 to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

11 Impacts to Puget Sound Chinook Populations

12 Under Alternative 4, Scenario B (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries at the maximum

13 allowed by treaty), the catch of Puget Sound chinook from naturally-spawning chinook populations is

14 predicted to be 6,289 fish, or 46,648 fewer than with Alternative 1, Scenario B. The total chinook catch

15 predicted under Alternative 4, Scenario B, is 150,891 fewer than with Alternative 1, Scenario B (see

16 Table 4.3-2 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

17 Catch of other species is discussed in Subsection 4.3.2, Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and

18 Approach to Alternatives Analysis. See Tables 4.3-10a through 4.3-10db in Subsection 4.3.1.5 for a

19 detailed listing of fishery-related impacts to individual populations of Puget Sound chinook and Hood

20 Canal summer chum salmon.

21 Population-specific impacts of Alternative 4 under Scenario B, are predicted to be nearly identical to

22 those of Alternative 2 or 3, Scenario B. Under Alternative 4, Scenario B, exploitation rates are

23 predicted to be less than RER standards for all populations except in the Nooksack early management

24 unit. Critical escapement thresholds are predicted to be exceeded for all populations except the North

25 Fork Nooksack population.Viable escapement thresholds are predicted to be met or exceeded for the

26 Lower Sauk, Upper Skagit, North Fork Stillaguamish, Upper Sauk, Suiattle, White River, the South

27 Fork Stillaguamish, Green-Duwamish, Puyallup, Nisqually, and Skokomish chinook salmon

28 populations (see Table 4.3-3 and Table 4.3-10b in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

29 For the Nooksack early management unit, the RER would be exceeded even without salmon fishing in

30 Southern U.S. waters. For the Nooksack early chinook management unit, the probability of falling
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 29 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 below its CET due to Southern U.S. fishing-related mortality is predicted to increase by 1 percentage

2 point and the probability of rebuilding is predicted to decrease by 1 percentage point, measured over 25

3 years.

4 Alternative 4, the most restrictive of the alternatives, is predicted to reduce catch and increase

5 escapement of all populations of naturally-spawning Puget Sound chinook salmon relative to

6 Alternative 1. Increases in escapement are predicted to result in beneficial impacts of low to moderate

7 magnitude for 16 of the 22 populations, and substantial beneficial impacts for four other populations.

8 The four populations predicted to have substantial increases in spawning escapement under Alternative

9 4 relative to Alternative 1 are the Green, Puyallup, Nisqually, and Skokomish chinook salmon

10 populations. Modeled spawning escapements for these populations predict exceedance of the VET by

11 84 percent, 163 percent, 196 percent, and 90 percent, respectively (see Table 4.3-4 and Table 4.3-10a-2

12 in Subsection 4.3.1.5). However, to some extent, the beneficial impact of increased escapement might

13 be moderated by capacity of the extant habitats to support additional spawners and their progeny.

14 As would be expected, impacts associated with the application of Alternative 4 under Scenarios A, C,

15 or D relative to Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or D, were similar in type and, in most cases, magnitude,

16 to the impacts modeled under Scenario B. Two notable exceptions were the Green River and Puyallup

17 River populations where substantial beneficial impacts were indicated under Scenarios A or B, but only

18 moderately beneficial impacts under Scenarios C or D (lower abundance conditions). For the Cedar and

19 Sammamish River populations, impacts are predicted to range from low and beneficial (Alternative 4,

20 Scenario A or B) to low and adverse (Alternative 4, Scenarios C or D), compared to the same scenarios

21 under Alternative 1. However, the actual change in numbers of fish in escapement is predicted to be no

22 more than 1 percent (see Table 4.3-4 and Tables 4.3-10a-2 through 4.3-10d-2 in Subsection 4.3.1.5).

23 In summary, Alternative 4 represents the most restrictive fishing regime and would result in low to

24 substantial increases in spawning escapement relative to Alternative 1. These increases would not

25 necessarily result in beneficial impacts to all populations. (See discussion below.)

26 The TRT has identified five distinct geographic/life history regions in the Puget Sound Chinook

27 Salmon ESU: the Strait of Georgia, North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait

28 of Juan de Fuca. Current TRT guidance recommends that a recovered ESU would have two to four

29 low-risk populations within each region, representative of the range of life histories within each of the

30 regions. Under Alternative 4, the Nooksack early populations that make up the Strait of Georgia region
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 30 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

are predicted to exceed its RER; all eightxii 1 North Puget Sound populations are predicted to meet their

2 RER and/or exceed the VETs; four of the six South Puget Sound populations are predicted to exceed

3 their VETs; one of the two populations in the Hood Canal region is predicted to exceed its VET; and

4 none of the populations in the Strait of Georgia or the Strait of Juan de Fuca regions are predicted to

5 exceed their VETs. Except for the North Fork Nooksack chinook population, all populations in all

6 regions are predicted to exceed their CETs.

7 Impacts to Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

8 Under Alternative 4, the catch from listed Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon

9 populations is predicted to be zero, compared to 214 and 12, respectively,141 under Alternative 1.

10 Therefore, the consequences would be the same as those described for Alternative 2 or 3.

11 4.3.1.5 Summary Discussion of Alternatives

12 Under Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, RERs are predicted to be met under nearly all scenarios and

13 within nearly all populations except the Nooksack early chinook management unit, and the Skykomish

14 summer population. While the Skykomish summer population is predicted to meet the RER standard

15 under most other alternatives and scenarios, the Nooksack early management unit is not predicted to

16 meet its RER goal under any alternative or scenario. Failure of the Nooksack early populations to meet

17 RERs and, in most instances, CETs, can be attributed to the fact that a high proportion of impacts to

18 this population occur in fisheries outside of Puget Sound, not within the jurisdiction of the Resource

19 Management Plan. Another notable exception is predicted for the Green River population. However,

20 unlike the Nooksack population, the Green River population, despite exceeding RER ceilings under

21 several alternative/scenario combinations, is predicted to meet or exceed its VET in all cases.

22 Critical escapement goals are predicted to be met for all populations under Alternative 1 except the

23 North Fork Nooksack chinook salmon population, the South Fork Nooksack population under the

24 lower abundance scenarios, and the South Fork Stillaguamish fall population under any scenario. The

25 North Fork Nooksack population is not predicted to meet its CET under any alternative or scenario.

26 Seventy percent or more of the fishing-related mortality on the Nooksack early chinook population

27 occurs as a result of Canadian/Alaskan fisheries. Catch in fisheries covered by the Resource

 

xii There are ten populations in the North Puget Sound Region, but only eight currently have identified

management standards.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 31 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Management Plan is predicted to be at most 36 fish; thus, there is likely to be little difference in the

2 impact of any alternative.

3 Under Alternative 1, performance relative to VETs is predicted to vary considerably for the different

4 populations. What would be consistent, however, is that certain populations are predicted to not meet

5 VETs under most, if not all alternatives and scenarios. These include the Nooksack early, Lower

6 Skagit, Skykomish, Sammamish, Cedar, Mid-Hood Canal, Skokomish, Dungeness, and Elwha River

7 populations.

8 As noted previously, increasingly restrictive alternatives generally result in increased spawning

9 escapement. Thus, application of Alternatives 2 through 4 appear to have a beneficial impact on most

10 populations relative to Alternative 1. However, while spawning escapement provides a useful basis for

11 comparing alternatives, the intricacy of salmon life histories must be taken into account in interpreting

12 the model results.

13 First, substantial increases in spawning escapements may not result in commensurate increases in the

14 progeny of those chinook salmon spawners. The objective for salmon fisheries management is to

15 constrain fishing mortality to the extent necessary to optimize the production of subsequent

16 generations. The productivity of salmon populations, often defined in terms of the number of recruits

17 produced per female spawner, increases over a range of escapement, then reaches a plateau or declines

18 at higher levels of escapement due to density-dependent survival; i.e., too many spawners for the

19 available habitat, or too many juvenile salmon for the available food in the river. The escapement level

20 corresponding to the point of optimum productivity varies widely among individual populations due to

21 the accessible area of suitable spawning and rearing habitat within a river system, and the very complex

22 array of physical and biological factors that influence the annual survival of salmon eggs and juveniles

23 through their freshwater life history. However, the influence of these physical and biological factors

24 varies greatly from year to year, so that were fisheries management to achieve optimum escapement

25 consistently from year to year, the actual production from those spawners would still vary widely. The

26 marine environment exerts even greater influence on the number of juvenile salmon that reach

27 adulthood. Consequently, this Environmental Impact Statement can compare the predicted escapement

28 for populations against specific or general escapement standards, but cannot accurately project the

29 resulting abundance of subsequent generations of adult salmon. In addition, changes in risk relative to

30 achievement of the RERs may not be the same as changes in risk measured by changes in escapement.

31 That is, the changes in achieving the RERs are likely to be more beneficial or adverse relative to

32 recovery than changes in escapement.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 32 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 The harvest standards for the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Evolutionarily

2 Significant Unit are predicted to be met under any alternative.
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D

Natural 55,512 45,249 32,256 31,238 

Other 110,994 111,931 83,808 81,058 

Total 166,506 157,180 116,064 112,296 

Natural 45,249 42,793 21,614 19,667 

Other 81,570 36,074 21,753 19,354 

Total 126,819 78,867 43,367 39,021 

Natural 41,931 39,231 20,785 18,885 

Other 65,565 30,201 21,753 19,354 

Total 107,496 69,432 42,538 38,239 

Natural 6,233 6,289 4,597 4,619 

Other

Total 6,233 6,289 4,597 4,619 

Table 4.3-2. Predicted Southern U.S. catch of Puget Sound chinook populations 

under Alternatives 1-4 and Scenarios A-D.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA 

Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 33 December 2004
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4

Nooksack Early* NNNN NNNN

 North Fork NNNN NA NA NA NA

 South Fork Y Y Y Y NA NA NA NA

Skagit Summer-Fall*

 Lower Skagit Fall N YYY YYYY NNNN

 Lower Sauk Summer N YYY YYYY N YYY

 Upper Skagit Summer Y YYY YYYY YYYY

Skagit Spring*

 Upper Cascade NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y

 Upper Sauk Y YYY YYYY YYYY

 Suiattle Y YYY YYYY YYYY

Stillaguamish Summer-Fall*

 North Fork Summer Y N Y Y YYYY YYYY

 South Fork Fall Y N Y Y Y N YY Y N Y Y

Snohomish Summer-Fall*

 Skykomish Summer N N YY YYYY NNNN

 Snoqualmie Fall NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y NA NA NA NA

Green-Duwamish Fall* NNN Y YYYY YYYY

Lake Washington Fall

Sammamish NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y NNNN

 Cedar NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y NNNN

Puyallup Fall NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

White River Spring NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Nisqually Fall NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Mid- Hood Canal Fall NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y NNNN

Skokomish Fall NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y NNN Y

Dungeness Summer NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y NNNN

Elwha Summer NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y NNNN

Y Meets or exceeds goal.

N Does not meet goal.

NA Standard not applicable.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Performance Relative to 

Rebuilding Exploitation 

Rate

Performance Relative to 

Critical Escapement 

Threshold

Performance Relative to 

Viable Escapement 

Threshold

Table 4.3-3. Performance of Alternatives 1 through 4 under Scenario B relative to rebuilding exploitation rate, 

critical escapement threshold, and viable escapement threshold standards.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 34 December 2004
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Table 4.3-4 Summary of impacts of Alternatives 2-4 relative to the proposed action under Scenario B

Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent

Nooksack Early B M B M B M

Lower Skagit Fall B M B M B M

Lower Sauk Summer B M B M B M

Upper Skagit Summer B M B M B M

Upper Cascade Spring B L B L B L

Upper Sauk Spring B L B L B L

Suiattle Spring B L B L B L

NF Stillaguamish Summer N S BL BL

SF Stillaguamish Fall N S BL BL

Skykomish Summer N L BM BM

Snoqualmie Fall N L BM BM

Green-Duwamish Fall 0 0 0 0 B S

Sammamish Fall 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cedar Fall 0 0 0 0 0 0

Puyallup Fall NS NS B S

White River Spring NS NS B M

Nisqually Fall N L N L B S

Mid-Hood Canal Fall B L B L B L

Skokomish Fall 0 0 0 0 B S

Dungeness Summer B L B L B L

Elwha Summer B L B L B L

Beneficial B Low (<10%) L

Negative N Moderate (10%-30%) M

None (not measurable) 0 Substantial (>30%) S

Not Measurable (<1%) 0

Alternative 2 Compared 

to Alternative 1

Alternative 3 Compared 

to Alternative 1

Alternative 4 Compared 

to Alternative 1

Impact Type Impact Magnitude

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 35 December 2004

Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C S-D S-A S-B S-C 

Nooksack Early* NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN NNN North Fork NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  South Fork Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Skagit Summer-Fall* Lower Skagit Fall Y N Y N YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY NNNN NNNN NNN

 Lower Sauk Summer Y N Y N YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY NNNN Y Y N N Y Y N 

 Upper Skagit Summer YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YY N N YYYY YYY

Skagit Spring* Upper Cascade NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Upper Sauk YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYY Suiattle YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYStillaguamish Summer-Fall* North Fork Summer YYYY NNNN YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYY

 South Fork Fall YYYY NNNN YYYY YYYY YYYY NNNN YYYY YYYY YY NN NNNN YYY

Snohomish Summer-Fall* Skykomish Summer YYYY N N YY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY NNNN NNNN NNN Snoqualmie Fall NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Green-Duwamish Fall* YYYY N N Y Y N N YY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYY YYY

Lake Washington Fall Sammamish NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NNNN NNNN NNN Cedar NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NNNN NNNN NNNPuyallup Fall NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y White River Spring NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Nisqually Fall NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Mid- Hood Canal Fall NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NNNN NNNN NNNSkokomish Fall NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NNNN NNNN NNNDungeness Summer NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NNNN NNNN NNNElwha Summer NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NNNN NNNN NNN

Y Meets or exceeds goal. Y Meets or excee

N Does not meet goal. N Does not meet 

NA Standard not applicable. NA Standard not ap

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Critical Escapement Threhold

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Table 4.3-5. Performance of Alternatives 1 through 4 under Scenarios A-D relative to rebuilding exploitation rate, critical escapement threshold, and viable escapement threshold standards.

Alternative 

Viable Escapement Threhold

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Rebuilding Exploitation Rate

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 36 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Table 4.3-6 Summary of impacts of alternatives 2-4 relative to the proposed action under scenarios 1-4.

Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type 

Nooksack Early B L B M B L B M B L B M B L B M B L B M B Lower Skagit Fall B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B Lower Sauk Summer B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B Upper Skagit Summer B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B Upper Cascade Spring B L B L B M B M B L B L B M B M B L B L B Upper Sauk Spring B L B L B M B M B L B L B M B M B L B L B Suiattle Spring B L B L B M B M B L B L B M B M B L B L B 

NF Stillaguamish Summer NS NS NS NS BL BL BL BL BL BL B

SF Stillaguamish Fall NS NS NS NS BL BL BL BL BL BL BSkykomish Summer N L N L B L B L B L BM B L B L B L BM B 

Snoqualmie Fall N L N L B L B L B L BM B L B L B L BM B 

Green-Duwamish Fall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B S B S B

Sammamish Fall B L 0 0 N L N L BL 0 0 N L N L BL 0 0 N 

Cedar Fall B L 0 0 N L N L BL 0 0 N L N L BL 0 0 N 

Puyallup Fall NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS B S B S B

White River Spring NS NS N L N L NS NS N L N L BM BM BNisqually Fall N L N L N L N L N L N L N L N L B S B S B 

Mid-Hood Canal Fall B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B Skokomish Fall B L 0 0 N L N L BL 0 0 N L N L B S B S B 

Dungeness Summer B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B Elwha Summer B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B L B 

Beneficial B Low (<10%) LNegative N Moderate (10%-30%) M

Not Measurable 0 Substantial (>30%) S

Not Measurable (<1%) 0

Alternative 2 Compared to Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Compared to Alternative 1

Scenario B

Alternative 4 Compared to Alte

Scenario C Scenario D Scenario A Scenario B Scenari

Impact Extent

Scenario A Scenario C Scenario B Scenario A

Impact Type

Scenario D

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 37 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S. Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement 

or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Nooksack Early* 20% 7% 37 388 8% -22%

 North Fork 171 -15%

 South Fork 217 9%

Skagit Summer-Fall* 48% 18% 3,894 11,633

 Lower Skagit Fall 1,247 -1% 397% -43%

 Lower Sauk Summer 620 -3% 210% -9%

 Upper Skagit Summer 9,765 -12% 910% 31%

Skagit Spring* 23% 23% 570 1,921

 Upper Cascade 563 231%

 Upper Sauk 647 -15% 398% 96%

 Suiattle 712 -18% 319% 78%

Stillaguamish Summer-F 17% 11% 313 2,322

 North Fork Summer 1,892 -15% 531% 243%

 South Fork Fall 430 -7% 115% 43%

Snohomish Summer-Fal 19% 18% 2,325 5,073

 Skykomish Summer 2,604 -18% 58% -26%

 Snoqualmie Fall 2,469 517%

Green-Duwamish Fall* 62% 51% 15,901 5,819 9% 597% 5%

Lake Washington Fall 20%

 Sammamish 31% 86 305 53% -76%

 Cedar 31% 87 305 53% -75%

Puyallup Fall 49% 39% 5,024 2,392 1096% 99%

White River Spring 20% 19% 356 1,468 634% 47%

Nisqually Fall 76% 68% 17,425 1,106 453% 1%

Mid- Hood Canal Fall 26% 13% 95 531 166% -58%

Skokomish Fall 63% 50% 9,372 1,211 506% -3%

Dungeness Summer 22% 5% 15 352 76% -62%

Elwha Summer 22% 5% 98 2,125 963% -27%

All Chinook from Listed Populations 55,599 36,951

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Hood Canal 3% 214 7,437 -8% 83%

Juan de Fuca 0.4% 12 6,955 -9% 656%

All Summer Chum 226 14,392

* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate])

2 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold])

3

 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]}

4

 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Alternative 1 Scenario A

Table 4.3-7a Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) under Scenario A relative to NMFS recovery standards, 

viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood 

Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 38 December 2004
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S. Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement 

or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Nooksack Early* 25% 8% 38 365 13% -27%

 North Fork 161 -20%

 South Fork 204 2%

Skagit Summer-Fall* 55% 16% 3,737 11,029

 Lower Skagit Fall 1,183 6% 371% -46%

 Lower Sauk Summer 588 4% 194% -14%

 Upper Skagit Summer 9,258 -5% 857% 24%

Skagit Spring* 27% 23% 567 1,845

 Upper Cascade 541 218%

 Upper Sauk 622 -11% 378% 88%

 Suiattle 684 -14% 302% 71%

Stillaguamish Summer-F 19% 11% 314 2,281

 North Fork Summer 1,859 -13% 520% 237%

 South Fork Fall 422 -5% 111% 41%

Snohomish Summer-Fal 22% 18% 2,286 4,901

 Skykomish Summer 2,516 -18% 52% -28%

 Snoqualmie Fall 2,385 496%

Green-Duwamish Fall* 63% 47% 15,103 5,816 10% 597% 5%

Lake Washington Fall 20%

 Sammamish 35% 86 294 47% -76%

 Cedar 35% 85 294 47% -76%

Puyallup Fall 50% 35% 4,623 2,419 1110% 102%

White River Spring 20% 18% 323 1,459 630% 46%

Nisqually Fall 76% 65% 16,929 1,126 463% 2%

Mid- Hood Canal Fall 32% 13% 94 504 152% -60%

Skokomish Fall 63% 44% 8,509 1,237 519% -1%

Dungeness Summer 27% 5% 15 336 68% -64%

Elwha Summer 28% 5% 97 2,031 916% -30%

All Chinook from Listed Populations 52,806 35,937

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Hood Canal 3% 214 7,437 -8% 83%

Juan de Fuca 0.4% 12 6,955 -9% 656%

All Summer Chum 226 14,392

* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate])

2 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold])

3

 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]}

4

 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Alternative 1 Scenario B

Table 4.3-7b Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) under Scenario B relative to NMFS recovery standards, 

viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood 

Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 39 December 2004
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S. Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement 

or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Nooksack Early* 20% 7% 26 278 8% -44%

 North Fork 122 -39%

 South Fork 156 -22%

Skagit Summer-Fall* 49% 18% 2,778 8,033

 Lower Skagit Fall 861 0% 243% -61%

 Lower Sauk Summer 428 -2% 114% -37%

 Upper Skagit Summer 6,743 -11% 597% -10%

Skagit Spring* 23% 23% 393 1,331

 Upper Cascade 390 129%

 Upper Sauk 449 -15% 245% 36%

 Suiattle 493 -18% 190% 23%

Stillaguamish Summer-F 17% 12% 225 1,620

 North Fork Summer 1,320 -15% 340% 139%

 South Fork Fall 300 -7% 50% 0%

Snohomish Summer-Fal 20% 18% 1,633 3,543

 Skykomish Summer 1,819 -18% 10% -48%

 Snoqualmie Fall 1,724 331%

Green-Duwamish Fall* 49% 39% 9,185 5,801 -4% 595% 5%

Lake Washington Fall 23%

 Sammamish 33% 72 223 12% -82%

 Cedar 33% 72 223 12% -81%

Puyallup Fall 50% 39% 3,772 1,798 799% 50%

White River Spring 20% 19% 243 1,011 406% 1%

Nisqually Fall 64% 56% 9,544 1,119 460% 2%

Mid- Hood Canal Fall 26% 12% 65 367 84% -71%

Skokomish Fall 45% 31% 4,166 1,239 520% -1%

Dungeness Summer 22% 5% 12 245 23% -74%

Elwha Summer 23% 5% 70 1,480 640% -49%

All Chinook from Listed Populations 32,256 28,311

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Hood Canal 3% 214 7,437 -8% 83%

Juan de Fuca 0.4% 12 6,955 -9% 656%

All Summer Chum 226 14,392

* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate])

2 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold])

3

 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]}

4

 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Alternative 1 Scenario C

Table 4.3-7c Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) under Scenario C relative to NMFS recovery standards, 

viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood 

Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 40 December 2004
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S. Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement 

or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Nooksack Early* 26% 7% 27 252 14% -50%

 North Fork 111 -45%

 South Fork 141 -29%

Skagit Summer-Fall* 56% 16% 2,698 7,551

 Lower Skagit Fall 810 7% 223% -63%

 Lower Sauk Summer 403 5% 101% -41%

 Upper Skagit Summer 6,339 -4% 556% -15%

Skagit Spring* 28% 24% 415 1,270

 Upper Cascade 372 119%

 Upper Sauk 428 -10% 229% 30%

 Suiattle 471 -13% 177% 18%

Stillaguamish Summer-F 20% 12% 239 1,584

 North Fork Summer 1,291 -12% 330% 134%

 South Fork Fall 293 -4% 47% -2%

Snohomish Summer-Fal 23% 18% 1,685 3,399

 Skykomish Summer 1,745 -18% 6% -50%

 Snoqualmie Fall 1,654 314%

Green-Duwamish Fall* 51% 36% 8,768 5,802 -2% 595% 5%

Lake Washington Fall 22%

 Sammamish 38% 73 214 7% -83%

 Cedar 38% 74 214 7% -82%

Puyallup Fall 50% 35% 3,464 1,834 817% 53%

White River Spring 20% 17% 219 1,011 406% 1%

Nisqually Fall 66% 53% 9,714 1,109 455% 1%

Mid- Hood Canal Fall 34% 12% 67 344 72% -72%

Skokomish Fall 48% 26% 3,712 1,225 513% -2%

Dungeness Summer 29% 5% 12 231 16% -75%

Elwha Summer 30% 5% 71 1,395 598% -52%

All Chinook from Listed Populations 31,238 27,435

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Hood Canal 3% 214 7,437 -8% 83%

Juan de Fuca 0.4% 12 6,955 -9% 656%

All Summer Chum 226 14,392

* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate])

2 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold])

3

 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]}

4

 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Alternative 1 Scenario D

Table 4.3-7d Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) under Scenario D relative to NMFS recovery standards, 

viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood 

Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 41 December 2004
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S. Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement 

or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern 

U.S. Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 14% 1% 8 422 2% 6% -16% Nooksack Early* -6% -29 34 9% North Fork 186 -7% North Fork 15 9%  South Fork 236 18% South Fork 19 9% Skagit Summer-Fall* 32% 1% 147 14,656 Skagit Summer-Fall* -16% -3,747 3,023 26% Lower Skagit Fall 1,571 -17% 526% -28% Lower Skagit Fall 324 26%  Lower Sauk Summer 782 -19% 291% 15% Lower Sauk Summer 161 26%  Upper Skagit Summer 12,303 -28% 1172% 65% Upper Skagit Summer 2,538 26% Skagit Spring* 12% 3% 73 2,073 Skagit Spring* -11% -497 152 8%  Upper Cascade 607 257% Upper Cascade 45 8%  Upper Sauk 699 -26% 437% 112% Upper Sauk 51 8%  Suiattle 768 -29% 352% 92% Suiattle 56 8% 

Stillaguamish Summer-F 66% 60% 1,614 903 Stillaguamish Summer-F 49% 1,301 -1,419 -61%

 North Fork Summer 736 34% 145% 33% North Fork Summer -1,156 -61%  South Fork Fall 167 42% -16% -44% South Fork Fall -263 -61% 

Snohomish Summer-Fal 22% 21% 2,606 4,634 Snohomish Summer-Fal 3% 281 -439 -9%

 Skykomish Summer 2,379 -18% 44% -32% Skykomish Summer -225 -9%  Snoqualmie Fall 2,255 464% Snoqualmie Fall -214 -9% Green-Duwamish Fall* 55% 42% 11,312 5,800 2% 595% 5% Green-Duwamish Fall* -7% -4,589 -19 -0.3% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 18% 18 307 54% -75% Sammamish -13% -68 2 1%  Cedar 18% 18 307 54% -74% Cedar -13% -69 2 1% Puyallup Fall 70% 57% 6,271 1,200 500% 0% Puyallup Fall 21% 1,247 -1,192 -50% White River Spring 46% 46% 434 1,000 400% 0% White River Spring 26% 78 -468 -32% Nisqually Fall 72% 63% 14,375 1,100 450% 0% Nisqually Fall -4% -3,050 -6 -1% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 19% 5% 39 552 176% -56% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -7% -56 21 4% Skokomish Fall 60% 46% 8,334 1,218 509% -3% Skokomish Fall -3% -1,038 7 1% Dungeness Summer 19% 1% 3 360 80% -61% Dungeness Summer -3% -12 8 2% Elwha Summer 19% 1% 16 2,172 986% -25% Elwha Summer -3% -82 47 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 45,268 36,704Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4 Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sc

Impacts Relative to Alternative A S

Summer ChumTable 4.3-8a-2 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at under Scenario A relative to Alternative 1 Scenario A (Proposed Action).

Alternative 2 Scenario A

Table 4.3-8a-1 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) under Scenario A relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 42 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S. Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement 

or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern 

U.S. Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 19% 1% 9 412 7% -18% Nooksack Early* -6% -29 47 13% North Fork 181 -9% North Fork 21 13%  South Fork 231 15% South Fork 26 13% Skagit Summer-Fall* 41% 1% 147 13,935 Skagit Summer-Fall* -14% -3,590 2,906 26% Lower Skagit Fall 1,494 -8% 495% -32% Lower Skagit Fall 312 26%  Lower Sauk Summer 743 -10% 272% 9% Lower Sauk Summer 155 26%  Upper Skagit Summer 11,698 -19% 1110% 57% Upper Skagit Summer 2,439 26% Skagit Spring* 16% 3% 74 2,009 Skagit Spring* -11% -493 164 9%  Upper Cascade 589 246% Upper Cascade 48 9%  Upper Sauk 677 -22% 421% 105% Upper Sauk 55 9%  Suiattle 745 -25% 338% 86% Suiattle 61 9% 

Stillaguamish Summer-F 67% 59% 1,591 904 Stillaguamish Summer-F 48% 1,277 -1,377 -60%

 North Fork Summer 737 35% 146% 33% North Fork Summer -1,122 -60%  South Fork Fall 167 43% -16% -44% South Fork Fall -255 -60% 

Snohomish Summer-Fal 23% 19% 2,347 4,603 Snohomish Summer-Fal 1% 61 -298 -6%

 Skykomish Summer 2,363 -18% 43% -32% Skykomish Summer -153 -6%  Snoqualmie Fall 2,240 460% Snoqualmie Fall -145 -6% Green-Duwamish Fall* 56% 38% 10,526 5,800 3% 595% 5% Green-Duwamish Fall* -7% -4,577 -16 -0.3% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 23% 37 295 48% -76% Sammamish -12% -49 1 0%  Cedar 23% 18 295 48% -75% Cedar -12% -67 1 0% Puyallup Fall 71% 53% 5,990 1,200 500% 0% Puyallup Fall 21% 1,367 -1,219 -50% White River Spring 46% 44% 414 1,000 400% 0% White River Spring 26% 91 -459 -31% Nisqually Fall 73% 60% 14,010 1,100 450% 0% Nisqually Fall -3% -2,919 -26 -2% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 25% 5% 39 527 164% -58% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -7% -55 23 5% Skokomish Fall 61% 40% 7,612 1,231 516% -2% Skokomish Fall -2% -897 -6 0% Dungeness Summer 24% 1% 3 344 72% -63% Dungeness Summer -3% -12 8 2% Elwha Summer 24% 1% 16 2,079 940% -28% Elwha Summer -4% -81 48 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 42,833 35,734Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4 Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Alternative 2 Scenario B

Table 4.3-8b-1 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) under Scenario B relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 SImpacts Relative to Alternative 1 S

Summer ChumTable 4.3-8b-2 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at under Scenario B relative to Alternative 1 Scenario B (Proposed Action).

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 43 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S. Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement 

or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern 

U.S. Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 14% 1% 6 304 2% -39% Nooksack Early* -6% -20 26 9% North Fork 134 -33% North Fork 11 9%  South Fork 170 -15% South Fork 15 9% Skagit Summer-Fall* 33% 1% 105 10,215 Skagit Summer-Fall* -16% -2,673 2,182 27% Lower Skagit Fall 1,095 -16% 336% -50% Lower Skagit Fall 234 27%  Lower Sauk Summer 545 -18% 172% -20% Lower Sauk Summer 116 27%  Upper Skagit Summer 8,575 -27% 787% 15% Upper Skagit Summer 1,832 27% Skagit Spring* 12% 3% 53 1,460 Skagit Spring* -11% -340 129 10%  Upper Cascade 428 152% Upper Cascade 38 10%  Upper Sauk 492 -26% 278% 49% Upper Sauk 43 10%  Suiattle 541 -29% 218% 35% Suiattle 48 10% 

Stillaguamish Summer-F 52% 46% 864 909 Stillaguamish Summer-F 35% 639 -711 -44%

 North Fork Summer 741 20% 147% 34% North Fork Summer -579 -44%  South Fork Fall 168 28% -16% -44% South Fork Fall -132 -44% 

Snohomish Summer-Fal 10% 3% 244 3,875 Snohomish Summer-Fal -10% -1,389 332 9%

 Skykomish Summer 1,989 -18% 21% -43% Skykomish Summer 170 9%  Snoqualmie Fall 1,886 372% Snoqualmie Fall 162 9% Green-Duwamish Fall* 36% 23% 4,403 5,800 -17% 595% 5% Green-Duwamish Fall* -13% -4,782 -1 0.0% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 19% 28 214 7% -83% Sammamish -14% -45 -9 -4%  Cedar 19% 13 214 7% -82% Cedar -14% -59 -9 -4% Puyallup Fall 57% 44% 3,703 1,200 500% 0% Puyallup Fall 7% -69 -598 -33% White River Spring 23% 23% 156 1,000 400% 0% White River Spring 3% -87 -11 -1% Nisqually Fall 61% 51% 8,324 1,100 450% 0% Nisqually Fall -3% -1,220 -19 -2% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 20% 5% 29 385 93% -69% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -6% -36 18 5% Skokomish Fall 43% 29% 3,701 1,221 511% -2% Skokomish Fall -2% -465 -18 -1% Dungeness Summer 19% 1% 2 251 26% -73% Dungeness Summer -3% -10 6 2% Elwha Summer 19% 1% 11 1,516 658% -48% Elwha Summer -4% -59 36 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 21,642 29,664Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4 Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sc

Impacts Relative to Alternative A S

Summer ChumTable 4.3-8c-2 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at under Scenario C relative to Alternative 1 Scenario C (Proposed Action).

Alternative 2 Scenario C

Table 4.3-8c-1 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) under Scenario C relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 44 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S. Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement 

or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern 

U.S. Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 20% 1% 6 285 8% -43% Nooksack Early* -6% -21 33 13% North Fork 125 -37% North Fork 15 13%  South Fork 160 -20% South Fork 18 13% Skagit Summer-Fall* 43% 1% 105 9,625 Skagit Summer-Fall* -13% -2,593 2,074 27% Lower Skagit Fall 1,032 -6% 311% -53% Lower Skagit Fall 222 27%  Lower Sauk Summer 513 -8% 157% -25% Lower Sauk Summer 111 27%  Upper Skagit Summer 8,080 -17% 736% 8% Upper Skagit Summer 1,741 27% Skagit Spring* 17% 3% 54 1,395 Skagit Spring* -11% -361 125 10%  Upper Cascade 409 140% Upper Cascade 37 10%  Upper Sauk 470 -21% 262% 42% Upper Sauk 42 10%  Suiattle 517 -24% 204% 29% Suiattle 46 10% 

Stillaguamish Summer-F 52% 43% 817 919 Stillaguamish Summer-F 32% 578 -665 -42%

 North Fork Summer 749 20% 150% 36% North Fork Summer -542 -42%  South Fork Fall 170 28% -15% -43% South Fork Fall -123 -42% 

Snohomish Summer-Fal 13% 3% 248 3,720 Snohomish Summer-Fal -10% -1,437 321 9%

 Skykomish Summer 1,909 -18% 16% -45% Skykomish Summer 165 9%  Snoqualmie Fall 1,811 353% Snoqualmie Fall 156 9% Green-Duwamish Fall* 38% 18% 3,685 5,800 -15% 595% 5% Green-Duwamish Fall* -13% -5,083 -2 0.0% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 25% 13 204 2% -84% Sammamish -13% -60 -10 -5%  Cedar 25% 13 204 2% -83% Cedar -13% -61 -10 -5% Puyallup Fall 59% 39% 3,449 1,200 500% 0% Puyallup Fall 9% -15 -634 -35% White River Spring 22% 20% 137 1,000 400% 0% White River Spring 2% -82 -11 -1% Nisqually Fall 62% 47% 7,998 1,100 450% 0% Nisqually Fall -4% -1,716 -9 -1% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 28% 5% 29 361 81% -71% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -6% -38 17 5% Skokomish Fall 46% 23% 3,113 1,215 508% -3% Skokomish Fall -2% -599 -10 -1% Dungeness Summer 26% 1% 2 237 19% -74% Dungeness Summer -3% -10 6 3% Elwha Summer 26% 1% 11 1,431 616% -51% Elwha Summer -4% -60 36 3% All Chinook from Listed Populations 19,680 28,696Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4 Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Alternative 2 Scenario D

Table 4.3-8d-1 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at Management Unit Level) under Scenario D relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sc

Impacts Relative to Alternative A S

Summer ChumTable 4.3-8d-2 Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at under Scenario D relative to Alternative 1 Scenario D (Proposed Action).

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 45 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern U.S. 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern U.S. 

Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 14% 1% 8 422 2% -16% Nooksack Early* -6% -29 34 9% North Fork 186 -7% North Fork 15 9%  South Fork 236 18% South Fork 19 9% Skagit Summer-Fall* 32% 1% 147 14,656 Skagit Summer-Fall* -16% -3,747 3,023 26% Lower Skagit Fall 1,571 -17% 526% -28% Lower Skagit Fall 324 26%  Lower Sauk Summer 782 -19% 291% 15% Lower Sauk Summer 161 26%  Upper Skagit Summer 12,303 -28% 1172% 65% Upper Skagit Summer 2,538 26% Skagit Spring* 12% 3% 71 2,074 Skagit Spring* -11% -499 153 8%  Upper Cascade 608 257% Upper Cascade 45 8%  Upper Sauk 699 -26% 438% 112% Upper Sauk 52 8%  Suiattle 769 -29% 352% 92% Suiattle 57 8% 

Stillaguamish Summer-Fal 8% 2% 47 2,468 Stillaguamish Summer-Fal -9% -266 146 6%

 North Fork Summer 2,011 -24% 570% 264% North Fork Summer 119 6%  South Fork Fall 457 -16% 128% 52% South Fork Fall 27 6% Snohomish Summer-Fall* 10% 4% 857 5,475 Snohomish Summer-Fall* -9% -1,468 402 8% Skykomish Summer 2,810 -18% 70% -20% Skykomish Summer 206 8%  Snoqualmie Fall 2,665 566% Snoqualmie Fall 196 8% Green-Duwamish Fall* 55% 42% 11,312 5,800 2% 595% 5% Green-Duwamish Fall* -7% -4,589 -19 -0.3% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 18% 18 307 54% -75% Sammamish -13% -68 2 1%  Cedar 18% 18 307 54% -74% Cedar -13% -69 2 1% Puyallup Fall 70% 57% 6,271 1,200 500% 0% Puyallup Fall 21% 1,247 -1,192 -50% White River Spring 46% 46% 434 1,000 400% 0% White River Spring 26% 78 -468 -32% Nisqually Fall 72% 63% 14,375 1,100 450% 0% Nisqually Fall -4% -3,050 -6 -1% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 19% 5% 39 552 176% -56% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -7% -56 21 4% Skokomish Fall 60% 46% 8,333 1,218 509% -3% Skokomish Fall -3% -1,039 7 1% Dungeness Summer 19% 1% 3 360 80% -61% Dungeness Summer -3% -12 8 2% Elwha Summer 19% 1% 16 2,172 986% -25% Elwha Summer -3% -82 47 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 41,949 39,111Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4 Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0.3% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Alternative 3 Scenario A

Table 4.3-9a-1 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under Scenario A relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sce

Impacts Relative to Alternative A Sc

Summer Chum

Table 4.3-9a-2 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Scenario A relative to Alternative 1 Scenario A (Proposed Action).

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 46 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern U.S. 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern U.S. 

Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 19% 1% 9 412 7% -18% Nooksack Early* -6% -29 47 13% North Fork 181 -9% North Fork 21 13%  South Fork 231 15% South Fork 26 13% Skagit Summer-Fall* 41% 1% 147 13,935 Skagit Summer-Fall* -14% -3,590 2,906 26% Lower Skagit Fall 1,494 -8% 495% -32% Lower Skagit Fall 312 26%  Lower Sauk Summer 743 -10% 272% 9% Lower Sauk Summer 155 26%  Upper Skagit Summer 11,698 -19% 1110% 57% Upper Skagit Summer 2,439 26% Skagit Spring* 16% 3% 72 2,010 Skagit Spring* -11% -495 165 9%  Upper Cascade 589 246% Upper Cascade 48 9%  Upper Sauk 677 -22% 421% 105% Upper Sauk 56 9%  Suiattle 745 -25% 338% 86% Suiattle 61 9% 

Stillaguamish Summer-Fal 10% 2% 48 2,446 Stillaguamish Summer-Fal -9% -266 165 7%

 North Fork Summer 1,993 -22% 564% 261% North Fork Summer 134 7%  South Fork Fall 453 -14% 126% 51% South Fork Fall 31 7% Snohomish Summer-Fall* 12% 3% 328 5,368 Snohomish Summer-Fall* -10% -1,958 467 10% Skykomish Summer 2,755 -18% 67% -21% Skykomish Summer 240 10%  Snoqualmie Fall 2,613 553% Snoqualmie Fall 227 10% Green-Duwamish Fall* 56% 38% 10,526 5,800 3% 595% 5% Green-Duwamish Fall* -7% -4,577 -16 -0.3% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 23% 37 295 48% -76% Sammamish -12% -49 1 0%  Cedar 23% 18 295 48% -75% Cedar -12% -67 1 0% Puyallup Fall 71% 53% 5,990 1,200 500% 0% Puyallup Fall 21% 1,367 -1,219 -50% White River Spring 46% 44% 414 1,000 400% 0% White River Spring 26% 91 -459 -31% Nisqually Fall 73% 60% 14,010 1,100 450% 0% Nisqually Fall -3% -2,919 -26 -2% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 25% 5% 39 527 164% -58% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -7% -55 23 5% Skokomish Fall 61% 40% 7,611 1,231 516% -2% Skokomish Fall -2% -898 -6 0% Dungeness Summer 24% 1% 3 344 72% -63% Dungeness Summer -3% -12 8 2% Elwha Summer 24% 1% 16 2,079 940% -28% Elwha Summer -4% -81 48 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 39,268 38,042Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4 Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0.3% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, D

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 S

Impacts Relative to Alternative A S

Summer Chum

Table 4.3-9b-2 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management aScenario B relative to Alternative 1 Scenario B (Proposed Action).

Alternative 3 Scenario B

Table 4.3-9b-1 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under Scenario B relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 47 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern U.S. 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern U.S. 

Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 14% 1% 6 304 2% -39% Nooksack Early* -6% -20 26 9% North Fork 134 -33% North Fork 11 9%  South Fork 170 -15% South Fork 15 9% Skagit Summer-Fall* 33% 1% 105 10,215 Skagit Summer-Fall* -16% -2,673 2,182 27% Lower Skagit Fall 1,095 -16% 336% -50% Lower Skagit Fall 234 27%  Lower Sauk Summer 545 -18% 172% -20% Lower Sauk Summer 116 27%  Upper Skagit Summer 8,575 -27% 787% 15% Upper Skagit Summer 1,832 27% Skagit Spring* 12% 3% 53 1,460 Skagit Spring* -11% -340 129 10%  Upper Cascade 428 152% Upper Cascade 38 10%  Upper Sauk 492 -26% 278% 49% Upper Sauk 43 10%  Suiattle 541 -29% 218% 35% Suiattle 48 10% 

Stillaguamish Summer-Fal 8% 2% 35 1,738 Stillaguamish Summer-Fal -9% -190 118 7%

 North Fork Summer 1,416 -24% 372% 157% North Fork Summer 96 7%  South Fork Fall 322 -16% 61% 7% South Fork Fall 22 7% Snohomish Summer-Fall* 10% 3% 244 3,875 Snohomish Summer-Fall* -10% -1,389 332 9% Skykomish Summer 1,989 -18% 21% -43% Skykomish Summer 170 9%  Snoqualmie Fall 1,886 372% Snoqualmie Fall 162 9% Green-Duwamish Fall* 36% 23% 4,403 5,800 -17% 595% 5% Green-Duwamish Fall* -13% -4,782 -1 0.0% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 19% 28 214 7% -83% Sammamish -14% -45 -9 -4%  Cedar 19% 13 214 7% -82% Cedar -14% -59 -9 -4% Puyallup Fall 57% 44% 3,703 1,200 500% 0% Puyallup Fall 7% -69 -598 -33% White River Spring 23% 23% 156 1,000 400% 0% White River Spring 3% -87 -11 -1% Nisqually Fall 61% 51% 8,324 1,100 450% 0% Nisqually Fall -3% -1,220 -19 -2% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 20% 5% 29 385 93% -69% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -6% -36 18 5% Skokomish Fall 43% 29% 3,701 1,221 511% -2% Skokomish Fall -2% -465 -18 -1% Dungeness Summer 19% 1% 2 251 26% -73% Dungeness Summer -3% -10 6 2% Elwha Summer 19% 1% 11 1,516 658% -48% Elwha Summer -4% -59 36 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 20,813 30,493Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4 Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Alternative C Scenario C

Table 4.3-9c-1 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under Scenario C relative to NMFSrecovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sce

Impacts Relative to Alternative A Sc

Summer ChumTable 4.3-9c-2 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Populatrelative to Alternative 1 Scenario C (Proposed Action).

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 48 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern U.S. 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern U.S. 

Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 20% 1% 6 285 8% -43% Nooksack Early* -6% -21 33 13% North Fork 125 -37% North Fork 15 13%  South Fork 160 -20% South Fork 18 13% Skagit Summer-Fall* 43% 1% 105 9,625 Skagit Summer-Fall* -13% -2,593 2,074 27% Lower Skagit Fall 1,032 -6% 311% -53% Lower Skagit Fall 222 27%  Lower Sauk Summer 513 -8% 157% -25% Lower Sauk Summer 111 27%  Upper Skagit Summer 8,080 -17% 736% 8% Upper Skagit Summer 1,741 27% Skagit Spring* 17% 3% 54 1,395 Skagit Spring* -11% -361 125 10%  Upper Cascade 409 140% Upper Cascade 37 10%  Upper Sauk 470 -21% 262% 42% Upper Sauk 42 10%  Suiattle 517 -24% 204% 29% Suiattle 46 10% 

Stillaguamish Summer-Fal 11% 2% 35 1,702 Stillaguamish Summer-Fal -9% -204 118 7%

 North Fork Summer 1,387 -21% 362% 151% North Fork Summer 96 7%  South Fork Fall 315 -13% 57% 5% South Fork Fall 22 7% Snohomish Summer-Fall* 13% 3% 248 3,720 Snohomish Summer-Fall* -10% -1,437 321 9% Skykomish Summer 1,909 -18% 16% -45% Skykomish Summer 165 9%  Snoqualmie Fall 1,811 353% Snoqualmie Fall 156 9% Green-Duwamish Fall* 38% 18% 3,685 5,800 -15% 595% 5% Green-Duwamish Fall* -13% -5,083 -2 0.0% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 25% 28 204 2% -84% Sammamish -13% -45 -10 -5%  Cedar 25% 13 204 2% -83% Cedar -13% -61 -10 -5% Puyallup Fall 59% 39% 3,449 1,200 500% 0% Puyallup Fall 9% -15 -634 -35% White River Spring 22% 20% 137 1,000 400% 0% White River Spring 2% -82 -11 -1% Nisqually Fall 62% 47% 7,998 1,100 450% 0% Nisqually Fall -4% -1,716 -9 -1% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 28% 5% 29 361 81% -71% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -6% -38 17 5% Skokomish Fall 46% 23% 3,113 1,215 508% -3% Skokomish Fall -2% -599 -10 -1% Dungeness Summer 26% 1% 2 237 19% -74% Dungeness Summer -3% -10 6 3% Elwha Summer 26% 1% 11 1,431 616% -51% Elwha Summer -4% -60 36 3% All Chinook from Listed Populations 18,913 29,479Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern 

U.S. Catch 4

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0.3% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sce

Impacts Relative to Alternative A Sc

Summer ChumTable 4.3-9d-2 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Populatrelative to Alternative 1 Scenario D (Proposed Action).

Alternative 3 Scenario D

Table 4.3-9d-1 Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at Population Level) under Scenario D relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 49 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern U.S. 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern U.S. 

Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 14% 1% 8 422 2% -16% Nooksack Early* -6% -29 34 9% North Fork 186 -7% North Fork 15 9%  South Fork 236 18% South Fork 19 9% Skagit Summer-Fall* 32% 1% 147 14,656 Skagit Summer-Fall* -16% -3,747 3,023 26% Lower Skagit Fall 1,571 -17% 526% -28% Lower Skagit Fall 324 26%  Lower Sauk Summer 782 -19% 291% 15% Lower Sauk Summer 161 26%  Upper Skagit Summer 12,303 -28% 1172% 65% Upper Skagit Summer 2,538 26% Skagit Spring* 12% 3% 71 2,074 Skagit Spring* -11% -499 153 8%  Upper Cascade 608 257% Upper Cascade 45 8%  Upper Sauk 699 -26% 438% 112% Upper Sauk 52 8%  Suiattle 769 -29% 352% 92% Suiattle 57 8% 

Stillaguamish Summer-Fal 8% 2% 47 2,468 Stillaguamish Summer-Fal -9% -266 146 6%

 North Fork Summer 2,011 -24% 570% 264% North Fork Summer 119 6%  South Fork Fall 457 -16% 128% 52% South Fork Fall 27 6% Snohomish Summer-Fall* 9% 3% 329 5,504 Snohomish Summer-Fall* -10% -1,996 431 8% Skykomish Summer 2,825 -18% 71% -19% Skykomish Summer 221 8%  Snoqualmie Fall 2,679 570% Snoqualmie Fall 210 8% Green-Duwamish Fall* 18% 5% 1,675 10,558 -35% 1164% 91% Green-Duwamish Fall* -44% -14,226 4,739 81.4% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 18% 37 307 54% -75% Sammamish -13% -49 2 1%  Cedar 18% 18 307 54% -74% Cedar -13% -69 2 1% Puyallup Fall 18% 5% 629 3,286 1543% 174% Puyallup Fall -31% -4,395 894 37% White River Spring 2% 1% 18 1,831 816% 83% White River Spring -18% -338 363 25% Nisqually Fall 16% 7% 2,142 3,338 1569% 203% Nisqually Fall -60% -15,283 2,232 202% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 19% 5% 39 552 176% -56% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -7% -56 21 4% Skokomish Fall 19% 5% 1,054 2,482 1141% 99% Skokomish Fall -44% -8,318 1,271 105% Dungeness Summer 19% 1% 3 360 80% -61% Dungeness Summer -3% -12 8 2% Elwha Summer 19% 1% 16 2,172 986% -25% Elwha Summer -3% -82 47 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 6,233 50,317Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern U.S. 

Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0.3% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sce

Impacts Relative to Alternative A Sc

Summer Chum

Table 4.3-10a-2 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario A relScenario A (Proposed Action).

Alternative 4 Scenario A

Table 4.3-10a-1 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario A relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood CanalStrait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 50 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern U.S. 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern U.S. 

Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 19% 1% 9 412 7% -18% Nooksack Early* -6% -29 47 13% North Fork 181 -9% North Fork 21 13%  South Fork 231 15% South Fork 26 13% Skagit Summer-Fall* 41% 1% 147 13,935 Skagit Summer-Fall* -14% -3,590 2,906 26% Lower Skagit Fall 1,494 -8% 495% -32% Lower Skagit Fall 312 26%  Lower Sauk Summer 743 -10% 272% 9% Lower Sauk Summer 155 26%  Upper Skagit Summer 11,698 -19% 1110% 57% Upper Skagit Summer 2,439 26% Skagit Spring* 16% 3% 72 2,010 Skagit Spring* -11% -495 165 9%  Upper Cascade 589 246% Upper Cascade 48 9%  Upper Sauk 677 -22% 421% 105% Upper Sauk 56 9%  Suiattle 745 -25% 338% 86% Suiattle 61 9% 

Stillaguamish Summer-Fal 10% 2% 48 2,446 Stillaguamish Summer-Fal -9% -266 165 7%

 North Fork Summer 1,993 -22% 564% 261% North Fork Summer 134 7%  South Fork Fall 453 -14% 126% 51% South Fork Fall 31 7% Snohomish Summer-Fall* 12% 3% 328 5,368 Snohomish Summer-Fall* -10% -1,958 467 10% Skykomish Summer 2,755 -18% 67% -21% Skykomish Summer 240 10%  Snoqualmie Fall 2,613 553% Snoqualmie Fall 227 10% Green-Duwamish Fall* 23% 5% 1,684 10,153 -30% 1116% 84% Green-Duwamish Fall* -40% -13,419 4,337 74.6% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 23% 37 295 48% -76% Sammamish -12% -49 1 0%  Cedar 23% 18 295 48% -75% Cedar -12% -67 1 0% Puyallup Fall 23% 5% 633 3,160 1480% 163% Puyallup Fall -27% -3,990 741 31% White River Spring 3% 1% 18 1,792 796% 79% White River Spring -17% -305 333 23% Nisqually Fall 21% 7% 2,183 3,261 1531% 196% Nisqually Fall -55% -14,746 2,135 190% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 25% 5% 39 527 164% -58% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -7% -55 23 5% Skokomish Fall 25% 5% 1,054 2,370 1085% 90% Skokomish Fall -38% -7,455 1,133 92% Dungeness Summer 24% 1% 3 344 72% -63% Dungeness Summer -3% -12 8 2% Elwha Summer 24% 1% 16 2,079 940% -28% Elwha Summer -4% -81 48 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 6,289 48,447Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern U.S. 

Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0.3% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Alternative 4 Scenario B

Table 4.3-10b-1 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario B relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood CanalStrait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 SceImpacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sce

Summer Chum

Table 4.3-10b-2 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario B relScenario B (Proposed Action).

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 51 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern U.S. 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern U.S. 

Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 14% 1% 6 304 2% -39% Nooksack Early* -6% -20 26 9% North Fork 134 -33% North Fork 11 9%  South Fork 170 -15% South Fork 15 9% Skagit Summer-Fall* 33% 1% 105 10,215 Skagit Summer-Fall* -16% -2,673 2,182 27% Lower Skagit Fall 1,095 -16% 336% -50% Lower Skagit Fall 234 27%  Lower Sauk Summer 545 -18% 172% -20% Lower Sauk Summer 116 27%  Upper Skagit Summer 8,575 -27% 787% 15% Upper Skagit Summer 1,832 27% Skagit Spring* 12% 3% 53 1,460 Skagit Spring* -11% -340 129 10%  Upper Cascade 428 152% Upper Cascade 38 10%  Upper Sauk 492 -26% 278% 49% Upper Sauk 43 10%  Suiattle 541 -29% 218% 35% Suiattle 48 10% 

Stillaguamish Summer-Fal 8% 2% 35 1,738 Stillaguamish Summer-Fal -9% -190 118 7%

 North Fork Summer 1,416 -24% 372% 157% North Fork Summer 96 7%  South Fork Fall 322 -16% 61% 7% South Fork Fall 22 7% Snohomish Summer-Fall* 10% 3% 244 3,875 Snohomish Summer-Fall* -10% -1,389 332 9% Skykomish Summer 1,989 -18% 21% -43% Skykomish Summer 170 9%  Snoqualmie Fall 1,886 372% Snoqualmie Fall 162 9% Green-Duwamish Fall* 19% 5% 1,228 7,367 -34% 782% 33% Green-Duwamish Fall* -30% -7,957 1,566 27.0% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 19% 27 214 7% -83% Sammamish -14% -45 -9 -4%  Cedar 19% 13 214 7% -82% Cedar -14% -59 -9 -4% Puyallup Fall 19% 5% 461 2,293 1047% 91% Puyallup Fall -31% -3,311 495 28% White River Spring 2% 1% 14 1,283 542% 28% White River Spring -18% -229 272 27% Nisqually Fall 17% 8% 1,600 2,330 1065% 112% Nisqually Fall -47% -7,944 1,211 108% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 20% 5% 29 385 93% -69% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -6% -36 18 5% Skokomish Fall 20% 5% 769 1,730 765% 38% Skokomish Fall -25% -3,397 491 40% Dungeness Summer 19% 1% 2 251 26% -73% Dungeness Summer -3% -10 6 2% Elwha Summer 19% 1% 11 1,516 658% -48% Elwha Summer -4% -59 36 2% All Chinook from Listed Populations 4,597 35,175Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern U.S. 

Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0.3% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, De

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 SceImpacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sce

Summer Chum

Table 4.3-10c-2 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario C relScenario C (Proposed Action).

Alternative 4 Scenario C

Table 4.3-10c-1 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario Crelative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood CanalStrait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 52 
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Puget Sound Chinook

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern U.S. 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold2

Viable 

Escapement or 

Escapement 

Goal3

Change in 

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate1

Change in 

Southern U.S. 

Catch1

Change in 

Natural 

Escapement1

% Change in 

Natural 

Escapement2

Nooksack Early* 20% 1% 6 285 8% -43% Nooksack Early* -6% -21 33 13% North Fork 125 -37% North Fork 15 13%  South Fork 160 -20% South Fork 18 13% Skagit Summer-Fall* 43% 1% 105 9,625 Skagit Summer-Fall* -13% -2,593 2,074 27% Lower Skagit Fall 1,032 -6% 311% -53% Lower Skagit Fall 222 27%  Lower Sauk Summer 513 -8% 157% -25% Lower Sauk Summer 111 27%  Upper Skagit Summer 8,080 -17% 736% 8% Upper Skagit Summer 1,741 27% Skagit Spring* 17% 3% 54 1,395 Skagit Spring* -11% -361 125 10%  Upper Cascade 409 140% Upper Cascade 37 10%  Upper Sauk 470 -21% 262% 42% Upper Sauk 42 10%  Suiattle 517 -24% 204% 29% Suiattle 46 10% 

Stillaguamish Summer-Fal 11% 2% 35 1,702 Stillaguamish Summer-Fal -9% -204 118 7%

 North Fork Summer 1,387 -21% 362% 151% North Fork Summer 96 7%  South Fork Fall 315 -13% 57% 5% South Fork Fall 22 7% Snohomish Summer-Fall* 13% 3% 244 3,720 Snohomish Summer-Fall* -10% -1,441 321 9% Skykomish Summer 1,909 -18% 16% -45% Skykomish Summer 165 9%  Snoqualmie Fall 1,811 353% Snoqualmie Fall 156 9% Green-Duwamish Fall* 25% 5% 1,232 7,006 -28% 739% 27% Green-Duwamish Fall* -26% -7,536 1,204 20.8% Lake Washington Fall 5% Lake Washington Fall Sammamish 25% 13 204 2% -84% Sammamish -13% -60 -10 -5%  Cedar 25% 13 204 2% -83% Cedar -13% -61 -10 -5% Puyallup Fall 25% 5% 463 2,180 990% 82% Puyallup Fall -25% -3,001 346 19% White River Spring 3% 1% 14 1,246 523% 25% White River Spring -17% -205 235 23% Nisqually Fall 23% 8% 1,630 2,264 1032% 106% Nisqually Fall -43% -8,084 1,155 104% Mid- Hood Canal Fall 28% 5% 29 361 81% -71% Mid- Hood Canal Fall -6% -38 17 5% Skokomish Fall 28% 5% 767 1,622 711% 30% Skokomish Fall -20% -2,945 397 32% Dungeness Summer 26% 1% 2 237 19% -74% Dungeness Summer -3% -10 6 3% Elwha Summer 26% 1% 11 1,431 616% -51% Elwha Summer -4% -60 36 3% All Chinook from Listed Populations 4,619 33,482Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate 4

Southern U.S. 

Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate

Critical 

Escapement 

Threshold

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate4

Southern 

U.S.Catch

Natural 

Escapement

% Change 

Escapement

Hood Canal 0.3% 0 7,651 -11% 88% Hood Canal -3% -214 214 3% Juan de Fuca 0.2% 0 6,985 -9% 659% Juan de Fuca 0% -12 30 0% All Summer Chum 0 14,636* Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards * Populations with specific NMFS-developed standards

1 Calculated as difference of rates ([predicted wild exploition rate - recovery exploitation rate]) 1 Alternative 1 - Alternative 22 Calculated as percent of difference ([predicted escapement-critical escapement threshold ÷ critical escapement threshold]) 2 (Alternative 1 - Alternative 2) ÷ Alternative 13 Calculated as percent of difference (predicted escapement-viable escapement threshold ÷ viable escapement threshold]} 3 See explanation of impact metrics.4 Excludes Quilcene River population. 4 Excludes Quilcene River population.

 Indicates exploitation rate or escapement does not meet standard.

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003. Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplina

Alternative 4 Scenario D

Table 4.3-10d-1 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario D relative to NMFS recovery standards, viable salmonid population guidelines, and current condition escapement goals for listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood CanalStrait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon.

Performance vs. Recovery Standards

Performance vs Recovery 

Standards

Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 ScImpacts Relative to Alternative 1 Sc

Summer Chum

Table 4.3-10d-2 Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) under Scenario D rScenario D (Proposed Action).

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 53 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 54 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 4.3.2 Unlisted Salmonid Species

2 Puget Sound populations of coho, sockeye, pink, chum salmon, and steelhead would also be affected

3 by the Proposed Action or alternatives considered in this Environmental Impact Statement. As noted in

4 Section 3.3, Fish: Affected Environment, chinook and coho salmon from Washington and Oregon

5 coastal populations are infrequently taken in Puget Sound fisheries, and therefore would not be

6 measurably affected. The co-managers aggregate populations of sockeye, coho, pink, chum salmon,

7 and steelhead into seven management units: the Nooksack-Samish, Skagit, Stillaguamish, and

8 Snohomish River management units in North Puget Sound; the South Sound management unit, which

9 includes streams south of the Snohomish; the Hood Canal management unit; and the Strait of Juan de

10 Fuca management unit. The two sockeye salmon management units  the Skagit (Baker) River and

11 South Puget Sound (Cedar River) – are managed to achieve escapement goals. Coho salmon harvest is

12 managed to not exceed exploitation rate ceilings specific to each management unit. These exploitation

13 rate ceilings would be set annually according to the forecast abundance of each management unit, and

14 appropriate to the productivity level implied by the forecast. Pink and chum salmon fisheries are

15 managed to achieve escapement goals for each management unit. Since these coho, chum, sockeye,

16 pink salmon, and steelhead populations are unlisted populations, NMFS has not set Endangered

17 Species Act standards for them. The standards of performance referred to in this Environmental Impact

18 Statement are the exploitation rate ceilings, or escapement goals established by the co-managers

19 beginning with the 2001 management year.

20 The alternatives considered all assume that river fisheries could remain open from December through

21 March when adult chinook salmon are absent from Puget Sound streams. More than 95 percent of the

22 net harvest of steelhead occurs during this period. The model employed in the analysis is able to

23 account for the relatively small changes in tribal harvest that would occur in late summer and fall

24 fisheries when chinook salmon and summer steelhead presence overlaps. Under Alternative 2 or 3,

25 catch in these fisheries would be reduced relative to Alternative 1. Because such a large part of

26 steelhead harvest occurs between December and March, the effect on catch and escapement of

27 steelhead under Alternative 2 or 3 relative to Alternative 1 would be a low to moderately beneficial

28 impact.

29 It is important to note that, in the modeling for this impact analysis, the abundance of species other than

30 chinook salmon within the action area was held constant with the base period; that is, the “scenarios”

31 used to simulate variability in abundance and fishing regimes outside the action area were not applied

32 for these species.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 55 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 4.3.2.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo

2 Impacts to Unlisted Puget Sound Salmon Populations

3 Under Alternative 1, the modeled total Southern U.S. catch of unlisted salmon species originating from

4 Puget Sound is predicted to be 476,794 coho salmon, 92,850 sockeye salmon, 419,957 pink salmon,

5 and 715,235 fall and winter chum salmon.

6 Under Alternative 1, escapement of naturally-spawning coho salmon is predicted to be 326,114 fish. As

7 shown in Table 4.3-11, it is predicted that the co-managers’ exploitation rate goals would be met under

8 Alternative 1 for all Puget Sound coho salmon management units by margins ranging from 13 to 27

9 percent. An exploitation rate ceiling has not been established for South Puget Sound coho salmon, but

10 the exploitation rate achieved under Alternative 1 would balance natural spawning capacity and

11 hatchery program objectives.

12 Under Alternative 1, the escapement of Baker River sockeye salmon is predicted to exceed the goal by

13 almost 300 percent. A recreational and tribal fishery for Cedar River sockeye salmon was modeled

14 under Alternative 1 with a predicted total catch of 92,600 sockeye. Under this Alternative, escapement

15 is predicted to be 17 percent below the goal for the Cedar River (Table 4.3-11).

16 The escapement of naturally-spawning pink salmon to streams in the seven management units is

17 predicted to be 897,976 fish. Under Alternative 1, escapements of pink salmon are predicted to exceed

18 the goal by a substantial margin for the Nooksack, Skagit, and Snohomish River pink salmon

19 management units, and are predicted to be substantially below the goals for South Puget Sound and

20 Hood Canal. A pink salmon escapement goal is not available for the Strait of Juan de Fuca

21 management unit.
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Exploit. 

Rate 

Objective

Southern 

U.S. Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Escapement 

Goal

Exploitation 

Rate Escapement 

Coho

Nooksack/Samish 50% 75% 41,215 8,182 -25%

Skagit 37% 60% 42,493 73,624 -23%

Stillaguamish 37% 50% 12,069 24,017 -13%

Snohomish 33% 60% 76,720 136,873 -27%

South Sound 55% 246,383 47,086

Hood Canal 42% 65% 42,909 19,012 -23%

Juan de Fuca 14% 40% 15,005 17,320 -26%

All Coho 476,794 326,114

Sockeye

Skagit 250 11,823 3,000 294%

South Sound 92,600 291,916 350,000 -17%

All Sockeye 92,850 303,739

Pink

Nooksack/Samish 7% 7,184 91,988 50,000 84%

Skagit 30% 184,614 430,792 330,000 31%

Stillaguamish 36% 90,690 164,000 155,000 6%

Snohomish 37% 101,193 173,000 120,000 44%

South Sound 9% 1,319 13,283 25,000 -47%

Hood Canal 39% 33,467 20,065 125,000 -84%

Juan de Fuca 35% 1,490 4,848

All Pink 419,957 897,976

Fall Chum

Nooksack/Samish 56% 54,738 35,610 20,800 71%

Skagit 9% 4,253 42,237 40,000 6%

Stillaguamish 59% 21,577 14,400 13,100 10%

Snohomish 51% 54,284 17,600 10,200 73%

South Sound 68% 361,258 150,923 64,350 135%

Hood Canal 49% 218,987 50,382 39,900 26%

Juan de Fuca 7% 137 2,585 3,600 -28%

All Fall Chum 715,234 313,737

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Table 4.3-11 Performance of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) relative to exploitation rate objectives or escapement

goals for coho, sockeye, pink, and fall-winter chum salmon.

Performance vs Standards:

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 56 December 2004
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 57 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Escapement of naturally-spawning fall and winter chum salmon to streams in the seven management

2 units under Alternative 1 is predicted to be 313,737 fish. Under Alternative 1, escapement is predicted

3 to meet the co-managers’ escapement goals by substantial margins for the Nooksack, Snohomish,

4 South Puget Sound, and Hood Canal chum salmon management units, and by low margins for the

5 Skagit and Stillaguamish management units. Escapement of naturally-spawning fall and winter chum

6 salmon is predicted to be substantially less than the goal for the Strait of Juan de Fuca Management

7 Unit (see Table 4.3-11).

8 4.3.2.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

9 Impacts to Unlisted Puget Sound Salmon Populations and Comparison to Alternative 1

10 Under Alternative 2, the modeled total Southern U.S. catch of unlisted salmon species originating from

11 Puget Sound is predicted to be 197,691 coho salmon, zero sockeye salmon, 115,732 pink salmon, and

12 152,384 fall and winter chum salmon.

13 As shown in Table 4.3-12a, the co-managers’ exploitation rate goals are predicted to be met under

14 Alternative 2 for all Puget Sound coho salmon management units by margins ranging from 26 to 62

15 percent. Exploitation rates on naturally-spawning coho salmon are predicted to be substantially lower

16 than with Alternative 1, by margins ranging from 24 to 56 percent, while coho escapement is predicted

17 to increase substantially, by margins ranging from 9 to 74 percent (see Table 4.3-12b).

18 With Alternative 2, Cedar River sockeye salmon fisheries would be closed, with the result that

19 escapement is predicted to increase by approximately 92,600 fish, bringing escapement to slightly over

20 the goal of 300,000. Catch of Baker River sockeye is predicted to be zero. The predicted increase in

21 Cedar River sockeye salmon escapement of approximately 24 percent would constitute a moderate

22 beneficial impact. The increased escapement of Baker River sockeye salmon would constitute a small

23 (low) beneficial impact relative to Alternative 1. Harvest of Puget Sound pink salmon is predicted to

24 decline by more than 339,000 compared to Alternative 1. Spawning escapement to the Nooksack and

25 South Puget Sound management units is predicted to increase by a small margin and by a substantial

26 margin (ranging from 22 to 58 percent) to the Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Hood Canal, and

27 Strait of Juan de Fuca units (Table 4.3-12b). As with Alternative 1, escapements are not predicted to

28 meet the escapement goals for the South Sound and Hood Canal management units.
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Exploit. 

Rate 

Objective

Southern 

U.S. 

Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Escapement 

Goal

Exploitation 

Rate Escapement 

Coho

Nooksack/Samish 13% 75% 7,386 14,272 -62%

Skagit 6% 60% 5,019 109,887 -54%

Stillaguamish 24% 50% 8,024 28,689 -26%

Snohomish 19% 60% 47,594 165,820 -41%

South Sound 33% 115,245 69,945

Hood Canal 12% 65% 7,931 28,533 -53%

Juan de Fuca 6% 40% 6,492 18,819 -34%

All Coho 197,691 435,965

Sockeye

Skagit 0% 0 12,073 3,000 302%

South Sound 0% 0 362,292 350,000 4%

All Sockeye 0 237,256

Pink

Nooksack/Samish 0% 0 99,172 50,000 98%

Skagit 0% 0 615,406 330,000 86%

Stillaguamish 21% 54,331 200,360 155,000 29%

Snohomish 0% 34,800 274,192 120,000 128%

South Sound 4% 600 13,999 25,000 -44%

Hood Canal 16% 26,001 27,556 125,000 -78%

Juan de Fuca 15% 0 6,338

All Pink 115,732 1,237,023

Fall Chum

Nooksack/Samish 1% 1,090 79,482 20,800 282%

Skagit 1% 252 46,071 40,000 15%

Stillaguamish 2% 852 34,194 13,100 161%

Snohomish 0% 239 35,583 10,200 249%

South Sound 16% 83,501 399,761 64,350 521%

Hood Canal 4% 66,448 95,473 39,900 139%

Juan de Fuca 2% 2 2,722 3,600 -24%

All Fall Chum 152,384 693,286

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Table 4.3-12a Performance of Alternative 2 relative to exploitation rate objectives or escapement goals for coho,

sockeye, pink, and fall-winter chum salmon.

Performance vs Standards:

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 58 December 2004
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Wild 

Exploitatio

n Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

 Total 

Mortality 

 Natural 

Escapement 

% Change 

Escapement

Type of 

Impact

 Magnitude 

of Impact 

Coho

Nooksack/Samish -37% (33829) (6,151) 6,090 74% beneficial substantial

Skagit -31% (37474) (36,580) 36,263 49% beneficial substantial

Stillaguamish -13% (4045) (4,782) 4,672 19% beneficial substantial

Snohomish -14% (29126) (29,567) 28,947 21% beneficial substantial

South Sound -22% (131138) (23,503) 22,859 49% beneficial substantial

Hood Canal -30% (34978) (9,662) 9,521 50% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca -8% (8513) (1,529) 1,499 9% beneficial low

All Coho (279103) (111774) 109851 34%

Sockeye

Skagit (250) 250 

South Sound (92600) 70,376 

All Sockeye (92850) 250 

Pink

Nooksack/Samish (7184) (7,184) 7,184 8% beneficial low

Skagit (184614) (184,611) 184,614 43% beneficial substantial

Stillaguamish (36359) (36,359) 36,360 22% beneficial substantial

Snohomish (66393) (101,192) 101,192 58% beneficial substantial

South Sound (719) (716) 716 5% beneficial low

Hood Canal (7466) (7,491) 7,491 37% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca (1490) (1,490) 1,490 31% beneficial substantial

All Pink (304225) (339043) 339047 38%

Fall Chum

Nooksack/Samish (53648) (43,872) 43,872 123% beneficial substantial

Skagit (4001) (3,834) 3,834 9% beneficial low

Stillaguamish (20725) (19,789) 19,794 137% beneficial substantial

Snohomish (54045) (17,983) 17,983 102% beneficial substantial

South Sound (277757) (248,838) 248,838 165% beneficial substantial

Hood Canal (152539) (45,091) 45,091 89% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca (135) (137) 137 5% beneficial low

All Fall Chum (562,850) (379,544) 379,549 121%

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003

Changes Relative to Alternative 1

Table 4.3-12b Performance of Alternative 2 (Escapement goal management at the management unit level) relative to

Alternative 1 for coho, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon. 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 59 December 2004
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 60 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Escapement of most naturally-spawning fall and winter chum salmon management units is predicted to

2 increase by more than 100 percent compared to Alternative 1. As with Alternative 1, chum salmon

3 escapement is predicted to meet the co-managers’ escapement goals by substantial margins in all but

4 the Skagit and Strait of Juan de Fuca chum salmon management units. The increase in escapement for

5 the Skagit management unit is predicted to be low compared to Alternative 1, and the Strait of Juan de

6 Fuca management unit is not predicted to meet its escapement goal.

7 Based on the expected increases in escapement of naturally-spawning fish that are predicted to occur

8 under Alternative 2 relative to Alternative 1, the impacts of Alternative 2 to populations in the two

9 sockeye salmon management units would be beneficial, but low. Impacts to all other populations of

10 coho, fall and winter chum, and pink salmon are predicted to be moderately to substantially beneficial.

11 However, as explained previously, for populations where escapements exceed current goals by

12 substantial margins, the potential for density-dependent decreases in productivity due to competition

13 for mates, food, or territory would be heightened; therefore, natural production by these populations is

14 unlikely to increase in direct proportion to the predicted increase in spawning escapement.

15 4.3.2.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level With Terminal

16 Fisheries Only

17 Impacts to Unlisted Puget Sound Salmon Populations

18 Under Alternative 3, the modeled total Southern U.S. catch of unlisted salmon species originating from

19 Puget Sound is predicted to be 157,753 coho salmon, zero sockeye salmon, 26,601 pink salmon, and

20 151,578 fall and winter chum salmon.

21 As shown in Table 4.3-13a, the co-managers’ exploitation rate goals are predicted to be met under

22 Alternative 2 for all Puget Sound coho salmon management units by margins ranging from 34 to 62

23 percent. Exploitation rates on naturally-spawning coho salmon are predicted to be substantially lower

24 than with Alternative 1, by margins ranging from 8 to 37 percent, while coho escapement is predicted

25 to increase substantially, by margins ranging from 9 to 74 percent (see Table 4.3-13a).
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Exploit. 

Rate 

Objective

Southern U.S. 

Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Escapement 

Goal

Exploitation 

Rate Escapement 

Coho

Nooksack/Samish 13% 75% 7,386 14,272 -62%

Skagit 6% 60% 5,019 109,887 -54%

Stillaguamish 8% 50% 1,908 34,840 -42%

Snohomish 8% 60% 13,772 187,066 -52%

South Sound 33% 115,245 69,945

Hood Canal 12% 65% 7,931 28,533 -53%

Juan de Fuca 6% 40% 6,492 18,819 -34%

All Coho 157,753 463,362

Sockeye

Skagit 0% 0 12,073 3,000 302%

South Sound 0% 0 224,422 350,000 -36%

All Sockeye 236,495

Pink

Nooksack/Samish 0% 0 99,172 50,000 98%

Skagit 0% 0 615,406 330,000 86%

Stillaguamish 0% 0 254,690 155,000 64%

Snohomish 0% 0 274,193 120,000 128%

South Sound 4% 600 13,999 25,000 -44%

Hood Canal 16% 26,001 27,556 125,000 -78%

Juan de Fuca 15% 0 6,338

All Pink 26,601 1,291,354

Fall Chum

Nooksack/Samish 1% 1,090 79,482 20,800 282%

Skagit 1% 252 46,071 40,000 15%

Stillaguamish 0% 46 34,964 13,100 167%

Snohomish 0% 239 35,583 10,200 249%

South Sound 16% 83,501 399,761 64,350 521%

Hood Canal 4% 66,448 95,473 39,900 139%

Juan de Fuca 2% 2 2,722 3,600 -24%

All Fall Chum 151,578 694,056

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Table 4.3-13a Performance of Alternative 3 relative to exploitation rate objectives or escapement goals for coho, sockeye,

pink, and fall-winter chum salmon.

Performance vs Standards:

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 61 December 2004
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 62 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 With Alternative 3, Cedar River sockeye salmon fisheries would be closed and escapement is predicted

2 to increase by approximately 92,600 fish, bringing escapement to slightly over the goal of 300,000

3 (Table 4.3-13a). Catch of Baker River sockeye is predicted to be zero. The predicted increase in Cedar

4 River sockeye escapement by approximately 24 percent would constitute a moderate beneficial impact.

5 The increased escapement of Baker River sockeye would constitute a small (low) beneficial impact

6 relative to Alternative 1 (Table 4.3-13b). Modeled harvest of Puget Sound pink salmon are predicted to

7 decline by more than 393,000 compared to Alternative 1. Spawning escapement is predicted to increase

8 by a small margin in the Skagit and South Puget Sound management units, and by a substantial margin

9 (ranging from 89 to 143 percent) in other management units. As with Alternative 1, pink salmon

10 escapements are not predicted to meet the escapement goals for the South Sound and Hood Canal

11 management units.

12 Escapement of most naturally-spawning fall and winter chum salmon management units is predicted to

13 increase by more than 100 percent compared to Alternative 1 (Table 4.3-13a). As with Alternative 1,

14 chum salmon escapement is predicted to meet the co-managers’ escapement goals by substantial

15 margins in all but the Skagit and Strait of Juan de Fuca management units. The increase in escapement

16 for the Skagit management unit is predicted to be low compared to Alternative 1, and the Strait of Juan

17 de Fuca management unit is not predicted to meet its escapement goal (Table 4.3-13b).

18 Based on the predicted increases in escapement of naturally-spawning fish that would occur under

19 Alternative 3 relative to Alternative 1, the impacts of Alternative 3 on populations in the two sockeye

20 salmon management units would be beneficial, but low. Impacts to all other populations of coho

21 salmon, fall-winter chum salmon, and pink salmon would be moderately to substantially beneficial.

22 However, as explained previously, for populations where escapements exceed current goals by

23 substantial margins, the potential for density-dependent declines in productivity based on competition

24 for mates, food or territory would be heightened, with the result that natural production by these

25 populations is unlikely to increase proportionate to the predicted increase in spawning escapement.
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Wild 

Exploitatio

n Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

 Total 

Mortality 

 Natural 

Escapement 

% Change 

Escapement

Type of 

Impact

 Magnitude 

of Impact 

Coho

Nooksack/Samish -37% (33829) (6,151) 6,090 74% beneficial substantial

Skagit -31% (37474) (36,580) 36,263 49% beneficial substantial

Stillaguamish -29% (10161) (10,969) 10,823 45% beneficial substantial

Snohomish -25% (62948) (51,002) 50,193 37% beneficial substantial

South Sound -22% (131138) (23,503) 22,859 49% beneficial substantial

Hood Canal -30% (34978) (9,662) 9,521 50% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca -8% (8513) (1,529) 1,499 9% beneficial low

All Coho (319041) (139396) 137248 42%

Sockeye

Skagit (250) 250 

South Sound (92600) (67,494) 

All Sockeye (92850) 250 

Pink

Nooksack/Samish (7184) (7,184) 7,184 8% beneficial low

Skagit (184614) (184,611) 184,614 43% beneficial substantial

Stillaguamish (90690) (90,690) 90,690 55% beneficial substantial

Snohomish (101193) (101,192) 101,193 58% beneficial substantial

South Sound (719) (716) 716 5% beneficial low

Hood Canal (7466) (7,491) 7,491 37% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca (1490) (1,490) 1,490 31% beneficial substantial

All Pink (393356) (393374) 393378 44%

Fall Chum

Nooksack/Samish (53648) (43,872) 43,872 123% beneficial substantial

Skagit (4001) (3,834) 3,834 9% beneficial low

Stillaguamish (21531) (20,564) 20,564 143% beneficial substantial

Snohomish (54045) (17,983) 17,983 102% beneficial substantial

South Sound (277757) (248,838) 248,838 165% beneficial substantial

Hood Canal (152539) (45,091) 45,091 89% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca (135) (137) 137 5% beneficial low

All Fall Chum (563,656) (380,319) 380,319 121%

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003

Changes Relative to Alternative 1

Table 4.3-13b Performance of Alternative 3 (Escapement goal management at the population level) relative to

Alternative 1 for coho, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon. 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 63 December 2004
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 64 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 4.3.2.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take

2 Impacts to Unlisted Puget Sound Salmon Populations

3 Under Alternative 4, the modeled Southern U.S. catch of unlisted salmon species originating from

4 Puget Sound is 70,260 coho salmon, zero sockeye salmon, 6,459 pink salmon, and 38,877 fall and

5 winter chum salmon. The predicted catch would be the same under all scenarios.

6 Under Alternative 4, the No Authorized Take alternative, catch of unlisted salmonids would be limited

7 to terminal areas when naturally-spawning chinook salmon are absent. The effect of Alternative 4 is

8 predicted to be a further reduction in catch and exploitation rates, with further increases in escapement

9 of both natural- and hatchery-origin salmonids compared to Alternative 2 or 3. The exploitation rates

10 on coho salmon populations are predicted to decline to 6 to 8 percent. These rates are predicted to be

11 lower than with Alternative 1 by substantial margins (25 to 49%) (Table 4.3-14b). Spawning

12 escapement is predicted to increase substantially (by 168,000 for all management units) relative to

13 Alternative 1. Exploitation rate goals are predicted to be met for all management units, by margins

14 ranging from 34 to 68 percent (see Table 4.3-14a). With Alternative 4, Cedar River sockeye salmon

15 fisheries would be closed and escapement is predicted to increase by approximately 92,600 fish,

16 bringing escapement to slightly more than the goal of 300,000. Baker River sockeye salmon catch is

17 predicted to be zero. The predicted increase in Cedar River sockeye escapement by approximately 24

18 percent would constitute a moderate beneficial impact. The increased escapement of Baker River

19 sockeye would constitute a small (low) beneficial impact relative to Alternative 1.

20 Under Alternative 4, exploitation rates in Puget Sound fisheries for pink salmon are predicted to be

21 zero for the Nooksack, Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and South Puget Sound management units.

22 Spawning escapement is predicted to increase by a low amount for the Nooksack and South Sound

23 management units, and substantially for the Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Hood Canal, and Strait

24 of Juan de Fuca management units, compared to the outcome of Alternative 1 (Table 4.3-14b). As with

25 Alternative 2 or 3, it is predicted that escapement goals for pink salmon would be substantially

26 exceeded. Also as with Alternative 2 or 3, although escapements would increase for the South Puget

27 Sound and Hood Canal pink salmon management units, the escapement goals still would not be met.
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Wild 

Exploitation 

Rate

Exploit. 

Rate 

Objective

Southern U.S. 

Catch

Natural 

Escapement

Escapement 

Goal

Exploitation 

Rate Escapement 

Coho

Nooksack/Samish 7% 75% 2,463 15,305 -68%

Skagit 6% 60% 6,409 110,022 -54%

Stillaguamish 8% 50% 5,205 34,840 -42%

Snohomish 8% 60% 1,910 187,066 -52%

South Sound 6% 13,784 97,804

Hood Canal 7% 65% 33,886 30,345 -58%

Juan de Fuca 6% 40% 6,603 18,819 -34%

All Coho 70,260 494,201

Sockeye

Skagit 0% 0 12,073 3,000 302%

South Sound 0% 0 224,422 350,000 -36%

All Sockeye 236,495

Pink

Nooksack/Samish 0% 0 99,172 50,000 98%

Skagit 0% 0 615,406 330,000 86%

Stillaguamish 0% 0 254,690 155,000 64%

Snohomish 0% 0 274,193 120,000 128%

South Sound 14,596 25,000 -42%

Hood Canal 10% 6,459 47,387 125,000 -62%

Juan de Fuca 15% 0 6,338

All Pink 6,459 1,311,782

Fall Chum

Nooksack/Samish 1% 1,066 79,501 20,800 282%

Skagit 1% 252 46,071 40,000 15%

Stillaguamish 0% 46 34,964 13,100 167%

Snohomish 0% 239 35,583 10,200 249%

South Sound 7% 36,912 441,499 64,350 586%

Hood Canal 360 99,621 39,900 150%

Juan de Fuca 2% 2 2,722 3,600 -24%

All Fall Chum 38,877 739,961

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003.

Table 4.3-14a Performance of Alternative 4 relative to exploitation rate objectives or escapement goals for coho, sockeye, pink,

and fall-winter chum salmon.

Performance vs Standards:

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 65 December 2004
Section 4 - Environmental Consequences

Wild 

Exploitatio

n Rate

Southern 

U.S.Catch

 Total 

Mortality 

 Natural 

Escapement 

% Change 

Escapement

Type of 

Impact

 Magnitude 

of Impact 

Coho

Nooksack/Samish -43% (38752) (7,185) 7,123 87% beneficial substantial

Skagit -31% (36084) (36,715) 36,398 49% beneficial substantial

Stillaguamish -29% (6864) (10,969) 10,823 45% beneficial substantial

Snohomish -25% (74810) (51,002) 50,193 37% beneficial substantial

South Sound -49% (232599) (51,361) 50,718 108% beneficial substantial

Hood Canal -35% (9023) (11,473) 11,333 60% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca -8% (8402) (1,529) 1,499 9% beneficial low

All Coho (406534) (170234) 168087 52%

Sockeye

Skagit (250) 250 

South Sound (92600) (67,494) 

All Sockeye (92850) 250 

Pink

Nooksack/Samish (7184) (7,184) 7,184 8% beneficial low

Skagit (184614) (184,611) 184,614 43% beneficial substantial

Stillaguamish (90690) (90,690) 90,690 55% beneficial substantial

Snohomish (101193) (101,192) 101,193 58% beneficial substantial

South Sound (1319) (1,313) 1,313 10% beneficial low

Hood Canal (27008) (7,597) 27,322 136% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca (1490) (1,490) 1,490 31% beneficial substantial

All Pink (413498) (394077) 413806 46%

Fall Chum

Nooksack/Samish (53672) (43,891) 43,891 123% beneficial substantial

Skagit (4001) (3,834) 3,834 9% beneficial low

Stillaguamish (21531) (20,564) 20,564 143% beneficial substantial

Snohomish (54045) (17,983) 17,983 102% beneficial substantial

South Sound (324346) (290,576) 290,576 193% beneficial substantial

Hood Canal (218627) (49,240) 49,239 98% beneficial substantial

Juan de Fuca (135) (137) 137 5% beneficial low

All Fall Chum (676,357) (426,225) 426,224 136%

Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, December 2003

Changes Relative to Alternative 1

Table 4.3-14b Performance of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) relative to Alternative 1 for coho, sockeye, pink, and chum

salmon. 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 66 December 2004
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 67 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Fall and winter chum salmon harvest under Alternative 4 is predicted to be about 39,000, a decrease

2 relative to Alternative 1 of 676,357. Escapements of naturally-spawning fall and winter chum salmon

3 are predicted to increase substantially  by 426,224 fish under Alternative 4, or more than 100 percent

4 of the escapement goals for the Nooksack, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Mid-Hood Canal, and South

5 Puget Sound units. However, it is predicted that the escapement goal for the Strait of Juan de Fuca unit,

6 for which the run size entering Puget Sound is predicted to be below the escapement goal, would not be

7 achieved (see Table 4.3-14b).

8 Based on the predicted increases in escapement of naturally-spawning fish that would occur under

9 Alternative 4 relative to Alternative 1, the impact of Alternative 4 on escapements of sockeye salmon,

10 Nooksack-Samish and South Sound pink salmon, and Skagit and Strait of Juan de Fuca chum salmon

11 are predicted to be beneficial, but of low magnitude. Impacts to all other populations of coho, fall12 winter chum, and pink salmon are predicted to be substantially beneficial. However, as discussed

13 above, escapement far in excess of current escapement goals raises the potential of intra- and inter14 specific density-dependent reductions in productivity due to competition for mates, food or territory.

15 For many coho salmon management units, exploitation rate objectives are based on stock recruit

16 functions which would predict that large increases in escapement would not result in substantial

17 increases in progeny (personal communication via e-mail from William Beattie, Northwest Indian

18 Fisheries Commission, Conservation Management Coordinator, to The William Douglas Company,

19 February 17, 2004).

20 4.3.3 Non-Salmonid Fish Species

21 Unlisted non-salmonid fish species potentially affected by the Proposed Action include the groundfish

22 and forage fish species discussed in Subsections 3.3.3, Non-Salmonid Fishes (Groundfish): Affected

23 Environment, and 3.3.4, Forage Species (Pacific Herring, Sandlance, Smelt): Affected Environment.

24 Impacts of the Proposed Action or alternatives to groundfish species would result from changes in the

25 incidental catch of these species in marine salmon fisheries. Impacts to forage fish species would be

26 related to possible changes in the predator-prey relationship resulting from changes in the marine

27 abundance of salmon.

28 According to Palsson (2002), marine salmon anglers take approximately 0.65 groundfish per trip.

29 Therefore, with Alternative 1, the incidental catch of groundfish species in sport salmon fisheries is

30 predicted to be approximately 241,765 groundfish, based on the area-wide average catch per trip.

31 Species comprising the recreational catch include Pacific halibut, other flatfish, lingcod, rockfish
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 68 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 (Sebastes spp.), Pacific cod, and dogfish, but the species composition of groundfish caught incidentally

2 during salmon fishing has not been quantified. Under Alternative 1, it is likely that sportfishing effort

3 would vary somewhat under the different scenarios, but it is difficult to predict how that variability

4 would affect the incidental catch of groundfish.

5 Under Alternative 2, 3, or 4 there would be no marine sport fisheries in Puget Sound, so incidental

6 catch of groundfish would be reduced by 100 percent with either of these alternatives. As discussed in

7 Subsection 3.3.3, commercial fisheries targeting salmon attempt to avoid incidental harvest of

8 groundfish species, and landings of groundfish species in commercial salmon fisheries are rarely

9 reported.

10 Under Alternative 2, most commercial salmon fisheries in marine areas would be closed (the marine

11 fisheries that would occur under Alternative 2 are nearshore using beach seines or set gillnets and

12 therefore are anticipated to have a negligible impact on groundfish), and under Alternative 3 or 4, all

13 commercial salmon fisheries in marine areas would be closed. Therefore, incidental catch of groundfish

14 under either of these alternatives would be eliminated relative to Alternative 1. This would represent a

15 substantial beneficial impact to these species. Chinook and coho salmon are key predators of sandlance,

16 herring, and smelt, the predominant forage fish species present in Puget Sound. Sockeye, chum and

17 pink salmon, particularly as juveniles, feed predominately on small, free-swimming crustacea, but

18 adults occasionally feed on forage fish species. The direct impacts of the Proposed Action or

19 alternatives would be related to reductions in catch under Alternative 2, 3, or 4 that would potentially

20 increase predation by adult salmon on these forage fish species during the period in which fisheries

21 would otherwise take place. Other effects would be indirect in nature, and are discussed below in

22 Subsection 4.3.8, Indirect and Cumulative Effects.

23 4.3.4 Fish Habitat

24 The primary impacts of salmon fisheries on fish habitat occur as a result of tribal and sport fisheries in

25 river areas, and include disruptions of spawning beds by wading fishermen and boat traffic, and, to a

26 lesser extent, degradation of streamside habitat. As required by the Magnuson-Steven’s Conservation

27 and Management Act, NMFS conducted an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the 2003 4(d)

28 determination and concluded that Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) would not adversely affect

29 designated EFH for chinook salmon. NMFS is currently conducting an EFH consultation on the 2004

30 2005–-2009 4(d) determination that will be complete for the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

31 However, since the anticipated fishery structure of the Proposed Action is similar to that of the 2003

32 fisheries Resource Management Plan, the effects on EFH are also likely to be similar. Therefore, at this
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 69 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 time, NMFS does not anticipate Alternative 1 will adversely affect designated EFH. Fisheries modeled

2 under Alternatives 2 and 3 are predicted to increase the level of fishing effort in freshwater areas and,

3 potentially, would result in a possible low adverse impact on fish habitat. Fisheries modeled under

4 Alternative 4 are predicted to decrease fishing effort in freshwater areas relative to Alternative 1, and

5 are therefore predicted to eliminate the potential impact to fish habitat from these sources and would

6 thus be considered to have a no to low beneficial impact. However, regardless of the alternative

7 considered, these effects would occur to some degree through the occurrence of fisheries other than

8 those addressed in Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action); e.g., recreational freshwater trout or steelhead

9 fisheries, that do not take listed Puget Sound salmon species.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 70 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.3.5 Marine-Derived Nutrients from Spawning Salmon 

2 The input of nutrients into freshwater systems associated with the return of adult salmon is, at the 

3 simplest level, directly related to the biomass of spawners of all species. However, as described in 

4 Affected Environment (Subsection 3.3.6, Marine-Derived Nutrients from Spawning Salmon), the 

5 processes by which juvenile chinook and other species benefit directly and indirectly from this source 

6 of nutrients comprise a highly complex transport web.

7 Nutrients provided by adult salmon to freshwater systems are, at the simplest level, directly related to 

8 the biomass of spawners of all species. However, as described in the Affected Environment (Subsection 

9 3.3.5, Marine-Derived Nutrients from Spawning Salmon), highly complex processes determine how 

10 juvenile chinook salmon and other species benefit directly and indirectly from this source of nutrients.

11 This subsection refers to the modeled spawning escapement of all salmon species, converted to carcass 

12 biomass predicted to result from implementation of the Proposed Action or alternative harvest 

13 management regimes, and assesses the nutrient-related effects on the production and survival of 

14 juvenile chinook. At the current state of scientific inquiry in this field, variability in the factors 

15 affecting salmon-derived nutrient loading; and the state of technical tools necessary to quantify nutrient 

16 loading, it is not possible to quantify nutrient loading in any one Puget Sound river system, or to 

17 measure the differences in growth and survival of juvenile chinook in a system that would result from 

18 different spawner abundance of all salmon species.

19 in any one Puget Sound river system, or the differences in growth and survival of juvenile chinook in a 

20 system that would result from different spawner abundance of all salmon species, are not available.

21 Nutrient loading is affected by spawner density, which varies greatly among species and river reaches, 

22 and by stream flow, water temperature, stream channel structure, and a multitude of other factors that 

23 affect carcass and nutrient availability, decomposition, and retention (see Subsection 3.3.5, Marine24 Derived Nutrients from Spawning Salmon: Affected Environment).

25 The following analysis compares adult salmonid escapement and spawner biomass among alternatives 

26 for Scenario B, because this scenario is the most likely combination of chinook abundance and fisheries 

27 to occur over the duration of the Proposed Action. The variability in escapement associated with the 

28 other Canadian/Alaskan fishery and abundance scenarios (A, C, or D) is noted, but does not influence 

29 the relative magnitude of the potential impact of the alternatives. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 71 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 It must be noted that added nutrients, above current levels, may not be desirable in all streams. The 

2 Washington Department of Ecology reports that more than 2,600 bodies of water throughout 

3 Washington are listed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as Category 5, “polluted.” For 

4 those waters, and others with lesser water quality problems, increased nutrient loads may not provide a 

5 benefit to fish and wildlife. Lackey (2003) reminds us that federal and state legislation has, for many 

6 years, focused on reducing the nutrient and toxic pollutant input associated with human development, 

7 so intentionally managing salmonids to increase nutrient input has complex implications for public 

8 policy. 

9 4.3.5.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo 

10 To compare the consequences of the Proposed Action or alternatives, the biomass of spawning salmon 

11 is compared for four three river systems – the Skagit River, Snohomish River, and Stillaguamish River, 

12 and the Green-Duwamish River. These systems offer examples that contrast the variation in total 

13 spawner biomass in different systems, and the contribution of chinook salmon to total spawner 

14 biomass. For this analysis, biomass was approximated from modeled escapements and average weights 

15 for each species (i.e., 15 pounds for chinook, 12 pounds for chum, 6 pounds for coho, and 4 pounds for 

16 pink salmon) (personal communication with Robert Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative, Salmon 

17 Recovery Biologist, August 19, 1999). Sockeye salmon are not included in this accounting, because 

18 they spawn only in the Baker River drainage of the Skagit basin and in the Cedar River (Lake 

19 Washington system), and therefore are not broadly representative of the species composition in Puget 

20 Sound watersheds with spawning salmon. Salmon escapement in other river systems in Puget Sound 

21 varies from that in the three example watersheds. Pink salmon are not generally abundance, except in 

22 the Nooksack River, and recently in the Green River, whereas chum salmon are widely distributed and 

23 spawn in large and small river and stream systems.

24 Under Alternative 1, the co-managers’ proposed harvest plan, total spawner biomass is projected to 

25 exceed 2.86 million pounds in the Skagit River system, 1.80 million pounds in the Snohomish River 

26 system, and 1.010 million pounds in the Stillaguamish River system, and 0.15 million pounds in the 

27 Green-Duwamish River system (Table 4.3.5-1). In the Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish River 

28 systems, chinook salmon contribute a small proportion (i.e., 4% to 7%) of the total biomass, while 

29 coho, pink, and chum salmon each comprise much larger proportions. By contrast, in the Green30 Duwamish River, coho and chum salmon escapement is relatively low, but chinook salmon comprise 

31 59 percent of total spawner biomass. Hatchery-origin chinook salmon comprise a relatively small 

32 proportion of chinook salmon escapement toin the Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish River 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 72 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 systems, but a large proportion of chinook salmon escapement to the Green-Duwamish River system, 

2 but have contributed up to 55 percent in the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River. Chinook spawning 

escapement is predicted to vary from 3 percent higher to 24 percent lower than Scenario Bxiii 3 , if 

4 abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries varies as specified in Scenarios A, C, or D. Total spawning 

5 escapement would also vary with changes in overall abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest 

6 levels, but information is not currently available to quantify the amount. 

7 Table 4.3.5-1 Biomass (pounds) of spawning salmon in the Skagit, Snohomish, and Green 

8 rStillaguamish Rivers, under Alternative 1. 

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Total

Skagit 193,104 441,744 1,723,168 506,840 2,864,856

Snohomish 73,511 821,238 692,000 211,200 1,797,949

Stillaguamish 34,215 144,102 656,000 172,800 1,007,117 9 

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Total

203,310 441,744 1,723,168 506,840 2,875,061

76,089 821,238 692,000 211,200 1,800,527

87,285 42,377 0 18,111 147,773

34,830 144,102 656,000 172,800 1,007,732

10 The extent to which these escapements promote or constrain the productivity of natural chinook salmon 

11 populations cannot be quantified, due to factors discussed above and the lack of basin-specific 

12 empirical understanding of the relationship between escapement, nutrient loading, and salmon 

13 productivity. Intuitively, any factor that increases the growth rate of juvenile chinook salmon could, 

14 potentially, increase their survival through their freshwater, estuarine, and early marine life stages, but 

15 this effect has not been empirically demonstrated for Puget Sound chinook. Chinook populations that 

16 characteristically produce high proportions of yearling smolts will be more likely to benefit, given their 

 

xiii Spawning escapements projected to occur under Alternative 1 may vary substantially from the example 

provided above for some systems in some years. In the Skagit system, for example, total spawner biomass 

ranged from 1.0 to 5.2 million pounds in 1998 – 2002 (personal communication with Robert Hayman, Skagit 

River System Cooperative, August 2003). Units for which harvest is managed under exploitation rate objectives 

are predicted to experience variable escapement, increasing or decreasing in direct relation to total abundance. 

For some units managed under escapement goals, recent experience suggests that escapement may also exceed 

goals depending on abundance, but less so than under exploitation rate management since all abundance above 

the goal is considered available for harvest. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 73 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 extended freshwater residence, as is predicted to juvenile coho salmon and steelhead, all of which 

2 reside in freshwater for more than one year before smolting. However, ocean-type chinook populations, 

3 and pink and chum salmon, might also benefit from increased nutrient loading, particularly if it 

4 increases prey availability in estuarine areas. 

5 If nutrient loading currently imposes a primary constraint on juvenile salmon survival, then the 

6 consequences of Alternative 1 are predicted to maintain the status quo in this regard. If production and 

7 availability of the Nutrient-related constraint of productivity rests on the assumption that the preferred 

8 prey of juvenile coho salmon is limited by current nutrient loading from salmon carcassessuch that, at 

9 some point in their early life history, the growth and survival of juvenile salmon is reduced under 

10 current conditions. This hypothesis is supported for some salmon species by numerous studies that 

11 consistently show increased growth rates among juvenile coho and steelhead when carcass loading is 

12 increased (Bilby et al. 1998; and Wipfli et al. 1999). However, information is insufficient to identify in 

13 which populations of Puget Sound chinook, or other salmon species, survival might be affected.

14 If habitat conditions or other physical and biotic factors currently limit survival, maintaining recent 

15 escapements will have little or no effect on chinook productivity. For example, circumstantial evidence 

16 suggests this is the case in the Skagit River. The magnitude of peak river flow during the chinook 

17 incubation period, presumably due to increased risk of scour and sediment deposition in spawning 

18 areas, has correlated very closely with Age-0 chinook smolt production (Seiler et al. 2002 and 2000). 

19 There is no odd-even year pattern of chinook smolt abundance or survival rate, as is predicted to be 

20 expected if the observed variation in pink salmon carcass loading affected chinook survival. Though 

21 such an effect is predicted to be statistically difficult to detect, given the overwhelming influence of 

22 incubation period flow, there is no significant correlation between chinook salmon smolt abundance 

23 and escapement of other species, even when the effects of flow are taken into account (personal 

24 communication with Robert Hayman, Skagit River System Cooperative, Salmon Recovery Planner, 

25 August 19, 1999). 

26 This hypothesis will continue to be tested when the productivity of systems in which salmon 

27 escapement has recently increased substantially is reassessed. Under Alternative 1, such monitoring is 

28 required, and adjustment of management objectives is mandated, if studies determine that the 

29 productivity of chinook or other salmon species is nutrient-limited. 

30 Implementation of Alternative 1 would also maintain current conditions among the wide variety of 

31 other aquatic and terrestrial species that feed directly on carcasses or utilize marine derived nutrients. 

32 Because the abundance of returning salmon varies annually, their potential nutrient contribution will 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 74 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 also vary over the short term from the baseline level examined in this assessment. Direct consumers of 

2 carcasses – aquatic invertebrates, fish, mammals, and birds – will experience this annual fluctuation in 

3 abundance, whereas indirect plant or animal consumers will be less affected because these nutrients are 

4 stored and re-cycled within the local trophic web. This assessment cannot practically examine the range 

5 of possible effects of Alternative 1 on all fish and wildlife species that utilize marine derived nutrition. 

6 Ignoring, for the moment, the likelihood of annual variation in salmon escapement, the current level of 

7 carcass nutrient will persist under Alternative 1, so major changes in the distribution and abundance of 

8 consumer species is not anticipated.

9 4.3.5.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level 

10 Under Alternative 2, Scenario B, total salmon spawner biomass is predicted to be 3.91 million pounds 

11 in the Skagit River (376% higher than with Alternative 1), 1.84 million pounds in the Snohomish 

12 system (2% higher than with Alternative 1), and 1.40 million pounds in the Stillaguamish River system 

13 (39% higher than with Alternative 1), and 0.20 million pounds in the Green-Duwamish River system 

(34% higher than with Alternative 1) (Table 4.3.5-2)xiv 14 .

15 Assuming no scouring floods and sufficient carcass retention time, a broader distribution of carcasses 

16 throughout the river system might enhance primary and secondary local production (e.g., increase the 

17 production of aquatic algae, some riparian plant species, and invertebrate consumers at lower trophic 

18 levels)vity. Detailed analysis of spawner distribution is not available for this assessment; however, it 

19 may be possible that the predominant abundance of pink and chum spawners is predicted to be 

20 sufficient to supply the nutrients essential to the production of salmon prey species. This assumes that 

21 the carcasses are retained, and that marine-derived nutrients drive production of prey in habitat that is 

22 utilized by juvenile chinook salmon. However, increase in spawner abundancepresence of carcasses, 

23 and resultant higher productivity, might be inhibited bynot result in higher survival of juvenile salmon 

24 if other habitat factors, such as incubation period flows or the availability of suitable spawning or 

25 rearing habitat limits survival. If, on the other hand, habitat is not limiting, Alternative 2 could have a 

26 beneficial effect on nutrient loading and subsequent production. Therefore, aAlthough spawner 

27 biomass is predicted to be substantially higher with Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 for all of 

 

xiv Note, however, that these increases in total spawner biomass, comprise fewer spawners of some species (e.g., 

fewer chinook and/or coho in the Stillaguamish and Snohomish systems). Because species are distributed 

differently in the watersheds, their nutrient inputs, and effects, will not be equal, pound for pound.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 75 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 three the four of the example systems, it is not possible for these reasons to predict the difference in 

2 effects on the productivity of chinook salmon or other species. 

3 Table 4.3.5-2 Biomass (pounds) of spawning salmon in the Skagit, Snohomish, and Green 

4 Stillaguamish rRivers, under Alternative 2. 

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Total

Skagit 239,163 659,322 2,461,623 552,851 3,912,959

Snohomish 69,046 244,914 1,096,771 426,993 1,837,725

Stillaguamish 13,560 172,134 801,439 410,333 1,397,467 5 

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Total

250,956 659,322 2,461,623 552,851 3,924,752

82,123 1,122,396 1,096,771 426,993 2,728,284

87,000 62,951 0 47,971 197,922

37,020 209,040 1,018,762 419,565 1,684,387

6 For chinook salmon populations that would be managed under exploitation rate objectives with 

7 Alternative 1 (i.e., the Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish management units), changing to 

8 escapement goal management is predicted to result in more stable numbers of spawners, provided that 

9 these goals were consistently achieved. This outcome is predicted to depend on accurate forecasting 

10 methods and low management error (see Subsection 4.3.8, Indirect and Cumulative Effects). The 

11 objectives for populations for which harvest is already managed to achieve escapement goals is 

12 predicted to not change with Alternative 2, but under the Puget Sound chinook abundance scenarios 

13 considered by this review, escapement goal management is predicted to virtually preclude marine 

14 harvest. Spawning escapement relative to Alternative 1 is predicted to increase as a result, particularly 

15 where terminal fisheries could not completely harvest the surplus of all species. 

16 The abundance and production of other aquatic and terrestrial species that feed directly on salmon 

17 carcasses and eggs, or utilize marine-derived nutrients, is likely to increase under Alternative 2. Higher 

18 spawner abundance will increase the local abundance of avian and mammalian predators, as they are 

19 attracted to spawning streams. Many studies (see Subsection 3.3.6) indicate that production of aquatic 

20 invertebrates will increase, and provide more food for their predators. Effects could be manifest as 

21 increased over-winter survival and increased productivity in subsequent years for many species. 

22 Quantifying these effects is not possible in this assessment, because baseline abundance and 

23 production, or increase, has not been measured at the watershed or population scale for affected 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 76 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 species. Again, this conclusion rests on the assumption that other environmental factors not 

2 constraining their survival and production.

3 4.3.5.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

4 Fisheries Only 

5 The spawning biomass for all species of salmon, and resultant nutrient loading, is predicted to increase 

6 substantially relative to Alternative 1, if Alternative 3 were implemented. Under Alternative 3, total 

7 biomass of spawning salmon is predicted to be 3.91 million pounds, or 36 percent higher in the Skagit 

8 River system, , 2.73 million pounds or 52 percent higher in the Snohomish River system, and 1.68 

9 million pounds, or 67 percent higher in the Stillaguamish River system, and 34 percent higher in the 

10 Green-Duwamish River system, relative to Alternative 1 (Table 4.3.5-3). As with Alternative 2,T the 

11 contribution of chinook salmon to total nutrient loading is predicted to be slightly less than with 

12 Alternative 1, because the virtual closure of all marine-area fisheries is predicted to result in 

13 proportionately greater escapement of other specieshese total biomass estimates comprise higher 

14 escapement levels of all species in each of the three example rivers than under Alternative 1, but 

15 particularly higher abundance of coho, pink and chum salmon. 

16 The effect of the projected increase in total salmon escapement on the productivity of chinook or other 

17 salmon species in these example systems, or within the Puget Sound ESU in general, cannot be 

18 quantified with current information due to the degree of variability in the environmental factors 

19 discussed above. As described above, juvenile chinook salmon with extended freshwater rearing 

20 (particularly those that smolt as yearlings) are predicted to be more likely to benefit from Alternative 3. 

21 But the nutrient loading (i.e., carcass density) thresholds necessary to support optimal primary and 

22 secondary productivity have not been determined for any Puget Sound basin. Therefore, the 

23 consequences to individual populations of implementing Alternative 3 are unknown, and are predicted 

24 to vary among different river systems. Also, if current habitat conditions create a primary constraint on 

25 system capacity and productivity, any beneficial effects of increased spawner abundance and nutrient 

26 loading may be offset by increased competition for suitable spawning habitat, redd superimposition, or 

27 overcrowding of rearing habitat. If, on the other hand, habitat is not limiting, Alternative 3 could have a 

28 beneficial effect on nutrient loading and subsequent production. Therefore, although spawner biomass 

29 is predicted to be substantially higher compared to Alternative 1 for all four three of the example 

30 systems, it is not possible for these reasons to predict the difference in effects on the productivity of 

31 chinook salmon or other species. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 77 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.5-3 Biomass (pounds) of spawning salmon in the Skagit, Snohomish, and Green 

2 Stillaguamish rRivers, under Alternative 3. 

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Total

Skagit 239,182 659,322 2,461,623 552,851 3,912,978

Snohomish 80,514 1,122,396 1,096,771 426,993 2,726,675

Stillaguamish 36,690 209,040 1,018,762 419,565 1,684,057 3 

4 The beneficial effects of implementing Alternative 3 on other aquatic and terrestrial species cannot be 

5 quantified, but the qualitative effects, discussed under Alternative 2 above, might also result under 

6 Alternative 3.

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Total

250,937 659,322 2,461,623 552,851 3,924,734

69,514 244,914 1,096,771 426,993 1,838,192

87,000 62,951 0 47,971 197,922

13,545 172,134 801,439 410,333 1,397,452

7 4.3.5.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take 

8 Preclusion of all fisheries that harvest listed chinook salmon, as envisioned under Alternative 4, is 

9 predicted to result in substantially higher spawning escapement of all salmon species, and possibly 

10 substantially higher nutrient loading than is predicted to occur with Alternative 1. Total spawner 

11 biomass in the three example river systems is predicted to be virtually identical to that predicted under 

12 Alternative 3, i.e., 37 percent higher in the Skagit River system, 52 percent higher in the Snohomish 

13 River system, and 67 percent higher in the Stillaguamish River system, and 98 percent higher in the 

14 Green-Duwamish River system, compared to Alternative 1 (Table 4.3.5-4). 

15 As noted in the preceding discussion, the effects of higher spawner biomass cannot be assumed to 

16 increase the productivity of chinook or other salmon species. Increases in productivity are predicted to 

17 be expected where nutrient input now limits prey availability, with consequent effect on the growth and 

18 survival of juvenile salmon. Increase in survival is predicted to only be realized if other habitat 

19 constraints on survival were addressed. Competition for suitable spawning areas, and other density20 dependent factors may also counteract the potential nutrient-related benefit to growth and survival of 

21 juvenile chinook salmon. Therefore, although spawner biomass is predicted to be substantially higher 

22 with Alternative 4 compared to Alternative 1 for all four three of the example systems, it is not possible 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 78 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 for these reasons to predict the difference in effects on the productivity of chinook salmon or other 

2 species. 

3 Table 4.3.5-4 Biomass (pounds) of spawning salmon in the Skagit, Snohomish, and Green 

4 rStillaguamish Rivers, under Alternative 4. 

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Total

Skagit 239,182 660,132 2,461,623 552,851 3,913,788

Snohomish 80,514 1,122,396 1,096,771 426,993 2,726,675

Stillaguamish 36,690 209,040 1,018,762 419,565 1,684,057 5 

Chinook Coho Pink Chum Total

250,956 660,132 2,461,623 552,851 3,925,562

82,562 1,122,396 1,096,771 426,993 2,728,723

158,370 88,024 0 52,980 299,374

37,020 209,040 1,018,762 419,565 1,684,387

6 

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 79 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.3.6 Selectivity on Biological Characteristics of Salmon 

2 Puget Sound fisheries regimes would vary substantially between the Proposed Action and alternatives 

3 considered in this Environmental Assessment, with respect to their selective effects on target species. 

4 This section qualitatively compares their effects, focusing on chinook salmon since that is the subject 

5 of the Proposed Action. It must be stated at the outset that a quantitative or theoretical analysis of the 

6 selective effects of current or historical fishing regimes has not been done in Puget Sound, except on a 

7 limited basis (Hard 2004 and as described in Subsection 3.3.7). As described in the Affected 

8 Environment (Subsection 3.3.7), long-time series of data describing the age composition and size of 

9 chinook salmon in catch and on the spawning grounds exist for many Puget Sound chinook salmon 

10 populations. However, the quality of the data vary greatly from population to population. Better data 

11 generally exist for returns to hatcheries. The causes for observed variation or trends in these biological 

12 characteristics are highly complex and confounded with each other, as discussed in Subsection 3.3.7. 

13 Although there is some indication that fisheries may be responsible for some proportion of the trends in 

14 size-at-age observed for some Puget Sound chinook populations, Tthe influence of fisheries selectivity 

15 on variation and trends cannot be isolated from environmental and other causes. Furthermore, historical 

16 data reflect a constantly-changing fishing regime in fisheries inside and outside of Washington, 

17 particularly during the last decade (1991−2001). The selective effects of historically higher fishing 

18 pressure, for all gear types, are likely to have declined substantially as exploitation rates on Puget 

19 Sound chinook salmon have fallen (PSIT and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2004). The 

20 relative harvest rates exerted by different gear types, and the distribution of effort by different gear 

21 types, have changed dramatically over the last 30 years. Furthermore, fishing regimes like those 

22 envisioned under Alternative 2 or 3 have never existed in Puget Sound, so their effects are necessarily a 

23 matter of conjecture. 

24 Review of the scientific literature (discussed in Subsection 3.3.7) suggests that Puget Sound fisheries 

25 would exert some degree of selectivity on the size- or age-composition of chinook salmon, but 

26 available data do not indicate any changes or trends in the age composition of catch or escapement over 

27 the last several decades. As discussed in Subsection 3.3.7, the available data suggests that fisheries may 

28 exert some selective effects on some Puget Sound chinook populations, but do not indicate significant 

29 declines in size-at-age in the natural components of populations with moderate to high exploitation 

30 rates as might be expected. Hard (2004) concluded that selective effects over a 25 year period would be 

31 negligible or low at harvest rates less than approximately 40 percent. Further simulation with available 

32 data suggests that even for the hatchery components of populations with exploitation rates in excess of 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 80 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 50 percent and observed declines in size-at-age for ages most vulnerable to selective fishing effects, 

2 fisheries generally explain only a modest fraction of the observed trends (see Subsection 3.3.7). 

3 Exploitation rates on most chinook salmon populations associated with Puget Sound fisheries during 

4 the period 2004 2005−2009 fishing seasons are projected to fall well below this level in fishing regimes 

5 examined in this Environmental Impact Statement. The potential selective effects of fisheries will 

6 continue to be re-examined on a regular basis as part of the monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive 

7 management provisions of the Proposed Action or alternatives.

8 Since the pattern of exploitation rates across alternatives is similar for each scenario and cannot be 

9 quantitatively related to changes in size or age except on a very gross scale, the results have been 

10 combined across scenarios and are presented only by alternative for the purposes of the selective 

11 effects discussion. 

12 4.3.6.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo 

13 The Proposed Action represents a diverse spatial and temporal array of commercial net and recreational 

14 hook-and-line fisheries in marine and freshwater areas of Puget Sound. Some net fisheries would 

15 operate in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Rosario Strait, and the Strait of Georgia, where stocks originating 

16 in Puget Sound and British Columbia commingle. These fisheries target sockeye, pink, and chum 

17 salmon, and harvest relatively few chinook salmon. Non-treaty purse seine vessels are required to 

18 release chinook salmon, and seines are designed to reduce the catch of immature chinook. In aggregate, 

19 these fisheries are likely to exert relatively low selective effects on chinook salmon. 

20 Gillnet fisheries predominate commercial harvest of chinook salmon in other marine and freshwater 

21 areas in Puget Sound; e.g., Bellingham Bay/Samish Bay, Skagit Bay/Saratoga Passage, Port 

22 Susan/Possession Sound, central and south Puget Sound, and Hood Canal. The selectivity of gillnet 

23 gear is directly related to the mesh size, which is commonly expressed as the stretched diagonal 

24 dimension. Fishing regulations specify the mesh dimension for each gillnet fishery; different mesh 

25 sizes are specified for each target species. Chinook-directed gillnet fisheries typically use 61⁄2-inch 

26 mesh, which is ineffective in capturing the smallest and largest size classes of chinook salmon. Pink27 and coho-directed salmon fisheries typically use smaller mesh (e.g., 5-inch), which captures fewer 

28 large chinook, and a larger number of smaller chinook salmon. Capture efficiency is also affected by 

29 many other factors, including ambient light, water clarity, net design (hanging), and current. The size30 or age-composition of chinook salmon before and after they encounter a net fishery has not been 

31 experimentally compared in Puget Sound, so the vulnerability of different ages or sizes of chinook 

32 salmon has not been quantified.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 81 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Each year, Puget Sound fisheries during the period 2004 2005−2009 fishing seasons will harvest 

2 varying proportions of five cohorts of chinook salmon (i.e., Age-2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 fish). During that 

3 period, Puget Sound fisheries will affect the dominant age classes of five brood cycles (brood years 

4 2001−2005). As discussed in Subsection 3.3.7, the majority of harvest will be of Age-3 to Age-5 fish, 

5 with Age-4 fish comprising the largest proportion. The primary concern is that Puget Sound fisheries 

6 might remove a large proportion of older, larger chinook salmon, or chinook that, if not harvested, 

7 would be larger and older at maturity, and that depleted of these age and size classes, spawners that 

8 escape fisheries would be less productive. However, the magnitude of the immediate effect on the 

9 cohorts of a population that are vulnerable to fishing in a given year will depend on fishing pressure 

10 (exploitation rate) and how the fishing season is structured. Under Alternative 1, annual exploitation 

11 rates would range from 17 to 76 percent on Puget Sound chinook management units depending on the 

12 scenario; rates would be below 40 percent for 10 of the 15 management units (Table 4.3.6.1-1). 

13 Southern U.S. exploitation rates would range from 5 to 68 percent depending on the scenario and 

14 management unit; rates would be below 40 percent for twelve of the fifteen management units (Table 

15 4.3.6.1-1). For most natural units, then, under Alternative 1, two-thirds of the management units would 

16 experience total exploitation rates below the level where selective effects might occur (Hard 2004). 

17 Only three management units (Green-Duwamish, Nisqually and Skokomish) would experience 

18 exploitation rates above this level directly as a result of southern U.S. fisheries (primarily in Puget 

19 Sound) (Table 4.3.6.1-2). Commercial fisheries would not operate continuously through the fishing 

20 season. In most fishing areas, commercial openings would be scheduled for one to three days per week. 

21 This pulsed schedule is designed to distribute harvest mortality and escapement across the entire 

22 migration timing of the population(s) present in that area. Recreational fisheries would generally open 

23 for longer periods, though effort is expected to be much higher on weekends and holidays. Recreational 

24 fisheries that target immature chinook salmon in the winter and spring (November through April) 

25 would be open for intermittent month-long periods (i.e., they would not operate continuously for 6 

26 months). 

27 If the Alternative 1 fisheries regime were implemented for the 2004 2005−2009 management 

28 yearsfishing seasons, it would be expected to exert minor changes to the age and size composition of 

29 most Puget Sound chinook salmon populations that, absent fishing, would spawn naturally. Each year, 

30 the fishery will influence the age and size composition of spawners in that year, and in three or four 

31 subsequent years (i.e., when the youngest cohort contributing to that year’s fishery matures). As a 

32 result, fisheries implemented under Alternative 1 during the 2004 2005−2009 fishing seasons would 

33 affect the dominant age classes of five brood cycles (brood years 2001 2002−2005). Similarly, the 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 82 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 composition of spawners in 2004 2005−20062009 will have already been influenced by fisheries prior 

2 to 2004 2005. If, as some studies assert, the productivity of a given population is, under adverse 

3 freshwater conditions, more dependent on the higher fecundity and spawning success (i.e., number of 

4 fertilized eggs per female) of older, larger fish, then the productivity of the period 2004 2005−2009 

5 broods might be lower as a result of fishing. Data are not available to estimate the magnitude of the 

6 short-term effect (i.e., the reduction in recruits per spawner for, say, the 2004 2005 brood) for any of 

7 the affected broods, nor has it been estimated empirically for any previous brood year. Smolt 

8 production is strongly influenced by complex environmental factors, and is particularly sensitive to the 

9 magnitude of high flows during the incubation season (Seiler et al 2000). Though redds constructed by 

10 older or larger females may be somewhat less vulnerable to high flow, the reduction in productivity 

11 implied by a slightly lower proportion of older spawners cannot be estimated in the face of high 

12 uncertainty about flow conditions that will prevail in the winters of 2004 2005−2010. 

13 Further circumstantial evidence suggests that the long-term selective effects of fisheries are predicted 

14 to be minor, if not undetectable. The average fecundity of mature Skagit River summer chinook salmon 

15 has not declined from 1973 to the present (Orrell 1976; and SSC 2002). The age composition of Skagit 

16 River summer/fall chinook salmon harvested in the terminal area has varied widely over the last 30 

17 years, particularly with respect to the proportions of Age-3 and Age-4 fish, but there is no declining 

18 trend in the contribution of Age-5 fish, which has averaged 15 percent (Henderson and Hayman 2002; 

19 and R. Hayman, Skagit Systems Cooperative December 9, 2002, personal communication).

20 As described in Subsection 3.3.7, no decline in average age has been detected for other Puget Sound 

21 chinook salmon populations for which data are available (Figure 3.3.7-2), including the Green22 Duwaumish which commonly experienced fishery exploitation rates of 60 to 70 percent through the 

23 early 1990s. Collectively, the mixture of upward and downward observed trends in size-at-age for the 

24 Puget Sound chinook salmon populations analyzed, and the fact that the expected trends estimated by 

25 the harvest model generally explain only a modest fraction (<50%) of corresponding observed trends,

26 suggest that environmental influences are large on the observed size trends. It was not possible from 

27 the present analysis to discriminate reliably between harvest and environmental effects on growth and 

28 size. Declining total exploitation rates on most natural chinook salmon stocks in Puget Sound in the last 

29 ten years (1991−2001) from averages of 70 to 90 percent to averages of 30 to 50 percent, due in part to 

30 decline in exploitation rates in Puget Sound fisheries, would suggest that selective pressure has also 

31 been reduced. Exploitation rates are expected to remain lower during implementation of the Proposed 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 83 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Action. To the extent that effects have been detected, they would be expected to decrease under these 

2 lower rates unless the use of selective gear types increases.

3 In light of the information presented above, implementation of Alternative 1 is predicted to have a no to 

4 low negative effect on size and age as a result of the size-selective effects of fishing. 

5 Table 4.3.6.1-1. Range of expected total exploitation rates by Puget Sound chinook management unit 

6 during the period 2004 2005−2009. 

Puget Sound Chinook

(Management Unit/Population) minimum maximum minimum maximum minimum maximum minimum maximum

 Dungeness Spring 0.22 0.29 0.19 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.19 0.26

 Western Strait-Hoko 0.23 0.30 0.19 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.19 0.26

 Elwha 0.22 0.30 0.19 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.19 0.26

 Nooksack Spring 0.20 0.26 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.20

 Skagit

 Spring 0.23 0.28 0.12 0.17 0.12 0.17 0.12 0.17

 Upper Sauk

 Suiattle

 Upper Cascade

 Summer/Fall 0.48 0.56 0.32 0.43 0.32 0.43 0.32 0.43

 Lower Sauk

 Upper Skagit

 Lower Skagit

 Stillaguamish 0.17 0.20 0.52 0.67 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.11

 Snohomish 0.19 0.23 0.10 0.23 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.13

 Lake Washington 0.31 0.38 0.18 0.25 0.18 0.25 0.18 0.25

 Green-Duwamish 0.49 0.63 0.36 0.56 0.36 0.56 0.18 0.25

 Puyallup 0.49 0.50 0.57 0.71 0.57 0.71 0.18 0.25

 Nisqually 0.64 0.76 0.61 0.73 0.61 0.73 0.16 0.23

 White Spring 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.46 0.22 0.46 0.02 0.03

 Mid-Canal 0.26 0.34 0.19 0.28 0.19 0.28 0.19 0.28

 Skokomish 0.45 0.63 0.43 0.61 0.43 0.61 0.19 0.28

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

7 

8 Exploitation rates greater than 0.4 are shaded. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 84 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.6.1-2. Range of expected southern U.S. exploitation rates by Puget Sound chinook 

2 management unit during the period 2004 2005−2009. 

Puget Sound Chinook

(Management Unit/Population) minimum maximum minimum maximum minimum maximum minimum maximum

 Dungeness Spring 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

 Western Strait-Hoko 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

 Elwha 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

 Nooksack Spring 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

 Skagit

 Spring 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

 Upper Sauk

 Suiattle

 Upper Cascade

 Summer/Fall 0.16 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01

 Lower Sauk

 Upper Skagit

 Lower Skagit

 Stillaguamish 0.11 0.12 0.43 0.60 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

 Snohomish 0.13 0.14 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.03

 Lake Washington (Cedar River p 0.20 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

 Green-Duwamish 0.36 0.51 0.18 0.42 0.18 0.42 0.05 0.05

 Puyallup 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.57 0.39 0.57 0.05 0.05

 Nisqually 0.53 0.68 0.47 0.63 0.47 0.63 0.07 0.08

 White Spring 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.46 0.20 0.46 0.01 0.01

 Mid-Canal 0.12 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

 Skokomish 0.26 0.50 0.23 0.46 0.23 0.46 0.05 0.05

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

3 

4 Exploitation rates greater than 0.4 are shaded. 

5 4.3.6.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level 

6 Implementation of Alternative 3 for the 2004 2005−2009 management yearsfishing seasons would 

7 preclude marine net and recreational fisheries in Puget Sound except for a small marine net fishery in 

8 Tulalip Bay, and substantially reduce exploitation rates on most chinook salmon natural management 

9 units. The size-selective effects of pre-terminal net fisheries predicted to occur under Alternative 1, 

10 would not occur. Except for the limited Tulalip Bay fishery, gillnet fishery effects would be confined to 

11 those associated with in-river fisheries, and further confined to fisheries directed at other species in 

12 most rivers. The selective effects of recreational fisheries, which with Alternative 1 would operate 

13 under a 22-inch minimum size restriction, would also be eliminated. 

14 The consequences of implementing Alternative 2, however, cannot be quantified in terms of a change 

15 in the age- or size-composition of chinook spawners during the period 20045−2009. Though 

16 exploitation rates would be lower for most populations relative to Alternative 1, these would be 

17 declines from already-low rates for most populations in the ESU. In addition, although overall, rates 

18 would be lower than under Alternative 1, exploitation rates would generally be greater than 40 percent 

19 for many of the same management units noted under Alternative 1. The range of exploitation rates for 

20 two additional management units (White River [upper end of range only] and Stillaguamish) are 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 85 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 anticipated to exceed 40 percent, significantly greater than the rates anticipated under Alternative 1. 

2 Seven management units could exceed 40 percent exploitation rate as compared with five management 

3 units under Alternative 1, although the lower end of the range for the Skagit summer/fall and Green4 Duwamish management units would be below 40 percent under Alternative 2 (Table 4.3.6.1-1). Six 

5 management units would be expected to exceed 40 percent exploitation in southern U.S. fisheries 

6 compared with three under Alternative 1 (Table 4.3.6.1-2). However, where exploitation rates would be 

7 lower than under Alternative 1, it is reasonable to expect that the proportion of older and larger fish in 

8 the escapement in many rivers would increase slightly; i.e., decreasing selective effects. On the other 

9 hand, the shift to terminal-area fishing could increase the use of selective gear types; i.e., gillnets and 

10 hook-and-line recreational gear, and the greater number of management units anticipated to exceed 40 

11 percent exploitation could mean an increase in selective effects compared with Alternative 1. For these 

12 reasons, there is too much uncertainty to predict the effects of implementing Alternative 2 on selective 

13 fishing effects. 

14 4.3.6.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

15 Fisheries Only 

16 Implementation of Alternative 3 for the 2004 2005−2009 management years would preclude marine net 

17 and recreational fisheries in Puget Sound, and substantially reduce exploitation rates on most chinook 

18 salmon natural populations. The size-selective effects of pre-terminal net fisheries predicted to occur 

19 under Alternative 1, would not be occur under Alternative 3. Gillnet fishery effects would be confined 

20 to those associated with in-river fisheries, and further confined to fisheries directed at other species in 

21 most rivers. The selective effects of marine recreational fisheries, which with Alternative 1 would 

22 operate under a 22-inch minimum size restriction, would also be eliminated. 

23 Since, except for the Tulalip Bay and Stillaguamish fisheries in Alternative 2, the fisheries under 

24 Alternative 3 would be identical to those under Alternative 2, it is also anticipated that the selective 

25 fishing effects would be similar. Under Alternative 3, 6 management units out of 15 would be 

26 anticipated to exceed 40 percent exploitation rate, as compared with five under Alternative 1 and seven 

27 under Alternative 2. Five management units would be anticipated to exceed 40 percent exploitation rate 

28 in southern U.S. fisheries as compared with three under Alternative 1 and six under Alternative 2. For 

29 the reasons described under Alternative 2, there is too much uncertainty to predict the effects of 

30 implementing Alternative 3 on selective fishing effects. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 86 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.3.6.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take 

2 The closing of all fisheries that involve any take of listed Puget Sound chinook salmon would 

3 substantially lower exploitation rates on all populations relative to Alternative 1, and would eliminate 

4 any size- and age-selective effects associated with Puget Sound gillnet and recreational fisheries. The 

5 short-term consequences would include a substantial increase in escapement to all chinook salmon6 producing rivers, and there would likely be some increase in proportions of ages and size represented in 

7 the spawning population. Given that observed size-selective effects of fisheries have not been observed 

8 in are modest, at best, for some Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, and decreases in exploitation 

9 rates would, in most cases, be from levels that are anticipated to cause low levels of size-selective 

10 effects at most, implementation of Alternative 3 is predicted to have no to low beneficial effects 

11 compared to Alternative 1. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 87 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.3.7 Hatchery-Related Fishery Effects On Salmon: Straying and Overfishing

2 As discussed in Subsection 3.3.7 of this Environmental Impact Statement, there are two hatchery3 related effects to natural-origin salmon associated with fishing. The first is straying of hatchery-origin 

4 fish that are not caught, onto the spawning grounds where they may interact with natural populations 

5 potentially leading to a decrease in overall natural population productivity. Since not all hatchery fish 

6 return to the hatchery, any increases in hatchery returns could be expected to increase the probability 

7 for higher numbers of hatchery fish spawning in the wild. The much greater escapements of hatchery 

8 coho and chum salmon could exacerbate inter-species predation, competition and genetic diversity 

9 effects in some areas. The second hatchery-related effect is the potential to overfish natural populations 

10 while pursuing harvestable hatchery-origin fish. One of the purposes of the Proposed Action is to create 

11 opportunities to harvest commingled populations, including hatchery-raised chinook, while providing 

12 an adequate level of protection to natural chinook salmon populations. In attempting to maximize 

13 harvest of hatchery fish, the commingled natural fish could be overharvested; i.e., harvested at a rate 

14 that is not sustainable based on the underlying productivity of the natural population. The potential 

15 effects on Puget Sound chinook salmon populations from overfishing are discussed in Section 4.3.1, 

16 which quantifies the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives in terms of exploitation rate and 

17 escapement of natural Puget Sound chinook populations. These effects will not be discussed further 

18 here. 

19 Estimated escapement patterns for chinook salmon under the Proposed Action or alternatives for 

20 purposes of evaluating the two potential hatchery-related effects on natural-origin salmon are presented 

21 in Tables 4.3.7-1 through 4.3.7-5 by scenario. Potential contribution of hatchery-origin chinook salmon 

22 adults to the naturally-spawning population is presented in Table 4.3.7-7. Estimated escapement 

23 patterns for coho and chum are presented in Tables 4.3.7-8 and 4.3.7-9. The model runs on which these 

24 numbers are based are found in Appendix B. These are the Puget Sound salmon species with the largest 

25 hatchery production, and therefore the species with the greatest potential for hatchery-related effects. 

26 Puget Sound hatchery production of pink and sockeye salmon is relatively small by comparison. 

27 Results for chinook salmon are presented by alternative and scenario, with the discussion of 

28 comparison among alternatives focused on Scenario B, since that is the most likely to occur during 

29 implementation of the Proposed Action (see Subsection 4.2, Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and 

30 Approach to Alternatives Analysis, for background discussion.) 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 88 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.3.7.1 Straying of Hatchery Chinook 

2 Under the alternatives analyzed, hatchery escapement would vary in concert with natural escapement. 

3 Alternative 4 (No Authorized Take/Status Quo) is predicted to result in the highest escapement levels, 

4 for both hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook, regardless of scenario. In most cases, Alternative 1 

5 is predicted to result in the lowest overall hatchery escapement levels, and the lowest natural 

6 escapement for the Strait of Juan de Fuca, North Puget Sound, and Hood Canal populations (Table 

7 4.3.7-1). Total natural chinook escapement is predicted to show no to low changes (-6% to +3%) under 

8 Alternatives 2 or 3 compared with Alternative 1, and low to moderate changes in total hatchery 

9 escapement, with the direction of change depending on the scenario. Compared with Alternative 1, 

10 Alternative 4 is predicted to result in substantial increases in total natural escapement of chinook 

11 salmon when abundance is similar to that in 2003 (Scenarios A or B), and moderate increases in 

12 escapement when abundance is low (Scenarios C or D). Hatchery escapements under Alternative 4 are 

13 predicted to substantially increase under all scenarios (62 to 89%) (Table 4.3.7-1). 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 89 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.7-1. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the 

2 Proposed Action or alternatives by scenario. 

Scenario A Scenario B

CHINOOK

Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt1 Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt1 Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt1 Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt1

Juan de Fuca

 Dungeness Spring 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

 Western Strait-Hoko 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

 Elwha 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Regional Average 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%

North Sound

 Nooksack Spring 9% 9% 9% 13% 13% 13%

 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 237% 237% 0% 1% 1% 1%

 Skagit

 Spring 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

 Summer/Fall 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26%

 Stillaguamish -61% 6% 6% -60% 7% 7%

 Snohomish -9% 8% 9% -12% 8% 19% -6% 10% 10% -9% 20% 20%

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 99% 7974% 7974% 101% 7990% 7990%

Regional Average -5% 11% 12% 78% 85% 9% -4% 13% 13% 0% 10% 10%

South Sound

 Lake Washington (Cedar River) 1% 1% 1% 18% 18% 18% 0% 0% 0% 19% 19% 19%

 Green-Duwamish 0% 0% 81% 19% 19% 116% 0% 0% 75% 19% 19% 109%

 Puyallup -50% -50% 37% -53% -53% 99% -50% -50% 31% -54% -54% 86%

 Nisqually -1% -1% 202% 0% 0% 204% -2% -2% 190% -2% -2% 191%

 White Spring -32% -32% 25% -31% -31% 23%

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers 31% 31% 42% 29% 29% 40%

 & McAllister, Deschutes

Regional Average -16% -16% 69% 3% 3% 96% -17% -17% 64% 2% 2% 89%

Hood Canal

 Mid-Canal 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5%

 Skokomish 1% 1% 105% 1% 1% 100% 0% 0% 92% 0% 0% 88%

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, 6% 6% 6% -67% -67% 237% 6% 6% 6% -66% -66% 235%

 & Tahuya tribs.

Regional Average 2% 2% 54% 26% 26% 77% 2% 2% 48% 26% 26% 77%

Average -6% 0% 33% 17% 19% 89% -5% 0% 31% -9% -6% 84%

Scenario C Scenario D

CHINOOK

Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt1 Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt1 Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt1 Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt1

Juan de Fuca

 Dungeness Spring 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%

 Western Strait-Hoko 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4%

 Elwha 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%

Regional Average 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

North Sound

 Nooksack Spring 9% 9% 9% 13% 13% 13%

 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0% 0% 0% 121% 121% 1%

 Skagit

 Spring 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

 Summer/Fall 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 27%

 Stillaguamish -44% 7% 7% -42% 7% 7%

 Snohomish 9% 9% 9% 20% 20% 20% 9% 9% 9% 20% 20% 20%

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 9517% 9517% 9517% 9484% 9484% 9484%

Regional Average 2% 13% 13% 10% 10% 10% 4% 13% 13% 50% 50% 10%

South Sound

 Lake Washington (Cedar River) -4% -4% -4% 0% 0% 0% -5% -5% -5% 24% 24% 24%

 Green-Duwamish 0% 0% 27% 31% 31% 66% 0% 0% 21% 33% 33% 61%

 Puyallup -33% -33% 28% -26% -26% 120% -35% -35% 19% -30% -30% 96%

 Nisqually -2% -2% 108% -1% -1% 109% -1% -1% 104% 0% 0% 105%

 White Spring -1% -1% 27% -1% -1% 23%

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers 44% 44% 55% 46% 46% 57%

 & McAllister, Deschutes

Regional Average -8% -8% 37% 9% 9% 70% -8% -8% 32% 15% 15% 69%

Hood Canal

 Mid-Canal 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

 Skokomish -1% -1% 40% -1% -1% 38% -1% -1% 32% -1% -1% 32%

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, 6% 6% 6% -56% -56% 212% 6% 6% 6% -54% -54% 207%

 & Tahuya tribs.

Regional Average 2% 2% 22% 26% 26% 77% 2% 2% 19% 26% 26% 77%

Average -1% 3% 19% -3% -3% 64% 0% 3% 18% 14% 14% 62%

Comparisons to the Proposed Action Comparisons to the Proposed Action

Comparisons to the Proposed Action

Natural Escapment Hatchery Escapement

Comparisons to the Proposed Action

Natural Escapment Hatchery Escapement

Natural Escapment Hatchery Escapement Natural Escapment Hatchery Escapement

3 

4 Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, 

5 November 2004. 

6 Substantial differences (greater than 30%) in escapement from Alternative 1 are shaded.

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 90 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.7-2. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the Proposed Ac2 Scenario A. 

CHINOOK

Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 

Juan de Fuca Dungeness Spring -- 352 -- 360 -- 360 -- 360 2% 2%  Western Strait-Hoko -- 785 -- 807 -- 807 -- 807 3% 3%  Elwha -- 2,125 -- 2,172 -- 2,172 -- 2,172 2% 2% 

Regional Average 2% 2% 

North Sound Nooksack Spring -- 388 -- 422 -- 422 -- 422 9% 9%  Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 10,044 -- 33,887 -- 33,887 -- 10,083 --  Skagit Spring 1,136 1,921 1,229 2,073 1,230 2,074 1,230 2,074 8% 8%  Summer/Fall 118 11,633 147 14,656 147 14,656 147 14,656 26% 26%  Stillaguamish -- 2,322 -- 903 -- 2,468 -- 2,468 -61% 6%  Snohomish 4,564 5,073 4,024 4,634 4,933 5,475 5,432 5,504 -9% 8%  Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 98 -- 195 -- 7,906 -- 7,906 -- 

Regional Average -5% 11% 

South Sound Lake Washington (w Cedar River index) 4,632 305 5,448 307 5,449 307 5,449 307 1% 1%  Green-Duwamish 5,016 5,819 5,948 5,800 5,948 5,800 10,827 10,558 0% 0%  Puyallup 2,338 2,392 1,100 1,200 1,100 1,200 4,656 3,286 -50% -50%  Nisqually 4,911 1,106 4,913 1,100 4,913 1,100 14,908 3,338 -1% -1%  White Spring -- 1,468 -- 1,000 -- 1,000 -- 1,831 -32% -32%  Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 29,528 -- 38,545 -- 38,547 -- 41,786 --  McAllister, Deschutes

Regional Average -16% -16% 

Hood Canal Mid-Canal -- 531 -- 552 -- 552 -- 552 4% 4%  Skokomish 6,104 1,211 6,174 1,218 6,175 1,218 12,214 2,482 1% 1%  Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs 5,594 591 1,851 625 1,851 625 18,833 625 6% 6% 

Regional Average 2% 2% 

Total 109,447 42,438 138,057 37,627 195,999 55,708 Ave -6% 0% 

Natural Escapme

Compar

Alternative 1 - Proposed 

Action

Alternative 2 - Escapement 

Goal/Manag. Unit Level

Alternative 3 - Escapement 

Goal/Pop Level/Terminal 

Only

Alternative 4 - No Listed 

Take

3 4 5 Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, March 2003 and Novemb6 Substantial differences (greater than 30%) in escapement from Alternative 1 are shaded. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 91 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.7-3. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the Proposed Ac2 Scenario B. 

CHINOOK

Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 A

Juan de Fuca Dungeness Spring -- 336 -- 344 -- 344 -- 344 2% 2%  Western Strait-Hoko -- 750 -- 772 -- 772 -- 772 3% 3%  Elwha -- 2,031 -- 2,079 -- 2,079 -- 2,079 2% 2% 

Regional Average 3% 3% 

North Sound Nooksack Spring -- 365 -- 412 -- 412 -- 412 13% 13%  Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 9,855 -- 9,906 -- 9,906 -- 9,906 --  Skagit Spring 1,088 1,845 1,188 2,009 1,189 2,010 1,189 2,010 9% 9%  Summer/Fall 110 11,029 139 13,935 139 13,935 139 13,935 26% 26%  Stillaguamish -- 2,281 -- 904 -- 2,446 -- 2,446 -60% 7%  Snohomish 4,342 4,901 3,947 4,603 5,203 5,368 5,203 5,368 -6% 10%  Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 96 -- 192 -- 7,730 -- 7,730 -- 

Regional Average -4% 13% 

South Sound Lake Washington (w Cedar River index) 4,449 294 5,273 295 5,274 295 5,274 295 0% 0%  Green-Duwamish 5,019 5,816 5,982 5,800 5,981 5,800 10,470 10,153 0% 0%  Puyallup 2,424 2,419 1,109 1,200 1,109 1,200 4,506 3,160 -50% -50%  Nisqually 5,007 1,126 4,920 1,100 4,920 1,100 14,587 3,261 -2% -2%  White Spring -- 1,459 -- 1,000 -- 1,000 -- 1,792 -31% -31%  Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 28,954 -- 37,477 -- 37,479 -- 40,641 --  McAllister, Deschutes

Regional Average -17% -17% 

Hood Canal Mid-Canal -- 504 -- 527 -- 527 -- 527 5% 5%  Skokomish 6,213 1,237 6,220 1,231 6,221 1,231 11,662 2,370 0% 0%  Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs 5,372 562 1,850 597 1,850 597 17,983 597 6% 6% 

Regional Average 2% 2% 

Total 109,447 42,438 138,057 37,627 195,999 55,708 Aver -5% 0% 

Compari

Natural Escapment 

Alternative 1 - Proposed 

Action

Alternative 2 - Escapement 

Goal/Manag. Unit Level

Alternative 3 - Escapement 

Goal/Pop Level/Terminal 

Only

Alternative 4 - No Listed 

Take

3 

4 Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, March 2003 and Novemb

5 Substantial differences (greater than 30%) in escapement from Alternative 1 are shaded. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 92 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.7-4. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the Proposed Ac2 Scenario C. 

CHINOOK

Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 A

Juan de Fuca Dungeness Spring -- 245 -- 251 -- 251 -- 251 2% 2%  Western Strait-Hoko -- 545 -- 564 -- 564 -- 564 3% 3%  Elwha -- 1,480 -- 1,516 -- 1,516 -- 1,516 2% 2% 

Regional Average 3% 3% 

North Sound Nooksack Spring -- 278 -- 304 -- 304 -- 304 9% 9%  Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 9,528 -- 9,571 -- 9,571 -- 9,571 --  Skagit Spring 788 1,331 865 1,460 865 1,460 865 1,460 10% 10%  Summer/Fall 80 8,033 102 10,215 102 10,215 102 10,215 27% 27%  Stillaguamish -- 1,620 -- 909 -- 1,738 -- 1,738 -44% 7%  Snohomish 3,185 3,543 3,812 3,875 3,812 3,875 3,812 3,875 9% 9%  Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 58 -- 5,531 -- 5,531 -- 5,531 -- 

Regional Average 2% 13% 

South Sound Lake Washington (w Cedar River index) 3,082 223 3,084 214 3,084 214 3,084 214 -4% -4%  Green-Duwamish 4,558 5,801 5,950 5,800 5,950 5,800 7,558 7,367 0% 0%  Puyallup 1,478 1,798 1,100 1,200 1,100 1,200 3,250 2,293 -33% -33%  Nisqually 4,972 1,119 4,914 1,100 4,914 1,100 10,408 2,330 -2% -2%  White Spring -- 1,011 -- 1,000 -- 1,000 -- 1,283 -1% -1%  Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 18,808 -- 27,007 -- 27,007 -- 29,169 --  McAllister, Deschutes

Regional Average -8% -8% 

Hood Canal Mid-Canal -- 367 -- 385 -- 385 -- 385 5% 5%  Skokomish 6,147 1,239 6,080 1,221 6,080 1,221 8,513 1,730 -1% -1%  Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs 4,209 410 1,857 436 1,857 436 13,126 436 6% 6% 

Regional Average 2% 2% 

Total 109,447 42,438 138,057 37,627 195,999 55,708 Ave -1% 3% 

Compari

Natural Escapment 

Alternative 1 - Proposed 

Action

Alternative 2 - Escapement 

Goal/Manag. Unit Level

Alternative 3 - Escapement 

Goal/Pop Level/Terminal 

Only

Alternative 4 - No Listed 

Take

3 4 5 Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, March 2003 and Novemb6 Substantial differences (greater than 30%) in escapement from Alternative 1 are shaded. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 93 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.7-5. Comparisons of hatchery- and naturally-spawning chinook salmon escapement with the Proposed Ac2 Scenario D. 

CHINOOK

Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 A

Juan de Fuca Dungeness Spring -- 231 -- 237 -- 237 -- 237 3% 3%  Western Strait-Hoko -- 514 -- 532 -- 532 -- 532 4% 4%  Elwha -- 1,395 -- 1,431 -- 1,431 -- 1,431 3% 3% 

Regional Average 3% 3% 

North Sound Nooksack Spring -- 252 -- 285 -- 285 -- 285 13% 13%  Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 9,370 -- 20,673 -- 20,673 -- 9,424 --  Skagit Spring 749 1,270 825 1,395 825 1,395 825 1,395 10% 10%  Summer/Fall 75 7,551 96 9,625 96 9,625 96 9,625 27% 27%  Stillaguamish -- 1,584 -- 919 -- 1,702 -- 1,702 -42% 7%  Snohomish 3,007 3,399 3,596 3,720 3,596 3,720 3,600 3,720 9% 9%  Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 56 -- 5,351 -- 5,351 -- 5,351 -- 

Regional Average 4% 13% 

South Sound Lake Washington (w Cedar River index) 2,933 214 3,648 204 3,648 204 3,648 204 -5% -5%  Green-Duwamish 4,512 5,802 5,995 5,800 5,995 5,800 7,242 7,006 0% 0%  Puyallup 1,588 1,834 1,113 1,200 1,113 1,200 3,118 2,180 -35% -35%  Nisqually 4,935 1,109 4,920 1,100 4,920 1,100 10,124 2,264 -1% -1%  White Spring -- 1,011 -- 1,000 -- 1,000 -- 1,246 -1% -1%  Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 17,893 -- 26,063 -- 26,063 -- 28,157 --  McAllister, Deschutes

Regional Average -8% -8% 

Hood Canal Mid-Canal -- 344 -- 361 -- 361 -- 361 5% 5%  Skokomish 6,069 1,225 6,038 1,215 6,038 1,215 7,983 1,622 -1% -1%  Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs 4,010 384 1,854 408 1,854 408 12,309 408 6% 6% 

Regional Average 2% 2% 

Total 109,447 42,438 138,057 37,627 195,999 55,708 Ave 0% 3% 

Compari

Natural Escapment 

Alternative 1 - Proposed 

Action

Alternative 2 - Escapement 

Goal/Manag. Unit Level

Alternative 3 - Escapement 

Goal/Pop Level/Terminal 

Only

Alternative 4 - No Listed 

Take

3 4 Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, March 2003 and Novemb5 Substantial differences (greater than 30%) in escapement from Alternative 1 are shaded. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 94 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Relatively small numbers of juvenile hatchery chinook are released each year into the watersheds 

2 where the Nooksack spring, Skagit, Stillaguamish, White, Dungeness and Elwha chinook salmon 

3 populations spawn and rear, either as indicator stocks for research (e.g., the Skagit hatchery programs), 

4 or as supplementation to aid in the recovery of the naturally-spawning chinook salmon populations. 

5 With the exception of the Elwha River, releases do not exceed one million juveniles each year. The 

6 hatchery programs in these systems all use the native chinook salmon populations as broodstock. 

7 Juvenile and adult hatchery fish from all but the Skagit programs are deemed essential for the recovery 

8 of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, and are therefore listed. Straying of Skagit hatchery-origin spawning 

9 adults to natural spawning areas is insignificant because the numbers of adult fish produced by the low 

10 numbers of juveniles released is not substantial. For the other hatchery programs, escapement of adult 

11 fish produced through the supplementation programs that return to natural spawning areas is a primary 

12 objective of the program, and therefore generally seen as having an overall beneficial effect. 

13 Annual hatchery releases of more than one million juvenile chinook salmon occur in the Snohomish, 

14 Lake Washington, Green-Duwamish, Puyallup, Nisqually and Skokomish watersheds. The hatchery 

15 programs located in the Snohomish and Green-Duwamish watersheds propagate chinook salmon 

16 derived from the native stock. Hatcheries in the Sammamish, Puyallup, Nisqually and Skokomish 

17 watersheds operate where native populations are no longer believed to exist. The hatchery and wild 

18 adult chinook salmon populations returning to these watersheds are indistinguishable from each other. 

19 With the exception of the Snohomish watershed, the majority of the returning adults are believed to be 

20 predominately first-generation, hatchery-origin fish, and any natural production is generally managed 

21 for composite escapements of hatchery- and wild-origin fish. Hatchery programs in these areas have 

22 been in place for 40 to 100 years. Given the stock origin of propagated fish, or the lack of native 

23 chinook salmon populations in these watersheds, continued straying of hatchery-origin spawning adults 

24 to natural spawning areas at present levels in these systems is unlikely to have a significant adverse 

25 effect on the extant natural-origin chinook salmon populations. 

26 However, to the extent that increases in the contribution of hatchery-origin adults on the natural 

27 spawning grounds increase risks such as predation on naturally-produced salmon, or competition with 

28 naturally-produced salmon for food, and rearing and spawning areas, a reduction in the contribution of 

29 hatchery-origin adults on the natural spawning grounds would be considered a beneficial effect. 

30 Information is not currently available to determine with certainty what levels of hatchery contribution 

31 to naturally-spawning chinook populations in Puget Sound result in what levels of risk or benefit. State, 

32 tribal and federal agencies are currently engaged in on-going cooperative efforts to develop this 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 95 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 understanding. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, a reduction in hatchery contribution will be 

2 considered a benefit, and the impact analysis metrics described in Subsection 4.3, Fish, will be used to 

3 describe the magnitude of change. All programs used in the analysis of the Proposed Action and 

4 alternatives would have significant hatchery contribution rates to natural spawning grounds regardless 

5 of the alternative or scenario (Table 4.3.7-9). 

6 Under the alternative fishing regimes analyzed, the same factors that would cause natural escapements 

7 to increase (or decrease) would also result in higher (or lower) hatchery escapements. Since not all 

8 hatchery fish return to the hatchery, any increases in hatchery returns could be expected to increase the 

9 probability for higher numbers of hatchery fish spawning in the wild. Table 4.3.7-6 provides examples 

10 of stray rates for several key chinook salmon populations, where stray rate is defined as the proportion 

11 of the total hatchery-origin escapement not removed from the natural environment through trapping, or 

12 the number of hatchery-origin salmon that otherwise strayed from their point of release. The predicted 

13 contribution of hatchery fish to natural escapement is then computed by calculating the number of 

14 hatchery fish that would not return to the hatchery using the proportions in Table 4.3.7-6, and dividing 

15 that number by the natural escapement. 

16 Table 4.3.7-6. Estimated 1996–2002 average number of hatchery-origin chinook salmon that spawn in 

17 the wild as a proportion of the hatchery-origin escapement for key Puget Sound chinook 

18 hatchery salmon populations under consideration (hatchery fish spawning in the 

19 wild/total hatchery fish returning). 

Population Average Hatchery Stray Rate (1996-2002) 

Nooksack 

North Fork 

South Fork 

.35 

.05 

Snohomish 

Skykomish 

Snoqualmie 

.32 

.09 

Green-Duwamish .40 

20 Source: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team Abundance and 

21 Productivity Tables (2003). 

22 Stray rates are not yet available for other systems, pending evaluation of mass-marked hatchery-origin 

23 returns in future years. When that information is available, it will be used to assess the contribution of 

24 hatchery-origin fish to natural escapement. The results of that assessment are expected to indicate that 

25 hatchery fish stray rates for South Puget Sound and Hood Canal watersheds will be similar to or exceed 

26 that of the Green River, with proportionally greater risks of potential impacts to any natural-origin 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 96 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 chinook salmon populations. Therefore, the populations in Table 4.3.7-6 will be used as examples to 

2 indicate the relative impact of the Proposed Action or alternatives. 

3 Alternative 1 − Proposed Action/Status Quo

4 No change from current baseline conditions would result from implementation of Alternative 1. 

5 Modeled scenarios for Alternative 1 showed little variation and no consistent pattern of hatchery 

6 contribution rates across the three representative systems (Nooksack spring, Snohomish and Green7 Duwamish) (Table 4.3.7-7). For the Nooksack spring system, the modeled stray rate is predicted to be 

8 the same across modeled scenarios. For the Snohomish system, the modeled stray rate is predicted to be 

9 lowest under Scenario D (30% reduction in abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries), 

10 followed by Scenario B (high abundance and maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries). Scenario C (30% 

11 reduction in abundance with Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 2003), and Scenario A 

12 (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 2003) are predicted to have the 

13 same and the lowest hatchery contribution rate, respectively. The Green-Duwamish River system is 

14 predicted to have the lowest stray rate under Scenario D or Scenario C, followed by Scenario B or 

15 Scenario A. 

16 Hatchery strays are predicted to average approximately 93 percent of total natural escapement in the 

17 Nooksack spring system; 50 to 51 percent of total natural escapement in the Snohomish River system; 

18 and 52 to 58 percent of total natural spawners in the Green-Duwamish River system (Puget Sound 

19 Technical Recovery Team 2003). 

20 Hatchery contribution rates of out-of-watershed-origin chinook salmon at these levels indicate a 

21 substantial potential risk of adverse ecological and genetic effects to the indigenous natural-origin 

22 populations through competition and genetic introgression, respectively. However, hatchery-origin fish 

23 straying within these watersheds are predominately of native-population-origin, which is expected to 

24 attenuate the potential for adverse ecological and genetic effects. In addition, Nooksack hatchery 

25 chinook salmon are considered essential to the recovery of the ESU, and are therefore listed along with 

26 the natural-origin fish. Given these circumstances, straying hatchery fish are expected to result in a low 

27 to moderate short-term risk of adverse impact to the ability of natural populations to sustain 

28 themselves. Impacts over the long-term would also be expected to be low to moderate, since 

29 Alternative 1 is the baseline condition. 

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 97 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.7-7. Hatchery contribution to natural spawning escapement by scenario and alternative for five representat2 populations. 

CHINOOK

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

 Nooksack Spring Escapement to the hatchery 9,150 9,952 9,150 9,952 7,924 8,112 8,112 8,112 5,778 5,919 5,919 5,919  North Fork Nooksack strays from hatchery to grounds 3,203 3,483 3,203 3,483 2,773 2,839 2,839 2,839 2,022 2,072 2,072 2,072 

% of hatchery return to hatchery 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 total strays on grounds 4,927 5,359 4,927 5,359 4,267 4,368 4,368 4,368 3,111 3,187 3,187 3,187 

 South Fork Nooksack strays from hatchery to grounds 458 498 458 498 396 406 406 406 289 296 296 296 

% of hatchery return to hatchery 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

total strays on grounds 482 524 482 524 417 427 427 427 304 312 312 312 

 Snohomish Escapement to the hatchery 4,564 4,024 4,933 5,432 4,342 3,947 5,203 5,203 3,185 3,812 3,812 3,812  Skykomish strays from hatchery to grounds 1,461 1,288 1,579 1,738 1,263 1,389 1,665 1,665 1,019 1,220 1,220 1,220 

% of hatchery return to hatchery 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 

total strays on grounds 2,148 1,894 2,322 2,556 1,857 2,043 2,449 2,449 1,499 1,794 1,794 1,794 

 Snoqualmie

strays from hatchery to grounds 411 362 489 444 355 391 468 468 287 343 343 343 

% of hatchery return to hatchery 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 

total strays on grounds 451 398 537 488 390 429 515 515 315 377 377 377 

 Green-Duwamish Escapement to the hatchery 5,016 5,948 5,948 10,827 5,019 5,982 5,981 10,470 4,558 5,950 5,950 7,558 

strays from hatchery to grounds 2,007 2,379 2,379 4,331 2,007 2,393 2,393 4,188 1,823 2,380 2,380 3,023 

% of hatchery return to hatchery 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 total strays on grounds 3,344 3,965 3,965 7,218 3,346 3,988 3,988 6,980 3,039 3,967 3,967 5,039 

CHINOOK

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

 Nooksack Spring 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93%  Snohomish 51% 49% 51% 56% 50% 49% 55% 55% 51% 56% 56% 56%  Green-Duwamish 57% 68% 68% 68% 58% 69% 69% 69% 52% 68% 68% 68% 

Scenario A Scenario C 

Hatchery Contribution to Natural Spawning Hatchery Contribution to Natural Spawning 

Scenario B

Hatchery Contribution to Natural Spawning

3 4 Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, November 2004.

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 98 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Alternative 2 − Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

2 Under Alternative 2, the hatchery contribution rate is predicted to remain the same for the Nooksack 

3 spring system and increase within the Green-Duwamish River system, compared to Alternative 1. The 

4 hatchery contribution rate for the Snohomish River system is predicted to decline slightly under high 

5 abundance conditions (similar to those in 2003), and increase under low abundance conditions 

6 compared with Alternative 1. The magnitude of stray rates under Alternative 2 would be similar to 

7 those under Alternative 1. 

8 Summary of Scenario Differences

9 As with Alternative 1, no consistent pattern of hatchery contribution rates was indicated across 

10 modeled scenarios among the three representative systems under Alternative 2 (Table 4.3.7-7). For the 

11 Nooksack spring system, the stray rate is predicted to be consistent across scenarios. For the 

12 Snohomish system, the modeled stray rate was lowest under Scenario A (high abundance and 

13 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 2003), and Scenario B (high abundance and maximum 

14 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries), followed by Scenario D (30% reduction in abundance with maximum 

15 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries), and Scenario C (30% reduction in abundance with Canadian/Alaskan 

16 fisheries similar to those in 2003). For the Green-Duwamish River system, the modeled stray rate was 

17 lowest under Scenarios A and C which had the same predicted stray rate, followed by Scenario B and 

18 Scenario D. 

19 As with Alternative 1, there is little predicted variation in hatchery contribution rates across scenarios 

20 under Alternative 1 (Table 4.3.7-7). Hatchery strays are predicted to average approximately 93 percent 

21 of total natural escapement in the Nooksack spring system; 49 to 56 percent of total natural escapement 

22 in the Snohomish River system; and 68 to 69 percent of total natural spawners in the Green-Duwamish 

23 River system (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 2003). 

24 Comparison of Alternative 2 with Alternative 1 (Proposed Action/Status Quo)

25 Under Alternative 2, Scenario B, the hatchery contribution rate is predicted to remain the same for the 

26 Nooksack spring system; increase by 11 percent for the Green-Duwamish River system, and decline by 

27 1 percent for the Snohomish River system compared to Alternative 1 (Table 4.3.7-7). The magnitude of 

28 stray rates under Alternative 2 is predicted to be similar to those predicted under Alternative 1. 

29 Under Alternative 2, Scenarios A, C, or D, the hatchery contribution rate is predicted to remain the 

30 same for the Nooksack spring system and increase for the Green-Duwamish River system by 11 to 17 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 99 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 percent compared to Alternative 1. The hatchery contribution rate for the Snohomish River system is 

2 predicted to decrease by 1 percent under Scenario A (same as Scenario B), and increase by 5 percent 

3 under Scenarios C or D, compared with Alternative 1 (Table 4.3.7-7). The differences in hatchery 

4 contribution rate between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 would be greater under low abundance 

5 conditions (Scenarios C or D) than under high abundance conditions (Scenarios A or B) for the 

6 Snohomish and Green-Duwamish River systems. 

7 As described under Alternative 1, the population origin of straying hatchery fish, and on-going 

8 hatchery reform measures implemented to reduce risks to natural-origin chinook salmon, bear upon any 

9 assessment of risk posed by straying hatchery fish to natural-origin fish populations. The hatchery 

10 contribution rates estimated under Alternative 2 could be expected to have an elevated adverse affect 

11 on the genetic diversity, and potentially on the productivity of natural-origin chinook salmon 

12 populations, relative to Alternative 1 for the Snohomish and Green-Duwamish River systems; however, 

13 again, the hatchery-origin fish straying within these watersheds are predominantly of native population14 origin, which is expected to attenuate the potential for adverse ecological and genetic effects. Scenario 

15 B, the most likely to occur over the duration of the Proposed Action (the 20054–2009 fishing seasons), 

16 is predicted to result in a no to low change in the hatchery contribution rate for the Nooksack spring 

17 and Snohomish systems, and a moderate change in the Green-Duwamish system hatchery contribution 

18 rate compared to Alternative 1. The greater potential for adverse effects would come from substantial 

19 increases in the escapements of hatchery coho and chum salmon that would occur in these areas. The 

20 much greater escapement of hatchery coho and chum salmon (Tables 4.3.7-8 and 4.3.7-9) could 

21 exacerbate inter-species predation, competition, and genetic diversity effects in some areas. Therefore, 

22 primarily as a result of straying non-chinook salmon species, moderate to substantial short- and long23 term risks are predicted under Alternative 2 for hatchery fish straying at the levels described above to 

24 contribute, combined with other factors for decline, to impairment of the ability of natural populations 

25 to sustain themselves. 

26 Alternative 3 − Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal Fisheries 

27 Only

28 Under Alternative 1, the hatchery contribution rate is predicted to remain the same for the Nooksack 

29 spring system; increase for the Green-Duwamish River system, and have at most a low increase for the 

30 Snohomish River system compared to Alternative 1. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 100 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Summary of Scenario Differences

2 As with Alternative 1 or 2, modeled scenarios showed little variation in hatchery contribution rates 

3 among the three representative systems. The hatchery contribution rate is predicted to be consistent 

4 across scenarios for the Nooksack spring and Green-Duwamish River systems. For the Snohomish 

5 system, the modeled stray rate was lowest under Scenario A (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan 

6 fisheries similar to those in 2003). Hatchery contribution rates under Scenarios B (high abundance and 

7 maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries), D (30% reduction in abundance with maximum 

8 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries), or C (30% reduction in abundance with Canadian/Alaskan fisheries 

9 similar to those in 2003) are predicted to be higher, but within 1 percent of each other. 

10 Hatchery strays are predicted to average approximately 93 percent of total natural escapement in the 

11 Nooksack spring system; 51 to 56 percent of total natural escapement in the Snohomish River system; 

12 and 68 to 69 percent of the total natural spawners in the Green-Duwamish River system (Puget Sound 

13 Technical Recovery Team 2003). 

14 Comparison of Alternative 3 with Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action/Status Quo)

15 Under Alternative 3, Scenario B, the hatchery contribution rate is predicted to remain the same for the 

16 Nooksack spring system, increase by 5 percent for the Green-Duwamish River system, and increase 11 

17 percent for the Snohomish River system compared to Alternative 1 (Table 4.3.7-7). The magnitude of 

18 the hatchery contribution rates under Alternative 3 would be similar to the rates under Alternative 1 

19 or 2. 

20 With the exception of Scenario A for the Snohomish system, Alternative 3 Scenarios A, C, or D are 

21 predicted to result in hatchery contribution rates relative to Alternative 1 of within 1 percent of those 

22 described for Scenario B. Hatchery contribution rates under Alternative 3, Scenario A, for Snohomish 

23 chinook salmon are predicted to be the same as Alternative 1, or 5 percent lower than under Scenario 

24 B. Hatchery contribution rates are predicted to range from 55 to 56 percent under Scenarios C and D 

25 for the Snohomish River system, and 68 to 69 percent under all scenarios for the Green-Duwamish 

26 River system (Table 4.3.7-7). 

27 As described above, the population origin of straying hatchery fish, and on-going hatchery reform 

28 measures being implemented to reduce risks to natural-origin chinook salmon, bear upon any 

29 assessment of risk posed by the straying hatchery fish to natural-origin fish populations. The hatchery 

30 contribution rates estimated under Alternative 3 could be expected to have an elevated adverse affect 

31 on the genetic diversity, and potentially on the productivity of the Green-Duwamish and Snohomish 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 101 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 system natural-origin chinook salmon populations, relative to Alternative 1; however, again, the 

2 hatchery-origin fish straying within these watersheds are predominantly of native population-origin, 

3 which is expected to attenuate the potential for adverse ecological and genetic effects. Scenario B, the 

4 most likely to occur over the duration of the Proposed Action (the 20054–2009 fishing seasons), is 

5 predicted to result in a no to low change in the hatchery contribution rate for the Nooksack spring and 

6 Snohomish systems, and a moderate change in the Green-Duwamish system contribution rate 

7 compared with Alternative 1. The greater potential for adverse effects would come from substantial 

8 increases in the escapements of hatchery coho and chum salmon. The much greater escapement of 

9 hatchery coho and chum salmon (Tables 4.3.7-8 and 4.3.7-9) could exacerbate inter-species predation, 

10 competition, and genetic diversity effects in some areas. Under Alternative 3, primarily as a result of 

11 straying of non-chinook species, there would be moderate to substantial short- and long-term risk that 

12 hatchery fish straying at the levels described above may contribute, combined with other factors for 

13 decline, to impairment of the ability of natural populations to sustain themselves. 

14 Alternative 4 − No Action/No Authorized Take

15 The estimated hatchery contribution rate comparisons under Alternative 4 would be very similar to 

16 those estimated under Alternative 3. 

17 Summary of Scenario Differences

18 Under Alternative 4, hatchery contribution rates are predicted to differ by 1 percent or less across 

19 scenarios for each system (Table 4.3.7-7). Hatchery strays would average approximately 93 percent of 

20 total natural escapement in the Nooksack spring system; 55 to 56 percent of total natural escapement in 

21 the Snohomish River system; and 68 to 69 percent of total natural spawners in the Green-Duwamish 

22 River system (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 2003). 

23 Comparison of Alternative 4 with Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action/Status Quo)

24 The estimated hatchery contribution rates under Alternative 4, Scenario B, would be the same as those 

25 estimated under Alternative 3. The results of Scenarios A, C, or D are also predicted to be the same as 

26 Alternative 3, except for Scenario A for the Snohomish system (Table 4.3.7-7). The estimated 

27 contribution of hatchery-origin spawners to the Snohomish system natural escapement is predicted to 

28 increase to 56 percent, compared with 51 percent under Scenario A for Alternative 3 and Alternative 1. 

29 However, the magnitude of contribution rates is predicted to be the same as that of Alternative 3, so the 

30 level of hatchery-related effects to natural-origin chinook salmon populations associated with 

31 Alternative 4 would be unlikely to differ from effects surmised under Alternative 3. The much greater 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 102 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 escapements of hatchery coho and chum salmon could exacerbate inter-species predation, competition, 

2 and genetic diversity effects in some areas. Under Alternative 4, particularly because of the substantial 

3 increases in non-chinook hatchery escapements, there would be moderate to substantial short- and 

4 long-term risks that hatchery fish straying at the levels described above may contribute, combined with 

5 other factors for decline, to impairment of the ability of natural populations to sustain themselves. 

6 Summary

7 Hatchery contribution rates of chinook, coho, and chum salmon were predicted to be substantial for all 

8 alternatives. Chinook hatchery contribution rates were not predicted to change significantly with 

9 change in abundance or the magnitude of northern fisheries; varying 7 percent or less among scenarios 

10 for each alternative. The modeled differences in hatchery chinook contribution rates among alternatives 

11 were generally low, except for the Green-Duwamish River system where hatchery contribution rates 

12 are predicted to increased by as much as 17 percent under low abundance conditions when compared 

13 with Alternative 1. The much greater escapements of hatchery coho and chum salmon could exacerbate 

14 inter-species predation, competition, and genetic diversity effects in some areas. Particularly because of 

15 substantial increases in non-chinook hatchery escapements, there would likely be moderate to 

16 substantial short- and long-term risks that hatchery fish straying at the levels described above may 

17 contribute, combined with other factors for decline, to impairment of the ability of natural populations 

18 to sustain themselves under Alternatives 2, 3, or 4. Under Alternative 1, straying hatchery fish are 

19 expected to result in a low to moderate short-term risk of adverse impact to the ability of natural 

20 populations to sustain themselves. Impacts over the long-term are also expected to be low to moderate, 

21 since Alternative 1 is the baseline condition. 

22 4.3.7.2 Straying of Coho and Chum Salmon 

23 Both total hatchery and natural escapement for coho and chum salmon would show substantial 

24 increases (39% to 236%) in escapement under Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 compared with Alternative 1. For 

25 each alternative, the change in hatchery escapement is predicted to be 2 to 2.5 times the change in 

26 natural escapement (Tables 4.3.7-8 and 4.3.7-9). As with chinook salmon, changes in hatchery and 

27 natural escapements would vary by region and management unit. Stray rate estimates are not available 

28 for the coho and chum salmon management units in Tables 4.3.7-8 and 4.3.7-9. 

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 103 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.3.7-8. Comparisons of hatchery- and natural-spawning coho salmon escapement with the proposed action an

2 differences (greater than 30%) in escapement from Alternative 1 are shaded. 

COHO

Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Al

Juan de FucaJuan de Fuca 9,513 17,320 17,622 18,819 17,622 18,819 21,732 18,819 9% 9% 9

Regional Average 9% 9% 9

North Sound Nooksack/Samish 27,508 8,182 56,057 14,272 56,057 14,272 56,057 15,305 74% 74% 87

 Skagit 5,840 73,624 9,241 109,887 9,241 109,887 9,253 110,022 49% 49% 49

 Stillaguamish 1,173 24,017 1,239 28,689 1,317 34,840 1,317 34,840 19% 45% 45

 Snohomish 13,494 136,873 17,854 165,820 30,938 187,066 30,938 187,066 21% 37% 37

Regional Average 41% 51% 55

South SoundSouth Sound 119,369 47,086 233,962 69,945 233,962 69,945 293,781 97,804 49% 49% 108

49% 49% 108

Hood CanalHood Canal 11,379 19,012 37,046 28,533 37,046 28,533 41,214 30,345 50% 50% 60

Regional Average 44% 44% 64

Total 62,859 197,456 230,334 309,828 306,719 334,498 Aver 39% 45% 56

Comparisons t

Natural Escapment 

Alternative 1 - Proposed 

Action

Alternative 2 - Escapement 

Goal/Manag. Unit Level

Alternative 3 - Escapement 

Goal/Pop Level/Terminal 

Alternative 4 - No Listed 

Take

3 

4 Table 4.3.7-9. Comparisons of hatchery- and natural-spawning chum salmon escapement with the proposed action an5 differences (greater than 30%) in escapement from Alternative 1 are shaded. 

CHUM

Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural Alt2/Alt1 Alt3/Alt1 Alt4/Alt

Juan de FucaJuan de Fuca -- 2,585 -- 2,722 -- 2,722 -- 2,722 5% 5% 5%

Regional Average 5% 5% 5%

North Sound Nooksack/Samish 7,936 35,610 17,713 79,482 17,713 79,482 17,717 79,501 123% 123% 123% 

 Skagit 1,834 42,237 2,000 46,071 2,000 46,071 2,000 46,071 9% 9% 9% 

 Stillaguamish 700 14,400 1,631 34,194 1,668 34,964 1,668 34,964 137% 143% 143% 

 Snohomish 7,200 17,600 43,262 35,583 43,262 35,583 43,262 35,583 102% 102% 102% 

Regional Average 93% 94% 94% 

South SoundSouth Sound 17,540 150,923 46,459 399,761 46,459 399,761 51,310 441,499 165% 165% 193% 

Regional Average 165% 165% 193% Hood CanalHood Canal 37,637 50,382 145,084 95,473 145,084 95,473 207,023 99,621 89% 89% 98% 

Regional Average 89% 89% 98% 

Total 72,846 313,736 256,149 693,285 322,981 739,961 Aver 90% 91% 96% 

Comparisons to 

Natural Escapment 

Alternative 1 - Proposed 

Action

Alternative 2 - Escapement 

Goal/Manag. Unit Level

p

Goal/Pop Level/Terminal 

Only

Alternative 4 - No Listed 

Take

6 

7 Source: Larrie Lavoy, Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan NEPA Interdisciplinary Team, March 2003 and Novemb

Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 104 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 4.3.8 Indirect and Cumulative Effects

2 4.3.8.1 Indirect Effects

3 Indirect effects on fish species are those that would be further removed from the direct effects. In the

4 case of listed and unlisted salmonid species affected by the Proposed Action, the primary direct effect

5 would be changes in spawning escapement brought about by changes in catch, and the primary indirect

6 effect would be resulting changes in abundance of the progeny of these spawning populations. Because

7 the action considered in this Environmental Impact Statement applies to a six five-year resource

8 management plan, changes in abundance would be limited to the progeny of spawners returning from

9 2004 2005 to 2010; i.e., progeny returning in 2006 20072015. The extent to which increased

10 abundance of the progeny of these spawners may affect spawning abundance in subsequent years

11 depends on freshwater and marine habitat conditions that influence survival, and on the fishing regimes

12 that will be in place after 2010. Of these, marine conditions are thought to play the dominant short-term

13 role.

14 In the case of chinook salmon, changes in spawning escapement would, theoretically, be most evident

15 in the abundance of progeny returning as Age-3 and Age-4 spawners, though there would also be

16 changes in abundance for Age-2 (precocious) spawners, and the relatively small proportion of chinook

17 populations returning as Age-5 and Age-6 spawners. Similarly, for other species, changes in spawning

18 escapement would apply to subsequent brood years according to the species age-at-maturity profiles.

19 As noted in Subsection 4.3.1, these effects could be beneficial or negative, depending on the magnitude

20 of change and the productivity characteristics of the particular watershed from which a population

21 originates. An indirect effect that would likely result from fishery closures under Alternative 2 is the

22 expected reduction in the amount of lost fishing gear in marine areas closed to fishing and, conversely,

23 an increase in lost fishing gear in those terminal fisheries where fishing may increase. Changes in the

24 number of lost or derelict nets affect the amount of unintended mortality on salmonids and other

25 species that become entangled in lost nets and, to a lesser extent, lost sport fishing tackle. This issue is

26 discussed in Subsection 3.3.5 (, Fish Habitat Affected by Salmon Fishing): Affected Environment and

27 Subsections 4.8.1 (Marine Birds) and 4.8.3 (Marine Invertebrates): Environmental Consequences.

28 A potential advantage to Alternative 1, which makes use of exploitation rate management strategies for

29 many populations, is that, properly applied, exploitation rate management strategies are more robust

30 about uncertainties in key parameters like survival and management error (Walters and Parma 1996)

31 than fixed escapement goal strategies like those in Alternatives 2 and 3. Given the imprecision of

32 abundance forecasts, tThis can be an important advantage, especially when combined with a strategy to
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 105 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 use conservative parameters in forecasting (Fieberg in press 2004). Exploitation management strategies

2 can also result in less variable harvests from year to year (Hilborn and Walters 1992; Walters and

3 Parma 1996), an important factor for fishermen that rely on fishing for their family income. Also, in

4 practical terms, true fixed escapement goal harvest management is difficult to impossible to implement.

5 When direct and incidental harvest is regulated under several jurisdictions (national and international),

6 it is not possible to actually reduce harvest exploitation rates to zero when threshold escapement levels

7 cannot be achieved, although they can be significantly reduced.

8 Fieberg (2004) considered the uncertainty associated with estimating population productivity and with

9 managing fisheries (i.e., management and forecast error) to achieve escapement thresholds or target

10 exploitation rates under several harvest management strategies. His analysis showed that, given the

11 uncertainty associated with estimating population productivity, and with implementing harvest

12 management, imposing exploitation rate harvest objectives could result in more stable harvest than a

13 fixed escapement goal strategy, without increasing the risk of population extinction.

14 Fieberg examined the probability of extinction (as measured over 50 years and compared with the

15 probability under a minimal harvest condition) using several risk criteria, and found that it was

16 consistently greater using a fixed escapement goal management strategy than under exploitation rate

17 strategies regardless of the risk criterion used. The probability of extinction was significantly increased

18 under the fixed escapement goal strategy when survival rates were biased (survival was actually lower

19 than assumed). The exploitation rate strategies showed low or no increased probability of extinction

20 under biased survival compared with unbiased estimates of survival. The reason is that the optimal

21 parameters; i.e., harvest objectives (critical escapement threshold and exploitation rate designed to

22 maximize harvest), under the fixed escapement goal strategy are close to the risk criteria as compared

23 to those of the exploitation rate strategies. Therefore, even slight errors in the determination of the

24 optimal parameters would result in probabilities of extinction greater than the risk criteria. The

25 probability of extinction was greatly reduced when management buffers (i.e. setting escapement

26 thresholds high to accommodate forecast and management error, or setting exploitation targets lower)

27 were used such that the probability of extinction was low across all management strategies under

28 unbiased survival rates. When survival rates were biased as may be the case in actual harvest

29 management, the probability of extinction was once again much higher for the fixed escapement goal

30 strategy compared with the exploitation rate strategies, although significantly lower than without the

31 use of management buffers.
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 106 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

Expected harvest was generally equivalent for different management strategiesxv 1 , except when forecast

2 error was very high, because in this circumstance a high threshold is required to maintain low

3 extinction risk. Exploitation rate strategies generally require ‘trading’ lower exploitation rate objectives

4 for lower thresholds, thereby constraining harvest in high abundance years in exchange for allowing

5 more harvest in low abundance years, again while maintaining low extinction risk. In general,

6 increasing threshold parameters will result in more variable yields over time, but may also increase the

7 average long-term harvest (relative to the same strategy employed with a lower threshold and lower

8 exploitation rate parameter). Thus, there are tradeoffs in terms of maximizing catch versus reducing

9 variability in catch that can be controlled to some extent by adjusting threshold parameters or adjusting

10 exploitation rate parameters.

11 These tradeoffs are also inherent in the various harvest strategies. In a sense, the exploitation rate

12 strategy, similar to that proposed in Alternative 1, trades lower escapement thresholds for lower

13 exploitation rates when forecasted abundances are above these thresholds. As such, the exploitation

14 rate strategy would harvest more fish at low forecasted abundances than the fixed escapement goal

15 strategy of Alternatives 2 or 3, but fewer fish at high forecasted abundances.

16 The analysis clearly identifies the elevated extinction risk associated with failing to incorporate

17 uncertainty in estimating populations parameters (e.g., productivity) when determining the optimal

18 harvest threshold. It also points out the risk of underestimating the true critical escapement threshold

19 for a population, whether the harvest strategy involves escapement thresholds or exploitation rates.

20 Regardless of the strategy, the methods used to optimize the strategies are likely to be as important as

21 the strategy itself. Fieberg’s analysis demonstrated the advantage of using management buffers. The

22 results suggest that using buffers may provide a high degree of insurance against over-harvesting

23 without a big loss in terms of realized harvest. Harvest benefits were very slightly decreased, while

24 reducing the risk of extinction. The Proposed Action incorporates such buffers by setting the low

25 abundance threshold substantially above the critical level, and by incorporating management error in

26 the simulation model used to determine RERs.

 

xv Because Fieberg concluded that absolute zero harvest below an escapement threshold was impractical, all the

management strategies he evaluated had some level of harvest allowed below the escapement threshold,

although it was minimal under some strategies. Therefore, his escapement goal strategies were not exactly the

same as those of Alternatives 2 and 3 in which no harvest occurs at abundances below the escapement threshold.
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 107 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Another advantage of Alternative 1 compared to Alternative 2 (or 3) is that, at higher abundances,

2 Alternative 1 would be expected to return even more chinook spawners than under fixed escapement

3 goal management as exemplified by Alternative 2. The high abundance scenarios (Scenarios A and B)

4 support this for some systems (e.g., the Stillaguamish River, Snohomish River, Puyallup River). As

5 population abundance increases above current levels, this would be expected to be the case for more

6 chinook river systems. Conversely, under significantly lower abundance, Alternative 1 would be

7 expected to return fewer spawners than under fixed escapement goals for Alternatives 2 or 3, although

8 the current modeling of Scenarios B and D do not reflect this even at a 30 percent reduction in

9 abundance from current levels.

10 Indirect Effects of Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

11 or Alternative 3 (Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level) on Listed Chinook and

12 Chum Salmon Populations

13 The direct effects of predicted spawning escapement for Alternative 2, Scenario B (considered the most

14 likely abundance scenario) compared to Alternative 1, Scenario B were predicted to be of a low to

15 moderate beneficial nature for 11 of the 22 populations in the listed Puget Sound Chinook

16 Evolutionarily Significant Unit. (Modeled results of spawning escapement showed an increase from

17 2% to 26%.) Given favorable river and marine survival conditions, and fishing regimes resembling

18 those in place prior to the action, these increases could result in low to moderate increases in spawning

19 returns. However, similar decreases in exploitation rates for some of these same chinook salmon

20 populations observed in recent years have not been accompanied by increases in natural-origin

21 spawners. This suggests that habitat factors may be the primary constraint on natural production

22 (NMFS 2004 [4(d) determination]), and therefore increases in parental escapement would not result in

23 increased abundance in subsequent generations.

24 Modeled results of changes in chinook salmon spawning escapement for the remaining populations

25 varied. Most notably, escapement was predicted to decline by 60 percent for the North Fork and South

26 Fork Stillaguamish chinook salmon populations. Escapement of the Puyallup River fall and White

27 River Spring chinook salmon populations both were predicted to decline substantially (50% and 31%,

28 respectively). Changes of these magnitudes would be much more likely to have measurable effects on

29 abundance and escapement of the subsequent brood years. As noted in Subsection 4.3.1.2, however,

30 escapements of the North Fork Stillaguamish, Puyallup and White River chinook salmon populations

31 under Alternative 2 were predicted to meet current-condition escapement goals. Therefore, it is not

32 necessarily accurate to assume that the indirect effect of Alternative 2 would be substantially negative.
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 108 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 The indirect effects of Alternative 3 would be essentially the same as Alternative 2, with the exception

2 that the Stillaguamish chinook salmon management unit, where escapement was predicted to decline 60

3 percent relative to Alternative 1 under Alternative 2, would increase by approximately 7 percent

4 relative to Alternative 1, under Alternative 3.

5 Fixed escapement goal management strategies, as in Alternative 2 or 3, are less robust to uncertainties

6 in key parameters like survival and management error. Given the imprecision of abundance forecasts,

7 this could be an important advantage (Fieberg 2004 in press).

8 Indirect Effects of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) on Listed Chinook and Chum Salmon Populations

9 The direct effects of Alternative 4 (No Fishing) would be an increase in escapement for all Puget

10 Sound chinook salmon populations relative to Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action). In North Puget

11 Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, increases in chinook salmon escapement would be very similar to

12 the increases under Alternative 2 or 3. In South Puget Sound and Hood Canal, increases in chinook

13 salmon escapement are predicted to range from 5 percent for the Mid-Hood Canal chinook salmon

14 population, to 190 percent for the Nisqually chinook salmon population. In addition to the substantial

15 increase in spawning escapement for the Nisqually chinook salmon population, increases of 75 percent

16 for the Green River population, 31 percent for the Puyallup River population, and 92 percent for the

17 Skokomish River population were predicted by the model. Increased escapements of this magnitude

18 could result in moderate to substantial increases in the spawning escapement of subsequent brood

19 years. However, there is also a possibility that escapements substantially in excess of current-condition

20 escapement goals would result in decreased survival owing to overcrowding of available freshwater

21 spawning and rearing habitat, and increased competition for food. However, much less severe

22 decreases in exploitation rates for some of these same populations observed in recent years have not

23 been accompanied by increases in natural-origin chinook salmon spawners. This suggests that habitat

24 factors may be the primary constraint on natural production (NMFS 2004 [4(d) determination]), and

25 therefore increases in parental escapement would not result in increased abundance in subsequent

26 generations.

27 Indirect Effects of Alternative 2 or 3 on Other Salmon Species

28 As noted in Subsections 4.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.3, Alternative 2 or 3 would substantially increase escapement

29 of coho, pink, and fall chum salmon relative to Alternative 1. Modeling results predicted that overall

30 escapement of naturally-spawning fish would increase from 44 percent to 136 percent depending on the

31 species and the harvest management alternative selected. While this could have the effect of

32 substantially increasing escapement of subsequent brood years, modeled escapements in many
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 109 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 management units substantially exceed current-condition escapement goals, and could result in

2 decreased productivity. For many coho salmon management units, exploitation rate objectives are

3 based on stock recruit functions which would predict that large increases in escapement would not

4 result in substantial increases in progeny (personal communication via e-mail from William Beattie to

5 The William Douglas Company, February 17, 2004). There would be similarly large increases in the

6 escapement of hatchery-origin spawners, with the likely result that there would be increased straying of

7 hatchery fish to the spawning grounds. The indirect effects on sockeye populations would be low or

8 none. Indirect effects on steelhead populations would be low or none owing to the very small changes

9 in catch on this species under either Alternative 2 or 3.

10 4.3.8.2 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action or Alternatives on Fish Species

11 NEPA defines cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental

12 impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,

13 regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40

14 CFR1508.7). For the purpose of this discussion, the terms “effects” and “impacts” will be considered

15 synonymously with “consequences,” and consequences may be negative or beneficial. This subsection

16 presents an analysis of the cumulative effects (negative or beneficial) of the Proposed Action on fish

17 resources in the context of other local, state, tribal, and federal management activities in the Puget

18 Sound region.

19 The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis area includes the entire Puget Sound region.

20 The analysis area covers both inland and marine environments that are managed under laws, policies,

21 regulations, and plans having a direct or indirect impact on fish. The substantive scope of the

22 cumulative effects analysis is predicated on a review of laws, policies, regulations, and plans that

23 specifically pertain to fish-related management activities or that have an indirect negative or beneficial

24 effect on fish resources. These laws, policies, regulations, and plans are described in Section 1 and

25 Appendix F. Due to the geographic scope of the analysis area, it is not feasible to analyze all habitat26 specific activities that are occurring, have occurred in the past, or that will occur in the future in a

27 quantitative manner. By reviewing applicable laws, policies, regulations, and plans, the analysis

28 captures the objectives of management activities that are occurring or are planned to occur that may

29 interface with fish resources within the Puget Sound region. It is assumed that no management activity

30 is occurring or would occur outside of an implemented law, policy, regulation, or sanctioned plan at the

31 federal, tribal, state, or local level. Although the analysis is necessarily qualitative, it provides a

32 thorough review of other activities within the region that, when combined with the Proposed Action,
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 110 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 could have a negative or beneficial affect on fish resources. Table 4.3.8.2-1 summarizes the potential

2 cumulative effects of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives with the effects of these

3 existing plans, policies, programs, and laws.

4 The Proposed Action is implementation of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management

5 Plan (RMP), jointly prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the

6 Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (co-managers). Factors common to the relationship between the RMP and

7 the various existing plans, policies and programs include: 1) the Resource Management Plan would

8 provide protection to Puget Sound chinook salmon by conserving the productivity, abundance, and

9 diversity of populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), while

10 managing harvest of strong salmon stocks; and 2) conserving productivity requires biological integrity

11 in the freshwater systems in which salmon spawn and rear. As shown in Table 4.3.8.2-1, the RMP

12 would be consistent with the intent and policies of each of the federal, tribal, state, and local plans,

13 programs, and laws reviewed for the cumulative effects analysis, and is predicted to enhance the

14 benefits of these other measures as they relate to the conservation and/or enhancement of fish and

15 wildlife habitat and fish populations.

 Consequences

vest 4 - 111 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

on Act, 1956, as

The FWCA recognizes “the vital contribution of our wildlife resourcesto the Nation, the increasing public interest and significance thereofdue to expansion of our national economy and other factors, and toprovide that wildlife conservation shall receive equal considerationand be coordinated with other features of water-resourcedevelopment programs through the effectual and harmoniousplanning, development, maintenance, and coordination of wildlifeconservation and rehabilitation.”

The Resource Management Plan would allow the harvest ofsalmon in coordination with ongoing conservation and rehabilitationefforts for chinook salmon. With an estimated value of $35 million($16.2 million commercial plus $18.8 million recreational), thePuget Sound fishing industries are important to the Nation’seconomy. The Proposed Action would be consistent with theFWCA by recognizing the vital contribution of Puget Sound chinooksalmon to the Nation and our national economy. It is predicted thatimplementation of the Resource Management Plan, in combinationwith the FWCA, would strive to balance considerations of thenational economy, while also providing for fish conservation.

Management Act of

The SMA was adopted in Washington in 1972 with the goal of“prevent[ing] the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemealdevelopment of the state’s shorelines.” The provisions of this law aredesigned to guide the development of the shoreline lands in amanner that will promote and enhance the public interest. The lawexpresses the public concern for protection against adverse effects topublic health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the aquaticlife of the waters.

Rearing habitat within shoreline areas of Washington State isessential to conserving the productivity of Puget Sound chinooksalmon. Consequently, the Proposed Action would be consistentwith the SMA by ensuring that harvest works in concert with habitatprotection efforts under the SMA. Accordingly, it is predicted thatimplementation of the Resource Management Plan, in combinationwith the SMA, would protect fish from adverse effects associatedwith uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’sshorelines.

es Act. Also known

tion, Research, and

A).

The MPRSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate andmanage areas of the marine environment with special nationalsignificance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological,historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or a estheticqualities as National Marine Sanctuaries. One of the purposes andpolicies of the MPRSA is “to maintain the natural biologicalcommunities in the national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and,where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats,populations, and ecological processes.”

Protecting the marine environment where chinook salmon matureis important to conserving the productivity of Puget Sound chinooksalmon. Consequently, the Proposed Action would be consistentwith the MPRSA by maintaining chinook salmon populations of thenatural biological communities in the marine environment.Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the MPRSA, would strive torestore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecologicalprocesses of fish.
 Consequences

vest 4 - 112 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

ontinued)

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

ct of 1972 (CZMA),

e Coastal Zone

The CZMA declares the national policy is “to preserve, protect,develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources ofthe Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations by “theprotection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains,estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish andwildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone.”

Chinook salmon are one of the Nation’s resources within theCZMA’s coastal zone. The Proposed Action would be consistentwith the CZMA by encouraging preservation and protection ofPuget Sound chinook salmon and their habitat within the coastalzone for existing and succeeding generations, and by ensuring thatharvest is consistent with the production and capacity of thehabitat. Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of theResource Management Plan, in combination with the CZMA, wouldpreserve, protect, restore or enhance the fish resources of theNation's coastal zone.

Act of 1972, as

).

The MMPA establishes a Federal responsibility to conserve marinemammals, with management vested in the Department of Commercefor cetaceans and pinnipeds other than walrus. The MMPA statesthat the “Secretary must undertake a program of research anddevelopment for improving fishing methods and gear to reduce to themaximum extent practical the incidental taking of marine mammals incommercial fishing.” To meet this requirement, the “Secretary mustissue regulations to reduce to the lowest practical level the taking ofmarine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations.”Secretary of Commerce has issued regulation that prohibits deterrentdevices that might seriously injure or kill a marine mammal and forfishermen to report unintentional marine mammal mortality.

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the MMPA toconserve marine mammals because the fisheries would be incompliance with Department of Commerce regulations to reduce tothe lowest practical level the take of marine mammals incidental tocommercial fishing operations. Although not specifically addressedin the Resource Management Plan, Department of Commerceregulations require Puget Sound fishermen to use non-lethaldeterrent devices and to report unintentional marine mammalmortality. As chinook salmon are prey of marine mammals,implementation of the Resource Management Plan, in combinationwith the MMPA, is predicted to potentially reduce the amount ofavailable prey for marine mammals over what would have beenavailable had the fisheries not occurred. It is also true that thefisheries reduce the number of salmon in the short term becausethey are removing fish, some of which would otherwise spawn.Over the long term, however, it is expected that the RMP will aid inthe recovery of the populations by ensuring that enough fishescape to produce more in subsequent generations as habitatimproves.
 Consequences

vest 4 - 113 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

ontinued)

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

Act of 1973, as

996 (ESA).

The purpose of the ESA is “to provide a means whereby theecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened speciesdepend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservationof such endangered species and threatened species...” On July 10,2000, NMFS issued a rule under section 4(d) of the ESA (referredhereafter as the 4(d) Rule). The 4(d) Rule provided limits on theapplication of the take prohibitions; i.e., take prohibitions would notapply to the plans and activities set out in the rule if those plans andactivities adequately address criteria of the rule, including thatimplementation and enforcement of the resource management planwill not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery ofaffected threatened ESUs.

The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU is listed as threatenedunder the ESA. The Proposed Action to implement the PugetSound Chinook Salmon Resource Management Plan includes acondition that the Secretary of Commerce will determine whetherthe Resource Management Plan adequately addresses the criteriaoutlined in Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. Consequently, theProposed Action would be consistent with the ESA by meetingthese criteria designed to foster goals and objectives of the ESA,including to avoid appreciably reducing the likelihood of survivaland recovery of Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU. The ESAwould not only have a beneficial impact to listed Puget Soundchinook salmon, but species listed under the ESA also includepredators of chinook salmon such as bull trout and bald eagle.Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the ESA, would potentiallyhave both unquantifiable beneficial and adverse impacts on fishresources.

ntiff, Quinault Tribe

nd on behalf of the

t al., Intervenor

ngton, Defendant,

Washington State

t al., Intervenor

70-9213, February

The Boldt Decision reaffirmed the rights of Washington Indian tribesto fish in accustomed places, and allocated 50 percent of the annualcatch to treaty tribes. Judge Boldt held that the government's promiseto secure the fisheries for the tribes was central to the treaty-makingprocess, and that the tribes had an original right to the fish, whichthey extended to white settlers. Judge Boldt ordered the state to takeaction to limit fishing by non-Indians. The court decision recognizedthat “assuring proper spawning escapement is the basic element ofconservation involved in restricting the harvest of salmon andSteelhead.” The decision further defined adequate productionescapement as “... that level of escapement from each fishery whichwill produce viable offspring in numbers to fully utilize all naturalspawning grounds and propagation facilities reasonable andnecessary for conservation of the resource...”

The objectives and principles of the Resource Management Planjointly developed by the co-managers include compliance with therequirements of the Boldt Decision. The Boldt Decision would nothave an appreciable effect on the total harvest, but addresseswhich party and where the harvest can occur. The Boldt Decisionencourages the conservation of the species. The ResourceManagement Plan would conserve the productivity, abundance,and diversity of chinook salmon populations within the ESU.Therefore, it is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the Boldt Decision, wouldhave a beneficial impact on fish resources.
 Consequences

vest 4 - 114 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

ontinued)

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

pter 76.09 of the

on (RCW), Forest

The FPA defines a plan to protect public resources while assuringthat Washington continues to be a productive timber-growing area.The FPA regulates activities related to growing, harvesting orprocessing timber on all local government, state and private forestlands. The Washington Forest Practices Board was established in1975 by the Legislature under the State Forest Practices Act. By law,the board is charged with establishing rules to protect the state'snatural resources while maintaining a viable timber industry. Thoserules, as embodied in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC),specifically consider the effects of various forest practices on fish,wildlife and water quality, as well as on capital improvements of thestate or of its political subdivisions.

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the intent of the FPAto protect the natural resources of Washington State. Accordingly,it is predicted that implementation of the Resource ManagementPlan, in combination with the FPA, would have a net beneficialimpact on fish resources.

, (CWA). A 1977

 Water Pollution

titled "The Clean

The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical,physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. As stated inthe CWA, maintaining or restoring water quality "provides for theprotection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife...”

The fisheries that would be allowed by the Resource ManagementPlan are predicted to have minimal to negligible effect on theNation’s water quality. Primarily because the CWA would maintainwater quality that provides for the protection and propagation offish, it is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the CWA, would have a netbeneficial impact on fish resources.

rnment of Canada

 United States of

c Salmon, 1985,

es (Pacific Salmon

The Pacific Salmon Treaty calls on the U.S. and Canada (Parties) toconduct its fisheries as to “prevent overfishing and provide foroptimum production.” The Pacific Salmon Treaty defines “overfishing”as “fishing patterns which result in escapements significantly lessthan those required to produce maximum sustainable yields [MSY].”Annex IV, Chapter 3, Chinook Salmon of the Pacific Salmon Treatyfurther states that the Parties shall establish a chinook managementprogram that “sustains healthy stocks and rebuilds stocks that haveyet to achieve MSY or other biologically-based escapementobjectives.” Salmon subject to the Pacific Salmon Treaty includesPacific salmon stocks which originate in the waters of one Party andsubject to interception by the other Party.

Puget Sound chinook salmon are intercepted in Canadian fisheriesunder the authority of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The ResourceManagement Plan accounts for all sources of fishery-relatedchinook salmon mortality, including mortality related to Canadianfisheries. Although the Resource Management Plan would allowexploitation rates that would result in escapements less than thoserequired to produce maximum sustainable yields in some years,the Resource Management Plan would, overall, sustain healthypopulations and rebuild stocks toward maximum sustainable yield.Consequently, the Proposed Action would be consistent with thePacific Salmon Treaty. Accordingly, it is predicted that theimplementation of the Resource Management Plan, in combinationwith the Pacific Salmon Treaty, would have a net beneficial impacton fish resources.
 Consequences

vest 4 - 115 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

ontinued)

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

pter 36.70A RCW

ning by Selected

y referred to as the

A). Adopted by the

The GMA guides the development and adoption of comprehensiveland use plans and development regulations of counties and citieswithin the state of Washington. The goals of the GMA include:“[m]aintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, includingproductive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries” and “[p]rotectthe environment and enhance the state’s high quality of life, includingair and water quality, and the availability of water.”

The fisheries that would be allowed by the Resource ManagementPlan are predicted to have minimal to negligible effect onWashington State water quality. It is predicted that implementationof the Resource Management Plan would provide protection for fishconservation, and would not conflict with planned growth objectivesof the GMA.

ndments to Forest

and Management

the Range of the

nly referred to as the

94.

The NFP is an integrated, comprehensive design for ecosystemmanagement, intergovernmental and public collaboration, and ruralcommunity economic assistance for federal forests in westernOregon, Washington, and northern California. The managementdirection of the NFP consists of extensive standards and guidelines,including land allocations that comprise a comprehensive ecosystemmanagement strategy. Aquatic conservation strategy objectivesoutlined in the NFP (Attachment A of the NFP) include, but are notlimited to: “Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, andcomplexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensureprotection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations andcommunities are uniquely adapted;” and, “Maintain and restore waterquality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetlandecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range thatmaintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of thesystem and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration ofindividuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.”

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the intent of NFP tomaintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity ofwatersheds. Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of theResource Management Plan, in combination with the NFP, wouldhave a net beneficial impact on fish resources.
 Consequences

vest 4 - 116 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

ontinued)

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

on and

through

The stated purpose of the MSCMA is “to promote domesticcommercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation andmanagement principles.” The MSCMA is “to provide for thepreparation and implementation, in accordance with nationalstandards, of fishery management plans which will achieve andmaintain, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.”The MSCMS defines the term “optimum,” with respect to the yieldfrom a fishery, as the amount of fish which -- a) will provide thegreatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to foodproduction and recreational opportunities, and taking into account theprotection of marine ecosystems; b) is prescribed as such on thebasis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reducedby any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and c) in thecase of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a levelconsistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in suchfishery.The National Standards that serve as the overarching objectives forfishery conservation and management include:

Based on consistency with the National Standards addressedbelow, it is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the MSCMA, would have anet beneficial impact on fish resources.

• Conservation and management measures shall prevent

overfishing. The terms “overfishing” and “overfished” mean a rateor level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of afishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuingbasis.

• The Resource Management Plan provides for rebuilding to a

level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield inthe fishery. Consequently, the Proposed Action would beconsistent with the National Standard that the management plan“shall prevent overfishing,” as defined in the MSCMA.

• Conservation and management measures shall be based upon

the best scientific information available.

• The objectives of the Resource Management Plan include

adequately addressing the criteria of a management plan underLimit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. ESA requires the Secretary ofCommerce to make such determinations on the basis of the bestscientific and commercial data available. Consequently, theProposed Action would be consistent with the National Standardof the MSCMA to use the best scientific information available.
 Consequences

vest 4 - 117 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

ontinued)

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

on and

through

ntinued

• To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be

managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelatedpopulations of fish shall be managed as a unit or in closecoordination.

• For harvest management purposes, the Resource Management

Plan defines 15 Puget Sound chinook salmon managementunits. The Resource Management Plan defines a managementunit as a “stock or group of [chinook salmon] stocks which areaggregated for the purpose of achieving a managementobjective.” The Resource Management Plan places limits to thecumulative fishery-related mortality to each Puget Soundchinook salmon population or management unit throughout itsentire range. Thus, the Resource Management Plan accountsfor all sources of fishery-related chinook salmon mortalitythroughout its range. The Proposed Action would be consistentwith the National Standard of the MSCMA to managepopulations throughout its range.

• Conservation and management measures shall take into account

and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries,fishery resources, and catches.

• As outlined in the Resource Management Plan, in managing

fisheries in-season, the co-managers would implementguidelines established during the pre-season planning processto meet conservation requirements. However, these guidelinescould be modified in-season based on in-season assessmentsof effort, catch, abundance, and escapement, while still meetingconservation requirements. Consequently, the Proposed Actionwould be consistent with the National Standard of the MSCMAto allow contingencies in fisheries.

• Conservation and management measures shall minimize bycatch. • The Resource Management Plan is based on limits to the cumulative fishery-related mortality to each Puget Sound

chinook salmon population or management unit. The ProposedAction would limit the cumulative mortality, which includes bycatch, to these limits. Consequently, the Proposed Action wouldbe consistent with the National Standard of the MSCMA tominimize by-catch.
 Consequences

vest 4 - 118 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

ontinued)

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

Salmon Recovery

and the Coast of

gton Treaty Tribes,

Policy).

Major elements of the Gravel to Gravel Policy are to provide habitatprotection and restoration, ensuring abundant spawners, managingfisheries, and integrating hatchery production.

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the Gravel to Gravelpolicy of managing fisheries to ensure abundant spawners.Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the Gravel to Gravel Policy,would have a beneficial impact on fish resources.

ment of Fish and

gton Treaty Tribes

ds (Wild Salmon

on Fish and Wildlife

1997. (Despite the

ve not adopted this

The stated goals of the Wild Salmon Policy include restoringWashington stocks of wild salmon and steelhead to healthy,harvestable runs by “managing commercial and sport fishing toensure enough wild runs return to spawn while providing fishingopportunities where possible.”

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the Wild SalmonPolicy’s intent to manage commercial and recreational fishing toensure enough wild salmon return to spawn while providing fishingopportunities where possible. Accordingly, it is predicted thatimplementation of the Resource Management Plan, in combinationwith the Wild Salmon Policy, would have a beneficial impact on fishresources.

Salmon,

The goal of the SSRS is to “[r]estore salmon, steelhead, and troutpopulations to healthy and harvestable levels and improve thehabitats on which fish rely.” The SSRS is the long-term vision orguide for salmon recovery within the State of Washington.

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the intent of SSRSto restore salmon populations to healthy and harvestable levels.Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the SSRS, would have abeneficial impact on fish resources.

rams Local activities that influence cumulative effects to fish include, but

are not limited to:Water Supply Projects: Local water departments operate andmaintain water reservoirs, pump stations, and water mains to deliverdrinkable water to their customers. Local projects have minimized theadverse impacts of water withdrawal by installing additional watergauges to monitor flows and regulate water use, reducing waterintake during critical environmental periods, and by purchasingexisting water rights to return water to the system.

Many of these local activities are conducted in cooperation withfederal, tribal, and state actions. The fisheries that would beallowed by the Resource Management Plan are predicted to haveminimal to negligible effect on Washington State water quality.Because many of these local plans, policies, and programs wouldmaintain water quality that provides for the protection andpropagation of fish, it is predicted that the implementation of theResource Management Plan, in combination with local plans,policies, and programs, would have a net beneficial impact on fishresources.
 Consequences

vest 4 - 119 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

 Tribal, Washington state, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence fish within the Puget Sound Action Area:

ontinued)

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

Programs

est to most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

rams, continued Levee Maintenance: A levee is a natural or manmade structure,

usually earthen or riprap, which parallels the course of a river. Itfunctions to prevent flooding of the adjoining countryside. However, italso confines the flow of the river resulting in higher, faster waterflow. In recent years, local levee maintenance projects have includedsetting back or removing levees.Stormwater Management: Surface water runoff results from rainfallor snow melt that does not infiltrate the ground or evaporate due toimpervious surfaces. instead, this runoff flows onto adjacent land, orinto watercourses, or is routed into storm drainage collection systemsmanaged by local entities. Local cities and counties are in theprocess of developing watershed plans, subbasin plans, and revisingcodes to minimize the adverse impacts of surface water runoff.Wastewater Treatment Projects: Municipal wastewater treatmentplants process domestic sewage, and commercial and industrialwastewaters. Stormwater and groundwater infiltration may also enterwastewater treatment plants, though efforts are being made tosegregate these flows. Local cities and counties are in the process ofdeveloping facilities plans and revising codes to minimize adverseimpacts associated with wastewater treatment projects.Salmon Recovery Efforts: Local communities are undertakingactivities to protect listed species and their habitat. Examples ofactivities conducted include, but are not limited to: reducing barriersto fish passage; improving habitat forming processes; increasingchannel diversity; improving estuarine habitat; and enhancingstreamside vegetation.Watershed Conservation Plans: As mandated by the 1998 state ofWashington Watershed Management Act and Salmon RecoveryPlanning Act, counties are conducting watershed planning to addresswater quality, water quantity, and salmon habitat issues.

Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 120 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibility 

2 This section qualitatively evaluates the Proposed Action and alternatives with respect to their impact on 

3 the ability of the Puget Sound tribes to exercise their treaty rights to harvest salmon. Subsection 3.4, 

4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibilities − Affected Environment, described how these treaty 

5 rights were interpreted and affirmed by federal courts in U.S. v. Washington, and subsequent judicial 

6 oversight of the tribes’ co-management role and harvest allocation. As explained in Subsection 3.4, the 

7 role of the federal government’s oversight of Puget Sound fisheries is to assure that treaty rights are 

8 protected by federal, state, and local government entities, and to ensure that harvest actions 

9 implemented by the co-managers meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The following 

10 discussion also evaluates the implications under federal trust responsibility of implementing the 

11 Proposed Action or one of the alternatives. 

12 The substantial negative consequences of Alternative 2, 3, or 4 are presented here in a legal context, 

13 relative to the scope of conservation measures that are granted to NMFS as it implements the 

14 Endangered Species Act, complies with treaty rights, and fulfills its trust responsibility. The reader is 

15 referred to Subsections 4.5, Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses; 4.6, Economic 

16 Activity and Value; and 4.7, Environmental Justice, of this Environmental Impact Statement for more 

17 detailed discussion of the economic and cultural consequences to the Puget Sound tribes. 

18 The following comparison of the impacts of the four alternatives is based on Scenario B, which 

19 assumes that the abundance of Puget Sound chinook salmon will be similar to that projected in 2003, 

20 and that intercepting fisheries in British Columbia (Canada) and Alaska will harvest at the maximum 

21 level allowed under the Puget Salmon Treaty (PST) Annex 4 Chapter 3. Though the different 

22 abundance and northern fishery scenarios examined elsewhere in this Environmental Impact Statement 

23 imply different harvest levels in Puget Sound, the difference among alternatives with respect to 

24 qualitative impacts on the exercise of treaty rights would not change. 

25 4.4.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo 

26 Implementation of Alternative 1 would have low or no impact on treaty fisheries as they are currently 

27 conducted. Provided that the abundance of salmon stocks is sufficient to allow harvestable surpluses of 

28 the magnitude modeled under this alternative, the tribes are predicted to be able to continue accessing 

29 their usual and accustomed fishing areas, and to harvest substantial numbers of coho, sockeye, pink, 

30 chum salmon, and steelhead (see Table 4.7-5 in Subsection 4.7, Environmental Justice). The chinook 

31 salmon conservation measures contained in the Resource Management Plan (Appendix A to this 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 121 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Environmental Impact Statement) imply relatively moderate constraints on access to these species, in 

2 order to reduce incidental impact to listed chinook salmon. Under Alternative 1, chinook salmon 

3 harvest would be substantially restricted, relative to historical levels, because of conservation 

4 requirements necessary to protect weak chinook populations. However, these restrictions would be 

5 voluntarily adopted by the tribes, in consultation with the State of Washington (Washington 

6 Department of Fish and Wildlife), as co-managers of Puget Sound fisheries. 

7 Alternative 1 meets the requirement of the Secretarial Order that the restriction: 1) does not 

8 discriminate against Indian activities, and 2) incorporates voluntary tribal measures to achieve the 

9 necessary conservation purpose (Secretarial Order Number 3206, June 5, 1997). Alternative 1 would 

10 comport with the legal requirement that restriction on treaty fisheries be implemented in the least 

11 restrictive manner necessary in order to continue tribal access to naturally- and hatchery-produced 

12 salmon, while conserving natural populations. Therefore, Alternative 1 is predicted to be consistent 

13 with the federal trust responsibility to protect and provide tribal fishing opportunities. However, it is 

14 important to note that the Puget Sound tribes do not construe the fishing opportunity or harvest that 

15 would occur under Alternative 1 as satisfying treaty rights given the reduction in tribal harvest 

16 opportunity and catch that has occurred with the decline of Puget Sound salmon populations over the 

17 last several decades. 

18 The proposed Resource Management Plan states that, for many populations, fishery exploitation rates 

19 would be constrained well below their exploitation rate ceiling- (see discussion in Section 2, 

20 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, Subsection 2.3.1, Alternative 1 − Proposed Action/Status 

21 Quo), at the discretion of the co-managers, while units are recovering. This principle implies that tribes 

22 will voluntarily forego access to chinook salmon and other species from more productive and abundant 

23 units, in the interest of protecting weaker units, and promoting recovery of the Evolutionarily 

24 Significant Unit. 

25 4.4.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level 

26 Under Alternative 2, salmon fisheries in Puget Sound would be confined to terminal (i.e., freshwater) 

27 areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Terminal areas are defined as locations containing 

28 only populations returning to a single river system; such as, the Skagit River. Fisheries under the 

29 jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, including Marine Catch Area 4B from May 

30 to September, would continue to operate. Puget Sound fisheries would also be constrained to meet 

31 harvest objectives for other species. 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 122 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Reduction of treaty fishing opportunities to this extent would substantially preclude the exercise of 

2 treaty rights confirmed in U.S. v. Washington. Therefore, implementing Alternative 2 would be 

3 inconsistent with the federal trust responsibility, and would make the United States subject to litigation 

4 for damages. Alternative 2 would not implement measures that tribes have voluntarily proposed to 

5 achieve the necessary conservation purpose, whereas the Secretarial Order prescribes deference to these 

6 voluntary measures. Managing Puget Sound fisheries to achieve management-unit-specific escapement 

7 goals, and precluding marine fisheries as a means of certainty to achieve these goals, would place 

8 substantial constraint on tribal fisheries. The magnitude of harvest is predicted to be substantially 

9 reduced (78%) under Alternative 2, relative to Alternative 1. Though non-Indian recreational salmon 

10 harvest in freshwater is substantial for all management units, the majority of freshwater harvest, under 

11 Alternative 2 would be taken by Indian net fisheries. 

12 Alternative 2 is predicted to substantially reduce access to usual and accustomed fishing areas and the 

13 exercise of treaty fishing rights compared to Alternative 1. For some tribes, the opportunity to harvest 

14 some species of salmon or steelhead is only available in marine areas. In some cases, harvest of those 

15 species would be precluded because they are either not produced in streams within their usual and 

16 accustomed fishing areas, or are produced at such low abundance that harvest would be precluded. 

17 Under Alternative 2, these species would be entirely unavailable to some tribes, effectively eliminating 

18 the exercise of treaty rights on those species by those tribes. Closure of pre-terminal marine fisheries 

19 due to the presence of commingled listed chinook salmon, would effectively preclude tribal access to 

20 harvest of Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon, and chum salmon originating in southern British 

21 Columbia. The Fraser River sockeye and pink fisheries, in particular, are of great economic and 

22 cultural consequence to tribes that would otherwise access this resource (see Subsections 4.5, Treaty 

23 Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses; 4.6, Economic Activity and Value; and 4.7, 

24 Environmental Justice, of this Environmental Impact Statement). 

25 4.4.3 Alternative 3 − Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

26 Fisheries Only 

27 The fishing regime envisioned by Alternative 3 would limit the exercise of treaty-reserved fishing 

28 rights to a greater extent than under Alternative 2, and would, therefore, be expected to result in a more 

29 substantial impact relative to Alternative 1. Reduction of treaty fishing opportunities to this extent 

30 would substantially preclude the exercise of treaty rights confirmed in U.S. v. Washington. Therefore, 

31 implementing Alternative 3 would be inconsistent with the federal trust responsibility, and would make 

32 the United States subject to litigation for damages. Alternative 3 would not implement measures that 

33 tribes have voluntarily proposed to achieve the necessary conservation purpose, whereas the Secretarial 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 123 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Order (1997) prescribes deference to these voluntary measures. Managing Puget Sound fisheries to 

2 achieve management-unit-specific escapement goals, and precluding marine fisheries as a means of 

3 certainty to achieve these goals, would place substantial constraint on tribal fisheries. 

4 Total salmon harvest is predicted to be 84 percent lower than under Alternative 1 (see Table 4.7.10). 

5 The escapement goals for individual populations prescribed by Alternative 3 infer lower harvestable 

6 abundance in the North Sound region, relative to Alternative 2, resulting in further reduction in fishing 

7 opportunity in the Stillaguamish River and Tulalip Bay (Marine Catch Area 8D). 

8 Alternative 3 is predicted to substantially reduce access to usual and accustomed fishing areas and the 

9 exercise of treaty fishing rights compared to Alternative 1. As under Alternative 2, the closure of 

10 marine areas under Alternative 3 would effectively eliminate the exercise of treaty rights on some 

11 species by some Puget Sound tribes. Closure of pre-terminal marine fisheries due to the presence of 

12 commingled listed chinook salmon, would effectively preclude tribal access to harvest of Fraser River 

13 sockeye and pink salmon, and chum salmon originating in southern British Columbia. The Fraser River 

14 sockeye and pink salmon fisheries, in particular, are of great economic and cultural consequence to 

15 tribes that would otherwise access this resource (see Subsections 4.5, Treaty Indian Ceremonial and 

16 Subsistence Salmon Uses; 4.6, Economic Activity and Value; and 4.7, Environmental Justice, of this 

17 Environmental Impact Statement). 

18 4.4.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take 

19 Under Alternative 4, no fishery-related mortality of listed Puget Sound chinook salmon would occur in 

20 salmon fisheries within the Puget Sound Action Area. Tribal salmon harvest would be limited to late21 season fisheries for chum salmon and steelhead. Fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries 

22 Management Council, including troll fishing in Marine Catch Area 4B from May to September, would 

23 continue to operate. Implementing Alternative 4 would substantially limit the ability of Puget Sound 

24 tribes to obtain salmon or steelhead, since listed chinook are present, to a greater or lesser extent, 

25 throughout the year in most tribal usual and accustomed fishing areas and fisheries. Total salmon 

26 harvest is predicted to be reduced by 98 percent from the level predicted to occur under Alternative 1 

27 (see Table 4.7.12). Implementing Alternative 4 would virtually eliminate access to usual and 

28 accustomed fishing areas in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound.. 

29 Elimination of treaty fishing opportunities on this broad scale would constitute substantial interference 

30 with Indian treaty fishing rights, which are property rights. The conservation standard of U.S. v. 

31 Washington and Secretarial Order Number 3206 require that any restriction on treaty fisheries be 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 124 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 implemented in the least restrictive manner necessary to provide self-sustaining natural- and hatchery2 produced salmon.. Such a severe limitation on the exercise of treaty rights would be inconsistent with 

3 the federal trust responsibility, and would make the United States subject to a damages claim. 

4 Alternative 4 would also fail to promote voluntary tribal measures to achieve the necessary 

5 conservation purpose as required by the Secretarial Order. The consequences of this alternative would 

6 thus have a substantial impact on the ability of Puget Sound tribes to exercise their treaty rights, and on 

7 the ability of the federal government to exercise its trust responsibility. 

8 Alternative 4 could, legitimately, be eliminated from detailed examination in the Environmental Impact 

9 Statement because it implies violation of the trust responsibility of the federal government, and of the 

10 legal implication of Secretarial Order Number 3206 (1997), and thus is inconsistent with the purpose 

11 and need of the Proposed Action (see discussion in Section 2.3). However, the Settlement Agreement 

12 negotiated by the parties to Washington Trout v. Lohn, required analysis of a “No Take, No Harvest” 

13 alternative. 

14 4.4.5 Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

15 There are no predictable indirect effects on the exercise of treaty fishing rights by tribes which would 

16 not be directly affected by this action. Other than U.S. v. Washington and its various sub-proceedings, 

17 including its mandate for the Puget Sound Salmon and Steelhead Management Plan, there are no other 

18 relevant laws or policies that affect the exercise of treaty rights by Puget Sound or other tribes. 

19 Therefore, there are no indirect or cumulative effects to analyze for this element of the Environmental 

20 Impact Statement. 

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 125 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.5 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses 

2 This subsection analyzes the potential effects of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource 

3 Management Plan (the Proposed Action) or alternatives on the 17 treaty tribes that conduct ongoing 

4 treaty-based fishing activities within the Puget Sound Action Area, and the federally-recognized 

5 Snoqualmie and Samish tribes. The effects of the Proposed Action or alternatives on ceremonial and 

6 subsistence resource availability, access, and competition are considered in the context of the 

7 measurement guidelines described below. 

8 Measurement Guidelines 

9 In order to measure the degree of potential effect of the Proposed Action or alternatives, measurement 

10 guidelines are defined here, focusing on those factors that could affect tribal ceremonial and 

11 subsistence fishing. 

12 Direct ceremonial and subsistence effects (occurring at the same time and place as the Proposed Action 

13 or alternatives) are predicated on changes in the availability of, access to, or competition for ceremonial 

14 and subsistence resources. Occurrences that could affect availability of fish resources to ceremonial and 

15 subsistence users include changes in resource abundance. Occurrences that could affect access to 

16 ceremonial and subsistence resources include regulatory barriers. Competition could increase from 

17 overall fishing effort being confined into a limited area that coincides with traditional tribal harvest 

18 areas. 

19 In the context of the Proposed Action and alternatives evaluated in this Environmental Impact 

20 Statement, indirect ceremonial and subsistence effects (caused by the action but later in time or further 

21 removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable) include harvester responses to the direct effects 

22 (e.g., increased effort, costs and/or risk, or inability to go to traditional harvest places); a loss, reduction 

23 or increase of traditional food; effects on culturally significant activities (e.g., traditional harvest 

24 practices, participation or production; processing; distribution and sharing within and between tribes; 

25 ceremonial practices; transfer of knowledge/transmission of culture; satisfaction of eating traditional 

26 food/cultural preferences); and cultural identity. 

27 For ceremonial and subsistence fishing, the following measurement guidelines are used, based on 

28 potential direct and indirect ceremonial and subsistence effects: 

29 No Effect: No effect on availability of, access to, or competition for traditional ceremonial and 

30 subsistence resources. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 126 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 • Would not affect key ceremonial and subsistence species (as measured by harvest effort, 

2 harvests, or cultural importance) 

3 • Would not occur in an important use area for key ceremonial and subsistence resources 

4 • Would be localized and represent a negligible geographic area relative to other areas of 

5 ceremonial and subsistence resource availability 

6 • Would not result in a loss or reduction of traditional food 

7 • Would not affect culturally significant activities 

8 • Would not be measurable and/or expected, or would be of such a rare occurrence that it would be 

9 impossible to measure or detect potential effects. 

10 Low: Small and infrequent effect on availability of, access to, or competition for traditional ceremonial 

11 and subsistence resources. 

12 • Would not affect key ceremonial and subsistence species (as measured by harvest effort, 

13 harvests, or cultural importance) 

14 • Would not occur in an important use area for key ceremonial and subsistence resources 

15 • Would be localized and represent a small geographic area relative to other areas of ceremonial 

16 and subsistence resource availability 

17 • Would result in a small and infrequent reduction of traditional foods 

18 • Would affect culturally significant activities infrequently 

19 • Would be measurable, but of small amount or infrequent occurrence 

20 • Would not affect the overall pattern of ceremonial and subsistence uses. 

21 Moderate: Moderate (e.g., within reasonable limits; medium, not excessive or extreme) effect on 

22 availability of, access to, or competition for traditional ceremonial and subsistence resources. 

23 • Would affect key ceremonial and subsistence species (as measured by harvest effort, harvests or 

24 cultural importance) 

25 • Would occur in an important use area for key ceremonial and subsistence resources 

26 • Would represent a medium geographic area relative to other areas of ceremonial and subsistence 

27 resource availability 

28 • Would result in a minor loss of traditional foods 

29 • Would result in detectable effects on culturally significant activities 

30 • Would be measurable at some level between low and substantial 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 127 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 • Could affect individual ceremonial and subsistence users, groups of users and/or the overall 

2 pattern of ceremonial and subsistence uses. 

3 Substantial: Substantial (e.g., considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent) effect on 

4 availability of, access to, or competition for traditional ceremonial and subsistence resources. 

5 • Would occur frequently 

6 • Would affect key ceremonial and subsistence species (as measured by harvest effort, harvests, or 

7 cultural importance) 

8 • Would occur in an important use area for key ceremonial and subsistence resources 

9 • Would represent a large geographic area relative to other areas of ceremonial and subsistence 

10 resource availability 

11 • Would result in a measurable loss of traditional foods 

12 • Would measurably affect culturally significant activities 

13 • Would be measurable and/or expected 

14 • Would substantially affect individual ceremonial and subsistence users, groups of users and/or 

15 the overall pattern of ceremonial and subsistence uses by communities. 

16 4.5.1 Alternative 1 − Proposed Action/Status Quo 

17 Alternative 1 would implement the 2003 Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan

18 during the 2005-2009 fishing seasons, a harvest management framework similar to that currently used 

19 by state and tribal co-managers within the action area since the year 2000. Under this alternative, all 

20 marine and freshwater areas currently fished would remain open to tribal fishers as long as the 

21 abundance of salmon populations remains sufficiently high to allow a harvestable surplus, and subject 

22 to in-season management to further constrain harvest of listed chinook salmon. The amount of fishing 

23 would vary from year to year depending on population status, but this alternative would allow some 

24 level of tribal fishing for ceremonial and subsistence purposes in all areas currently fished for coho, 

25 sockeye, pink, chum salmon, and steelhead. 

26 Under the Proposed Action, tribal fishers would continue to have ceremonial and subsistence access to 

27 harvestable surpluses of all species, including chinook-directed harvests in terminal areas benefited by 

28 hatchery production. The Proposed Action would provide management flexibility that would allow 

29 tribes access to resources under variable abundance of chinook and other salmon species. 

30 Implementation of the Proposed Action would allow for continued ceremonial and subsistence harvests 

31 similar in size to the previous decade. However, Alternative 1 would impose considerable restriction on 

32 access to chinook salmon due to conservation measures that tribes voluntarily impose upon themselves. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 128 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Although Alternative 1 would be the most flexible of the four alternatives considered, and would 

2 provide tribes the greatest opportunity to harvest salmon for subsistence purposes, it would still 

3 represent a reduction in access and use from historical times. Overall, the Proposed Action would be a 

4 continuation of the status quo, and would have no direct adverse effect on tribal ceremonial and 

5 subsistence fishing within the action area because tribal fishing access would continue to be provided, 

6 and resource availability and competition for resources would not be affected. 

7 This Environmental Impact Statement focuses on harvest levels predicted when Puget Sound chinook 

8 abundance and southern U.S. (SUS) fisheries are at the 2003 level, and intercepting Canadian/Alaskan 

9 fisheries are at the maximum allowed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (Scenario B). Despite the 

10 variability in expected total harvest associated with lower abundance or northern fishery interceptions, 

11 it should be assumed that ceremonial and subsistence harvest would remain relatively constant for 

12 different northern fishery and abundance conditions, due to the high priority that tribal fishery 

13 managers place on meeting these essential requirements of tribal members and communities. In other 

14 words, it would be expected that commercial sales would be reduced, if necessary, to meet these 

15 constant subsistence requirements. 

16 4.5.2 Alternative 2 − Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level 

17 The direct effect of Alternative 2 would be to eliminate tribal harvest opportunity in all marine salmon 

18 areas of Puget Sound, and to close or severely restrict opportunity in the Nooksack and Skagit Rivers. 

19 Because many tribes depend on marine-area fisheries for a significant part or all of their ceremonial 

20 and subsistence harvest, implementation of Alternative 2 would substantially reduce the availability of 

21 salmon for ceremonial and subsistence use,compared to availability under Alternative 1. All species of 

22 salmon have equal cultural importance to tribes, are key ceremonial and subsistence resources, and the 

23 different species are harvested depending upon individual and tribal preferences for ceremonial and 

24 personal or family consumption. For some tribes, species of salmon or steelhead that would be 

25 available under Alternative 1 would no longer be available for harvest with Alternative 2, because they 

26 either would not be produced in streams within tribal usual and accustomed fishing areas, or they 

27 would be produced at such low abundance that harvest would not be allowed. 

28 Total salmon harvest in Puget Sound would be predicted to fall 78 percent with Alternative 2 (Scenario 

29 B), relative to Alternative 1. Total harvest of would fall 36 percent for chinook salmon, 60 percent for 

30 coho, 100 percent for sockeye, 85 percent for pink salmon, and 68 percent for chum. Within regions, 

31 total salmon harvest is predicted to decline 96 percent in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 90 percent in North 

32 Sound, 58 percent in South Sound, and 31 percent in Hood Canal (see Table 4.7.8 in Subsection 4.7, 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 129 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Environmental Justice). The change in the number of salmon used for subsistence purposes cannot be 

2 quantified precisely from this comparison of total harvest, but it suggests that tribal access to salmon 

3 for subsistence purposes would be substantially reduced in all regions, and that access to chinook and 

4 sockeye salmon in particular would be precluded in some regions. 

5 Subsistence and ceremonial harvest is afforded highest priority by the tribes, and therefore is likely to 

6 be more constant than commercial harvest as abundance or access varies. However, the severe 

7 constraint of marine fishing opportunity envisioned under Alternative 2, would likely have substantial 

8 negative impact on the economic well-being of tribal members and communities, thereby increasing the 

9 need for subsistence harvest. 

10 Under Alternative 2, harvesters would be unable to fish in all marine areas within Puget Sound, or in 

11 major freshwater rivers. Consequently, tribal fishing in remaining freshwater areas would increase 

12 compared to levels under Alternative 1. Because certain freshwater areas would remain open, this 

13 alternative could result in increased harvester competition in those areas as fishers seek salmon. 

14 Competition would be likely to increase among tribes that share common usual and accustomed 

15 freshwater fishing areas, and with recreational fishers that may seek increased fishing opportunities in 

16 freshwater areas. 

17 4.5.3 Alternative 3 − Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

18 Fisheries Only. 

19 Like Alternative 2, the direct effect of Alternative 3 would be to eliminate tribal harvest opportunity in 

20 all marine areas. However, Alternative 3 would further constrain tribal harvest opportunity in 

21 freshwater areas because regulating fishing to achieve population-specific escapement goals in the 

22 Stillaguamish and Snohomish Rivers would preclude access to chinook, pink, and coho salmon that 

23 would be available under Alternative 2. Opportunity in other freshwater areas would persist. Because 

24 many tribes depend on marine-area fisheries for a significant part or all of their ceremonial and 

25 subsistence harvest, implementation of Alternative 3 would substantially reduce the availability of 

26 salmon for ceremonial and subsistence use compared to availability under Alternative 1. 

27 Total salmon harvest that would likely occur under Alternative 3 (Scenario B) is predicted to be 84 

28 percent lower than under Alternative 1. Reductions in the total harvest of individual species would be 

29 slightly greater for chinook, coho, and pink salmon, and similar for sockeye, chum, and steelhead, 

30 relative to Alternative 2 (see Table 4.7.10 in Subsection 4.7, Environmental Justice). Reductions in 

31 total regional salmon harvest would be similar to Alternative 2, except in the North Sound region, 

32 where it is predicted that further reductions in chinook, coho, and pink salmon harvest would reduce 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 130 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 total harvest by 99 percent. These negative effects are due to the preclusion of fishing in marine areas, 

2 where many tribes harvest a significant proportion, if not the majority, of their non-commercial salmon. 

3 The actual reduction in the number of salmon that would be used for subsistence purposes under 

4 Alternative 3 cannot be precisely quantified. However, the preclusion of harvest in all marine areas, 

5 and in the Stillaguamish and Snohomish systems, would create substantial additional reduction in the 

6 availability of chinook, coho, and pink salmon in those areas, with particular impact to the tribes that 

7 fish in those areas. As noted for Alternative 2, as commercial harvest opportunity is reduced, the 

8 number of salmon required for subsistence purposes is likely to increase, as income and jobs are lost. 

9 4.5.4 Alternative 4 − No Action/No Authorized Take 

10 Under Alternative 4, all marine-area fisheries and most freshwater fisheries within the action area 

11 would be closed except for certain late-season freshwater fisheries for chum salmon (December – 

12 January) and steelhead (December – March). Total salmon harvest is predicted to decline 98 percent 

13 with Alternative 4, relative to Alternative 1. Fall chum harvest would be limited to the last two weeks 

14 of their spawning period, except in the Nisqually River, where a late-run of chum enters in December 

15 and January. Total chum salmon harvest is predicted to decline 92 percent, relative to Alternative 1, 

16 and would be effectively eliminated in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Hood Canal regions (see Table 

17 4.7.12 in Subsection 4.7, Environmental Justice). For those tribes that do not fish freshwater areas for 

18 chum salmon and steelhead, all fisheries would be closed. 

19 The direct effect of Alternative 4 would be to substantially reduce availability and access to all riverine 

20 and marine salmon compared to Alternative 1. Access to chinook, coho, sockeye and pink salmon 

21 would be eliminated under Alternative 4, and only a few areas would remain open for fall chum salmon 

22 harvests (e.g., limited chum harvest in the Nooksack, Skagit, Green, Skokomish, and Puyallup Rivers; 

23 and unimpeded late-season chum harvest in the Nisqually River). As described in Subsection 3.5, 

24 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses − Affected Environment, all species of salmon 

25 are key ceremonial and subsistence resources (as measured by cultural importance), and different 

26 species are harvested depending upon individual and tribal preferences for ceremonial and personal or 

27 family consumption. 

28 The areas closed to salmon fishing by Alternative 4 (e.g., the Puget Sound Action Area) are important 

29 historic and contemporary tribal harvest areas for ceremonial and subsistence salmon. Tribes rely on 

30 both marine and freshwater habitat of the action area for the harvest of ceremonial and subsistence 

31 salmon, and one Puget Sound tribe or another fishes the freshwater and marine areas within the Puget 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 131 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Sound Action Area. For most tribes, the action area encompasses their entire usual and accustomed 

2 fishing grounds. The area that would be closed by Alternative 4 represents almost the entire geographic 

3 area of salmon availability. For these reasons, Alternative 4 would result in a substantial adverse direct 

4 effect on tribal ceremonial and subsistence fishing. 

5 4.5.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

6 4.5.5.1 Indirect Effects 

7 Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 

8 reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects resulting from the direct effects on ceremonial and subsistence 

9 salmon uses include harvester responses to the direct effects (e.g., increased effort, costs and/or risk, 

10 and inability to go to traditional harvest places), the effects on an increase or loss of traditional foods, 

11 the effects on culturally significant activities associated with salmon uses (e.g., traditional harvest 

12 practices, participation or production; processing; distribution and sharing within and between tribes; 

13 ceremonial practices; transfer of knowledge/transmission of culture; satisfaction of eating traditional 

14 food/cultural preferences) and effects on cultural identity. 

15 Alternative 1 − Proposed Action/Status Quo

16 Because the Proposed Action would result in no adverse effects due to reduced availability of or access 

17 to salmon aside from the conservation restrictions the tribes have voluntarily imposed upon themselves 

18 in consultation with the State of Washington, there would be no adverse indirect effects associated with 

19 Alternative 1. 

20 Alternatives 2 or 3 − Escapement Goal Management

21 Tribal harvesters who rely on marine area fisheries would not be able to fish in their usual and 

22 accustomed fishing areas if Alternative 2 or 3 were implemented. Restrictions in several major 

23 freshwater rivers would greatly limit access to usual and accustomed fishing areas for those tribes. 

24 With the closure of marine fishing areas and the restrictions on many rivers, implementation of the 

25 escapement goal type of management framework would be expected to result in a substantial reduction 

26 in the harvest of a traditional food important to Indian culture for tribes relying on those areas for 

27 salmon harvest. These tribal harvesters would likely be unable to harvest adequate numbers of salmon 

28 for the ceremonial and subsistence purposes described in the Affected Environment. Furthermore, the 

29 fishing closures anticipated under Alternatives 2 or 3 would effectively eliminate or significantly 

30 reduce culturally significant activities associated with salmon, including participation in traditional 

31 harvests; practicing traditional methods of harvesting and processing salmon, including community 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 132 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 smokehouses; formal and informal distribution and sharing salmon within and between tribes; serving 

2 salmon for elder’s dinners, community-wide dinners, or intertribal traditional dinners; reciprocity and 

3 exchanging salmon among kin and community members; sharing and informally distributing salmon −

4 a practice that serves to bind the community in a system relationships and obligations; and gifting of 

5 salmon. 

6 As described in the Affected Environment (Subsection 3.5, Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence 

7 Salmon Uses), salmon is an important traditional food that is intimately linked to ceremonial practices. 

8 Salmon is served during naming ceremonies, funerals, during one-year memorials after a death, and 

9 when students are honored. To tribes, a ceremony is incomplete if salmon is not present. With most 

10 salmon fishing opportunity precluded, conduct of first salmon ceremonies according to ancient 

11 tradition would be precluded in most areas. In addition, the satisfaction of eating traditional foods 

12 contributes to the overall well being of Indian people. Salmon is a favored food, and tribal members 

13 have developed preferences for various species as well as salmon caught in different waters (e.g., 

14 marine versus fresh or different rivers) or from different sections of a river. Alternatives 2 or 3 would 

15 result in a substantial loss of traditional foods for consumption by the Puget Sound tribes. 

16 As described in the Affected Environment (Subsection 3.5), participation in a culture is at the core of 

17 cultural continuity and survival. Furthermore, in order to transfer cultural knowledge between 

18 generations, it is necessary for community members to participate in cultural practices. Harvesting, 

19 processing, preparing, and eating salmon in culturally-prescribed ways are important tribal activities for 

20 the transmission of a salmon fishing culture. Elders teach young people skills, and fishing is part of 

21 one’s tribal education. The continual participation in culturally-significant activities serves to reinforce 

22 cultural values and ensure they are transmitted over time. For Indians within the action area, fishing for 

23 salmon has been for centuries, and continues to be, an integral part of tribal life. If access to harvesting 

24 salmon from marine waters were prohibited, as anticipated under Alternatives 2 or 3, Indian people 

25 within the action area who rely on marine salmon harvests would be subjected to being separated from 

26 a part of their cultural core, their cultural identity. Alternative 2 or 3 would eliminate marine salmon 

27 fishing and limit freshwater fishing to terminal fisheries. Without salmon fishing, associated cultural 

28 activities could not be practiced. Implementation of Alternative 2 or 3 would strike at the core of the 

29 cultural identity of the tribes within the action area who rely on salmon caught in marine areas. 

30 Therefore, Alternative 2 or 3 would result in a substantial adverse indirect effect on tribal ceremonial 

31 and subsistence salmon fishing and use as compared with Alternative 1, because either would 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 133 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 substantially affect individual ceremonial and subsistence users, groups of users, and the overall pattern 

2 of ceremonial and subsistence uses by communities. 

3 Alternative 4 − No Action/No Authorized Take

4 Closure of salmon fishing in Puget Sound to the extent envisioned under Alternative 4, would, as stated 

5 above, essentially preclude exercise of Treaty fishing rights by the affected tribes. Salmon would 

6 continue to be available to tribal members from sources outside of Puget Sound and from conventional 

7 retail markets, but this acquisition would not substitute for salmon harvested locally, by local tribal 

8 members, from within their usual fishing areas. Obtaining salmon for ceremonial and subsistence 

9 purposes is inextricably associated with the practice of harvest according to ancient custom, on 

10 ancestral fishing grounds. Obtaining salmon from non-local sources would, in addition, necessarily 

11 incur relatively high cost and inconvenience, and could not, for most tribal people, be regarded as 

12 subsistence use. 

13 With the closure of marine and freshwater fishing areas and access only to limited harvest of fall and 

14 winter chum and steelhead, Alternative 4would result in an abrupt and substantial reduction in the 

15 harvest of a traditional food important to Indian culture. To an even greater extent than Alternative 2 or 

16 3, Alternative 4 would result in tribal harvesters being unable to harvest adequate numbers of salmon 

17 for the ceremonial and subsistence purposes described in Subsection 3.5 (Treaty Indian Ceremonial and 

18 Subsistence Salmon Uses − Affected Environment). Also to a greater extent than Alternative 2 or 3, 

19 fishing closures in Alternative 4 would affect a wide pattern of culturally-significant activities 

20 associated with salmon (including traditional harvest practices, participation in production, processing, 

21 distribution and sharing, ceremonial practices, transfer of culture, satisfaction of eating traditional 

22 foods, and cultural identity). All of the indirect effects described with Alternative 2 or 3 would apply to 

23 Alternative 4, and would be exacerbated by the near-total closure of tribal access to salmon within the 

24 action area. 

25 Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in a substantial adverse indirect effect on tribal ceremonial and 

26 subsistence salmon fishing and uses compared to Alternative 1, because it would substantially affect 

27 individual ceremonial and subsistence users, groups of users and the overall pattern of ceremonial and 

28 subsistence uses by communities. 

29 4.5.5.2 Cumulative Impacts 

30 There are no predictable indirect effects on tribal use of salmon for subsistence or ceremonial purposes 

31 by Puget Sound tribes, or other tribes which would not be directly affected by this action. Other than 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 134 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 U.S. v. Washington and its various sub-proceedings, including its mandate for the Puget Sound Salmon 

2 and Steelhead Management Plan, there are no other relevant laws or policies that affect subsistence or 

3 ceremonial use by Puget Sound or other tribes. Therefore, there are no indirect or cumulative effects to 

4 analyze for this element of the Environmental Impact Statement. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 135 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.6 Economic Activity and Value 

2 The following sections describe the effects of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives on 

3 commercial and sport fisheries and on the local and regional economy in the Puget Sound area. 

4 Economic impact indicators include sales by commercial salmon harvesters and processors, sales by 

5 businesses to sport fishing anglers, net economic values to commercial harvesters and processors, 

6 angler days, net economic values to sport anglers, and regional employment and personal income 

7 levels. Major effects on these indicators are summarized in Table 4.6-1, which characterizes the 

8 severity of predicted economic impacts. Based on an assessment of the annual variability in the 

9 economic impact indicators and on best professional judgment, the effects are characterized as follows: 

10 no impact (i.e., no change in economic impact indicators), low impact (i.e., less than a 2% change), 

11 moderate impact (i.e., 2 to 10% change), and substantial impact (more than 10% change). In addition, 

12 as described in the Section 4.3, Fish, implementing the Proposed Action could delay to some extent the 

13 recovery of several Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations. However, the effect that implementing 

14 Alternative 1 would have on the recovery period affecting the de-listing of the Puget Sound Chinook 

15 ESU cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. The harvest of Puget Sound 

16 Chinook salmon is only one of many factors that affect recovery and the incremental effect of harvest 

17 cannot be accurately isolated. Consequently, the extent to which the period of recovery is delayed 

18 cannot be determined, nor can it be determined whether the delay in the recovery of several populations 

19 within the multi-population Puget Sound Chinook ESU would affect the time in which the ESU would 

20 be de-listed. NMFS has stated that not all populations within the ESU would need to be at equally low 

21 risk in order to determine that the ESU was sufficiently recovered to be de-listed, and that there are 

22 probably multiple recovery scenarios. Nonetheless, a delay in de-listing could extend recovery efforts, 

23 which may impose additional costs on agencies responsible for recovery and additional costs for 

24 businesses and other entities to comply with take regulations. Although these additional costs cannot be 

25 estimated with any reasonable degree of accuracy, the costs could adversely affect businesses and other 

26 entities that impact Chinook salmon habitat in the Puget Sound area and the regional economy.

27 The following sections describe the effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on salmon 

28 commercial fisheries, salmon sport fisheries, and regional economies in the Puget Sound area. 

29 Economic impact indicators include sales by commercial salmon harvesters and processors, sales by 

30 businesses to sport fishing anglers, net economic values to commercial harvesters and processors, 

31 angler days, net economic values to sport anglers, and regional employment and personal income 

32 levels. Major effects on these indicators are summarized in Table 4.6-1, which characterizes the 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 136 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 severity of predicted economic impacts. Based on an assessment of the annual variability in the 

2 economic impact indicators and on best professional judgment, the effects are characterized as follows: 

3 no impact (i.e., no change in economic impact indicators), low impact (i.e., less than a 2% change), 

4 moderate impact (i.e., 2 to 10% change), and substantial impact (more than 10% change).

5 The impact predictions presented in this section, which draw from the effects shown in Tables 4.6-2 

6 through 4.6-19, are based on assumptions and data sources described in Appendix D. It should be noted 

7 that the direct employment effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on the commercial salmon 

8 harvesting sector are evaluated using two measures: direct jobs and direct employment (Tables 4.6-3, 

9 4.6-7, 4.6-11, and 4.6-15). “Direct jobs” represent both full-time and part-time jobs, whereas “direct 

10 employment” represents full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. Nearly all of the “direct jobs” are part-time 

11 positions because of the seasonality of commercial salmon fishing in Puget Sound. Many persons 

12 engaged in commercial salmon fishing also participate in other fisheries and/or have other occupations. 

13 Consequently, the effect of changes in the salmon harvest associated with Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 on the 

14 number of “direct jobs” in commercial fishing is difficult to assess, and the numbers presented in 

15 Tables 4.6-3, 4.6-7, 4.6-11, and 4.6-15 should be interpreted as estimates of the number of potentially16 affected persons employed in the salmon fishing industry,, as opposed to the number of persons who 

17 would necessarily become unemployed. 

18 It also should be noted that estimated changes in net economic values to commercial salmon harvesters 

19 and processors under Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 exceed the estimates of net economic value under the 

20 Proposed Action/Status Quo. These results reflect consideration of the cost of unemployed labor and 

21 the potential loss of capital investments (i.e., boats and equipment) used for commercial fishing that 

22 would result from the substantial reductions in the commercial salmon harvest under Alternatives 2, 3, 

23 or 4. Substantial changes in the commercial harvest of salmon also would likely affect tribal 

24 commercial fishermen differently than non-tribal fishermen because of existing differences in 

25 alternative employment and capital investment opportunities; however, this issue, discussed more fully 

26 in Attachment C of Appendix D, and the associated effects on net economic values, could not be fully 

27 resolved for the analysis. 

28 As discussed in Subsection 3.6, although nonuse values associated with the recovery of listed Puget 

29 Sound Chinook salmon are theoretically measurable and likely differ to some extent between the 

30 alternatives, existing data on recovery rates are too limited to reliably estimate these values.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 137 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.6.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo 

2 The Proposed Action would maintain commercial and sport fisheries at levels similar to conditions in 

3 the past. 

4 4.6.1.1 Summary of Scenario Differences 

5 Scenario A, which assumes high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 2003, is 

6 predicted generally to result in the highest levels of commercial and sport fishing activity, followed by 

7 Scenario B (high abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries); Scenario C (30% reduction 

8 in abundance with Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to 2003); and Scenario D (30% reduction in 

9 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries). 

10 The differences in commercial and sport fishing activity across the four scenarios are not predicted to 

11 be large. Compared to commercial salmon harvests under Scenario A, which are predicted to total an 

12 estimated 20.0 million pounds, Scenario B is predicted to result in harvests that would be about 99 

13 percent of the levels under Scenario A; Scenario C harvests are predicted to be 98 percent of Scenario 

14 A levels; and Scenario D harvests are predicted to be 97 percent of Scenario A levels. In terms of sport 

15 fishing activity, Scenario B is predicted to result in angler trips that would be about 99 percent of the 

16 1.4 million Scenario A trips; Scenario C trips are predicted to be 93 percent of Scenario A trips; and 

17 Scenario D trips are predicted to be 95 percent of Scenario A trips. 

18 4.6.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level 

19 Alternative 2, the management unit-based escapement alternative, is predicted to result in commercial 

20 and sport fishing activities at levels substantially below conditions in the past, but at levels greater than 

21 under Alternatives 3 or 4. 

22 4.6.2.1 Summary of Scenario Differences 

23 Under Alternative 2, Scenario A (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 

24 2003) is predicted to result in the highest levels of commercial and sport fishing activity, followed by 

25 Scenario B (high abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries); Scenario C (30% reduction 

26 in abundance with Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to 2003); and Scenario D (30% reduction in 

27 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries). The differences in commercial and sport 

28 fishing activity are predicted to be relatively large across the four scenarios. Compared to commercial 

29 harvests under Scenario A, which are predicted to total an estimated 3.4 million pounds, Scenario B is 

30 predicted to result in harvests that would be approximately 99 percent of the levels under Scenario A; 

31 Scenario C harvests are predicted to be 84 percent of Scenario A levels; and Scenario D harvests are 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 138 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 predicted to be 83 percent of Scenario A levels. In terms of sport fishing activity, Scenario B is 

2 predicted to result in angler trips that would be approximately 96 percent of the 231,900 Scenario A 

3 trips; Scenario C trips are predicted to be 71 percent of Scenario A trips; and Scenario D trips are 

4 predicted to be 67 percent of Scenario A trips. 

5 4.6.2.2 Comparison of the Management Unit-Based Escapement Alternative (Alternative 2) to 

6 the Proposed Action 

7 Relative to the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 is predicted to result in substantially reduced levels of 

8 commercial salmon harvests and sport fishing activity. Consequently, sales, employment, and personal 

9 income generated by commercial salmon harvests and sport fishing expenditures and net economic 

10 value also are predicted to be substantially smaller under Alternative 2 compared to the Proposed 

11 Action (Tables 4.6-5, 4.6-9, 4.6-13, 4.6-17 and 4.6-19). The reduction in net economic value (Table 

12 4.6-18) associated with commercial fishing is predicted to be greater than the value under baseline 

13 conditions (the Proposed Action), because of the costs to society of unemployed labor resources and 

14 the expected loss in the value of capital investments (i.e., boats and equipment). 

15 Under Alternative 2, Scenario B, commercial salmon harvests are predicted to be reduced by nearly 

16 100 percent for non-tribal fishers and 72 percent for tribal fishers (Table 4.6-6), relative to levels under 

17 the Proposed Action, Scenario B. For sport fishing, angler trips are predicted to be reduced by 84 

18 percent (Table 4.6-8). The severity of commercial and sport fishing effects is predicted to vary among 

19 the three economic regions within the Puget Sound Action Area. For non-tribal commercial salmon 

20 fishermen, harvest reductions are expected to be largest in the North Puget Sound and South Puget 

21 Sound/South Hood Canal regions, where commercial harvests are predicted to be eliminated; 

22 conversely, non-tribal commercial salmon harvests are expected to increase by 22 percent in the Strait 

23 of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region (Table 4.6-6). For tribal commercial salmon fishermen, 

24 harvest reductions are predicted to range from 43 percent in the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal 

25 region to 97 percent in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal Region. Reductions in sport 

26 fishing trips are predicted to be substantial for all regions, ranging from 77 percent in the North Puget 

27 Sound region to 98 percent in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region (Table 4.6-8). For all 

28 regions, sport-fishing trips are expected to be eliminated in marine areas, with sport fishing for salmon 

29 limited to freshwater tributaries to Puget Sound. Under Scenario B, effects on regional sales, 

30 employment, and personal income are expected to follow the general direction and severity of regional 

31 changes in commercial harvests and sport fishing activity (Tables 4.6-7 and 4.6-9). 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 139 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 For Scenarios A, C, or D, Alternative 2 is expected to result in commercial and sport fishing impacts 

2 relative to the Proposed Action similar to those described for Scenario B. For non-tribal commercial 

3 salmon fishermen, reductions in harvests are anticipated to be nearly 100 percent under each scenario 

4 (Tables 4.6-2, 4.6-10, and 4.6-14). For tribal fishermen, harvest reductions are estimated to range from 

5 72 percent under Scenario A (Table 4.6-2), to 76 percent under Scenarios C or D (Tables 4.6-10 and 

6 4.6-14). Overall reductions in sport angler trips are predicted to range from 84 percent under Scenario 

7 A (Table 4.6-4), to 89 percent under Scenario D (Table 4.6-16). 

8 In conclusion, the local economic effects of Alternative 2 under all scenarios are anticipated to be 

9 substantial and adverse relative to conditions under the Proposed Action for all three regions of the 

10 Puget Sound Action Area (Table 4.6-1). These effects would be most severe in communities dependent 

11 upon commercial fishing and sport fishing activities, and, potentially, in communities with seafood 

12 processing facilities. While substantially adverse in local areas, the adverse economic effects of 

13 Alternative 2 are anticipated to be low when viewed in the context of the overall economy of each 

14 region, because the estimated reductions in sales, employment, and personal income under the 

15 alternatives would be minor compared to total levels for each region. For example, total reductions in 

16 commercial and sport fishing-related employment under the worst case scenario (i.e., Scenario D) 

17 would be an estimated 621 full-time equivalent jobs in the North Puget Sound region, 368 jobs in the 

18 Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and 200 jobs in the South Puget Sound/South Hood 

19 Canal region (Table 4.6-17). Based on regional employment levels in 2000 (see Table 3.6-4), these job 

20 losses would represent 0.1 percent of the total jobs in the North Puget Sound region, 0.8 percent of the 

21 jobs in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and less than 0.1 percent of the jobs in the 

22 South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region. 

23 4.6.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal 

24 Fisheries Only 

25 Alternative 3, the population unit-based escapement alternative, is predicted to result in commercial 

26 and sport fishing activities at levels similar to Alternative 2, but substantially below past conditions. 

27 4.6.3.1 Summary of Scenario Differences 

28 Under Alternative 3, Scenario A (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 

29 2003) is predicted to result in the highest levels of commercial and sport fishing activity, followed by 

30 Scenario B (high abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries); Scenario C (30% reduction 

31 in abundance with Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to 2003); and Scenario D (30% reduction in 

32 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries). The differences in commercial and sport 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 140 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 fishing activity are relatively large across the four scenarios. Compared to commercial harvests under 

2 Scenario A, which would total an estimated 2.8 million pounds, Scenario B is predicted to result in 

3 harvests that would be about 99 percent of the levels under Scenario A; Scenario C harvests would be 

4 90 percent of Scenario A levels; and Scenario D harvests would be 89 percent of Scenario A levels. In 

5 terms of sport fishing activity, Scenario B is predicted to result in angler trips that would be about 95 

6 percent of the 177,500 Scenario A trips; Scenario C trips would be 76 percent of Scenario A trips; and 

7 Scenario D trips would be 71 percent of Scenario A trips. 

8 4.6.3.2 Comparison of the Population Unit-Based Escapement Alternative (Alternative 3) to the 

9 Proposed Action 

10 Relative to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 is predicted to result in substantially reduced levels of 

11 commercial salmon harvests and sport fishing activity. Consequently, sales, employment, and personal 

12 income generated by commercial salmon harvests and sport fishing expenditures and net economic 

13 value also are predicted be substantially smaller under Alternative 3 compared to the Proposed Action 

14 (Tables 4.6-5, 4.6-9, 4.6-13, 4.6-17 and 4.6-19). Similar to Alternative 2, the reduction in net economic 

15 value (Table 4.6-18) associated with commercial fishing is predicted to be greater than the value under 

16 baseline conditions (the Proposed Action) because of the costs to society of unemployed labor 

17 resources and the expected loss in the value of capital investments (i.e., boats and equipment). 

18 Under Alternative 3, Scenario B, the severity of regional commercial and sport fishing effects are 

19 predicted to be similar to those previously described for Alternative 2 for all regions other than the 

20 North Puget Sound region. Within the North Puget Sound region, reductions in tribal commercial 

21 harvests and sport fishing trips are predicted to be slightly more severe than under Alternative 2 (Tables 

22 4.6-6 and 4.6-8). Effects on regional sales, employment, and personal income under Alternative 3, 

23 Scenario B, are predicted to follow the general direction and severity of regional changes in 

24 commercial harvests and sport fishing activity (Tables 4.6-7 and 4.6-9). 

25 For Scenarios A, C, or D, Alternative 3 is expected to result in commercial and sport fishing impacts 

26 relative to the Proposed Action similar to those described for Scenario B. For non-tribal commercial 

27 salmon fishermen, reductions in harvests are anticipated to be nearly 100 percent under each scenario 

28 (Tables 4.6-2, 4.6-10, and 4.6-14). For tribal fishermen, harvest reductions are estimated to range from 

29 77 percent under Scenario A (Table 4.6-2), to 79 percent under Scenarios C or D (Tables 4.6-10 and 

30 4.6-14). Overall reductions in sport angler trips are predicted to range from 88 percent under Scenario 

31 A (Table 4.6-4), to 91 percent under Scenario D (Table 4.6-16). 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 141 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 In conclusion, the local economic effects of Alternative 3 under all scenarios are anticipated to be 

2 substantial and adverse relative to conditions under the Proposed Action for all three regions of the 

3 Puget Sound Action Area (Table 4.6-1). These effects would be most severe in communities dependent 

4 upon commercial fishing and sport fishing activities, and, potentially, in communities with seafood 

5 processing facilities. While substantially adverse in local areas, the adverse economic effects of 

6 Alternative 3 are anticipated to be low when viewed in the context of the overall economy of each 

7 region, because the estimated reductions in sales, employment, and personal income under the 

8 alternatives would be minor compared to total levels for each region. For example, total reductions in 

9 commercial and sport fishing-related employment under the worst case scenario (i.e., Scenario D) 

10 would be an estimated 645 full-time equivalent jobs in the North Puget Sound region, 370 jobs in the 

11 Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and 200 jobs in the South Puget Sound/South Hood 

12 Canal region (Table 4.6-17). Based on regional employment levels in 2000 (see Table 3.6-4), these job 

13 losses would represent 0.1 percent of the total jobs in the North Puget Sound region, 0.8 percent of the 

14 jobs in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and less than 0.1 percent of the jobs in the 

15 South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region. 

16 4.6.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take 

17 Alternative 4, the no authorized take alternative, would substantially limit commercial and sport fishing 

18 activities, resulting in activity levels substantially below conditions in the past or under Alternative 2 or 

19 Alternative 3. 

20 4.6.4.1 Summary of Scenario Differences 

21 Under Alternative 4, effects on commercial and sport fishing activity are predicted to be virtually the 

22 same across all four scenarios, with commercial salmon harvests of about 429,000 pounds and sport 

23 fishing activity of 4,300 trips. 

24 4.6.4.2 Comparison of the No Action/No Authorized Take Alternative (Alternative 4) to the 

25 Proposed Action 

26 Relative to the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 is predicted to eliminate almost all levels of commercial 

27 salmon harvests and sport fishing activity in the Puget Sound area. Consequently, sales, employment, 

28 and personal income generated by commercial salmon harvests and sport fishing expenditures and net 

29 economic value also are predicted be virtually eliminated (Tables 4.6-5, 4.6-9, 4.6-13, 4.6-17 and 4.6-

30 19). Similar to Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, the reduction in net economic value (Table 4.6-18) 

31 associated with commercial fishing is predicted to be greater than the value under baseline conditions 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 142 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 (the Proposed Action) because of the costs to society of unemployed labor resources and the expected 

2 loss in the value of capital investments (i.e., boats and equipment). 

3 Under Alternative 4, Scenario B (high abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries), 

4 commercial salmon harvests are predicted to be reduced by 100 percent for non-tribal fishers and by 96 

5 percent for tribal fishers (Table 4.6-6). Commercial salmon fishing is predicted to be virtually 

6 eliminated in the North Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal regions (Table 4.6-

7 6). Within the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal Region, tribal harvest is expected to be reduced 

8 by 91 percent compared to harvest levels under the Proposed Action. For sport fishing under 

9 Alternative 4 (Scenario B), total angler trips and net economic value would be reduced by more than 99 

10 percent (Tables 4.6-8 and 4.6-19). Within all regions, sport fishing is predicted to be limited to a very 

11 small number of freshwater sport fishing trips (Table 4.6-8). Adverse effects on regional sales, 

12 employment, and personal income generated by changes in commercial harvests and sport fishing 

13 activity are predicted to be substantial in all regions (Table 4.6-9). 

14 For Scenarios A (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 2003); C (30% 

15 reduction in abundance with Canadian and Alaskan fisheries similar to 2003); or D (30% reduction in 

16 abundance with maximum Canadian and Alaskan fisheries), Alternative 4 is expected to result in 

17 commercial and sport fishing impacts relative to the Proposed Action virtually the same as those 

18 described for Scenario B, with commercial harvests and sport fishing trips virtually eliminated in all 

19 regions within the Puget Sound Action Area (Tables 4.6-2, 4.6-4, 4.6-10, 4.6-12, 4.6-14, and 4.6-16). 

20 In conclusion, the local economic effects of Alternative 4 under all scenarios are anticipated to be 

21 substantial and adverse relative to conditions under the Proposed Action for all three regions of the 

22 Puget Sound Action Area (Table 4.6-1). These effects would be most severe in communities dependent 

23 upon commercial fishing and sport fishing activities, and, potentially, in communities with seafood 

24 processing facilities. While substantially adverse in local areas, the adverse economic effects of 

25 Alternative 4 are anticipated to be low when viewed in the context of the overall economy of each 

26 region, because the estimated reductions in sales, employment, and personal income under the 

27 alternatives would be minor compared to total levels for each region. For example, total reductions in 

28 commercial and sport fishing-related employment under the worst case scenario (i.e., Scenario D) 

29 would be an estimated 660 full-time equivalent jobs in the North Puget Sound region, 373 jobs in the 

30 Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and 276 jobs in the South Puget Sound/South Hood 

31 Canal region (Table 4.6-17). Based on regional employment levels in 2000 (see Table 3.6-4), these job 

32 losses would represent 0.1 percent of the total jobs in the North Puget Sound region, 0.8 percent of the 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 143 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 jobs in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and less than 0.1 percent of the jobs in the 

2 South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region. 

3 4.6.5 Summary 

4 In summary, compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 is predicted to have the most severe effect 

5 on the commercial and sport harvest of salmon and on regional economic activity, followed by 

6 Alternatives 3 and 2. 

7 Under Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 for all scenarios, the virtual elimination of marine fishing and substantial 

8 restrictions on freshwater fishing would be expected to greatly reduce statewide and regional economic 

9 activity associated with Puget Sound commercial and sport fisheries. Under Scenario B (high 

10 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries), total statewide salmon harvester and processor 

11 sales generated by the Puget Sound fishery are predicted to fall from $26.9 million under the Proposed 

12 Action to $4.3 million under Alternative 2, $3.6 million under Alternative 3, and $438,000 under 

13 Alternative 4 (Table 4.6-9). For Scenario B, similar reductions, ranging from 85 percent under 

14 Alternative 2 to 98 percent under Alternative 4, are predicted to occur in total employment and 

15 personal income generated by commercial salmon fishing and processing (Table 4.6-9). Statewide 

16 economic effects resulting from reductions in sport fishing activity are predicted to be much less severe 

17 than effects resulting from reduced commercial harvests because, on a statewide level, net sport 

18 fishing-related effects would be generated only by reductions in trip-related spending by persons 

19 residing outside of Washington, who account for a small portion of total trips. Reductions in angler 

20 trips and trip-related expenditures by Washington residents would have little effect because changes in 

21 spending by residents would merely redirect money already in the state economy, resulting in no net 

22 economic effects. As a result, sales, employment, and personal income in Washington related to sport 

23 fishing in Puget Sound are predicted to decline by only about 6 percent for all alternatives under 

24 Scenario B compared to levels under the Proposed Action (Table 4.6-9). 

25 Among the three economic regions surrounding Puget Sound, all but the South Puget Sound/South 

26 Hood Canal region are predicted to lose more than 94 percent of the local and regional sales, 

27 employment, and personal income generated by commercial salmon fishing in the Puget Sound fishery 

28 under Scenario B of the three alternatives (Table 4.6-9). Reductions in commercial salmon fishing29 related economic activity in the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region are predicted to range 

30 from 65 percent under Alternatives 2 or 3, to 95 percent under Alternative 4. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 144 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 As with statewide effects, regional economic impacts resulting from reductions in sport fishing activity 

2 associated with the Puget Sound fishery are anticipated to be less severe than commercial fishing 

3 impacts. This is because economic effects in each region would result only from reductions in fishing 

4 trips and expenditures associated with out-of-region anglers who account for a relatively small 

5 percentage of angler activity. Under Scenario B, reductions in sport fishing-related economic activity 

6 (i.e., sales, employment, and personal income) are predicted to be largest in the Strait of Juan de 

7 Fuca/North Hood Canal region, ranging between 69 and 72 percent (Table 4.6-9). In the North Puget 

8 Sound region, reductions in sport fishing-related economic activity are predicted to range from about 

9 21 percent under Alternative 2 to about 27 percent under Alternative 4. Reductions in economic 

10 activity in the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region are predicted to range from about 12 

11 percent under Alternative 2 to about 15 percent under Alternative 4 (Table 4.6-9). 

12 For Scenarios A (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 2003); C (30% 

13 reduction in abundance with Canadian and Alaskan fisheries similar to 2003); or D (30% reduction in 

14 abundance with maximum Canadian and Alaskan fisheries), Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 are predicted to 

15 result in regional economic impacts relative to the Proposed Action similar to those described for 

16 Scenario B although effects are generally predicted to be greatest under Scenario D. For Scenarios A, 

17 C, or D, total statewide salmon harvester and processor sales generated by the Puget Sound fishery are 

18 predicted to fall from 84 to 87 percent with Alternative 2; 87 to 88 percent with Alternative 3; and 98 

19 percent with Alternative 4 (Tables 4.6-5, 4.6-13, 4.6-17). Similar reductions, ranging from 84 to 87 

20 percent with Alternative 2, to 98 percent with Alternative 4, are predicted to occur in total employment 

21 and personal income generated by commercial salmon fishing and processing (Tables 4.6-5, 4.6-13, 

22 and 4.6-17). Under Scenarios A, C, or D, sales, employment, and personal income in Washington 

23 related to sport fishing in Puget Sound are predicted to decline by only about 6 to 7 percent for all 

24 alternatives compared to levels under the Proposed Action (Tables 4.6-5, 4.6-13, and 4.6-17). 

25 In conclusion, the local economic effects of Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 are predicted to be substantial and 

26 adverse relative to conditions under the Proposed Action for all three regions of the Puget Sound 

27 Action Area (Table 4.6-1). These effects would be most severe in communities dependent upon 

28 commercial fishing and sport fishing activities, and, potentially, in communities with seafood 

29 processing facilities. While substantially adverse in local areas, the adverse economic effects of the 

30 three alternatives would be low when viewed in the context of the overall economy of each region, 

31 because the estimated reductions in sales, employment, and personal income under the alternatives 

32 would be minor compared to total levels for each region. For example, total reductions in commercial 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 145 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 and sport fishing-related employment under the worst case alternative and scenario (i.e., Alternative 4, 

2 Scenario D) would be an estimated 660 full-time equivalent jobs in the North Puget Sound region, 373 

3 jobs in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and 276 jobs in the South Puget 

4 Sound/South Hood Canal region (Table 4.6-17). Based on regional employment levels in 2000 (see 

5 Table 3.6-4), these job losses would represent 0.1 percent of total jobs in the North Puget Sound region, 

6 0.8 percent of jobs in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region, and less than 0.1 percent of 

7 jobs in the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region. 

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-1. Performance of economic indicators under alternatives 1-4 relative to conservation standards under scenarios 1-4.

Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent Type Extent T

North Puget Sound:Sales by commercial salmon harvesters & processors AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Net economic value of commercial salmon fishing AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Sales by businesses to sport fishing anglers AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Sport fishing angler days AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Net economic value to sport fishing anglers AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Regional employment AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Regional personal income AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Sales by commercial salmon harvesters & processors AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Net economic value of commercial salmon fishing AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Sales by businesses to sport fishing anglers AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Sport fishing angler days AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Net economic value to sport fishing anglers AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Regional employment AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Regional personal income AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:Sales by commercial salmon harvesters & processors AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Net economic value of commercial salmon fishing AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Sales by businesses to sport fishing anglers AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Sport fishing angler days AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Net economic value to sport fishing anglers AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Regional employment AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Regional personal income AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS 

B O

A L

NI M

Substantial (>10%) SImpact extent:No impact (0%)Low (<2%)Moderate (2%-10%)

Impact type:BeneficialAdverseNo impact

Alternative 4 Compared 

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario A Scenario B S

Alternative 3 Compared to Alternative 1

Scenario D

Alternative 2 Compared to Alternative 1

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 146 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-2. Impacts to commercial harvest, commercial harvest value, and processing value.Scenario A: 2003 Abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent 

Region Status Quo Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change Number 

Puget Sound North:Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 5,567,330 3,032 -5,564,298 -99.9% 3,032 -5,564,298 -99.9% 0 

Harvest Value $2,665,002 $1,434 -$2,663,568 -99.9% $1,434 -$2,663,568 -99.9% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 6,725,730 643,255 -6,082,476 -90.4% 14,081 -6,711,649 -99.8% 13,312 

Harvest Value $3,136,631 $218,197 -$2,918,434 -93.0% $4,189 -$3,132,442 -99.9% $3,874 

Processing Value $11,521,724 $537,194 -$10,984,530 -95.3% $13,965 -$11,507,759 -99.9% $10,390 Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 2,516,170 0 -2,516,170 -100.0% 0 -2,516,170 -100.0% 0 

Harvest Value $627,257 $0 -$627,257 -100.0% $0 -$627,257 -100.0% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 4,805,614 2,720,759 -2,084,856 -43.4% 2,720,759 -2,084,856 -43.4% 411,387 

Harvest Value $1,757,387 $936,614 -$820,773 -46.7% $936,614 -$820,773 -46.7% $100,265 

Processing Value $6,604,154 $2,637,459 -$3,966,695 -60.1% $2,637,459 -$3,966,695 -60.1% $315,147 Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 10,920 13,340 2,420 22.2% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 0 

Harvest Value $5,132 $6,270 $1,138 22.2% $6,270 $1,138 22.2% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 420,792 13,559 -407,233 -96.8% 13,559 -407,233 -96.8% 4,255 

Harvest Value $292,912 $6,658 -$286,254 -97.7% $6,658 -$286,254 -97.7% $2,841 

Processing Value $513,111 $28,214 -$484,897 -94.5% $28,214 -$484,897 -94.5% $5,567 Statewide Total:

1 Marine trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing in the marine waters of Puget Sound and originating f

Harvest (pounds) 8,094,420 16,372 -8,078,048 -99.8% 16,372 -8,078,048 -99.8% 0 

within the region identified $3,297,391 $7,704 -$3,289,688 -99.8% $7,704 -$3,289,688 -99.8% $0 

3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending bec

Harvest (pounds) 11,952,137 3,377,573 -8,574,564 -71.7% 2,748,399 -9,203,737 -77.0% 428,954 

Harvest Value $5,186,931 $1,161,469 -$4,025,462 -77.6% $947,461 -$4,239,470 -81.7% $106,979 

Processing Value $18,638,990 $3,202,867 -$15,436,123 -82.8% $2,679,638 -$15,959,351 -85.6% $331,105 Note: All dollar values are expressed in 2002 dollars.South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management

Management at the Management Unit Level at the Population Level Alte

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 147 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-3. Direct economic impacts to the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries.Scenario A: 2003 Abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Change from P

Region Status Quo Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 C

Puget Sound NorthHarvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 972.7 0.5 -972.2 -99.9% 0.5 -972.2 -99.9% 0.0 -972.7 

Employment2 67.2 0.0 -67.1 -100.0% 0.0 -67.1 -100.0% 0.0 -67.2 

Personal Income3 $1,725,198 $648 -$1,724,549 -100.0% $648 -$1,724,549 -100.0% $0 -$1,725,198 

Tribal:

Jobs1 1,590.3 110.6 -1,479.6 -93.0% 2.1 -1,588.1 -99.9% 2.0 -1,588.3 

Employment2 76.1 7.8 -68.3 -89.7% 0.1 -76.0 -99.9% 0.1 -76.1 

Personal Income3 $1,955,153 $179,310 -$1,775,843 -90.8% $1,467 -$1,953,687 -99.9% $1,304 -$1,953,850 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 181.5 9.6 -172.0 -94.7% 0.3 -181.3 -99.9% 0.2 -181.3 

Personal Income3 $4,569,379 $241,311 -$4,328,068 -94.7% $6,365 -$4,563,014 -99.9% $4,922 -$4,564,457 

Harvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 228.9 0.0 -228.9 -100.0% 0.0 -228.9 -100.0% 0.0 -228.9 

Employment2 7.4 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 

Personal Income3 $185,657 $0 -$185,657 -100.0% $0 -$185,657 -100.0% $0 -$185,657 

Tribal:

Jobs1 891.0 474.9 -416.1 -46.7% 474.9 -416.1 -46.7% 50.8 -840.2 

Employment2 30.3 19.4 -10.9 -36.0% 19.4 -10.9 -36.0% 1.3 -29.0 

Personal Income3 $761,987 $433,255 -$328,732 -43.1% $433,255 -$328,732 -43.1% $28,289 -$733,698 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 94.4 35.1 -59.3 -62.8% 35.1 -59.3 -62.8% 5.3 -89.1 

a marina or launch area $2,442,028 $908,621 -$1,533,406 -62.8% $908,621 -$1,533,406 -62.8% $136,498 -$2,305,529 

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified.

ecause it is assumed that 

Jobs1 1.9 2.3 0.4 22.2% 2.3 0.4 22.2% 0.0 -1.9 

Employment2 0.1 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.0 -0.1 

Personal Income3 $2,180 $2,664 $483 22.2% $2,664 $483 22.2% $0 -$2,180 

Tribal:

Jobs1 148.5 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 1.4 -147.1 

Employment2 5.0 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 0.1 -5.0 

Personal Income3 $128,362 $3,008 -$125,354 -97.7% $3,008 -$125,354 -97.7% $1,150 -$127,212 

Note: Sport fishing-related effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state 

Employment2 6.3 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 0.1 -6.2 

Personal Income3 $159,926 $10,032 -$149,894 -93.7% $10,032 -$149,894 -93.7% $1,568 -$158,357 

State:Harvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 1,203.5 2.8 -1,200.7 -99.8% 2.8 -1,200.7 -99.8% 0.0 -1,203.5 

Employment2 71.0 0.1 -70.9 -99.8% 0.1 -70.9 -99.8% 0.0 -71.0 

residents of Washington. $1,807,511 $3,167 -$1,804,344 -99.8% $3,167 -$1,804,344 -99.8% $0 -$1,807,511 

Tribal:

Jobs1 2,629.8 588.9 -2,040.9 -77.6% 480.4 -2,149.4 -81.7% 54.2 -2,575.5 

Employment2 107.8 27.2 -80.6 -74.8% 19.8 -88.0 -81.6% 1.3 -106.5 

Personal Income3 $2,740,275 $617,253 -$2,123,022 -77.5% $450,798 -$2,289,477 -83.5% $30,700 -$2,709,575 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 280.9 47.5 -233.4 -83.1% 38.6 -242.3 -86.3% 5.9 -274.9 

Personal Income3 $7,137,841 $1,207,994 -$5,929,847 -83.1% $981,271 -$6,156,570 -86.3% $151,154 -$6,986,687 

Note: Regional totals may not sum up to statewide totals because of differences in regional and statewide employment and personal income coefficients generated by the FEAM m

1 Represents full- and part-time jobs.2 Represents full-time equivalent jobs.3 Personal income, expressed in 2002 dollars, includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income.

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Management at the Management Unit Level at the Population Level Alternative 4 - No Fishing

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 148 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-4. Impacts to sport fishing trips and expenditures by region.Scenario A: 2003 Abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Chang

Region Status Quo Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change Alterna

North Puget Sound:

Marine trips originating from the region1 125,372 -125,372 -100.0% -125,372 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 371,857 -251,911 -67.7% -300,883 -80.9% 

Total trips 497,229 -377,283 -75.9% -426,255 -85.7% 

Expenditures in the region3 $31,974,199 -$6,208,411 -19.4% -$7,114,001 -22.2% -$

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:

Marine trips originating from the region1 238,655 -238,655 -100.0% -238,655 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 288,616 -185,801 -64.4% -185,799 -64.4% 

Total trips 527,271 -424,456 -80.5% -424,454 -80.5% 

Expenditures in the region3 $33,074,640 -$3,740,707 -11.3% -$3,740,642 -11.3% -$

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Marine trips originating from the region1 359,534 -359,534 -100.0% -359,534 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 58,578 -49,398 -84.3% -54,840 -93.6% 

Total trips 418,112 -408,932 -97.8% -414,374 -99.1% 

Expenditures in the region3 $24,456,744 -$16,765,658 -68.6% -$16,973,950 -69.4% -$1

Regional Total:

Marine trips originating from the region1 723,561 -723,561 -100.0% -723,561 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 719,051 -487,110 -67.7% -541,522 -75.3% 

Total trips 1,442,612 -1,210,671 -83.9% -1,265,083 -87.7% -

Expenditures in the region3 $89,505,583 -$26,714,777 -29.8% -$27,828,594 -31.1% -$3

Note: Detailed information for angler types in included in the Economics Technical Appendix (Appendix D).

1 Marine trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing in the marine waters of Puget Sound and originating from 

 originating from a marina or launch area in the region identified.

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because 

 because it is assumed that spending by local resident anglers would continue in the region regardless of changes in local resident sport fishing activity under th

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal

Management at the Unit Level Management at the Population Level Alt

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 149 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-5. Regional economic impacts of the alternatives.Scenario A: 2003 Abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Change from 

Region Status Quo

Alternative 1 Change

Alternative 1 Change

Alternative 1 

North Puget Sound:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $17,323,358 -$16,566,533 -95.6% -$17,303,770 -99.9% -$17,309,094 

Employment

2 522.5 -495.8 -94.9% -521.9 -99.9% -522.1 

Personal Income3 $16,727,041 -$15,874,356 -94.9% -$16,709,879 -99.9% -$16,714,413 

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $31,974,199 -$6,208,411 -19.4% -$7,114,001 -22.2% -$8,388,511 

Employment

2 567.7 -118.2 -20.8% -135.2 -23.8% -159.0 

Personal Income3 $21,520,877 -$4,216,375 -19.6% -$4,835,613 -22.5% -$5,707,116 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $8,988,798 -$5,414,725 -60.2% -$5,414,725 -60.2% -$8,573,387 

Employment

2 223.1 -134.9 -60.4% -134.9 -60.4% -212.3 

Personal Income3 $8,061,452 -$4,870,679 -60.4% -$4,870,679 -60.4% -$7,669,101 

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $33,074,640 -$3,740,707 -11.3% -$3,740,642 -11.3% -$4,736,183 

Employment

2 518.5 -65.0 -12.5% -65.0 -12.5% -81.7 

Personal Income3 $24,679,752 -$2,819,364 -11.4% -$2,819,314 -11.4% -$3,578,165 

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $811,156 -$770,014 -94.9% -$770,014 -94.9% -$802,748 

Employment

2 19.2 -18.2 -94.6% -18.2 -94.6% -19.0 

Personal Income3 $567,455 -$536,783 -94.6% -$536,783 -94.6% -$562,146 

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $24,456,744 -$16,765,658 -68.6% -$16,973,950 -69.4% -$17,111,689 

ng from a marina or launch are 500.5 -355.1 -70.9% -359.2 -71.8% -361.8 

Personal Income3 $14,563,148 -$9,931,028 -68.2% -$10,057,788 -69.1% -$10,141,612 

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified 3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending becaus

Sales1 $27,123,312 -$22,751,272 -83.9% -$23,488,509 -86.6% -$26,685,228 

Employment

2 748.6 -631.4 -84.4% -656.7 -87.7% -737.0 

Personal Income3 $26,023,282 -$21,953,163 -84.4% -$22,828,837 -87.7% -$25,620,136 

Sport Fishing Effects5

Sales4 $90,085,979 -$5,218,618 -5.8% -$5,355,919 -5.9% -$5,743,798 

Employment

2 1,569.5 -97.1 -6.2% -99.8 -6.4% -107.5 

Personal Income3 $68,627,051 -$3,947,656 -5.8% -$4,055,622 -5.9% -$4,360,625 

1 Represents direct commercial salmon harvester and processing sales in 2002 dollars.2 Represents total (direct and secondary) full-time equivalent jobs. 3 Represents total (direct and secondary) personal income in 2002 dollars. Personal income includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income. 4 Represents direct sales to sport fishing anglers in 2002 dollars.5 Under alternatives to the Proposed Action, statewide effects for sportfishing include only those generated by changes in spending by non-residents of Washington. 

Note: Sport fishing-related effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state  spending because it is assumed that spending by local resident anglers would continue in the region regardless of changes in local resident  sport fishing activity under the alternatives.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal

Management at the Unit Level Management at the Population Level Alternative 4 - No F

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 150 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-6. Impacts to commercial harvest, commercial harvest value, and processing value.Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent C

Region Status Quo Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change Number A

Puget Sound North:Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 5,533,374 3,032 -5,530,343 -99.9% 3,032 -5,530,343 -99.9% 0 

Harvest Value $2,637,498 $1,434 -$2,636,064 -99.9% $1,434 -$2,636,064 -99.9% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 6,691,701 640,844 -6,050,857 -90.4% 14,081 -6,677,620 -99.8% 13,310 

Harvest Value $3,109,566 $216,272 -$2,893,294 -93.0% $4,189 -$3,105,377 -99.9% $3,873 

Processing Value $11,452,379 $534,735 -$10,917,644 -95.3% $13,965 -$11,438,414 -99.9% $10,389 Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 2,516,170 0 -2,516,170 -100.0% 0 -2,516,170 -100.0% 0 

Harvest Value $627,257 $0 -$627,257 -100.0% $0 -$627,257 -100.0% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 4,762,847 2,685,646 -2,077,200 -43.6% 2,685,646 -2,077,200 -43.6% 411,384 

Harvest Value $1,730,353 $914,493 -$815,860 -47.1% $914,493 -$815,860 -47.1% $100,262 

Processing Value $6,546,846 $2,590,409 -$3,956,437 -60.4% $2,590,409 -$3,956,437 -60.4% $315,142 Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 10,920 13,340 2,420 22.2% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 0 

Harvest Value $5,132 $6,270 $1,138 22.2% $6,270 $1,138 22.2% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 420,792 13,559 -407,232 -96.8% 13,559 -407,232 -96.8% 4,255 

Harvest Value $292,912 $6,658 -$286,254 -97.7% $6,658 -$286,254 -97.7% $2,841 

Processing Value $513,111 $28,214 -$484,897 -94.5% $28,214 -$484,897 -94.5% $5,567 Statewide Total:

1 Marine trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing in the marine waters of Puget Sound and originating from a marina o

Harvest (pounds) 8,060,464 16,372 -8,044,092 -99.8% 16,372 -8,044,092 -99.8% 0 

ithin the region identified. $3,269,887 $7,704 -$3,262,183 -99.8% $7,704 -$3,262,183 -99.8% $0 

3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because it is assum

Harvest (pounds) 11,875,339 3,340,050 -8,535,289 -71.9% 2,713,287 -9,162,052 -77.2% 428,949 

Harvest Value $5,132,831 $1,137,423 -$3,995,408 -77.8% $925,340 -$4,207,491 -82.0% $106,976 

Processing Value $18,512,335 $3,153,358 -$15,358,978 -83.0% $2,632,588 -$15,879,747 -85.8% $331,098 

Note: All dollar values are expressed in 2002 dollars.

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:

Management at the Management Unit Level at the Population Level Alterna

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 151 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-7. Direct economic impacts to the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries.Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Change from Perce

Region Status Quo Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Chan

Puget Sound NorthHarvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 962.7 0.5 -962.2 -99.9% 0.5 -962.2 -99.9% 0.0 -962.7 

Employment2 66.6 0.0 -66.6 -100.0% 0.0 -66.6 -100.0% 0.0 -66.6 

Personal Income3 $1,710,634 $648 -$1,709,985 -100.0% $648 -$1,709,985 -100.0% $0 -$1,710,634 

Tribal:

Jobs1 1,576.6 109.6 -1,466.9 -93.0% 2.1 -1,574.4 -99.9% 2.0 -1,574.6 

Employment2 75.5 7.8 -67.8 -89.7% 0.1 -75.5 -99.9% 0.1 -75.5 

Personal Income3 $1,940,557 $178,276 -$1,762,282 -90.8% $1,467 -$1,939,091 -99.9% $1,303 -$1,939,254 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 180.5 9.5 -171.0 -94.7% 0.3 -180.3 -99.9% 0.2 -180.3 

Personal Income3 $4,543,906 $240,408 -$4,303,498 -94.7% $6,365 -$4,537,541 -99.9% $4,922 -$4,538,985 

Harvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 228.9 0.0 -228.9 -100.0% 0.0 -228.9 -100.0% 0.0 -228.9 

Employment2 7.4 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 

Personal Income3 $185,657 $0 -$185,657 -100.0% $0 -$185,657 -100.0% $0 -$185,657 

Tribal:

Jobs1 877.3 463.6 -413.6 -47.1% 463.6 -413.6 -47.1% 50.8 -826.5 

Employment2 29.6 18.8 -10.9 -36.7% 18.8 -10.9 -36.7% 1.3 -28.4 

Personal Income3 $745,461 $419,688 -$325,774 -43.7% $419,688 -$325,774 -43.7% $28,288 -$717,174 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 93.9 34.7 -59.2 -63.1% 34.7 -59.2 -63.1% 5.3 -88.6 

from a marina or launch ar $2,427,658 $896,824 -$1,530,834 -63.1% $896,824 -$1,530,834 -63.1% $136,497 -$2,291,161 

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified.

ng because it is assumed th

Jobs1 1.9 2.3 0.4 22.2% 2.3 0.4 22.2% 0.0 -1.9 

Employment2 0.1 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.0 -0.1 

Personal Income3 $2,180 $2,664 $483 22.2% $2,664 $483 22.2% $0 -$2,180 

Tribal:

Jobs1 148.5 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 1.4 -147.1 

Employment2 5.0 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 0.1 -5.0 

Personal Income3 $128,362 $3,008 -$125,353 -97.7% $3,008 -$125,353 -97.7% $1,150 -$127,212 

Note: Sport fishing-related effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state 

Employment2 6.3 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 0.1 -6.2 

Personal Income3 $159,926 $10,032 -$149,894 -93.7% $10,032 -$149,894 -93.7% $1,568 -$158,357 

State:Harvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 1,193.5 2.8 -1,190.7 -99.8% 2.8 -1,190.7 -99.8% 0.0 -1,193.5 

Employment2 70.5 0.1 -70.4 -99.8% 0.1 -70.4 -99.8% 0.0 -70.5 

non-residents of Washingto $1,793,789 $3,167 -$1,790,623 -99.8% $3,167 -$1,790,623 -99.8% $0 -$1,793,789 

Tribal:

Jobs1 2,602.3 576.7 -2,025.7 -77.8% 469.1 -2,133.2 -82.0% 54.2 -2,548.1 

Employment2 106.6 26.5 -80.0 -75.1% 19.2 -87.4 -82.0% 1.3 -105.3 

Personal Income3 $2,709,241 $602,090 -$2,107,151 -77.8% $436,609 -$2,272,632 -83.9% $30,698 -$2,678,543 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 279.3 47.0 -232.3 -83.2% 38.1 -241.2 -86.4% 5.9 -273.4 

Personal Income3 $7,098,058 $1,194,516 -$5,903,543 -83.2% $968,659 -$6,129,400 -86.4% $151,152 -$6,946,907 

Note: Regional totals may not sum up to statewide totals because of differences in regional and statewide employment and personal income 

 coefficients generated by the FEAM model

1 Represents full- and part-time jobs.2 Represents full-time equivalent jobs.3 Personal income, expressed in 2002 dollars, includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income.

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Management at the Management Unit Level at the Population Level Alternative 4 - No Fishing

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 152 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-8. Impacts to sport fishing trips and expenditures by region.Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Chang

Region Status Quo Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change Alterna

North Puget Sound:

Marine trips originating from the region1 125,121 -125,121 -100.0% -125,121 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 371,435 -258,296 -69.5% -307,335 -82.7% 

Total trips 496,556 -383,417 -77.2% -432,456 -87.1% 

Expenditures in the region3 $31,931,283 -$6,323,085 -19.8% -$7,229,930 -22.6% -$

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:

Marine trips originating from the region1 234,995 -234,995 -100.0% -234,995 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 284,800 -183,525 -64.4% -183,523 -64.4% 

Total trips 519,795 -418,520 -80.5% -418,518 -80.5% 

Expenditures in the region3 $32,607,684 -$3,686,620 -11.3% -$3,686,620 -11.3% -$

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Marine trips originating from the region1 359,259 -359,259 -100.0% -359,259 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 58,492 -49,425 -84.5% -54,874 -93.8% 

Total trips 417,751 -408,684 -97.8% -414,133 -99.1% 

Expenditures in the region3 $24,435,112 -$16,757,867 -68.6% -$16,966,489 -69.4% -$1

Regional Total:

Marine trips originating from the region1 719,375 -719,375 -100.0% -719,375 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 714,727 -491,246 -68.7% -545,732 -76.4% 

Total trips 1,434,102 -1,210,621 -84.4% -1,265,107 -88.2% -

Expenditures in the region3 $88,974,079 -$26,767,573 -30.1% -$27,883,039 -31.3% -$3

Note: Detailed information for angler types in included in the Economics Technical Appendix (Appendix D).

1 Marine trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing in the marine waters of Puget Sound and originating from 

 or launch area in the region identified.

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because 

 that spending by local resident anglers would continue in the region regardless of changes in local resident sport fishing activity under the alternatives.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal

Management at the Unit Level Management at the Population Level Alt

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 153 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-9. Regional economic impacts of the alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Change from Percent

Region Status Quo Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change

North Puget Sound:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $17,199,443 -$16,447,002 -95.6% -$17,179,855 -99.9% -$17,185,181 -99.9

Employment2 519.0 -492.5 -94.9% -518.5 -99.9% -518.6 -99.9

Personal Income3 $16,616,225 -$15,767,469 -94.9% -$16,599,062 -99.9% -$16,603,598 -99.9

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $31,931,283 -$6,323,085 -19.8% -$7,229,930 -22.6% -$8,377,306 -26.2

Employment2 567.0 -120.3 -21.2% -137.3 -24.2% -158.8 -28.0

Personal Income3 $21,492,002 -$4,294,853 -20.0% -$4,914,949 -22.9% -$5,699,519 -26.5

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $8,904,456 -$5,399,554 -60.6% -$5,399,554 -60.6% -$8,489,051 -95.3

Employment2 221.1 -134.5 -60.8% -134.5 -60.8% -210.3 -95.1

Personal Income3 $7,987,892 -$4,857,512 -60.8% -$4,857,512 -60.8% -$7,595,547 -95.1

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $32,607,684 -$3,686,620 -11.3% -$3,686,620 -11.3% -$4,666,871 -14.3

Employment2 511.2 -64.1 -12.5% -64.1 -12.5% -80.5 -15.8

Personal Income3 $24,331,289 -$2,778,665 -11.4% -$2,778,665 -11.4% -$3,525,860 -14.5

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $811,155 -$770,013 -94.9% -$770,013 -94.9% -$802,747 -99.0

Employment2 19.2 -18.2 -94.6% -18.2 -94.6% -19.0 -99.1

Personal Income3 $567,454 -$536,782 -94.6% -$536,782 -94.6% -$562,145 -99.1

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $24,435,112 -$16,757,867 -68.6% -$16,966,489 -69.4% -$17,099,608 -70.0

from a marina or launch area 500.1 -354.9 -71.0% -359.0 -71.8% -361.6 -72.3

Personal Income3 $14,550,212 -$9,926,446 -68.2% -$10,053,407 -69.1% -$10,134,420 -69.7

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified.3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because it is assu

Sales1 $26,915,053 -$22,616,569 -84.0% -$23,349,422 -86.8% -$26,476,979 -98.4

Employment2 743.1 -627.9 -84.5% -653.0 -87.9% -731.6 -98.4

Personal Income3 $25,835,001 -$21,828,671 -84.5% -$22,700,247 -87.9% -$25,431,863 -98.4

Sport Fishing Effects5

Sales4 $89,552,061 -$5,213,429 -5.8% -$5,351,019 -6.0% -$5,719,922 -6.4

Employment2 1,560.4 -97.0 -6.2% -99.7 -6.4% -107.0 -6.9

Personal Income3 $68,220,788 -$3,944,122 -5.8% -$4,052,314 -5.9% -$4,342,396 -6.4

Note: Sport fishing-related effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state  the state spending because it is assumed that spending by local resident anglers would continue in the region regardless of changes in local  resident sport fishing activity under the alternatives. 1 Represents direct commercial salmon harvester and processing sales in 2002 dollars.

2 Represents total (direct and secondary) full-time equivalent jobs.3 Represents total (direct and secondary) personal income in 2002 dollars. Personal income includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property incom4 Represents direct sales to sport fishing anglers in 2002 dollars.5 Under alternatives to the Proposed Action, statewide effects for sportfishing include only those generated by changes in spending by non-residents of Washington. 

 Changes in spending by Washington residents would merely redirect money already in the state economy and would result in no net economic effects.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal

Management at the Unit Level Management at the Population Level Alternative 4 - No Fishing

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 154 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-10. Impacts to commercial harvest, commercial harvest value, and processing value.Scenario C: 30% Reduction in abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent 

Region Status Quo Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change Number 

Puget Sound North:Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 5,474,785 0 -5,474,785 -100.0% 0 -5,474,785 -100.0% 0 

Harvest Value $2,589,993 $0 -$2,589,993 -100.0% $0 -$2,589,993 -100.0% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 6,604,161 370,510 -6,233,651 -94.4% 14,081 -6,590,080 -99.8% 13,310 

Harvest Value $3,039,344 $64,176 -$2,975,169 -97.9% $4,189 -$3,035,156 -99.9% $3,873 

Processing Value $11,303,131 $269,359 -$11,033,773 -97.6% $11,113 -$11,292,018 -99.9% $10,389 Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 2,516,383 0 -2,516,383 -100.0% 0 -2,516,383 -100.0% 0 

Harvest Value $627,357 $0 -$627,357 -100.0% $0 -$627,357 -100.0% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 4,605,362 2,458,337 -2,147,025 -46.6% 2,458,337 -2,147,025 -46.6% 411,384 

Harvest Value $1,629,120 $771,288 -$857,831 -52.7% $771,288 -$857,831 -52.7% $100,262 

Processing Value $6,334,627 $2,285,814 -$4,048,813 -63.9% $2,285,814 -$4,048,813 -63.9% $315,142 Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 10,932 13,340 2,409 22.0% 13,340 2,409 22.0% 0 

Harvest Value $5,138 $6,270 $1,132 22.0% $6,270 $1,132 22.0% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 420,806 13,559 -407,247 -96.8% 13,559 -407,247 -96.8% 4,255 

Harvest Value $292,918 $6,658 -$286,260 -97.7% $6,658 -$286,260 -97.7% $2,841 

Processing Value $513,136 $28,214 -$484,922 -94.5% $28,214 -$484,922 -94.5% $5,567 Statewide Total:

1 Marine trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing in the marine waters of Puget Sound and originating from a marina or 

Harvest (pounds) 8,002,099 13,340 -7,988,759 -99.8% 13,340 -7,988,759 -99.8% 0 

ithin the region identified. $3,222,488 $6,270 -$3,216,218 -99.8% $6,270 -$3,216,218 -99.8% $0 

3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because it is assum

Harvest (pounds) 11,630,329 2,842,406 -8,787,923 -75.6% 2,485,978 -9,144,351 -78.6% 428,949 

Harvest Value $4,961,382 $842,122 -$4,119,260 -83.0% $782,135 -$4,179,247 -84.2% $106,976 

Processing Value $18,150,894 $2,583,387 -$15,567,508 -85.8% $2,325,142 -$15,825,753 -87.2% $331,098 

Note: All dollar values are expressed in 2002 dollars.

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:

Management at the Management Unit Level at the Population Level Altern

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 155 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-11. Direct economic impacts to the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries.Scenario C: 30% Reduction in abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Change from Percent

Region Status Quo Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change

Puget Sound NorthHarvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 945.3 0.0 -945.3 -100.0% 0.0 -945.3 -100.0% 0.0 -945.3 -100.0%

Employment2 65.6 0.0 -65.6 -100.0% 0.0 -65.6 -100.0% 0.0 -65.6 -100.0%

Personal Income3 $1,685,474 $0 -$1,685,474 -100.0% $0 -$1,685,474 -100.0% $0 -$1,685,474 -100.0%

Tribal:

Jobs1 1,540.9 32.5 -1,508.4 -97.9% 2.1 -1,538.8 -99.9% 2.0 -1,539.0 -99.9%

Employment2 74.1 4.3 -69.8 -94.2% 0.1 -74.0 -99.9% 0.1 -74.0 -99.9%

Personal Income3 $1,902,511 $98,163 -$1,804,348 -94.8% $1,467 -$1,901,044 -99.9% $1,303 -$1,901,207 -99.9%

Processing Sector:

Employment2 178.4 5.5 -172.9 -96.9% 0.2 -178.1 -99.9% 0.2 -178.2 -99.9%

Personal Income3 $4,489,166 $137,154 -$4,352,012 -96.9% $5,214 -$4,483,952 -99.9% $4,922 -$4,484,245 -99.9%

Harvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 229.0 0.0 -229.0 -100.0% 0.0 -229.0 -100.0% 0.0 -229.0 -100.0%

Employment2 7.4 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0%

Personal Income3 $185,698 $0 -$185,698 -100.0% $0 -$185,698 -100.0% $0 -$185,698 -100.0%

Tribal:

Jobs1 826.0 391.0 -434.9 -52.7% 391.0 -434.9 -52.7% 50.8 -775.1 -93.8%

Employment2 27.2 14.9 -12.3 -45.3% 14.9 -12.3 -45.3% 1.3 -25.9 -95.3%

Personal Income3 $683,033 $331,855 -$351,178 -51.4% $331,855 -$351,178 -51.4% $28,288 -$654,745 -95.9%

Processing Sector:

Employment2 91.8 31.7 -60.1 -65.5% 31.7 -60.1 -65.5% 5.3 -86.5 -94.2%

from a marina or launch ar $2,374,849 $820,448 -$1,554,401 -65.5% $820,448 -$1,554,401 -65.5% $136,497 -$2,238,352 -94.3%

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified.

ng because it is assumed th

Jobs1 1.9 2.3 0.4 22.0% 2.3 0.4 22.0% 0.0 -1.9 -100.0%

Employment2 0.1 0.1 0.0 37.8% 0.1 0.0 37.8% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0%

Personal Income3 $2,183 $2,664 $481 22.0% $2,664 $481 22.0% $0 -$2,183 -100.0%

Tribal:

Jobs1 148.5 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 1.4 -147.1 -99.0%

Employment2 5.0 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 0.1 -5.0 -99.0%

Personal Income3 $128,364 $3,008 -$125,356 -97.7% $3,008 -$125,356 -97.7% $1,150 -$127,214 -99.1%

Note: Sport fishing-related effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state 

Employment2 6.3 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 0.1 -6.2 -99.0%

Personal Income3 $159,935 $10,032 -$149,903 -93.7% $10,032 -$149,903 -93.7% $1,568 -$158,367 -99.0%

State:Harvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 1,176.2 2.3 -1,173.9 -99.8% 2.3 -1,173.9 -99.8% 0.0 -1,176.2 -100.0%

Employment2 69.6 0.1 -69.5 -99.8% 0.1 -69.5 -99.8% 0.0 -69.6 -100.0%

non-residents of Washingto $1,770,127 $2,576 -$1,767,552 -99.9% $2,576 -$1,767,552 -99.9% $0 -$1,770,127 -100.0%

Tribal:

Jobs1 2,515.4 427.0 -2,088.5 -83.0% 396.5 -2,118.9 -84.2% 54.2 -2,461.2 -97.8%

Employment2 102.6 19.2 -83.4 -81.3% 15.1 -87.5 -85.3% 1.3 -101.3 -98.7%

Personal Income3 $2,608,057 $435,855 -$2,172,202 -83.3% $344,754 -$2,263,304 -86.8% $30,698 -$2,577,359 -98.8%

Processing Sector:

Employment2 275.0 39.9 -235.1 -85.5% 34.8 -240.2 -87.3% 5.9 -269.1 -97.8%

Personal Income3 $6,989,134 $1,013,918 -$5,975,216 -85.5% $885,907 -$6,103,227 -87.3% $151,152 -$6,837,983 -97.8%

Note: Regional totals may not sum up to statewide totals because of differences in regional and statewide employment and personal income  coefficients generated by the FEAM model

1 Represents full- and part-time jobs.2 Represents full-time equivalent jobs.3 Personal income, expressed in 2002 dollars, includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income.

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Management at the Management Unit Level at the Population Level Alternative 4 - No Fishing

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 156 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-12. Impacts to sport fishing trips and expenditures by region.Scenario C: 30% Reduction in abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Chang

Region Status Quo Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change Alterna

North Puget Sound:

Marine trips originating from the region1 118,554 -118,554 -100.0% -118,554 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 351,609 -274,166 -78.0% -300,306 -85.4% 

Total trips 470,163 -392,720 -83.5% -418,860 -89.1% 

Expenditures in the region3 $30,233,716 -$6,535,617 -21.6% -$7,018,991 -23.2% -$

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:

Marine trips originating from the region1 215,562 -215,562 -100.0% -215,562 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 263,094 -182,513 -69.4% -182,513 -69.4% 

Total trips 478,656 -398,075 -83.2% -398,075 -83.2% 

Expenditures in the region3 $30,032,910 -$3,514,752 -11.7% -$3,514,752 -11.7% -$

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Marine trips originating from the region1 343,428 -343,428 -100.0% -343,428 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 55,492 -49,941 -90.0% -52,844 -95.2% 

Total trips 398,920 -393,369 -98.6% -396,272 -99.3% 

Expenditures in the region3 $23,334,015 -$16,121,151 -69.1% -$16,232,293 -69.6% -$1

Regional Total:

Marine trips originating from the region1 677,544 -677,544 -100.0% -677,544 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 670,195 -506,620 -75.6% -535,663 -79.9% 

Total trips 1,347,739 -1,184,164 -87.9% -1,213,207 -90.0% -

Expenditures in the region3 $83,600,641 -$26,171,521 -31.3% -$26,766,036 -32.0% -$2

Note: Detailed information for angler types in included in the Economics Technical Appendix (Appendix D).

1 Marine trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing in the marine waters of Puget Sound and originating from 

 area in the region identified.

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because 

 assumed that spending by local resident anglers would continue in the region regardless of changes in local resident sport fishing activity under the alternative

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal

Management at the Unit Level Management at the Population Level Alt

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 157 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-13. Regional economic impacts of the alternatives.Scenario C: 30% Reduction in abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Change from 

Region Status Quo Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 

North Puget Sound:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $16,932,469 -$16,598,935 -98.0% -$16,917,166 -99.9% -$16,918,207 

Employment

2 511.5 -496.6 -97.1% -511.1 -99.9% -511.1 

Personal Income3 $16,376,958 -$15,899,777 -97.1% -$16,363,414 -99.9% -$16,364,332 

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $30,233,716 -$6,535,617 -21.6% -$7,018,991 -23.2% -$7,929,732 

Employment

2 536.8 -124.2 -23.1% -133.3 -24.8% -150.4 

Personal Income3 $20,349,409 -$4,441,685 -21.8% -$4,772,213 -23.5% -$5,394,974 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $8,591,104 -$5,534,001 -64.4% -$5,534,001 -64.4% -$8,175,700 

Employment

2 213.5 -137.7 -64.5% -137.7 -64.5% -202.7 

Personal Income3 $7,713,533 -$4,974,125 -64.5% -$4,974,125 -64.5% -$7,321,188 

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $30,032,910 -$3,514,752 -11.7% -$3,514,752 -11.7% -$4,290,425 

Employment

2 470.7 -61.0 -13.0% -61.0 -13.0% -74.0 

Personal Income3 $22,409,940 -$2,650,376 -11.8% -$2,650,376 -11.8% -$3,241,632 

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $811,192 -$770,050 -94.9% -$770,050 -94.9% -$802,784 

Employment

2 19.2 -18.2 -94.6% -18.2 -94.6% -19.0 

Personal Income3 $567,483 -$536,810 -94.6% -$536,810 -94.6% -$562,173 

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $23,334,015 -$16,121,151 -69.1% -$16,232,293 -69.6% -$16,328,320 

ng from a marina or launch area 477.6 -341.3 -71.5% -343.4 -71.9% -345.3 

Personal Income3 $13,894,215 -$9,550,833 -68.7% -$9,618,471 -69.2% -$9,676,911 

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified 3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending bec

Sales1 $26,334,765 -$22,902,986 -87.0% -$23,221,218 -88.2% -$25,896,691 

Employment

2 728.2 -635.2 -87.2% -649.2 -89.2% -716.6 

Personal Income3 $25,314,356 -$22,081,797 -87.2% -$22,569,799 -89.2% -$24,911,218 

Sport Fishing Effects5

Sales4 $84,147,737 -$5,049,946 -6.0% -$5,123,251 -6.1% -$5,414,087 

Employment

2 1,466.8 -94.1 -6.4% -95.5 -6.5% -101.3 

Personal Income3 $64,104,502 -$3,823,344 -6.0% -$3,880,986 -6.1% -$4,109,682 

Note: Sport fishing-related effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state  spending because it is assumed that spending by local resident anglers would continue in the region regardless of changes in local resident  sport fishing activity under the alternatives.

1 Represents direct commercial salmon harvester and processing sales in 2002 dollars.2 Represents total (direct and secondary) full-time equivalent jobs. 3 Represents total (direct and secondary) personal income in 2002 dollars. Personal income includes employee compensation, proprietor income, 

 and other property income.

4 Represents direct sales to sport fishing anglers in 2002 dollars.5 Under alternatives to the Proposed Action, statewide effects for sportfishing include only those generated by changes in spending by non-residents of Washington. 

 Changes in spending by Washington residents would merely redirect money already in the state economy and would result in no net economic effects.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal

Management at the Unit Level Management at the Population Level

Alternative 4 - 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 158 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-14. Impacts to commercial harvest, commercial harvest value, and processing value.Scenario D: 30% Reduction in abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent C

Region Status Quo Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change Number A

Puget Sound North:Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 5,446,432 0 -5,446,432 -100.0% 0 -5,446,432 -100.0% 0 

Harvest Value $2,567,061 $0 -$2,567,061 -100.0% $0 -$2,567,061 -100.0% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 6,574,849 370,212 -6,204,637 -94.4% 14,081 -6,560,768 -99.8% 13,310 

Harvest Value $3,016,306 $63,988 -$2,952,318 -97.9% $4,189 -$3,012,117 -99.9% $3,873 

Processing Value $11,244,390 $269,055 -$10,975,335 -97.6% $11,113 -$11,233,276 -99.9% $10,389 

Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 2,516,308 0 -2,516,308 -100.0% 0 -2,516,308 -100.0% 0 

Harvest Value $627,322 $0 -$627,322 -100.0% $0 -$627,322 -100.0% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 4,577,736 2,431,935 -2,145,801 -46.9% 2,431,935 -2,145,801 -46.9% 411,384 

Harvest Value $1,612,233 $754,655 -$857,578 -53.2% $754,655 -$857,578 -53.2% $100,262 

Processing Value $6,298,089 $2,250,435 -$4,047,653 -64.3% $2,250,435 -$4,047,653 -64.3% $315,142 

Non-Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 10,920 13,340 2,420 22.2% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 0 

Harvest Value $5,132 $6,270 $1,138 22.2% $6,270 $1,138 22.2% $0 

Tribal

Harvest (pounds) 420,800 13,559 -407,241 -96.8% 13,559 -407,241 -96.8% 4,255 

Harvest Value $292,915 $6,658 -$286,257 -97.7% $6,658 -$286,257 -97.7% $2,841 

Processing Value $513,118 $28,214 -$484,904 -94.5% $28,214 -$484,904 -94.5% $5,567 Statewide Total:

1 Marine trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing in the marine waters of Puget Sound and originating from a marina or launch 

Harvest (pounds) 7,973,660 13,340 -7,960,319 -99.8% 13,340 -7,960,319 -99.8% 0 

thin the region identified. $3,199,515 $6,270 -$3,193,245 -99.8% $6,270 -$3,193,245 -99.8% $0 

3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because it is assumed that 

Harvest (pounds) 11,573,385 2,815,707 -8,757,679 -75.7% 2,459,576 -9,113,810 -78.7% 428,949 

Harvest Value $4,921,455 $825,301 -$4,096,154 -83.2% $765,502 -$4,155,953 -84.4% $106,976 

Processing Value $18,055,597 $2,547,704 -$15,507,892 -85.9% $2,289,763 -$15,765,834 -87.3% $331,098 

Note: All dollar values are expressed in 2002 dollars.

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Management at the Management Unit Level at the Population Level Alterna

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 159 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-15. Direct economic impacts to the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries.Scenario D: 30% Reduction in abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Change from Perce

Region Status Quo Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Change Number Alternative 1 Chan

Puget Sound NorthHarvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 937.0 0.0 -937.0 -100.0% 0.0 -937.0 -100.0% 0.0 -937.0 

Employment2 65.2 0.0 -65.2 -100.0% 0.0 -65.2 -100.0% 0.0 -65.2 

Personal Income3 $1,673,335 $0 -$1,673,335 -100.0% $0 -$1,673,335 -100.0% $0 -$1,673,335 

Tribal:

Jobs1 1,529.3 32.4 -1,496.8 -97.9% 2.1 -1,527.1 -99.9% 2.0 -1,527.3 

Employment2 73.6 4.3 -69.3 -94.2% 0.1 -73.5 -99.9% 0.1 -73.5 

Personal Income3 $1,890,123 $98,035 -$1,792,088 -94.8% $1,467 -$1,888,656 -99.9% $1,303 -$1,888,819 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 177.5 5.4 -172.1 -96.9% 0.2 -177.3 -99.9% 0.2 -177.3 

Personal Income3 $4,467,556 $137,042 -$4,330,514 -96.9% $5,214 -$4,462,342 -99.9% $4,922 -$4,462,634 

Harvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 229.0 0.0 -229.0 -100.0% 0.0 -229.0 -100.0% 0.0 -229.0 

Employment2 7.4 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 

Personal Income3 $185,683 $0 -$185,683 -100.0% $0 -$185,683 -100.0% $0 -$185,683 

Tribal:

Jobs1 817.4 382.6 -434.8 -53.2% 382.6 -434.8 -53.2% 50.8 -766.6 

Employment2 26.8 14.4 -12.4 -46.2% 14.4 -12.4 -46.2% 1.3 -25.5 

Personal Income3 $672,982 $321,654 -$351,328 -52.2% $321,654 -$351,328 -52.2% $28,288 -$644,694 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 91.5 31.4 -60.1 -65.7% 31.4 -60.1 -65.7% 5.3 -86.2 

from a marina or launch ar $2,365,528 $811,577 -$1,553,951 -65.7% $811,577 -$1,553,951 -65.7% $136,497 -$2,229,031 

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified.

ng because it is assumed th

Jobs1 1.9 2.3 0.4 22.2% 2.3 0.4 22.2% 0.0 -1.9 

Employment2 0.1 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.0 -0.1 

Personal Income3 $2,180 $2,664 $483 22.2% $2,664 $483 22.2% $0 -$2,180 

Tribal:

Jobs1 148.5 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 1.4 -147.1 

Employment2 5.0 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 0.1 -5.0 

Personal Income3 $128,363 $3,008 -$125,354 -97.7% $3,008 -$125,354 -97.7% $1,150 -$127,213 

Note: Sport fishing-related effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state 

Employment2 6.3 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 0.1 -6.2 

Personal Income3 $159,929 $10,032 -$149,897 -93.7% $10,032 -$149,897 -93.7% $1,568 -$158,360 

State:Harvesting Sector:

Non-Tribal:

Jobs1 1,167.8 2.3 -1,165.5 -99.8% 2.3 -1,165.5 -99.8% 0.0 -1,167.8 

Employment2 69.1 0.1 -69.0 -99.8% 0.1 -69.0 -99.8% 0.0 -69.1 

non-residents of Washingto $1,758,674 $2,576 -$1,756,098 -99.9% $2,576 -$1,756,098 -99.9% $0 -$1,758,674 

Tribal:

Jobs1 2,495.2 418.4 -2,076.7 -83.2% 388.1 -2,107.1 -84.4% 54.2 -2,440.9 

Employment2 101.7 18.7 -83.0 -81.6% 14.7 -87.1 -85.6% 1.3 -100.4 

Personal Income3 $2,585,893 $425,066 -$2,160,827 -83.6% $334,084 -$2,251,809 -87.1% $30,698 -$2,555,194 

Processing Sector:

Employment2 273.8 39.5 -234.3 -85.6% 34.5 -239.3 -87.4% 5.9 -267.9 

Personal Income3 $6,958,446 $1,004,327 -$5,954,118 -85.6% $876,423 -$6,082,023 -87.4% $151,152 -$6,807,294 

Note: Regional totals may not sum up to statewide totals because of differences in regional and statewide employment and personal income coefficients generated 

 by the FEAM model

1 Represents full- and part-time jobs.2 Represents full-time equivalent jobs.3 Personal income, expressed in 2002 dollars, includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income.

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management

Management at the Management Unit Level at the Population Level Alternative 4 - No Fishing

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 160 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-16. Impacts to sport fishing trips and expenditures by region.Scenario D: 30% Reduction in abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Chang

Region Status Quo Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change Alterna

North Puget Sound:

Marine trips originating from the region1 119,653 -119,653 -100.0% -119,653 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 354,535 -282,791 -79.8% -308,851 -87.1% 

Total trips 474,188 -402,444 -84.9% -428,504 -90.4% 

Expenditures in the region3 $30,491,871 -$6,709,000 -22.0% -$7,190,855 -23.6% -$

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:

Marine trips originating from the region1 217,544 -217,544 -100.0% -217,544 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 267,415 -189,746 -71.0% -189,746 -71.0% 

Total trips 484,959 -407,290 -84.0% -407,290 -84.0% 

Expenditures in the region3 $30,434,487 -$3,594,729 -11.8% -$3,594,729 -11.8% -$

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:

Marine trips originating from the region1 352,411 -352,411 -100.0% -352,411 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 56,352 -50,990 -90.5% -53,885 -95.6% 

Total trips 408,763 -403,401 -98.7% -406,296 -99.4% 

Expenditures in the region3 $23,911,897 -$16,523,168 -69.1% -$16,633,979 -69.6% -$1

Regional Total:

Marine trips originating from the region1 689,608 -689,608 -100.0% -689,608 -100.0% 

Freshwater trips occurring in the region2 678,302 -523,527 -77.2% -552,482 -81.5% 

Total trips 1,367,910 -1,213,135 -88.7% -1,242,090 -90.8% -

Expenditures in the region3 $84,838,256 -$26,826,897 -31.6% -$27,419,563 -32.3% -$2

Note: Detailed information for angler types in included in the Economics Technical Appendix (Appendix D).

1 Marine trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing in the marine waters of Puget Sound and originating from 

 in the region identified.

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because 

 spending by local resident anglers would continue in the region regardless of changes in local resident sport fishing activity under the alternatives.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal

Management at the Unit Level Management at the Population Level Alt

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 161 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-17. Regional economic impacts of the alternatives.Scenario D: 30% Reduction in abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Alternative 1

Proposed Action/ Change from Percent Change from Percent Change from Percent

Region Status Quo Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change Alternative 1 Change

North Puget Sound:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $16,827,756 -$16,494,713 -98.0% -$16,812,454 -99.9% -$16,813,494 -99.9%

Employment2 508.6 -493.7 -97.1% -508.2 -99.9% -508.2 -99.9%

Personal Income3 $16,283,382 -$15,806,686 -97.1% -$16,269,838 -99.9% -$16,270,755 -99.9%

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $30,491,871 -$6,709,000 -22.0% -$7,190,855 -23.6% -$7,997,710 -26.2%

Employment2 541.4 -127.5 -23.5% -136.5 -25.2% -151.6 -28.0%

Personal Income3 $20,523,138 -$4,559,981 -22.2% -$4,889,470 -23.8% -$5,441,193 -26.5%

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $8,537,644 -$5,532,554 -64.8% -$5,532,554 -64.8% -$8,122,240 -95.1%

Employment2 212.3 -137.7 -64.9% -137.7 -64.9% -201.4 -94.9%

Personal Income3 $7,667,405 -$4,973,409 -64.9% -$4,973,409 -64.9% -$7,275,061 -94.9%

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $30,434,487 -$3,594,729 -11.8% -$3,594,729 -11.8% -$4,341,599 -14.3%

Employment2 477.0 -62.3 -13.1% -62.3 -13.1% -74.9 -15.7%

Personal Income3 $22,709,494 -$2,711,198 -11.9% -$2,711,198 -11.9% -$3,280,499 -14.4%

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal:Commercial Fishing Effects

Sales1 $811,166 -$770,024 -94.9% -$770,024 -94.9% -$802,758 -99.0%

Employment2 19.2 -18.2 -94.6% -18.2 -94.6% -19.0 -99.1%

Personal Income3 $567,463 -$536,790 -94.6% -$536,790 -94.6% -$562,153 -99.1%

Sport Fishing Effects

Sales4 $23,911,897 -$16,523,168 -69.1% -$16,633,979 -69.6% -$16,723,078 -69.9%

rom a marina or launch area 489.5 -349.8 -71.5% -351.9 -71.9% -353.7 -72.3%

Personal Income3 $14,237,944 -$9,788,652 -68.8% -$9,856,089 -69.2% -$9,910,311 -69.6%

2 Freshwater trips include all local resident, non-local resident, and non-resident of the state sport fishing trips to fresh waters within the region identified.3 Expenditure effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state spending because it is assum

Sales1 $26,176,566 -$22,797,291 -87.1% -$23,115,032 -88.3% -$25,738,492 -98.3%

Employment2 724.0 -632.3 -87.3% -646.4 -89.3% -712.5 -98.4%

Personal Income3 $25,171,134 -$21,983,966 -87.3% -$22,471,461 -89.3% -$24,767,996 -98.4%

Sport Fishing Effects5

Sales4 $85,396,400 -$5,179,514 -6.1% -$5,252,602 -6.2% -$5,523,958 -6.5%

Employment2 1,488.8 -96.5 -6.5% -97.9 -6.6% -103.3 -6.9%

Personal Income3 $65,055,332 -$3,921,734 -6.0% -$3,979,205 -6.1% -$4,192,583 -6.4%

Note: Sport fishing-related effects of alternatives to the Proposed Action include those associated only with non-local resident and non-resident of the state  spending because it is assumed that spending by local resident anglers would continue in the region regardless of changes in local resident sport fishing  activity under the alternatives.

1 Represents direct commercial salmon harvester and processing sales in 2002 dollars.2 Represents total (direct and secondary) full-time equivalent jobs.3 Represents total (direct and secondary) personal income in 2002 dollars. Personal income includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and 

 other property income.

4 Represents direct sales to sport fishing anglers in 2002 dollars.5 Under alternatives to the Proposed Action, statewide effects for sportfishing include only those generated by changes in spending by non-residents of Washington. 

 Changes in spending by Washington residents would merely redirect money already in the state economy and would result in no net economic effects.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal

Management at the Unit Level Management at the Population Level Alternative 4 - No Fishing

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 4 - 162 

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 163 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.6-18. Baseline and change in net economic values of commercial salmon fishing (in millions 

2 of 2002 dollars). 

Change from Baseline Conditions 

Scenario 

Baseline 

Conditions 

(Proposed 

Action/Status Quo) 

Alternative 2: 

Management Unit 

Escapement Goal 

Management 

Alternative 3: 

Population Unit 

Escapement Goal 

Management 

Alternative 4: No 

Fishing 

Scenario A: 2003 

Abundance and 

2003 Canadian/ 

Alaskan PST 

Fisheries 

$8.4 M -$9.7 M -$10.0 M -$11.2 M 

Scenario B: 2003 

Abundance and 

Maximum Canadian/ 

Alaskan PST 

Fisheries 

$8.3 M -$9.7 M -$9.9 M -$11.2 M 

Scenario C: 30% 

Reduction in 

Abundance and 

2003 Canadian/ 

Alaskan PST 

Fisheries 

$8.2 M -$9.8 M -$9.9 M -$10.9 M 

Scenario D: 30% 

Reduction in 

Abundance and 

Maximum Canadian/ 

Alaskan PST 

Fisheries 

$8.1 M -$9.7 M -$9.8 M -$10.9 M 

3 Note: The reductions in net economic values associated with Alternatives 2 through 4 are larger than baseline 

4 conditions because these values include the costs to society associated with unemployed labor resources and 

5 expected losses in capital investment value. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 164 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.6-19. Baseline and changes in angler days and net economic value (NEV) of salmon sport 

2 fishing in the Puget Sound area. 

Baseline Conditions 

(Proposed Action/ 

Status Quo) 

Alternative 2: 

Management Unit 

Escapement Goal 

Management 

Alternative 3: 

Population Unit 

Escapement Goal 

Management 

Alternative 4: 

No Fishing 

Scenario 

Angler 

Days NEV 

Change in 

Angler 

Days 

Change 

in NEV 

Change in 

Angler 

Days 

Change 

in NEV 

Change in 

Angler 

Days 

Change 

in NEV 

Scenario A: 

2003 Abundance 

and 2003 

Canadian/Alaskan 

PST Fisheries 

1,443,600 $98.2 M -1,211,660 -$82.4 M -1,266,070 -$86.1 M -1,439,290 -$97.9 M 

Scenario B: 2003 

Abundance and 

Maximum 

Canadian/ 

Alaskan PST 

Fisheries 

1,434,100 $97.5 M -1,210,620 -$82.3 M -1,265,100 -$86.0 M -1,429,790 -$97.2 M 

Scenario C: 30% 

Reduction in 

Abundance and 

2003 Canadian/ 

Alaskan PST 

Fisheries 

1,347,700 $91.6 M -1,184,120 -$80.5 M -1,213,170 -$82.5 M -1,363,590 -$92.7 M 

Scenario D: 30% 

Reduction in 

Abundance and 

Maximum 

Canadian/ 

Alaskan PST 

Fisheries 

1,367,900 $93.0 M -1,212,920 -$82.5 M -1,242,080 -$84.5 M -1,363,590 -$92.7 M 

3 Note: Monetary values are expressed in millions of 2002 dollars. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 165 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.6.6 Cumulative Effects 

2 NEPA defines cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

3 impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

4 regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 

5 CFR1508.7). For the purposes of this discussion, the terms “effects” and “impacts” will be considered 

6 synonymously with “consequences,” and consequences may be negative or beneficial. This section 

7 presents an analysis of the cumulative effects (negative or beneficial) of the Proposed Action in the 

8 context of other local, state, tribal, and federal management activities in the Puget Sound region on fish 

9 resources and related economic conditions. 

10 The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis area includes the entire Puget Sound region. 

11 The analysis area covers both inland and marine environments that are managed under laws, policies, 

12 regulations, and plans having a direct or indirect impact on fish. The substantive scope of the 

13 cumulative analysis is predicated on a review of all laws, policies, regulations, and plans that 

14 specifically pertain to fish-related management activities or that have an indirect negative or beneficial 

15 effect on fish resources and related economic conditions. These laws, policies, regulations, and plans 

16 are described in Section 1 and Appendix F. Because of the geographic scope of the analysis area, it is 

17 not feasible to analyze all habitat-specific activities that are occurring, have occurred in the past, or that 

18 will occur in the future in a quantitative manner. By reviewing all laws, policies, regulations, and plans, 

19 the analysis captures the objectives of any management activity that is occurring or planned to occur 

20 that may interface with fish resources within the Puget Sound region. It is assumed that no management 

21 activity is occurring or would occur outside of an implemented law, policy, regulation, or sanctioned 

22 plan at the federal, tribal, state, or local level. Although the analysis is necessarily qualitative, it 

23 provides a thorough review of all other activities within the region that, when combined with the 

24 Proposed Action, could have a negative or beneficial affect on fish resources and related economic 

25 conditions. 

26 Table 4.3.8.2-1 summarizes the potential cumulative effects to fish resources of implementing the 

27 Proposed Action with the effects of these existing laws, policies, regulations, and plans. Table 4.6-20 

28 below summarizes the potential cumulative effects on economic conditions of other plans, policies and 

29 programs in the Puget Sound region. 

30 The Proposed Action is implementation of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management 

31 Plan (RMP), jointly prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 166 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (co-managers). Factors common to the relationship between the RMP and 

2 the various existing plans, policies and programs include: 1) the Resource Management Plan would 

3 provide protection to Puget Sound chinook salmon by conserving the productivity, abundance, and 

4 diversity of populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), while 

5 managing harvest of strong salmon stocks; and 2) conserving productivity requires biological integrity 

6 in the freshwater systems in which salmon spawn and rear. 
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 167 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.6-20. Federal, Tribal, Washington State, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence economic condit2 Sound Action Area (2004).

Federal/Tribal/State/Local 

Plans, Policies, and Programs 

(in chronological order of the earliest to 

the most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect 

with the Prop

State of Washington, Chapter 36.70A RCW Growth Management – Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. Commonly referred to as the Growth Management Act (GMA). Adopted by the state in 1990. 

The GMA guides development and adoption of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations of counties and cities within the state of Washington. The goals of the GMA include: “[m]aintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries” and “[p]rotect the environment and enhance the state’s high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.” 

Under the Proposed Action, cfishing activities would occur apast. Employment and economby these activities would have regional land use plans, and wobjectives of the GMA. ConseAction, when considered in copredicted to result in no cumuresource conditions, because not change current or expecteconditions. 

Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2020 Strategy, 1995. 

VISION 2020 is the long-range growth management, economic, and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound region encompassing King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The strategy combines a public commitment to a growth management vision with the transportation investments and programs and economic strategy necessary to support that vision. VISION 2020 identifies the policies and key actions necessary to implement the overall strategy. The vision is for “diverse, economically and environmentally healthy communities framed by open space and connected by a high-quality multimodal transportation system that provides effective mobility for people and goods. The VISION 2020 strategy for managing growth, the economy, and transportation contains the following eight parts: urban growth areas; contiguous and orderly development; regional capital facilities; housing; rural areas; open space, resource protection, and critical areas; economics; and transportation. Together, these eight parts constitute the Multi-county Policies for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and meet the multi-county planning requirements of Washington’s Growth Management Act. 

From a growth and economic the Proposed Action would mregards to employment and prelated to Puget Sound’s comConsequently, the Proposed Aconjunction with the VISION sin no cumulative impact to ecobecause the Proposed Action expected future economic con
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 168 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.6-20. Federal, Tribal, Washington State, and local plans, policies, and programs that influence economic condit

2 Sound Action Area (2004). continued

Federal/Tribal/State/Local 

Plans, Policies, and Programs 

(in chronological order of the earliest to 

the most recent) Description and Intent Cumulative Effect 

with the Prop

Economic Development Agency Plans and Programs 

Several economic development councils and agencies operate in the counties surrounding Puget Sound. Economic development agencies normally include private, non-profit agencies that seek to encourage 

economic growth through the provision of various services to businesses and governments. Agencies in the Puget Sound region include, but are not limited to, the Economic Development Council of Thurston County, the Bellingham/Whatcom County Economic Development Council, the Kitsap Regional Economic Development Council, the Economic Development Council of Tacoma-Pierce County, the Economic Development Council of Seattle/King County, the Mason County Economic Development Council, and the Clallam County Economic Development Council. Economic development councils can affect regional economic growth and conditions in several ways, including through the development of economic development plans and business enhancement programs, and through business relocation assistance and planning, business promotion, coordination with local government economic development planning, and through the provision of socioeconomic data to the public and business community. 

From a growth and economic the Proposed Action would mregards to employment and prelated to Puget Sound’s comConsequently, the Proposed Aconjunction with economic deprograms in the Puget Sound in no cumulative impact to ecobecause the Proposed Action expected future economic con

Local Plans, Policies, and Programs Local activities that influence cumulative effects to economic 

conditions include, but are not limited to, capital improvement projects, growth and development plans, and economic and redevelopment plans. 

The fisheries that would be alAction are predicted to have mon local economic conditions. employment and growth suppcommercial and sport salmon maintained by the Proposed AProposed Action, when considlocal plans, policies, and progin no cumulative impact to ecobecause the Proposed Action expected future economic con

3 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 169 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.7 Environmental Justice 

2 In consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Civil Rights and 

3 Environmental Justice, the National Marine Fisheries Service determined that Native American tribes 

4 were the only racial or socio-economic minorities identified as potentially affected Environmental 

5 Justice communities within the Puget Sound Action Area. EPA’s Office of Civil Rights and 

6 Environmental Justice concurred that the focus of the Environmental Justice analysis should be on 

7 these tribes (personal communication with Mike Letourneau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

8 December 10, 2002). To guide the framework of Environmental Justice analysis, the EPA Office of 

9 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice has provided guidance to be used by all federal agencies 

10 conducting Environmental Justice analyses. NMFS has utilized this guidance for the Environmental 

11 Justice analysis herein. The EPA Environmental Justice guidelines offer a range of categories that 

12 might be utilized to indicate the presence or absence of Environmental Justice effects (U.S. 

13 Environmental Protection Agency 1998b). The Northwest Power Planning Council (2000) has also 

14 utilized a range of indicators to analyze human effects in a multi-cultural framework. 

15 Selection of indicators to appropriately represent potential impacts on tribal peoples . . . is 

16 necessarily cross-cultural. For example, while economic issues are of keen interest to Tribes due to 

17 their critical needs for jobs and improved incomes, the Tribes consider spiritual, cultural and life18 style values associated with fish and wildlife of paramount importance – and these cannot be 

19 accurately represented by contemporary economic measures. 

20 Northwest Power Planning Council 2000. 

21 Consequently, this indicator-based assessment draws topically from the range of indicator categories 

22 outlined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (1998b), from information provided in cultural 

23 and economic sections of Section 3 of this Environmental Impact Statement, and from other 

24 information relevant to the circumstances of the subject tribes. A brief discussion of each selected 

25 indicator follows. 

26 Number of Salmon Harvested as an Indicator of Tribal Perspective of Value 

27 Tribal spokespersons remind us that, in their culture, “ . . . tribal peoples live as one with the land, the 

28 waters, and the fish and wildlife of their areas.” From a tribal perspective, the value of the salmon is 

29 self-evident – and can be articulated by tribes in their own words, and on their own terms (Northwest 

30 Power Planning Council 2000). Some of this broad perspective is captured in Section 3.5 of this 

31 Environmental Impact Statement. Other tribal statements are found throughout tribal literature. The 

32 following examples are typical, but not exhaustive. 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 170 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Shellfish, all species of salmon and steelhead are what we depend on for our survival. This was a 

2 long time resource the Klallam people depended on for food. We still depend on it. . . . The water 

3 has long been a key religious asset for the Klallam people – a sacred thing, to get our strength from 

4 the food we have taken from the Sea water and the fresh water. It still is to this day. 

5 David Charles, Klallam Elder, in U.S. Minerals Management Service 1991. 

6 The Lummi people have historically been major producers of seafood products. Native to the cold, 

7 productive waters of Puget Sound and the North Pacific, Lummi fishermen have harvested, 

8 processed and marketed fish to others for thousands of years. 

9 Lummi Business Council, in U.S. Minerals Management Service 1991. 

10 The people acquired guardian spirits, many of whom were salt water spirits. The Salmon Spirit was 

11 particularly powerful and was the basis for many ceremonial rituals involving death and rebirth. It 

12 was felt that the Salmon’s power should be recognized, and that the Salmon should be treated 

13 properly and not abused. . . . We know what the Earth and the Creator have given us to survive. We 

14 still have the same resources – and they are still providing us with a livelihood today. 

15 Ray Fryberg, Tulalip Councillor, in U.S. Minerals Management Service 1991. 

16 Numbers of salmon harvested provide an indicator of the health of stocks, and represent an appropriate 

17 measure of relative harvest abundance and of tribal value. They are incorporated in this section as a 

18 value indicator that, from tribal perspective, “speaks for itself.” 

19 Cultural Viability 

20 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporates cultural impacts in its Exhibit 2 menu 

21 of factors that may be considered in any Environmental Justice analysis (U.S. Environmental 

22 Protection Agency 1998b). Where the “number of salmon” indicator facilitates tribal assertion of value 

23 and potential impact “in their own words,” the “cultural viability” indicator is anthropologically based 

24 – and following analysis of Section 3.5 in this Environmental Impact Statement, will focus on impacts 

25 potentially affecting cultural sustainability, passing on tribal knowledge to future tribal generations, 

26 and preservation of tribal identity. These issues are interrelated – but taken together, are designed to 

27 carry the framework constructed in Section 3.5 through to this Environmental Justice assessment. 

28 The information provided in Section 3.5, together with the tribal statements provided herein, identify 

29 that while salmon available to the tribes are diminished from Treaty times, the tribes continue to 

30 actively pursue salmon, depend on salmon as a key element of their present well-being, and value 

31 salmon highly for future generations. It is this contemporary relationship between the tribes and salmon 

32 that provides the baseline for the present analysis with respect to both the “number of salmon” and the 

33 “cultural viability” indicators. 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 171 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Tribal Fishing Revenue 

2 This tribal fishing indicator directly addresses economic revenue obtained by the tribes from sale of 

3 commercially-caught salmon and/or salmon eggs. Tribes also receive economic revenue from 

4 processing salmon, and from service activity associated with commercial and sport fishing. Such 

5 additional revenues are significant for some tribes, less so for others. However, in this assessment, 

6 comparison of direct revenues from sale of tribal catch serves as an accurate and sufficient measure to 

7 identify revenue-based Environmental Justice concerns associated with the four chinook salmon 

8 management alternatives. 

9 Actual tribal revenues from salmon harvests vary from year to year due to changes in abundance and 

10 price. Table 4.7-1 provides information on recent revenues within the Puget Sound Action Area for the 

11 17 fishing tribes included in this Environmental Impact Statement. 

12 Table 4.7-1. Tribal salmon fishing revenue for the action area – 17 fishing tribes (estimates in 

13 thousands of dollars). 

Species 1999 Revenue 2000 Revenue 2001 Revenue 

Chinook 716 636 663 

Chum 325 388 248 

Pink 28 1 126 

Coho 350 1,031 577 

Sockeye 146 2,033 133 

Steelhead 10 15 2 

Salmon Egg Sales 303 746 1,807 

Total – All Salmon 1,878 4,849 3,556 

14 Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, February 2003. 

15 Finally, this section addresses three indicators common to both tribal and non-tribal assessment of 

16 human effects: per capita income, level of poverty, and relative health/mortality. Available data will 

17 not necessarily sustain a quantitative calculation of precise effects linkages between salmon harvest 

18 under each alternative and impacts on these three indicators. However, information is sufficient to 

19 apply an ordinal measure of change to each indicator, where differences in tribal access/harvest 

20 between alternatives are deemed to be significant. 

21 Annual Per Capita Income 

22 This indicator is based on U.S. Bureau of the Census data published from Census 2000 for American 

23 Indians and Alaska Natives resident on or near each designated reservation. U.S. Census data is 

24 commonly relied on as a “best available” objective data source. (The data reported here include some 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 172 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Native Americans resident on or near designated reservations who are not members of the 17 treaty 

2 fishing tribes.) 

3 Percent Below Poverty Level 

4 Data for this indicator come from the same U.S. Census 2000 source as per capita income. The data 

5 indicate the percentage of American Indians and Alaska Natives resident on or near each designated 

6 reservation with annual income below the federal poverty level. 

7 Present populations and selected circumstances for the subject fishing tribes, as reported in the Census 

8 2000 report, are presented in Table 4.7-2. Figures for all residents of the State of Washington are 

9 included for comparative purposes. Per capita and poverty data are for 1999. Data for the Jamestown 

10 S’Klallam Tribe are based on a sample size of 5 persons, and have not been relied upon. Actual 

11 circumstances at Jamestown S’Klallam have been reported to be within the range indicated for other 

12 tribes (Meyer 1993). 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 173 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.7-2. Selected data for potentially affected tribes. 

Tribe/State Native Population Per Capita Income % below Poverty 

Makah 1,076 $9,835 31 

Lower Elwha 256 8,082 33 

Jamestown 5 − −

Port Gamble 461 8,539 18 

Suquamish 503 13,613 13 

Skokomish 518 8,500 32 

Squaxin Island 325 8,698 33 

Nisqually 314 11,072 18 

Puyallup 1,386 12,439 26 

Muckleshoot 1,029 9,914 29 

Tulalip 1,875 10,623 29 

Stillaguamish 78 7,609 13 

Swinomish 611 8,712 36 

Upper Skagit 139 5,523 60 

Sauk Suiattle 41 8,127 5 

Lummi 2,208 10,142 28 

Nooksack 348 9,695 29 

Washington State $22,973 11 

2 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census 2000, Summary File 3, Tables P6, P82, P157C and P159C. 

3 Health and Mortality 

4 The general health status of tribal peoples in Washington State, including within the Puget Sound 

5 Action Area considered here, were described in two 1992−1993 publications as “very poor” 

6 (Washington State Department of Health 1992), and “alarmingly poor” (American Indian Health Care 

7 Association 1993). The 1999 update to the American Indian Health Care Delivery Plan in Washington 

8 State confirms the conclusions from these earlier studies. 

9 AI/AN (American Indians/Alaska Natives) have a higher burden of serious disease, premature 

10 death, and poor birth outcomes than the population as a whole. 

11 American Indian Health Commission for Washington State 

12 and Washington State Department of Health (2001) (C-3). 

13 Since 1980, the total reported age-adjusted death rate for AI/AN in Washington State has 

14 consistently been higher than the death rate for the entire population of the State. . . . The general 

15 trend for overall AI/AN age-adjusted death rates since 1980 has been downward, but the gap 

16 between the AI/AN death rate and that for the general population has not narrowed appreciably. 

17 American Indian Health Commission for Washington State 

18 and Washington State Department of Health (2001) (C-7). 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 174 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Recent work in the Pacific Northwest has identified a linkage between salmon resources and tribal 

2 health (i.e., Trafzer 1997; and Meyer Resources 1999). Commentary from a nurse from a neighbor 

3 salmon fishing tribe offers insight into relationships between salmon and tribal health. 

4 My specialty is psychosocial nursing. From my perspective, everything is tied together. Nothing is 

5 separate. The health of the kids is impacted every day. We see kids come in who are grossly 

6 overweight, and they’re laying the groundwork for diabetes to come. The impact of the loss of the 

7 salmon, and the loss of the traditional grounds – the loss of the time with the elders to learn the 

8 ways and to feel as if they’re part of this community, instead of feeling alienated not only from 

9 their neighbors and their families but also from the bigger community of humans – has a 

10 devastating effect on the kids. I have moms come in here eighteen years old who have been 

11 pregnant two or three times, who use substances and who don’t teach their children the old ways 

12 because they don’t know them. They don’t feed their kids the old foods because they don’t have 

13 any idea what they were. So the loss of the food and the salmon is monumental – and it is all tied 

14 together. . . . If you lose your foods, you lose part of your culture – and it has a devastating effect 

15 on the psyche. You also lose the social interaction. When we can fish, we spend time together – 

16 you share all the things that impact your life – and you plan together for the next year. Salmon is 

17 more important than just food. 

18 In sum, there’s a huge connection between salmon and tribal health. Restoring salmon becomes a 

19 way of life. It restores physical activity. It restores mental health. It improves nutrition and thus 

20 restores physical health. It restores a traditional food source. It allows families to share time 

21 together and build connections between family members. It passes on traditions that are being lost. 

22 Chris Walsh, Yakama psycho-social nurse, in Meyer Resources 1999 (page 141). 

23 While precise cause and effect quantification remains unspecified, it can be concluded that for the fish24 eating tribes that are the subject of this analysis, salmon has played, and continues to play an important 

25 role in the health of tribal peoples – and consequently, is also a likely explanatory variable respecting 

26 observable differences in age-adjusted mortality between tribal peoples and residents of the State of 

27 Washington in general (Table 4.7-3). 

28 Table 4.7-3. Relative mortality for tribal peoples compared to residents of Washington State. 

Tribal Health Service, by Counties Ratio of Tribal Mortality to Mortality for Residents of 

Washington State 

Clallam 1.7 

Skagit, Whatcom 1.7 

King, Kitsap, Mason, Snohomish, Thurston 1.3 

Pierce 0.7 

Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Pacific 1.0 

29 Source: Portland Area Indian Health Care Service 1994. 

30 These data compare number of deaths per 100,000 population for American Indians/Alaska Natives 

31 against similar data for Washington State residents as a whole. Age-adjustment eliminates the impact 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 175 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 of differences in age structure between the two populations, and allows for comparisons of death rates 

2 as though there were no age differences between populations (Portland Area Indian Health Care 

3 Service 1994). 

4 As discussed in Subsection 4.2, four different scenarios of abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries 

5 harvest were considered in this Environmental Impact Statement (Scenarios A through D). Considering 

6 the likelihood attributed to various assumptions by the Interdisciplinary Team, Scenario B (high 

7 abundance and maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries) is considered most likely, followed by Scenario 

8 A (high abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to those in 2003). Scenarios C (30% 

9 reduction in abundance and fisheries similar to those in 2003), and D (30% reduction in abundance and 

10 maximum Canadian/Alaskan fisheries) provide a basis for lower-bound sensitivity adjustments related 

11 to adverse exogenous events. In this section, discussion focuses on comparison of estimated tribal 

12 harvests for the four alternatives under Scenario B. Results from employing Scenarios A, C, or D are 

13 discussed following the discussion of Scenario B for each alternative. Although the catch and revenue 

14 results differ among scenarios, comparison of alternatives illustrated by Scenario B as well as the 

15 Environmental Justice conclusions reached in Table 4.7-13, are the same across scenarios. 

16 4.7.1. Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo 

17 Alternative 1 would maintain present harvest opportunities and distribute catch broadly between areas 

18 and dependent tribes – supporting the existing array of economic, material, and cultural activities and 

19 values discussed here and in other report sections. Of the four alternative management regimes 

20 evaluated under Scenario B, Alternative 1 is estimated to provide approximately 4.5 times more salmon 

21 to the tribes than Alternative 2 (following), 6.5 times more salmon than Alternative 3, and 49 times 

22 more salmon than Alternative 4. Alternative 1 is projected to leave present tribal circumstance 

23 essentially unchanged – and consequently, is not estimated to generate either positive or adverse 

24 cultural, material, or health impacts for the tribes, measured from the present baseline. 

25 Scenario B (High Abundance and Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Fisheries)

26 Integrating information on average fish size and prices developed from Washington Department of Fish 

27 and Wildlife (2002) with projected harvest impact under Scenario B (Appendix B), estimated tribal 

28 harvest and associated fishermen revenues under Alternative 1 are identified in Tables 4.7-4 and 4.7-5. 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 176 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.7-4. Estimated tribal salmon harvested annually under Alternative 1, Scenario B. 

Areas Chinook Coho Sockeye Pink Chum Steelhead 

Juan de Fuca Strait 2,363 23,879 26,419 1,374 10,450 739 

North Puget Sound 29,238 101,652 255,859 731,587 152,189 532 

South Puget Sound 33,241 140,279 47,700 316 196,350 663 

Hood Canal 15,311 17,015 0 28,602 107,433 0 

Full Action Area 80,153 282,825 329,978 761,879 466,422 1,934 

Full Action Area – 

All Species 

 1,923,191 

2 Under Alternative 1, Scenario B, an estimated 80,000 chinook, 283,000 coho, 330,000 sockeye, 

3 762,000 pink salmon, 466,000 chum salmon, and almost 2,000 steelhead would be taken by the tribes 

4 annually. Applying average fish size and prices developed by the Washington Department of Fish and 

5 Wildlife (2002) to these numbers, Alternative 1, Scenario B, would generate an estimated $5.1 million 

6 in annual direct revenue for tribal fishermen. 

7 Table 4.7-5. Estimated annual tribal salmon revenue, by species – Alternative 1, Scenario B. 

Species Estimated Annual Revenue (dollars) 

Chinook 750,883 

Coho 716,548 

Sockeye 2,083,397 

Pinks 494,615 

Chums 1,076,968 

Steelhead 9,516 

All Species $5,131,930 

8 Commercial revenue estimates in Table 4.7-5 and for other alternatives may be underestimated to the 

9 extent that chum catch is diverted to higher-value egg sales. 

10 These estimates maintain present harvest opportunities and distribute catch broadly between areas and 

11 dependent tribes – supporting the existing array of economic, material and cultural activities and values 

12 discussed here and in other EIS sections. 

13 Of the four alternative management regimes evaluated under Scenario B, Alternative 1 is estimated to 

14 provide approximately 4.5 times more salmon to the tribes than Alternative 2 (discussed below), 6.5 

15 times more salmon than Alternative 3, and 49 times more salmon than Alternative 4. Alternative 1 is 

16 projected to leave present tribal circumstance essentially unchanged – and consequently, is not 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 177 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 estimated to generate either positive or adverse cultural, material, or health impacts for the tribes, 

2 measured from the present baseline. 

3 Anticipated Environmental Justice effects are summarized in Table 4.7-13, following discussion of 

4 tribal impacts associated with each alternative. 

5 Summary of Results for Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or D

6 Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or D are presented in 

7 Table 4.7-6. 

8 Table 4.7.6. Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or D. 

Area/Element Scenario A Scenario C Scenario D 

Juan de Fuca Harvest (#) 2,363 2,363 2,363 

North Puget Sound (#) 31,813 22,434 20,281 

South Puget Sound (#) 35,027 25,099 23,961 

Hood Canal (#) 16,962 10,166 9,340 

Chinook Harvest – All Areas (#) 86,165 60,062 55,945 

Chinook Revenue ($) $805,977 $575,902 $537,757 

Chinook salmon: Difference from 

Scenario B. 

+6,012 chinook 

+$55,094 

-20,091 chinook 

-$174,981 

-24,209 chinook 

-$213,126 

9 Predicted tribal harvests for Puget Sound coho, sockeye, pink, chum, and steelhead would remain 

10 unchanged between Scenarios A, C, or D, and Scenario B (Table 4.7-6). Scenario A (high abundance 

11 and Canadian/Alaskan fisheries similar to 2003) would increase predicted tribal harvest under preferred 

12 Alternative 1 by 6,012 chinook compared with Scenario B. This represents a 7.5 percent increase in 

13 chinook harvest – and a 0.3 percent increase in tribal harvest of all species taken together. Tribal 

14 fishing revenue under Alternative 1 is predicted to increase by $55,094 (1.1 percent) – or $6 per capita. 

15 Predictably, assumption of 30 percent less harvest would decrease projected tribal harvest under 

16 Scenarios C or D significantly. Tribal harvest is predicted to decline by 25 to 30 percent and revenue 

17 by 3.4 to 4.1 percent under Scenarios C or D. 

18 4.7.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level 

19 Scenario B 

20 Under Alternative 2, Scenario B, overall tribal chinook harvest is predicted to decline by an estimated 

21 29,265 fish (78%), compared to Alternative 1 (Table 4.7-7). Losses would be most prevalent in North 

22 and South Puget Sound. Catch in the Strait of Juan de Fuca would be eliminated. Harvest in Hood 

23 Canal is predicted to increase by more than 4,000 chinook. 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 178 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.7-7. Number of tribal salmon caught annually under Alternative 2, Scenario B. 

 Chinook Coho Sockeye Pink Chum Steelhead 

Strait of Juan de Fuca 0 1,725 0 0 2 610 

North Puget Sound 8,349 33,142 0 83,400 1,808 227 

South Puget Sound 22,738 72,889 0 316 81,163 653 

Hood Canal 19,802 4,493 0 25,792 65,813 0 

Full Action Area 50,888 112,249 0 109,508 148,786 1,490 

Full Action Area – All species 422,921 

2 Tribal coho catches are estimated to decline from an Alternative 1 catch of 24,000 fish to less than 

3 2,000 fish in the Strait of Juan de Fuca under Alternative 2. Coho catches in North Puget Sound are 

4 predicted to decline from 102,000 to 33,000 fish. Tribal coho harvest in South Puget Sound is predicted 

5 to decline by an estimated 67,000 salmon. Estimated catches in Hood Canal are predicted to decline by 

6 12,500 coho. Over all areas, tribal harvesters are estimated to lose 170,000 coho under Alternative 2, 

7 Scenario B, compared to Alternative 1, Scenario B. 

8 Under Alternative 2, Scenario B, no tribal harvest of sockeye salmon would occur. Compared to 

9 Alternative 1, this would represent an estimated loss of 282,000 sockeye to North Puget Sound and 

10 Strait of Juan de Fuca tribal fishers, and a lost tribal catch of approximately 48,000 sockeye salmon in 

11 South Puget Sound. 

12 Tribal catch of pink salmon is expected to decline by an estimated 652,000 fish under Alternative 2, 

13 Scenario B. Lost catch in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is estimated to exceed 1,000 pink salmon. In North 

14 Puget Sound, the loss of pink salmon to tribal fisherman is estimated to be 649,000. In Hood Canal, 

15 catch of pink salmon is predicted to decline by about 3,000. The South Puget Sound pink salmon 

16 fisheries would remain about the same as with Alternative 1. 

17 Starting from the Alternative 1 baseline, tribal chum salmon harvest is predicted to decline by an 

18 estimated 318,000 fish under Alternative 2. In the Strait of Juan de Fuca and North Puget Sound, the 

19 estimated loss of chum salmon to tribal fishermen would be approximately 160,000 fish. An estimated 

20 157,000 chum salmon would be lost from the South Puget Sound and Hood Canal tribal harvest – a 

21 decline of 52 percent. 

22 Under Scenario B, the loss of steelhead to the tribal harvest is predicted to be 400 fish with Alternative 

23 2, compared to Alternative 1. 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 179 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Overall, Alternative 2 is predicted to provide an all-species catch of approximately 423,000 salmon to 

2 the tribes. This is predicted to result in an all-species reduction in catch of 1.5 million salmon (78%) 

3 compared to the Alternative 1 baseline. 

4 Using average fish size and prices developed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2002), 

5 Alternative 2 is predicted to provide annual commercial direct revenue to tribal fishermen of 

6 $1,137,000 − a loss of $4 million from the Alternative 1 baseline. 

7 Under Scenario B, the estimated impacts of Alternative 2 would greatly diminish, and in some cases 

8 eliminate, the opportunity to be a fisherman − a respected lifestyle in tribal society. Many tribal 

9 fishermen would lose their investment in boats and gear, and the tribal ability to pass on fishing 

10 knowledge to their children and grandchildren would be impaired. 

11 Other cultural opportunities to provide salmon as food, to share or trade salmon within tribal 

12 communities, and to conduct ceremonies would be eliminated or substantially reduced for the tribes. 

13 Information provided earlier in this subsection suggests that this, in turn, could be expected to have an 

14 adverse impact on the physical, spiritual, and cultural health of tribal peoples who already experience 

15 adverse circumstances relative to residents of the State of Washington in general (Tables 4.7-2 and 4.7-

16 3). 

17 Alternative 2 would significantly worsen the already adverse economic and health circumstances 

18 experienced by the 17 tribes addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement, relative to residents of 

19 the State of Washington in general when compared with Alternative 1, Scenario B. 

20 Alternative 2 stands second to Alternative 3 (described below) in terms of adversity for the tribes. 

21 However, considered alone, Alternative 2 would still generate disproportionately high and adverse 

22 human impacts across tribal groups. Given the dependence of tribes on salmon, and the unique cultural 

23 linkage between salmon and tribal peoples, these adverse impacts would resonate far more strongly 

24 among the tribes than among the non-tribal population of Washington State as a whole. 

25 Summary of Results for Alternative 2, Scenarios A, C, or D

26 Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or D are presented in 

27 Table 4.7-8. Predicted tribal harvests for Puget Sound coho, sockeye, pink, chum, and steelhead would 

28 remain unchanged between Scenarios A, C, or D, and Scenario B (Table 4.7-8). 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 180 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.7-8. Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 2, Scenarios A, C, or D. 

Area/Element Scenario A Scenario C Scenario D 

Juan de Fuca Harvest (#) 0 0 0 

North Puget Sound (#) 8,531 415 391 

South Puget Sound (#) 24,150 11,523 10,537 

Hood Canal (#) 21,213 12,745 11,608 

Chinook Harvest – All Areas (#) 53,893 24,683 22,536 

Chinook Revenue ($) $445,065 $193,445 $176,619 

Chinook salmon: Difference from 

Scenario B. 

+3,005 chinook 

+$24,049 

-26,683 chinook 

-$227,571 

-28,351 chinook 

-$244,397 

2 If Scenario A were implemented, tribal harvest would be predicted to increase under Alternative 2 by 

3 3,005 chinook salmon compared to Scenario B. This would represent a 6.0 percent increase in chinook 

4 harvest – and a 0.2 percent increase in tribal harvest of all species taken together. Tribal fishing 

5 revenue under Alternative 1 would increase by $24,049 (0.5 percent), or $3 per capita. Predictably, 

6 assumption of 30 percent less harvest would decrease projected tribal harvest under Scenarios C or D 

7 significantly. Tribal harvest is predicted to decline by 56 to 58 percent and revenue by 3.4 to 4.1 

8 percent under Alternative 2, Scenarios C or D because of the 30 percent decline in abundance in these 

9 two scenarios. 

10 4.7.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level 

11 Scenario B

12 Under Alternative 3, Scenario B, overall tribal catch of salmon is predicted to be reduced by 85 percent 

13 compared to Alternative 1 – a loss of 1.6 million salmon each year (Table 4.7-9). Associated annual 

14 loss of direct tribal revenue from fish sales is estimated at $4.2 million. 

15 Table 4.7-9. Estimated tribal salmon numbers harvested annually under Alternative 3, Scenario B. 

Areas Chinook Coho Sockeye Pink Chum Steelhead 

Strait of Juan de Fuca 0 1,725 0 0 2 610 

North Puget Sound 0 143 0 0 1,057 227 

South Puget Sound 22,738 72,889 0 316 81,163 653 

Hood Canal 19,802 4,493 0 25,792 65,813 0 

Full Action Area 42,540 79,250 0 26,108 148,035 1,490 

Full Action Area – All Species 297,421 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 181 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Principal predicted losses would be to tribal harvests of chinook salmon, down from 80,000 under 

2 Alternative 1 to 42,540 pieces, chiefly in North and South Puget Sound; coho down from 283,000 to 

3 79,000 fish, chiefly from North and South Puget Sound; sockeye with 330,000 salmon lost from North 

4 and South Puget Sound; pink salmon in North Puget Sound, down to zero from 731,000 fish; and 

5 chum, down from 466,000 to 148,000, with all subareas adversely affected. 

6 Alternative 3, Scenario B, would be more adverse than Alternative 2, Scenario B. It would significantly 

7 worsen the already adverse economic, health, and cultural circumstances experienced by the 17 tribes 

8 within the Puget Sound Action Area. 

9 Summary of Results for Alternative 3, Scenarios A, C, or D

10 Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or D are presented in 

11 Table 4.7-10. 

12 Table 4.7-10. Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 3, Scenarios A, C, or D. 

Area/Element Scenario A Scenario C Scenario D 

Juan de Fuca Harvest (#) 0 0 0 

North Puget Sound (#) 0 0 0 

South Puget Sound (#) 24,150 11,523 10,537 

Hood Canal (#) 21,213 12,745 11,608 

Chinook Harvest – All Areas (#) 45,363 24,267 22,145 

Chinook Revenue ($) $355,519 $190,193 $173,555 

Chinook salmon: Difference from 

Scenario B. 

+2,822 chinook 

+$22,125 

-18,273 chinook 

-$143,201 

-20,395 chinook 

-$159,839 

13 Predicted tribal harvests for Puget Sound coho, sockeye, pink, chum, and steelhead would remain 

14 unchanged between Scenarios A, C, or D, and Scenario B (Table 4.7-10). If Scenario A were 

15 implemented, tribal harvest under Alternative 3 would be predicted to increase by 2,822 chinook when 

16 compared with Scenario B. This would represent a 6.6 percent increase in chinook harvest, and a 0.2 

17 percent increase in tribal harvest of all species taken together. Tribal fishing revenue under Alternative 

18 1 would increase by $22,125 (0.4%), or $3 per capita. Predictably, assumption of 30 percent less 

19 harvest would decrease projected tribal harvest under Scenarios C or D significantly. Tribal harvest is 

20 predicted to decline by 43 to 48 percent, and revenue by 2.8 to 3.1 percent under Alternative 3, 

21 Scenarios C or D. 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 182 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.7.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take, Scenario B. 

2 Under Alternative 4, Scenario B, potential tribal harvests of four salmon species − chinook, coho, 

3 sockeye, and pink – are predicted to cease throughout the Puget Sound Action Area (Table 4.7-11). 

4 Potential tribal harvest of chum salmon is predicted to occur only in freshwater areas, principally in 

5 South Puget Sound, with small predicted catches in North Puget Sound and Hood Canal, and miniscule 

6 amounts predicted from Strait of Juan de Fuca streams. Total tribal chum salmon harvests are projected 

7 to decline by 92 percent under Alternative 4, from an estimated 466,000 fish under the Proposed Action 

8 (Alternative 1), to 37,800 fish. 

9 Table 4.7-11. Estimated tribal salmon numbers harvested annually under Alternative 4, Scenario B. 

Areas Chinook Coho Sockeye Pink Chum Steelhead 

Juan de Fuca Strait 0 0 0 0 2 609 

North Sound 0 0 0 0 1,057 227 

South Sound 0 0 0 0 36,389 512 

Hood Canal 0 0 0 0 352 0 

Full Action Area 0 0 0 0 37,800 1,348 

Full Action Area – All 

Species 

 39,148 

10 Steelhead harvests by the tribes are predicted to decline by an estimated 30 percent, from 1,934 fish 

11 under Alternative 1, to 1,348 fish under Alternative 4. These catches would occur only in fresh water. 

12 Summing lost tribal harvests for all salmonid species compared to baseline (Alternative 1) conditions, 

13 it is predicted that the tribes would lose almost 1.9 million salmon under Alternative 4, virtually 

14 eliminating access to the salmon resources reserved to them in the Stevens treaties. These impacts 

15 would, in turn, greatly diminish or eliminate the opportunity to pursue the occupation of tribal 

16 fisherman. 

17 Other cultural opportunities to provide salmon as food, share or trade salmon within tribal 

18 communities, and conduct ceremonies would be eliminated or greatly reduced, and the physical and 

19 spiritual health of tribal peoples would be expected to decline. 

20 The tribal peoples within the Puget Sound Action Area are already impoverished relative to residents of 

21 the State as a whole (Table 4.7-2). Using average fish size and prices for each species developed by 

22 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2002), it is predicted that the subject tribes would 

23 receive approximately $107,000 from salmon sales under Alternative 4 – 2 percent of the revenues 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 183 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 predicted with Alternative 1. Additionally, tribal fishermen, with no marine areas to fish, would lose 

2 their investments in boats, gear, and − over time − their fishing knowledge, should these losses occur. 

3 The projected adverse impacts identified here show that Alternative 4 is predicted to have the most 

4 disproportionately high and adverse human and/or environmental effects on the tribes of any alternative 

5 being considered, and would exacerbate existing adverse differences in economic well-being and health 

6 between the tribes and Washington State residents as a whole. The unique linkage between salmon and 

7 tribal culture/values renders these adverse differences between the well-being of the tribes and 

8 residents of the State of Washington in general more pronounced under Alternative 4 than the other 

9 alternatives under consideration. 

10 Summary of Results for Alternative 4, Scenarios A, C, or D

11 Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 4, Scenarios A, C, or D are presented in 

12 Table 4.7-12. Chinook catch under all scenarios would be zero, since Alternative 4 is defined as no take 

13 of listed chinook salmon. 

14 Table 4.7-12. Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 4, Scenarios A, C, or D. 

Area/Element Scenario A Scenario C Scenario D 

Juan de Fuca Harvest (#) 0 0 0 

North Puget Sound (#) 0 0 0 

South Puget Sound (#) 0 0 0 

Hood Canal (#) 0 0 0 

Chinook Harvest – All Areas (#) 0 0 0 

Chinook Revenue ($) 0 0 0 

Chinook salmon: Difference from 

Scenario B. 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

--- 

15 Predicted tribal harvests for Puget Sound coho, sockeye, pink, chum, and steelhead would remain 

16 unchanged between Scenarios A, C, or D, and Scenario B. 

17 4.7.5 Comparison of the Effects of Management Alternatives on the Tribes 

18 Table 4.7-13 summarizes the findings of this section – arrayed by Environmental Justice indicator. The 

19 comparison uses the results of Scenario B, but the results follow the same pattern regardless of which 

20 scenario is used. 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 184 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.7-13. Summary of environmental justice indicators associated with potential impacts from 

alternative management plans under Scenario B. 1 2 

Tribal Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Number of Salmon 

Harvested 1,923,191 422,921 297,421 39,148 

Cultural Viability Maintains status quo. 

Not predicted to have 

high disproportionate 

or adverse impact. 

Disproportionate and 

substantial adverse 

impact to: 

*Cultural sustainability. 

*Tribal identity. 

*Passing on tribal 

 knowledge. 

Disproportionate and 

substantial adverse 

impact to: 

*Cultural sustainability. 

*Tribal identity. 

*Passing on tribal 

 knowledge. 

Disproportionate and 

substantial adverse 

impact to: 

*Cultural 

sustainability. 

*Tribal identity. 

*Passing on tribal 

knowledge. 

Catch Revenue $5,131,930 $1,137,426 $925,339 $106,976 

Per Capita Income* No change Minus $358 /person. Minus $376 /person. Minus $450/person. 

Poverty No change Substantial and 

disproportionate 

increase. 

Substantial and 

disproportionate 

increase. 

Substantial and 

disproportionate 

increase. 

Health/Mortality Maintains status quo. 

Not predicted to have 

high disproportionate 

or adverse impact. 

Disproportionately 

adverse to health. 

Disproportionately 

adverse to health. 

Disproportionate and 

substantial threat to 

health. 

1 3 Based on tribal population estimates in Table 4.7-2. 

4 The alternatives considered in this Environmental Impact Statement balance issues of salmon harvest 

5 and non-harvest, each of which involves its own affected constituencies, among tribes, and within the 

6 Washington State population as a whole. The tribes considered here retained guaranteed access to 

7 salmon in their treaties – in order to allow them to sustain themselves and prosper. In treaty times, and 

8 today, salmon play a unique role for the tribes. The loss of salmon as a viable resource upon which the 

9 fishing tribes depend economically and culturally would be an irretrievable loss to tribal culture. 

10 Notwithstanding treaty guarantees, the life of the tribal peoples subject to this impact analysis remains 

11 difficult, compared to non-tribal residents of the State. Poverty is unacceptably high. Incomes and 

12 health circumstances are adverse. Cultural viability is often threatened. 

13 Salmon remain critically important as the tribes struggle to survive – providing food and badly needed 

14 economic returns, a continuing basis for culture and lifestyle, and hope of improvement for children 

15 and grandchildren in the future. Comparatively, on the non-tribal side, salmon are important to non16 tribal commercial and sport fishermen – but within a context that is characterized by far more diversity 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 185 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 of economic opportunity, higher levels of material well-being, superior health and less direct cultural 

2 linkage with salmon for the majority of non-tribal citizens of Washington State. 

3 Given this context, Table 4.7-13 and the preceding discussion identify that Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would 

4 pose disproportionately-high and substantial adverse impacts to tribal culture, health and material well5 being, differing only in degree. It is concluded that the severe potential impacts associated with any of 

6 these three alternatives render them unjust to the tribes when balanced against impacts to the people of 

7 Washington State as a whole. No mitigation measures have been identified that could effectively offset 

8 or reduce predicted Environmental Justice impacts to the tribes that would result from Alternative 2, 

9 Alternative 3, or Alternative 4. 

10 4.7.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

11 4.7.6.1. Indirect Effects 

12 Alternative 3 or 4 would specifically preclude fishing in marine areas. Alternative 2 would provide for 

13 only a modest marine chinook salmon fishery in North Puget Sound. In addition to direct harvest 

14 effects, these options could lead to increased crowding and/or competition between tribal fishers in 

15 some freshwater areas, and increased pressure on those freshwater stocks and on tribal fishing 

16 efficiencies. 

17 The Samish and the Snoqualmie Tribes are afforded federal recognition, and demonstrate an historic 

18 fishing tradition. They are not presently recognized by the federal government to have status as treaty 

19 fishing tribes. Tribal spokespersons/experts report that a small number of their members have taken out 

20 non-tribal commercial salmon fishing licenses, but most of their salmon for ceremonies are currently 

21 obtained from one or more of the fishing tribes discussed in this Environmental Impact Statement. 

22 Consequently, Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would not pose a present substantial threat with respect to 

23 material well-being or health for these tribes, but would make it more difficult for them to obtain 

24 salmon for ceremonial purposes and to continue cultural practices. As with other tribes, Alternative 1 

25 would maintain current linkages between salmon and Samish and Snoqualmie peoples. 

26 4.7.6.2 Cumulative Effects 

27 NEPA defines cumulative effects as “ . . . the impact on the environment which results from the 

28 incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

29 actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 

30 CFR1508.7). For purposes of this discussion, the terms “effects” and “impacts” will be considered 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 186 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 synonymously with “consequences,” and consequences may be negative or beneficial. This subsection 

2 presents an analysis of the cumulative effects (negative or beneficial) of the Proposed Action in the 

3 context of other local, state, tribal, and federal management activities in the Puget Sound region on fish 

4 resources and related economic conditions. 

5 The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis area includes the entire Puget Sound region. 

6 The analysis area covers both inland and marine environments that are managed under laws, policies, 

7 regulations, and plans having a direct or indirect impact on fish. The substantive scope of the 

8 cumulative effects analysis is predicated on a review of applicable laws, policies, regulations, and plans 

9 that specifically pertain to fish-related management activities, or that have an indirect negative or 

10 beneficial effect on fish resources and related economic conditions. These laws, policies, regulations, 

11 and plans are described in section 1 and Appendix F. Because of the geographic scope of the analysis 

12 area, it is not feasible to analyze all habitat-specific activities that are occurring, have occurred in the 

13 past, or will occur in the future in a quantitative manner. By reviewing applicable laws, policies, 

14 regulations, and plans, the analysis captures the objectives of management activities that are occurring 

15 or planned to occur that may interface with fish resources within the Puget Sound region. It is assumed 

16 that no management activity is occurring or would occur outside of an implemented law, policy, 

17 regulation, or sanctioned plan at the federal, tribal, state, or local level. Although the analysis is 

18 necessarily qualitative, it provides a thorough review of other activities within the region that, when 

19 combined with the Proposed Action, could have a negative or beneficial affect on environmental justice 

20 communities. Table 4.7-14 below summarizes the potential cumulative effects on environmental justice 

21 communities of other plans, policies and programs in the Puget Sound region in addition to the 

22 Proposed Action. 

23 The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) is implementation of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource 

24 Management Plan (RMP), jointly prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

25 (WDFW) and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (co-managers). Factors common to the relationship 

26 between the RMP and the various existing plans, policies and programs include: 1) the Resource 

27 Management Plan would provide protection to Puget Sound chinook salmon by conserving the 

28 productivity, abundance, and diversity of populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily 

29 Significant Unit (ESU), while managing harvest of strong salmon stocks; and 2) conserving 

30 productivity requires biological integrity in the freshwater systems in which salmon spawn and rear. 

31 Alternative 1 would maintain present-day distributions of salmon to the tribes, and is preferred. Due to 

32 alterations in habitat, stream water quality and other factors, the amount of salmon available to the 
Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 187 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 subject tribes is substantially less than at treaty times. Consequently, management of salmon harvests 

2 as described in Alternative 1 is necessary, but may not be sufficient, to deal with cumulative 

3 Environmental Justice concerns arising from other sources. Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would substantially 

4 reduce tribal access to salmon fisheries, and therefore would significantly worsen tribal material and 

5 cultural circumstance. 

Section 4 − Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 188 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 Table 4.7-14. Federal, Tribal, Washington State, and local plans, policies, and programs predicted to have a cumulative im2 justice communities within the Puget Sound Action Area (2004). 

Federal/Tribal/State/Local 

Plans, Policies, and Programs 

(in chronological order of the earliest 

to the most recent) 

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect w

with the Propo

U.S. v. Washington (Boldt Decision) The Boldt Decision reaffirmed the rights of Washington Indian tribes to 

fish in accustomed places, and allocated 50 percent of the annual catch to treaty tribes. Judge Boldt held that the government's promise to secure the fisheries for the tribes was central to the treaty-making process, and 

that the tribes had an original right to the fish, which they extended to white settlers. Judge Boldt ordered the state to take action to limit fishing by non-Indians. The court decision recognized that “assuring proper 

spawning escapement is the basic element of conservation involved in restricting the harvest of salmon and Steelhead.” The decision further defined adequate production escapement as “... that level of escapement from each fishery which will produce viable offspring in numbers to fully utilize all natural spawning grounds and propagation facilities reasonable and necessary for conservation of the resource...” 

For treaty tribes considered acommunities, the legal mandWashington in conjunction wwould be predicted to result Tribes considered to be Envcommunities. Both the PropoWashington require that Tribresources. 

EPA Environmental Justice Policy under Executive Order 12898 

The Executive Order requires that EPA maintain oversight responsibility on ensuring that federal agencies assess whether their actions may result in a disproportionate impact on environmental justice communities. Also, EPA oversees that other federal agencies strive to avoid disproportionate 

impacts when they are predicted to occur 

In keeping with the intent of predicted that the Proposed a cumulative or disproportionEnvironmental Justice comm

3 

Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 189 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 4.8 Wildlife

2 This section assesses the potential impacts of the Proposed Action or alternatives on marine birds,

3 mammals, and invertebrates, including threatened and endangered wildlife species. Effects are

4 described by fishery gear type and location (i.e., marine and freshwater terminal areas).

5 4.8.1 Marine Birds

6 The susceptibility of marine birds as a bycatch of Puget Sound salmon fishing depends largely on three

7 factors: the type of fishing gear, the occurrence of birds during the fishing seasons, and bird diving

8 behavior. The following discussion considers the effects of five fishing methods: sport, purse seine,

9 beach seine, reef net, and gillnet.

10 Noviello (1999) studied seabird interaction with the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound “hook and

11 line” sport fishery (Marine Catch Areas 4, 5, 8-2, and 10) in 1997 and 1998, and observed no bird

12 mortalities in 1,090 observed “hook-ups.” (The only birds hooked were four immature gulls, all

13 released alive.)

14 Purse seine nets are usually built of heavy nylon twine, with a small mesh (3.5 to 4 inches) that is

15 probably visible to diving seabirds. Such nets, therefore, are probably easily avoided, or easily escaped

16 from, by most seabirds. Anderson (1993) found that of 179 seabirds (mainly rhinoceros auklets,

17 common murres, pigeon guillemots, and western grebes) observed encircled by seine nets in the 1990

18 to 1992 Puget Sound coho and chum salmon fisheries, 74 percent escaped, 21 percent were entangled

19 but released unharmed, and only 5 percent were killed or injured. The mortality rate for this fishery was

20 a very low 0.026 seabirds killed per net set. Further, the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

21 (WDFW) now requires that purse seines have at least four 12-inch cork-line bird openings to facilitate

22 escape by captured seabirds. The small tribal and non-tribal beach seine fisheries are similar. Because

23 they operate in shallow, nearshore water with constant human presence, few, if any, seabirds are

24 captured in this fishery. Consequently, neither purse seine nor beach seine fisheries are substantial

25 sources of seabird mortality.

26 Reef net fishing is practiced by non-tribal fishers in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A. Reef nets are highly

27 selective fishing gear with a design that prevents bycatch mortality. The mesh size is sufficiently small

28 (3.5 inches) to avoid entanglement as the net is lifted out of the water and the contents spilled into a

29 holding pen. Non-target species are then released from the holding pen unharmed.

30 Gillnet fisheries have been shown to entangle seabirds throughout the world (e.g., Christensen and Lear

31 1977; Piatt and Nettleship 1987; DeGange et al. 1993; and Julian and Beeson 1998), including Puget
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 190 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Sound (Pierce et al. 1995; and Melvin et al. 1999). Gill nets have mesh openings large enough (5 to 7

2 inches) to entangle seabirds, and are made of monofilament nylon line, which is virtually invisible to

3 pursuit diving seabirds.

4 However, not all marine birds are susceptible to the Puget Sound gillnet fishery. Gulls, kittiwakes,

5 jaegers, terns, phalaropes, and dabbling ducks generally do not face a risk of bycatch because they

6 forage at the surface, rather than diving to depths where nets are used. Fulmars and shearwaters are

7 pelagic seabirds that do not enter very far into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and, therefore, do not often

8 encounter net fisheries. Other species of ducks do not arrive in Puget Sound in great numbers until the

9 fisheries are nearly complete. Using fish landings as a basis of effort, 90 percent of the commercial

10 salmon fishery in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and North Puget Sound is complete by October, and

11 November fishing in all catch areas is generally 80 to 85 percent completed by November 15.

12 Subsection 3.8.2, Marine Birds  Affected Environment, describes marine bird migration through the

13 Puget Sound Action area. Further, sea ducks and diving ducks are generally not fast-pursuit predators,

14 feeding instead on more sedentary benthic prey such as mussels, clams, crabs, and algae. Entanglement

15 in gillnets may require birds striking the net at a fast speed.

16 Large numbers of western grebe overlap with the late-season chum fisheries (Courtney et al. 1997) and,

17 because they are pursuit divers, would be expected show up in the bycatch. Currently-available data,

18 however, do not indicate that western grebes are susceptible to the gillnet fishery. This apparent

19 immunity may be due to the bird’s nocturnal foraging behavior (Clowater 1998), but further research

20 may be required to substantiate this explanation.

21 What remain are diurnal foraging pursuit predators such as cormorants, loons, and alcids like

22 rhinoceros auklets, common murres, pigeon guillemots, and marbled murrelets (the latter are addressed

23 further in Subsection 4.8.4, below). Loons and cormorants have been identified as bycatch in gillnet

24 fisheries in Newfoundland (Piatt and Nettleship 1987), and California (Julian and Beeson 1998), but in

25 small numbers. Although cormorants are found year-around in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de

26 Fuca, they, along with loons, do not reach their seasonal peak until December, after almost all salmon

27 fishing is complete. Pierce et al. (1996) and Melvin et al. (1999) observed no loon or cormorant

28 entanglements during the seabird interaction studies of sockeye fisheries within Marine Catch Areas 7

29 and 7A.

30 All types of fishing gear can become lost as a result of entanglement with bottom structures, logs and

31 debris, or because of storms, flood events and other occurrences. Of the gears used to harvest salmon,

32 monofilament gillnet and angling gears are the most common gear types lost. Submerged gillnets
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 191 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 typically drift until they become entangled on submerged features or structures, where they may impact

2 bottom-dwelling organisms. Seabirds, mammals, fish and other animals become entangled in derelict

3 nets or entangle in or ingest monofilament fishing line. Nets and pots lying on the seabed continue to

4 entangle fish and wildlife species for years after they are lost or abandoned.

5 In 2004, the Greystone Foundation provided funding to the Northwest Straits Foundation (NWSF),

6 who contracted with Natural Resource Consultants to conduct derelict fishing gear removal in the Strait

7 of Juan de Fuca and the San Juan Islands. In the 46 nets encountered in this project, 43 dead seabirds

8 were recovered, and bone evidence below the nets suggests that hundreds and perhaps over one

9 thousand other birds may have been killed. These results are too recent (April 5, 2004) for rigorous

10 estimates of cumulative impacts to populations of seabirds, marine mammals and other wildlife to be

11 available. Such estimates will allow managers to determine what relative impact this environmental

12 problem is exerting on seabird and mammal populations.

13 Worldwide, alcids are the most common seabird caught in coastal gillnet fisheries, with common

14 murres the most commonly caught species (Melvin et al. 1999). These birds are most susceptible

15 because 1) they swim very rapidly in dive-pursuit of prey and, therefore, likely hit gillnets with enough

16 force to cause entanglement; 2) they tend to form large aggregations; and 3) they tend to pursue a

17 common prey with salmon (e.g., herring). Collectively, then, large numbers of these fast diving birds

18 may be found in association with salmon, which are targeted by gillnet fishers, resulting in bycatch of

19 the alcids. Recognizing that alcid mortality due to gillnet fishing is the only potentially substantial

20 seabird fishery interaction issue, only pigeon guillemots, rhinoceros auklets, and common murres are

21 addressed further in this subsection. Marbled murrelets are addressed in the Threatened and

22 Endangered Species subsection (4.8.4 below).

23 Pigeon Guillemot

24 Guillemots have shown susceptibility to gillnet fisheries in some regions. Piatt and Nettleship (1987)

25 estimated that the Newfoundland cod and salmon gillnet fishery killed approximately 2,000 black

26 guillemots annually between 1981 and 1984. In contrast, Pierce et al. (1996) did not report the presence

27 of pigeon guillemots during the 1994 sockeye fishery Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A, and in a 1996

28 sockeye test fishery in Marine Catch Area 7, only one pigeon guillemot was caught in 642 gillnet sets

29 (Melvin et al. 1999). Also, Julian and Beeson (1998) recorded no entanglements of pigeon guillemots

30 during 1990 to 1994 gillnet fishing in central California that was killing up to 2,300 common murres

31 annually (Forney et al. 2001). Guillemots in Washington are probably not susceptible to the Puget

32 Sound gillnet fishery because they forage on gunnels, pricklebacks, and sculpins (Drent 1965; and
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 192 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Koelink 1972), generally in shallow, nearshore waters. Gunnels, pricklebacks, and sculpins are more

2 sedentary than schooling fish such as herring, and therefore probably do not require fast pursuit to

3 capture.

4 Rhinoceros Auklet

5 Thompson et al. (1998) estimated that the 1994 sockeye fishery in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A killed

6 less than 0.8 percent of the Washington breeding auklet population (36,800), well below the 6 percent

7 mortality level where population stability concerns occur. Further, Thompson et al. (1998) observed no

8 adults during the fall chum salmon fishery, confirming that most auklets winter outside Washington’s

9 inner marine waters (Angell and Balcomb 1982). Consequently, while the sockeye fishery in Marine

10 Catch Areas 7 and 7A killed relatively large numbers of rhinoceros auklets in the 1990s, this mortality

11 does not appear to exceed biological thresholds of concern.

12 Common Murre

13 WDFW estimated that the 1994 sockeye fishery in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A alone killed

14 approximately 2,700 common murres (Pierce et al. 1996). If a constant rate of entanglement of murres

15 is assumed throughout all Puget Sound fisheries (which is not realistic), and the Marine Catch Area 7

16 and 7A sockeye fisheries are assumed to represent about 45 percent of all fishing effort (based on

17 number of landings during the period 1996 through 2001), then a maximum of about 6,100 murres may

18 have been killed in 1994. If, following Thompson et al. (1998), 70 percent of the murres killed were

19 adults, then the 1994 adult mortality may have been approximately 4,300. This represents 73 percent of

20 the estimated 1994 Washington breeding population of 5,900 (Carter et al. 2001), well beyond the 6 to

21 12 percent mortality at which maintenance of a stable breeding population becomes difficult, if not

22 impossible (Piatt et al. 1984). However, it is known that this degree of mortality was not the case. If the

23 1994 mortality exacted such a toll on the Washington breeding murre population, a dramatic decline

24 would have been observed in the 1995 breeding population, rather than the observed doubling from

25 5,900 to 9,600 (Carter et al. 2001) or 13,600 murres (TENYO MARU Oil Spill Natural Resources

26 Trustees 2000).

27 Based on the studies conducted by Thompson et al. (1998), a considerable, but unknown, proportion of

28 the murres killed in the sockeye salmon fishery originated from Oregon, where the breeding population

29 exceeds 700,000 (personal communication with Roy Lowe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge

30 Biologist, February 25, 2003). Thompson et al. contend that during the peak of the sockeye fishing

31 season, Washington murres are still attending colonies, while Oregon murres, which complete their

32 breeding cycle a month or more earlier, have already dispersed from breeding sites and then dominate
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 193 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 the waters of Puget Sound during the sockeye fishery. The exact ratio of Oregon versus Washington

2 birds in the Puget Sound salmon fishery bycatch is currently unknown, however (Thompson et al.

3 1998), numbers of common murres found in Washington waters in late summer far exceed the

4 Washington breeding population (Manuwal and Carter 2001). The maximum adult mortality of 4,300

5 murres is less than 1 percent of the combined Oregon and Washington breeding population, which is

6 not a substantial proportion of the two-state population. Further, the Washington and Oregon birds are

7 all part of a single subspecies (Uria aalge californica) that includes birds from California

8 (approximately 350,000 adults), and British Columbia (approximately 10,000 adults) (Carter et al.

9 2001). Finally, given that fishing effort is now substantially lower than in the 1990s when the Pierce et

10 al. (1996) and Thompson et al. (1998) studies were conducted (personal communication with Will

11 Beattie, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, December 19, 2003), the significance of gillnet

12 entanglement mortality in Puget Sound is likely further reduced. Nevertheless, current radio-telemetry

13 studies by Hamel and Parrish are aimed at determining the presence of Washington-bred murres

14 coincident with the salmon gillnet fisheries to verify whether this breeding population is at risk from

15 Puget Sound fisheries (personal communication with Julia Parrish, University of Washington,

16 Associate Professor, February 13, 2003).

17 4.8.1.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo

18 The Proposed Action would involve a fishery effort similar to (or substantially less than) the fishing

19 that occurred in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca during the 1990s, except seabird bycatch

20 would likely be greatly reduced during the Marine Catch Area 7 and 7A sockeye and pink salmon

21 gillnet fishery, through the implementation of the “bird web” net design and dawn hours fishing

22 restrictions originally proposed by Melvin et al. (1999). Net modification designs for purse seines and

23 gillnets, and area and time closures are required by the Washington Department of Fish (WDFW) and

24 Wildlife in areas frequented by marbled murrelets. WDFW requires that 1) gillnets fishing in Marine

25 Catch Areas 7 and 7A use “bird webs” (a 20-mesh panel of small diameter, highly-visible white nylon

26 across the top of the net); 2) purse seines in all areas have a 12-inch space between corks; 3) shoreline

27 areas in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 12 close to gillnet fishing; and 4) gillnet fisheries remain closed

28 during early morning hours. These requirements, estimated to reduce the seabird bycatch by

29 approximately 70 to 75 percent (based on research results from Melvin et al. 1999), may ensure that the

30 annual gillnet mortality of Washington common murres does not exceed the maximum mortality to

31 sustain a stable population, although continued research is needed to ensure this is the case. Bycatch

32 mortality of rhinoceros auklets and pigeon guillemots was considered to be well below significance

33 levels prior to implementation of the bird bycatch reduction requirements (Pierce et al. 1996;
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 194 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Thompson et al. 1998; and Melvin et al. 1999). These requirements should safely ensure the annual

2 bycatch stays sufficiently low. Finally, the overall fishing effort in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A is

3 considerably lower than that compared to effort in previous years which were the basis of the estimates

4 in the Environmental Impact Statement evaluation.

5 4.8.1.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

6 Under Alternative 2, no net fisheries would occur in marine areas with the exception of small-scale,

7 nearshore, set gillnet, and beach seine fisheries in Dungeness Bay (Marine Catch Area 6D), Tulalip

8 Harbor (Marine Catch Area 8D), and adjacent to the Hoodsport Hatchery in Hood Canal (Marine Catch

9 Area 12H). Consequently, there would be no bycatch of alcids, or any marine birds for that matter.

10 Therefore, fisheries under Alternative 2 are predicted to have no impact to marine bird populations.

11 This alternative would entirely eliminate the small bycatch predicted to occur with the Proposed Action

12 (Alternative 1). Because marine bird bycatch would not occur under Alternative 2, it would be

13 considered to have a beneficial impact when compared to Alternative 1; however, the magnitude of the

14 beneficial impact is considered low.

15 4.8.1.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal

16 Fisheries Only

17 The scale and distribution of marine net fisheries for salmon under Alternative 3 would be similar to

18 those under Alternative 2, except that all potential salmon harvest would be limited to freshwater

19 terminal areas (major rivers) only. No salmon fishing of any kind would occur in the Strait of Juan de

20 Fuca or Puget Sound marine waters. The small fisheries occurring in Dungeness Bay, Tulalip Harbor

21 and adjacent to the Hoodsport Hatchery under Alternative 2 would not occur under Alternative 3.

22 Consequently, there would be no bycatch of alcids, or any marine birds. As with Alternative 2,

23 Alternative 3 would entirely eliminate the small bycatch predicted to occur with the Proposed Action

24 (Alternative 1). Because marine bird bycatch would not occur with Alternative 3, it would be

25 considered to have a beneficial impact when compared with Alternative 1; however, the magnitude of

26 the beneficial impact is considered low.

27 4.8.1.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take

28 Like Alternative 2 or 3, Alternative 4 would preclude all marine-area fisheries. No fishing would occur

29 in any habitat, including habitats occupied by alcids or other seabirds susceptible to gillnet mortality.

30 Therefore, Alternative 4 would have no impact to regional marine bird populations. Like Alternative 2

31 or 3, this alternative would completely eliminate the small marine bird bycatch that would occur under

32 Alternative 1. Because this bycatch would not occur under Alternative 4, it would be considered to
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 195 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 have a beneficial impact when compared with Alternative 1; however, the magnitude of the beneficial

2 impact is considered low.

3 4.8.2 Marine Mammals

4 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

5 to periodically reassess each stock of marine mammal species, determine a minimum population

6 estimate, then calculate a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) value. The PBR, unique to each species,

7 is the estimated number of marine mammals that could be killed or seriously injured by human

8 activities without depleting the stock (Barlow et al. 1995). Generally, stock PBRs are 6 percent of the

9 minimum estimated stock size. NMFS is further mandated to regulate fisheries in a manner towards

10 achieving a goal of zero mortality or serious injury to marine mammals. NMFS has proposed considers

11 that fisheries are achieving this goal when the annual mortality of a given marine mammal species is

12 less than 10 percent of the PBR (69 FR 23477). NMFS also annually publishes in the Federal Register

13 a list of all fisheries (Annual List of Fisheries) classifying each as to its potential impact to individual

14 stocks. In the 2003 List of Fisheries (NOAA 2003), Washington beach seine, salmon purse seine, and

15 salmon reef net fisheries were all classified as Category III – no documented marine mammal mortality

16 with potential mortality less than 1 percent of PBR. The Washington Puget Sound Region salmon drift

17 gillnet fishery (excluding treaty fishing) was classified in 1995 as Category II (60 FR 67063) with

18 documented mortality of harbor porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, and harbor seal between 1 and 50 percent of

19 PBR. However, NMFS (2000a)Carretta et al. (2004) used Laake et al.’s (1997) estimate of 3,509

20 animals to calculate a minimum population estimate of 2,545 and a PBR of 20 animals for the

21 Washington Inland Waters stock of harbor porpoise. In the 1995 evaluation, NMFS noted that the

22 estimated take of harbor porpoises at the time (15) exceeded 10% of PBR (2.7) and therefore could not

23 be considered insignificant. However, NMFS further reported that the take estimate was derived from

24 observations in the sockeye salmon fishery and included treaty fishing effort, which constitutes about

25 one half of the effort in Puget Sound, but is exempted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

26 Therefore the estimated take of harbor porpoise for the non-tribal salmon drift gillnet fishery would be

27 about one half of the total estimated take (7.5), which is greater than one percent but less than 50

28 percent of the calculated PBR for the stock. Since that time the effort in the fishery has been reduced

29 through license buy back programs and the number of active participants in the non-tribal fishery

30 declined from 1,044 in 1995 to 210 in 2003 (69 FR]. Further, gear modifications and changes to

31 daylight fishing periods for the benefit of endangered seabirds are likely also beneficial for reducing

32 interactions with harbor porpoises. Commercial fishers are required, by regulation, to report incidental

33 marine mammal injuries or deaths to NMFS Then, using Pierce et al.’s (1996) estimate of 15 harbor
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 196 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 porpoise killed in the 1994 sockeye gillnet fishery, NMFS (2000a) concluded that although the

2 estimated annual mortality (15) did not exceed PBR (20), at 75 percent PBR it was not insignificant nor

3 approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. Fishermen are currently required by NMFS to

4 provide reports of lethal encounters with Category II marine mammals (personal communication with

5 Brent Norberg, NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region, April 4, 2003). This allows NMFS to monitor the

6 impacts to harbor porpoise in the Puget Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery. If patterns of interactions

7 emerge, this information could be used to shape fisheries to further reduce harbor porpoise-fishing gear

8 interactions.

9 NMFS (NMFS 2000bCarretta et al. 2004) has not calculated an annual mortality rate for Dall’s

10 porpoise as a result of the Puget Sound salmon fishery. However, the calculated PBR of 787 789 for the

11 California/Oregon/ Washington stock (minimum population estimate = 75,915) is sufficiently high that

12 the potential annual mortality is unlikely to exceed 10 percent of the PBR and, therefore, should be

13 approaching a zero mortality or serious injury rate.

14 NMFS (1998)Carretta et al. (2004) estimated the minimum population size of the Inland Washington

15 stock of harbor seal at 16,104 12,844, and calculated a PBR of 966 771 animals. Professing that no

16 reliable estimate of annual mortality incidental to commercial fisheries was available because of a lack

17 of sufficient observer effort, NMFS (1998) Carretta et al. (2004) used available data (Gearin et al.

18 1994; Pierce et al. 1996; and Erstad et al. 1996), and estimated the annual mortality from all

19 Washington fisheries at 36 30 animals, well less than 10 percent of PBR.

20 Although California sea lions are susceptible to gillnet entanglement, deaths from entanglement in the

21 Puget Sound gillnet fisheries has not been reported (NMFS 2000cCarretta et al. 2004). This is partially

22 due to the fact that peak abundances of California sea lions in Puget Sound occur in winter and spring

23 after most salmon fisheries are complete (NMFS 1997). California sea lions do interact with tribal

24 gillnet fisheries in terminal areas for winter run steelhead and chum salmon. In order to protect their

25 fisheries, tribal fisherman legally harvest a number of these depredating sea lions under subsistence

26 regulations (personal communication with Will Beattie, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission,

27 December 19, 2003). These removals, however, are negligible compared to the minimum population

28 estimate of 110,000 138,881 for this stock, and it’s PBR of 6,143 8,333 (NMFS 2000cCarretta et al.

29 2004).

30 NMFS Annual List of Fisheries only classifies commercial fisheries, not sport fisheries. However,

31 Noviello (1999) did study the potential impact of Puget Sound sport fisheries on marine mammals

32 during the 1997 and 1998 seasons. During this study, no marine mammal hook-ups or entanglements
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 197 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 were observed in 1,090 hook-up observations, although NMFS and WDFW have received a substantial

2 number of reports of seal and sea lion interations with salmon sport fisheries. These interactions

3 include losses of fish off lines at Neah Bay, Sekiu, Point No Point, Point Defiance, and off the

4 Nisqually River. The sport fishery probably does not represent a potential substantial source of

5 mortality for marine mammals, although anglers do shoot seals and sea lions based on anecdotal reports

6 and observed strandings with bullet wounds (personal communication with Steve Jeffries, WDFW,

7 Research Scientist, July 30, 2004).

8 4.8.2.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo

9 Under Alternative 1, mortality levels of marine mammals as a result of Puget Sound fisheries would

10 likely be similar to those observed during the 1990s, or considerably less if shortened fishing seasons

11 and declines in fishing effort continue. Gillnet fisheries would be expected to result in the incidental

12 capture mortality of small numbers of harbor seals, harbor porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise and the

13 removal of California sea lions predating on entangled salmon. Mortality rates would continue to be

14 low compared to stock population levels, however, and management concerns would therefore not be

15 warranted. However, NMFS acknowledges that these mortality rates are based on limited data and that

16 further data is needed for more accurate estimates of mortality rates.

17 4.8.2.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

18 Under Alternative 2, no salmon fishing would occur in marine waters, only freshwater rivers except for

19 small-scale, nearshore fisheries in Dungeness Bay (Marine Catch Area 6D), Tulalip Harbor (Marine

20 Catch Area 8D), and adjacent to the Hoodsport Hatchery in Hood Canal (Marine Catch Area 12H);

21 therefore, most of the marine mammals inhabiting Puget Sound would not come in contact with

22 fisheries managed under Alternative 2. Harbor seals and California sea lions would be exceptions, as

23 both commonly enter freshwater rivers (Stanley and Shaffer 1995; and NMFS 1997), and even lakes

24 (Scheffer and Slipp 1948). NMFS (1997) stated that the 2,000 to 3,000 harbor seals annually enterin

25 the Columbia River during the winter forage onin pursuit of eulochon runs that move upstream to

26 spawn. California sea lions also forage on the eulachon run as it enters the Columbia River; shifting to

27 predation on spring chinook as it becomes more abundant, and. California sea lions are also commonly

28 observed in the Duwamish, Green, and Nisqually Rivers. Consequently, it is possible for harbor seals

29 and, California sea lions to encounter, and possibly become entangled in, gillnets set in terminal river

30 locations. However, there is currently no evidence of harbor seal or sea lion entanglement mortality

31 associated with terminal fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca or Puget Sound region, although this

32 may be due to a lack of observer data and declines in self-reporting. The level of self-reporting after
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 198 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 1995 dropped dramatically, such that the records are considered incomplete and estimates of mortality

2 based on them represent minimums (Carretta et al. 2004). although sSome animals are legally

3 harvested in the rivers under tribal subsistence regulations. There have been only a few reported takes

4 of harbor seals from directed tribal subsistence hunts. It is possible that very few seals have been taken

5 in directed hunts because tribal fishers use seals caught incidentally to fishing operations for their

6 subsistence needs before undertaking a ceremonial or subsistence hunt. From communications with the

7 tribes, the NMFS Northwest Regional Office (personal communication with J. Scordino as cited in

8 Carretta et al. 2004) believes that 5-10 harbor seals from this stock may be taken annually in directed

9 subsistence harvests off the Washington coast. Therefore, the combination of harbor seals and sea lions

10 from taken in subsistence fisheries and those potentially caught incidentally in salmon fisheries, as

11 estimated from available data, would be low and se removals dowould not exceed biological thresholds

12 of concern (greater than 10 percent of PBR). Further data is needed for more accurate estimates of

13 mortality rates.

14 The increased in-river harvest opportunity available in some areas under Alternative 2, relative to

15 Alternative 1, would result in higher freshwater gillnet fishing effort. The number of vessels involved

16 would increase in some areas, and fishery openings would likely be extended in these areas, relative to

17 Alternative 1. However, such an increase in freshwater fishing, combined with almost no marine-area

18 fishing, would still result in overall lower mortality of harbor seals and sea lions, compared to

19 Alternative 1. Therefore, the potential marine mammal mortality associated with Alternative 2 is likely

20 extremely low for harbor seals and California sea lions, and zero for all other marine mammals.

21 Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would eliminate any bycatch concerns with harbor porpoise

22 and other cetaceans. Because this bycatch would not occur under Alternative 2, it would be considered

23 to have a beneficial impact when compared with Alternative 1; however, the magnitude of the

24 beneficial impact is considered low.

25 4.8.2.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal

26 Fisheries Only

27 Under Alternative 3, gillnet fisheries for salmon would occur at virtually the same times and in

28 virtually the same places as under Alternative 2, so the impacts of gillnet fisheries to marine mammals

29 would be the same. No salmon fishing would occur in marine waters, only freshwater rivers; therefore,

30 the potential marine mammal mortality associated with Alternative 3 is likely extremely low for harbor

31 seals and California sea lions, and zero for all other marine mammals The more restrictive fisheries in

32 Alternative 3 would slightly decrease the potential for interactions with harbor seals (and California sea

33 lions) in particular, relative to Alternative 2. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would eliminate
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 199 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 any bycatch concerns with harbor porpoise and other cetaceans. Because this bycatch would not occur

2 under Alternative 3, it would be considered to have a beneficial impact when compared with

3 Alternative 1; however, the magnitude of the beneficial impact is considered low.

4 4.8.2.4 Alternative 4  No Action/No Authorized Take

5 Under Alternative 4, no salmon fishing would occur in marine waters. Therefore, Alternative 4 would

6 have no potential for impact to marine mammals, with the exception of a possible extremely low

7 mortality rate for river-inhabiting harbor seals and California sea lions. Like Alternative 2 or 3,

8 Alternative 4 would eliminate all potential incidental take of harbor porpoise and other cetaceans that

9 could possibly occur under Alternative 1.

10 4.8.3 Marine Invertebrates

11 Four of the five types of salmon fishing authorized in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca –

12 sport, purse seine, beach seine, reef net, or gillnet – do not actively operate in the benthic zone where

13 marine invertebrates occur. Beach seining is an exception, where a seine net is dragged along the

14 bottom as it is hauled ashore. However, beaching seining generally occurs over sandy or pebbly

15 substrates to avoid snagging on exposed rocks, therefore not occurring where encounters of benthic

16 invertebrates are most likely to occur. Further, captured marine invertebrates (e.g., crabs, sea stars) are

17 easily released unharmed.

18 The sport fishing “mooching” technique involves bouncing weight and bait along the seafloor. An

19 occasional sea pen, anemone, or sea star is snagged, but all are usually released unharmed. The only

20 invertebrate observed by Noviello (1999) during observation of 1,090 hookups during the 1997 and

21 1998 Puget Sound sport fishery was a single sea star.

22 Set gillnets that reach to the seafloor commonly capture crabs as a bycatch, although they are generally

23 released alive. A growing concern, however, involves ghost nets, especially gillnets that have been lost

24 and continue to fish (High 1985). Although not yet quantified, these nets have been observed to

25 continually capture crabs for years (personal communication with Wayne Palsson, Washington

26 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Research Scientist, February 17, 2003). One 575-foot-long net lost in

27 Puget Sound contained an estimated 1,000 female crabs (Breen 1990). During the removal of derelict

28 gear by the Natural Resource Consultants (see Subsections 3.3.5 and 3.8.1), divers reported high

29 sedimentation rates on many of the nets that had apparently suffocated sessile animals on the hard rock

30 substrate. Adjacent areas, without derelict nets, were observed to have a relatively higher density of

31 sessile and bottom dwelling organisms such as sea urchins and sea cucumbers. Several of the nets had

32 rolled into long tubes of webbing and lead line that was entangled on a rock pinnacle or reef edge at
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 200 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 one end. The tube of net was observed to sweep back and forth over the gravel seabed in an arc. The

2 divers reported no animals or vegetation on the seabed in the arc swept by these nets. These results are

3 too recent (April 5, 2004) for rigorous estimates of cumulative impacts to populations of fish and

4 benthic organisms to be available.

5 4.8.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo

6 The Proposed Action would likely result in no or very low impacts to marine invertebrates as the five

7 types of Puget Sound salmon fishery do not operate on the seafloor in a manner that is lethal to benthic

8 organisms. The only concern identified that requires further investigation is the long-term lethality of

9 derelict nets lost during gillnet fisheries.

10 4.8.3.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

11 Under Alternative 2, salmon fisheries would occur primarily in rivers. Very limited nearshore, marine12 area harvest would occur in Dungeness Bay (Marine Catch Area 6D), Tulalip Harbor (Marine Catch

13 Area 8D), and adjacent to the Hoodsport Hatchery in southern Hood Canal (Marine Catch Area 12H)

14 using beach seines and set gillnets. There would be no measurable impact to marine invertebrates.

15 Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would eliminate ghost net concerns, except those left by

16 previous fishing activities.

17 4.8.3.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal

18 Fisheries Only

19 Under Alternative 3, no salmon fishing would occur in the marine waters of Puget Sound.

20 Consequently, there would be no avenues for impact to marine invertebrates. Compared to Alternative

21 1, Alternative 3 would eliminate ghost net concerns, except those left by previous fishing activities.

22 4.8.3.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take

23 Like Alternative 2, no salmon fishing would occur in marine waters of Puget Sound or the Strait of

24 Juan de Fuca with Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no mechanisms to potentially impact marine

25 invertebrates. Like Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would eliminate ghost net concerns raised under

26 Alternative 1, except those left by previous fishing activities.

27 4.8.4 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species

28 Seven threatened and endangered wildlife species are at least occasionally found in the inland marine

29 waters of Washington. These include the marbled murrelet, California brown pelican, bald eagle,

30 Steller sea lion, humpback whale, fin whale, and Pacific leatherback turtle. All, except possibly the

31 bald eagle, have been reported entangled in fishing nets. However, only the marbled murrelet has been

32 reported as a bycatch in the Puget Sound salmon fishery (Pierce et al. 1996; and Melvin et al. 1998).
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 201 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Further, the total numbers of pelicans, Steller sea lions, humpback whales, fin whales, and leatherback

2 turtles that annually enter Puget Sound are sufficiently small that total mortality of these animals would

3 not exceed 10 percent of stock PBRs.

4 Salmon, especially runs of fall coho and chum salmon that extend into winter (December-February),

5 are an important food source for hundreds of bald eagles wintering in Washington. However, annual

6 fishing harvest managed for sustainable levels and abundance of fall chum and coho salmon has

7 increased over the last decade. In turn, this management strategy ensures that enough chum and coho

8 salmon return annually to support a viable wintering eagle population.

9 Carter et al. (1995) expressed concern that marbled murrelet mortality from Puget Sound gillnet fishing

10 was likely substantial, based on extrapolations from the 1979 to 1980 Barkley Sound, British

11 Columbia, murrelet densities and mortality rates. However, Pierce et al. (1996) observed the 1994

12 sockeye gillnet fishery in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A to quantify seabird and marine mammal

13 interactions, and recorded only one murrelet entanglement, in Marine Catch Area 7. This individual

14 was released alive. The entanglement rate was estimated to be 0.00158 per set in Area 7, or 0.00045 per

15 set for the combined Marine Catch Area 7 and 7A fishery. Wide confidence limits were associated with

16 these estimates of entanglement rate. It was estimated based on extrapolation that the 1994 fishery

17 killed 15 birds, and it was concluded that the occurrence of marbled murrelet entanglement in these

18 areas was “an extremely rare event.” Melvin et al (1999) conducted an experimental test of a gillnet

19 designed to reduce seabird entanglements, during the 1996 sockeye fishery. They observed one

20 marbled murrelet capture in 642 sets, and categorized the capture as “extremely rare.” Both studies

21 suggest that murrelet encounters with fisheries are so rare that sufficient sample sizes are difficult to

22 generate to develop meaningful estimates of mortality. Courtney et al. (1997) surveyed for marbled

23 murrelets in several fishing areas throughout Puget Sound, and concluded that the potential for

24 entanglement was generally localized and unpredictable, with Hood Canal a potential location for

25 future problems. Having observed large flocks of marbled murrelets in northern Hood Canal in the fall,

26 Courtney et al. (1997) noted the potential there for murrelet interactions with gillnet fisheries. Finally,

27 however, observations by Beauchamp et al. (1999) suggest that a portion of the seasonal influx of

28 marbled murrelets into the inland waters of Washington in the fall and winter are breeding birds from

29 British Columbia (rather than the listed U.S. population).

30 Conclusions from information gathered in the 1990s are that the potential for substantial marbled

31 murrelet mortality from gillnets remains in the Puget Sound region, although actual observation of

32 entanglement events is extremely rare. However, with the current requirements on the non-treaty gillnet
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 202 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 fishery in Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A to utilize nets designed to reduce alcid entanglement, and to

2 preclude fishing during dawn hours when alcids are actively feeding, murrelet mortality rates from the

3 1990s may be reduced by 70 to 75 percent based on research by Melvin et al. (1999).

4 4.8.4.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Status Quo

5 The Proposed Action would result in gillnet fishing effort in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound

6 similar in area but less intense than that which occurred in the mid-1990s, when studies on marbled

7 murrelet encounters with gillnet fisheries were conducted. These studies (Pierce et al. 1996; and Melvin

8 et al. 1999) failed to show substantial mortality to marbled murrelets from Puget Sound gillnet fisheries

9 then. Mortality is probably greatly ameliorated by the new fishing gear and fishing schedules

10 implemented in the non-treaty fishery, and the shorter fishing season and reduced fishing effort in

11 Marine Catch Areas 7 and 7A typical of recent years in both tribal and non-tribal fisheries.

12 Consequently, there is no evidence that Puget Sound gillnet fisheries as proposed under the Puget

13 Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan (Alternative 1) would substantially impact local

14 marbled murrelet populations. Past consultations conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

15 (USFWS), pursuant the Endangered Species Act, concluded that Puget Sound fisheries do not

16 jeopardize the continued survival and recovery of the threatened marbled murrelet population. The

17 previous incidental take allowance for treaty tribal salmon fisheries expired in December 2003

18 (USFWS ). The incidental take allowance for Puget Sound non-tribal commercial and sport salmon

19 fisheries extends through 2011 (USFWS 2001). The Puget Sound treaty tribes recently completed a

20 consultation with the USFWS on the effect of fisheries under the Proposed Action on marbled

21 murrelets (USFWS 2004). They specify terms and conditions and conservation measures that are

22 designed to minimize the effects on encounters with live murrelets, minimize the potential to exceed

23 the allowable take and recommend evaluation of alternative salmon harvest methods and fishery

24 implementation to reduce marbled murrelets entanglement and encounters. As described in Subsection

25 4.8.4, the current requirements to use nets designed to reduce alcid entanglement, and the preclusion of

26 fishing during dawn hours when alcids are actively feeding are example of these types of measures that

27 have been implemented in non-tribal salmon fisheries.

28 4.8.4.2 Alternative 2 – Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

29 Salmon fisheries would primarily be confined to rivers under Alternative 2, so there would be very low

30 risk of entanglement of marbled murrelets, although the harvest opportunity in Tulalip Harbor (Marine

31 Catch Area 8D) possible under Alternative 2 would involve gillnet fishing where aggregations of

32 murrelets have been observed in the fall (Courtney et al. 1997). Alternative 2 would therefore pose a
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 203 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 lower risk to marbled murrelets than Alternative 1, though this reduced level of risk cannot be

2 quantified with the available data. Because marbled murrelet bycatch would not occur under

3 Alternative 2, this alternative would be considered to have a beneficial impact when compared to

4 Alternative 1; however, the magnitude of the beneficial impact is considered low.

5 4.8.4.3 Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level with Terminal

6 Fisheries Only

7 Under Alternative 3, salmon harvest would be limited to freshwater rivers only. No fishing would

8 occur in marine waters inhabited by marbled murrelets. Therefore, this alternative would have no

9 potential to affect local marbled murrelet populations, and would eliminate the very small bycatch risk

10 posed by Alternative 1. Because this bycatch would not occur under Alternative 3, it would be

11 considered to have a beneficial impact when compared with Alternative 1; however, the magnitude of

12 the beneficial impact is considered low.

13 4.8.4.4 Alternative 4 – No Action/No Authorized Take

14 Like Alternative 3, Alternative 4 would result in no harvest in marine waters where marbled murrelets

15 are found. Consequently, this alternative would have no impact on marbled murrelets and, like

16 Alternative 3, would eliminate the very low risk of bycatch posed by Alternative 1.

17 4.8.5 Wildlife Indirect Effects

18 Direct mortality of adult seabirds (primarily alcids) indirectly affects the abundance of subsequent

19 breeding populations. Mortality of females could be more significant in this regard. Mortality of

20 juvenile birds can also depress production, but the effect is discounted to the extent juveniles might

21 otherwise die from natural causes before they reach sexual maturity or breed. The age composition

22 (i.e., adults vs. juveniles) of seabirds entangled in Puget Sound fisheries varies among species. A

23 greater proportion of entangled rhinoceros auklets are young-of-the-year, compared to common murres

24 (Thompson et al. 1998), in part due to proximity of auklet colonies to fishing areas. The magnitude of

25 fishery-related mortality of alcids, relative to other natural or human causes has not been quantified. It

26 is known to be highly variable and unpredictable, as is natural mortality. Other known causes of

27 significant mortality include recent oil spills; predation by eagles, gulls, and corvids; and reduction in

28 marine productivity due to the El Nino phenomenon (Manuwal et al. 2001).

29 Indirect effects at a finer scale (e.g., mortality impacts on sub-populations of common murres or

30 marbled murrelets that breed in Oregon, Washington, or British Columbia), are also possible, and could

31 affect the diversity within species, but these effects are not quantifiable at this time. Thompson et al.
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 204 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 (1998) concluded that common murres from both Oregon and Washington colonies are entangled in

2 Puget Sound fisheries.

3 The fishing regime envisioned under Alternative 1 would have greater indirect effects on alcid seabirds

4 than Alternative 2, 3 or 4, under which marine-area fisheries with the potential to entangle seabirds

5 would be closed. The currently stable status of common murres and rhinoceros auklets suggests that

6 these species are resilient to the cumulative effects of human-caused and natural mortality. The

7 threatened status of marbled murrelets in Washington warrants higher concern over all sources of

8 mortality. But the best available information (Pierce et al 1994; and Melvin et al 2001) indicates that

9 entanglement in gillnet fisheries occurs very rarely, so it is difficult to conclude that eliminating this

10 source of mortality would have any measurable beneficial effect, given the relatively greater constraints

11 imposed by habitat and natural predation.

12 Because of their indirect effect on the abundance of juvenile salmon in subsequent years, the Proposed

13 Action or alternatives imply some potential for altering the food supply of piscivorous seabirds. The

14 alternatives to the Proposed Action (Alternative 1), particularly Alternative 4, would result in higher

15 spawning escapement of salmon. It is not certain, however, that substantially higher escapement will, in

16 the long term, necessarily result in higher production of juvenile salmon. Nor is there information

17 available to support the contention that the current abundance of juvenile salmonids constrains the

18 survival of any seabird species, or that secondary productivity in Puget Sound constrains survival of

19 juvenile salmonids or seabirds. So it is not possible to speculate that increasing the abundance of

20 juvenile salmonids would have a measurable positive effect on predators, or negative effect on

21 competition. Increasing the escapement of adult salmon to the degree projected under Alternatives 2, 3,

22 or 4 would, for some period through the fall and winter, increase the food supply for a wide variety of

23 vertebrate species known to utilize this resource (Cederholm et al. 1999). The accumulation of

24 carcasses and material in the lower reaches of streams generates a seasonal pulse of nutrients to

25 estuarine and nearshore marine areas, with potential indirect benefit to many other fish and invertebrate

26 species. Uptake and transport of these nutrients through the food chain would occur over subsequent

27 years. Though carcass enhancement has been experimentally shown to increase local primary and

28 secondary production, and enable higher growth rates among juvenile salmon and other resident

29 salmonids (discussed in Subsection 3.3.6, Marine-Derived Nutrients from Salmon Spawners  Affected

30 Environment), information is lacking to quantify the long-term direct or indirect effects on

31 communities or individual species.
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 205 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 The indirect effects of higher juvenile salmon abundance, were that to occur as a consequence of

2 Alternatives 2, 3, or 4, on the abundance of other fish and invertebrate species, much less their avian or

3 mammalian predators, cannot be predicted with any certainty. Intuitively, any increases in subadult or

4 adult salmon could increase predation on forage fish species such as Pacific herring, smelt, and

5 sandlance. This effect would be pronounced during periods when migrating salmon are at highest

6 density in Puget Sound (i.e., as they migrate toward the outer coast and as they return to spawn);

7 however, adult salmon feed less frequently as they approach maturity and enter fresh water. The

8 potential for competition with other species that also utilize these species would exist during these

9 periods. Though production of these forage species is depressed in Puget Sound, there is no

10 information to support a conclusion that their current productivity now constrains the growth and

11 survival of their predators, or would do so at higher predator abundance.

12 The reduction of net fisheries as contemplated under Alternative 2, 3, or 4 would reduce the rate of

13 potential gear loss in Puget Sound. Some nets that are lost in Puget Sound fisheries, especially gillnets,

14 continue to fish, entangling marine mammals, marine birds, and invertebrates such as crabs (High

15 1985, and Breen 1990). The influence of these ghost nets on the mortality rate of any given species,

16 however, is presently unknown, and may not be significant. Nevertheless, there is enough concern that

17 concerted efforts are presently being undertaken by the Northwest Straits Commission and Washington

18 Department of Fish and Wildlife to remove tons of these derelict nets from the Puget Sound ecosystem

19 (Derelict Fishing Gear Removal Project).

20 Because salmon may contribute a large proportion of the diet of southern resident killer whales (Ford et

21 al. 1998), fisheries that reduce the abundance of adult salmon in Puget Sound may indirectly impact

22 this species. This hypothesis is based on the as-yet-undemonstrated assumption that the current total

23 abundance of salmon, including hatchery production, that rear or migrate through Puget Sound, is

24 significantly lower or has declined in coincidence with the observed decline in the abundance of

25 southern resident killer whales. In evaluating the status of killer whales, Krahn et al. (2002) did not

26 conclude that prey availability affected southern resident killer whales. However, in the absence of

27 marine-area fisheries, particularly as envisioned under Alternatives 2, 3, or 4, the increase in

28 availability of salmon could have beneficial effects on killer whales by increasing local prey

29 availability.

30 Cederholm et al. (2001) identified nine wildlife species with strong consistent links to salmon.

31 Mergansers and harlequin ducks feed on drift eggs, Caspian terns and osprey on freshwater juveniles,

32 bald eagles on saltwater subadults and carcasses, killer whales on saltwater adults, and bears and river
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 206 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 otters on spawning adults and carcasses. Cederholm et al. (1989) found black bears on the Olympic

2 Peninsula to forage heavily on salmon carcasses, much like black bears in western Canada and Alaska.

3 However, most bear diet studies in Washington show a consistent lack of black bear use of salmon

4 (Cederholm et al. 2001). Stable isotope studies by Hildebrand et al. (1996) suggested that grizzly bears

5 inhabiting the Columbia Basin prior to European settlement foraged heavily on the large salmon runs

6 that occurred then. Only about 5-20 grizzly bears now occur in Washington (North Cascades) and the

7 importance of salmon to their diet is unknown. Nevertheless, all nine species strongly linked to salmon

8 could potentially benefit from increased salmon production in the river tributaries of Puget Sound,

9 although the benefit is not quantifiable.

10 4.8.6 Cumulative Effects on Wildlife

11 NEPA defines cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental

12 impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,

13 regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40

14 CFR1508.7).” For the purposes of this discussion, the terms “effects” and “impacts” will be considered

15 synonymously with “consequences,” and consequences may be negative or beneficial. This section

16 presents an analysis of the cumulative effects (negative or beneficial) of the Proposed Action in the

17 context of other local, state, tribal, and federal management activities in the Puget Sound region on fish

18 resources and related economic conditions.

19 The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis area includes the entire Puget Sound region.

20 The analysis area covers both inland and marine environments that are managed under laws, policies,

21 regulations, and plans having a direct or indirect impact on fish. The substantive scope of the

22 cumulative analysis is predicated on a review of laws, policies, regulations, and plans that specifically

23 pertain to fish-related management activities or that have an indirect negative or beneficial effect on

24 fish resources and related economic conditions. These laws, policies, regulations, and plans are

25 described in Section 1 and Appendix F. Because of the geographic scope of the analysis area, it is not

26 feasible to analyze all habitat-specific activities that are occurring, have occurred in the past, or that

27 will occur in the future in a quantitative manner. By reviewing laws, policies, regulations, and plans,

28 the analysis will capture the objectives of any management activity that is occurring or planned to

29 occur that may interface with fish resources within the Puget Sound region. It is assumed that no

30 management activity is occurring or would occur outside of an implemented law, policy, regulation, or

31 sanctioned plan at the federal, tribal, state, or local level. Although the analysis is necessarily

32 qualitative, it provides a thorough review of all other activities within the region that, when combined
Section 4  Environmental Consequences

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 207 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 with the Proposed Action, could have a negative or beneficial affect on fish resources and related

2 economic conditions.

3 Table 4.3.8.2-1 summarizes the potential cumulative effects on fish resources of implementing the

4 Proposed Action with the effects of these existing laws, policies, regulations, and plans. The table

5 below summarizes the potential cumulative effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action and other plans,

6 policies and programs in the Puget Sound region.

7 The Proposed Action is implementation of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management

8 Plan (RMP), jointly prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the

9 Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (co-managers). Factors common to the relationship between the RMP and

10 the various existing plans, policies and programs include: 1) the Resource Management Plan would

11 provide protection to Puget Sound chinook salmon by conserving the productivity, abundance, and

12 diversity of populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), while

13 managing harvest of strong salmon stocks; and 2) conserving productivity requires biological integrity

14 in the freshwater systems in which salmon spawn and rear.

Consequences

vest 4 - 208 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

ve effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, policies and laws.

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

grams

of the

cent)

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

on Act,

WCA).

The FWCA recognizes “the vital contribution of ourwildlife resources to the Nation, the increasing publicinterest and significance thereof due to expansion of ournational economy and other factors, and to provide thatwildlife conservation shall receive equal considerationand be coordinated with other features of waterresource development programs through the effectualand harmonious planning, development, maintenance,and coordination of wildlife conservation andrehabilitation.”

The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Resource Management Plan wouldallow the harvest of salmon in coordination with ongoing conservationand rehabilitation efforts for chinook salmon. With an estimated valueof $35 million ($16.2 million commercial plus $18.8 millionrecreational), the Puget Sound fishing industries are important to theNation’s economy. The Proposed Action would be consistent with theFWCA by recognizing the vital contribution of Puget Sound chinooksalmon and local wildlife populations to the Nation and our nationaleconomy. It is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the FWCA, would strive tobalance considerations of the national economy, while also providingfor fish and wildlife conservation.

MA).

The SMA was adopted in Washington in 1972 with thegoal of “prevent[ing] the inherent harm in anuncoordinated and piecemeal development of thestate’s shorelines.” The provisions of this law aredesigned to guide the development of the shorelinelands in a manner that will promote and enhance thepublic interest. The law expresses the public concern forprotection against adverse effects to public health, theland and its vegetation and wildlife, and the aquatic lifeof the waters.

Rearing habitat within shoreline areas of Washington State is essentialto conserving the productivity of Puget Sound chinook salmon.Consequently, the Proposed Action would be consistent with the SMAby ensuring that harvest works in concert with habitat protection effortsunder the SMA. Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of theResource Management Plan, in combination with the SMA, wouldprotect fish from adverse effects associated with uncoordinated andpiecemeal development of the state’s shorelines. Puget Sound marineshorelines are also critical nesting and foraging habitat for bald eagles,and nearshore shallow-water areas are used by a variety of seabirds,including marbled murrelets. As with fish, implementation of theResource Management Plan in combination with the SMA is predictedto aid in the protection of wildlife (e.g., reduced entanglement risk) andtheir nearshore breeding and foraging habitat.
Consequences

vest 4 - 209 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

ve effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, policies and laws. continued

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

ms

he

t)

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

 as

n,

ct

The MPRSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate andmanage areas of the marine environment with special nationalsignificance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological,historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or a aestheticqualities as National Marine Sanctuaries. One of the purposes andpolicies of the MPRSA is “to maintain the natural biologicalcommunities in the national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and,where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations,and ecological processes.”

Protecting the marine environment where chinook salmon mature isimportant to conserving the productivity of Puget Sound chinooksalmon. Consequently, the Proposed Action would be consistent withthe MPRSA by maintaining chinook salmon populations of the naturalbiological communities in the marine environment. Accordingly, it ispredicted that implementation of the Resource Management Plan, incombination with the MPRSA, would strive to restore and enhancenatural habitats, populations, and ecological processes of fish. MarineSanctuaries also provide protection for many species of marinemammals and seabirds that seasonally use Puget Sound. Those thatforage on salmon, or are susceptible to net entanglement, arepredicted to further benefit from implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan.

Act

The CZMA declares a national policy “to preserve, protect, develop,and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of theNation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations by “theprotection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains,estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish andwildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone.”

Chinook salmon are one of the Nation’s resources within the coastalzone regulated by the CZMA. The Proposed Action would beconsistent with the CZMA by encouraging preservation and protectionof Puget Sound chinook salmon and their habitat within the coastalzone for existing and succeeding generations, and by ensuring thatharvest is consistent with the production and capacity of the habitat.Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of the ResourceManagement Plan, in combination with the CZMA, would preserve,protect, restore or enhance the fish resources of the Nation's coastalzone. The coastal zone is also important to many species of marinewildlife, including marbled murrelets and bald eagles. The CZMA incombination with the Proposed Action is predicted to benefit marbledmurrelets and other seabirds through habitat protection and reducednet entanglement risk, and increased fish prey in the case of baldeagles and other fish-eating predators/scavengers.
Consequences

vest 4 - 210 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

ve effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, policies and laws. continued

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

ms

he

t)

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

The MMPA establishes a Federal responsibility to conserve marinemammals, with management vested in the Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) forcetaceans and pinnipeds other than walrus. The MMPA states that the“Secretary must undertake a program of research and development forimproving fishing methods and gear to reduce to the maximum extentpractical the incidental taking of marine mammals in commercialfishing.” To meet this requirement, the “Secretary must issueregulations to reduce to the lowest practical level the taking of marinemammals incidental to commercial fishing operations.” The Secretaryof Commerce has issued regulations that prohibit deterrent devicesthat might seriously injure or kill a marine mammal, and that requirefishermen to report unintentional marine mammal mortality.

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the MMPA to conservemarine mammals because the fisheries would be in compliance withDepartment of Commerce regulations to reduce to the lowest practicallevel the take of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishingoperations. Although not specifically addressed in the ProposedAction, Department of Commerce regulations require Puget Soundfishermen to use non-lethal deterrent devices and to reportunintentional marine mammal mortality. As chinook salmon are prey ofmarine mammals, implementation of the Proposed Action, incombination with the MMPA, will aid in the maintenance and recoveryof marine mammal populations by ensuring that enough fish escape toproduce more in subsequent generations as habitat improves.

ct

h

The purpose of the ESA is “to provide a means whereby theecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened speciesdepend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservationof such endangered species and threatened species...” On July 10,2000, NMFS issued a rule under section 4(d) of the ESA (referredhereafter as the 4(d) Rule). The 4(d) Rule provided limits on theapplication of the take prohibitions; i.e., take prohibitions would notapply to the plans and activities set forth in the rule if those plans andactivities adequately address criteria of the rule, including thatimplementation and enforcement of the resource management planwill not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery ofaffected threatened ESUs.

The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU is listed as threatened underthe ESA. The Proposed Action to implement the Puget Sound ChinookSalmon Resource Management Plan includes a condition that theSecretary of Commerce will determine whether that the ResourceManagement Plan adequately addresses the criteria outlined in Limit 6of the ESA 4(d) Rule. Consequently, the Proposed Action would beconsistent with the ESA by meeting these criteria designed to fostergoals and objectives of the ESA, including to avoid appreciablyreducing the likelihood of survival and recovery of Puget SoundChinook Salmon ESU. The ESA would not only have a beneficialimpact to listed Puget Sound chinook salmon, but species listed underthe ESA also include predators of chinook salmon such as bull troutand bald eagles. Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of theProposed Action, in combination with the ESA, would potentially haveboth unquantifiable beneficial and adverse impacts to fish resourcesand listed wildlife species such as bald eagles that forage on fish.
Consequences

vest 4 - 211 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

ve effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, policies and laws. continued

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

ms

he

t)

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act requires that HabitatConservation Plans be developed and implemented as a conditionof the incidental take permit process. These plans define the impactsof a proposed action on listed species, and the steps an applicantintends to take to minimize and mitigate these impacts.

Listed species inhabiting Puget Sound for which habitat conservationplans have been developed include the marbled murrelet (sevenplans) and the bald eagle (six plans). All of these plans involvepreserving forest habitat for these species in the general Puget Soundbasin. By reducing mortality risks (net entanglement) to marbledmurrelets and enhancing the foraging base for bald eagles,implementation of the Proposed Action in combination with theconservation goals of HCPs will benefit marbled murrelets.The HCPs in question are:Cedar River WatershedCity of Tacoma, Tacoma WaterPlum Creek Timber I-90Port Blakely RB Eddy Tree FarmSimpson Timber NW OperationsWashington DNR Forest LandsWest Fork Timber (formerly Murray Pacific).

The 1982 and 1988 amendments to the Endangered Species Act of1973 require that recovery plans be developed and implemented topromote the conservation of listed species.

Recovery plans have been developed for the seven threatened andendangered wildlife species (Pacific leatherback turtle, marbledmurrelet, bald eagle, California brown pelican, Steller sea lion,humpback whale, and fin whale) that at least occasionally inhabitPuget Sound. Implementation of the Proposed Action would likelyreduce net entanglement risks for those species that potentiallyinteract with the Puget Sound fisheries (the turtle, seabirds, andmarine mammals), and benefit those listed species that forage onsalmon (bald eagles and Steller sea lions). Thus, implementation ofthe Proposed Action in combination with the implementation of actionsin the recovery plans should benefit these listed species.
Consequences

vest 4 - 212 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

ve effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, policies and laws. continued

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

ms

he

t)

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

d

The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical,physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. As stated inthe CWA, maintaining or restoring water quality “provides for theprotection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife...”

Primarily because the CWA would maintain water quality that providesfor the protection and propagation of fish, it is predicted thatimplementation of the Proposed Action, in combination with the CWA,would have a net beneficial impact on fish resources. These benefitswould also accrue to the wildlife species that forage on these fish.

ct The MBTA “absolutely forbids killing, possessing, or trading in

migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed bythe Secretary of the Interior.”

By reducing the risks of net entanglement to migratory seabirds suchas murrelets, auklets, and murres, the Proposed Action in combinationwith the MBTA is predicted to benefit migratory birds.

This legislation was first enacted in 1940 to protect bald eagles byprohibiting the take, sale, or purchase of these birds. Today, itprovides a third level of protection for bald eagles along with theESA and the MBTA.

Implementation of the Proposed Action is predicted to benefit baldeagles by increasing the available fish resources on which they forage.Consequently, the Proposed Action in combination with the Bald Eagleand Golden Eagle Protection Act is predicted to benefit bald eagles.

ed

ng

ng

The Pacific Salmon Treaty calls on the U.S. and Canada (Parties) toconduct its fisheries in a manner to “prevent overfishing and providefor optimum production.” The Pacific Salmon Treaty defines“overfishing” as “fishing patterns which result in escapementssignificantly less than those required to produce maximum sustainableyields [MSY].” Annex IV, Chapter 3, Chinook Salmon of the PacificSalmon Treaty further states that the Parties shall establish a chinooksalmon management program that “sustains healthy stocks andrebuilds stocks that have yet to achieve MSY or other biologicallybased escapement objectives.” Salmon subject to the Pacific SalmonTreaty include Pacific salmon stocks that originate in the waters of oneParty and subject to interception by the other Party.

Puget Sound chinook salmon are intercepted in Canadian fisheriesunder the authority of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Proposed Actionaccounts for all sources of fishery-related chinook salmon mortality,including mortality related to Canadian fisheries. Although theProposed Action would allow exploitation rates that would result inescapements less than those required to produce maximumsustainable yields in some years, it would, overall, sustain healthypopulations and rebuild stocks toward maximum sustainable yield.Consequently, the Proposed Action would be consistent with thePacific Salmon Treaty. Accordingly, it is predicted that implementationof the Proposed Action, in combination with the Pacific Salmon Treaty,would have a net beneficial impact on the wildlife species that forageon these fish.
Consequences

vest 4 - 213 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

ve effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, policies and laws. continued

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

ms

he

t)

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

e,

The NFP is an integrated, comprehensive design for ecosystemmanagement, intergovernmental and public collaboration, and ruralcommunity economic assistance for federal forests in western Oregon,Washington, and northern California. The management direction of theNFP consists of extensive standards and guidelines, including landallocations that comprise a comprehensive ecosystem managementstrategy. Aquatic conservation strategy objectives outlined in the NFP(Attachment A of the NFP) include, but are not limited to: “Maintainand restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed andlandscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systemsto which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted;”and, “Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthyriparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remainwithin the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemicalintegrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, andmigration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.”

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the intent of NFP tomaintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity ofwatersheds. Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of theProposed Action, in combination with the NFP, would have a netbeneficial impact on fish resources. Implementation of the NFP alsobenefits wildlife species such as marbled murrelets (protecting forestbreeding habitat), and bald eagles (protecting both breeding andforaging habitat). Together, implementation of the NFP and ProposedAction are predicted to benefit marbled murrelets and bald eagles.

ern

el

Major elements of the Gravel to Gravel Policy are to provide habitatprotection and restoration, ensuring abundant spawners, managingfisheries, and integrating hatchery production.

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the Gravel to Gravelpolicy of managing fisheries to ensure abundant spawners.Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of the Proposed Action,in combination with the Gravel to Gravel Policy, would have abeneficial impact on fish resources, which in turn would benefit wildifespecies that forage on these fish.
Consequences

vest 4 - 214 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

ve effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, policies and laws. continued

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

ms

he

t)

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

ed

fe

bal

d

The stated goals of the Wild Salmon Policy include restoringWashington stocks of wild salmon and steelhead to healthy,harvestable runs by “managing commercial and sport fishing to ensureenough wild runs return to spawn while providing fishing opportunitieswhere possible.”

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the intent of the WildSalmon Policy to manage commercial and recreational fishing in amanner that ensures enough wild salmon return to spawn whileproviding fishing opportunities where possible. Accordingly, it ispredicted that implementation of the Proposed Action, in combinationwith the Wild Salmon Policy, would have a beneficial impact on fishresources, and the wildlife species that forage on these fish.

ver

9

The goal of the SSRS is to “[r]estore salmon, steelhead, and troutpopulations to healthy and harvestable levels and improve the habitatson which fish rely.” The SSRS is the long-term vision or guide forsalmon recovery within the State of Washington.

The Proposed Action would be consistent with the intent of SSRS torestore salmon populations to healthy and harvestable levels.Accordingly, it is predicted that implementation of the Proposed Action,in combination with the SSRS, would have a beneficial impact on fishresources, and the wildlife species that forage on these fish.

Local activities that influence cumulative effects to fish include, butare not limited to:Water Supply Projects: Local water departments operate and maintainwater reservoirs, pump stations, and water mains to deliver potablewater to their customers. Local projects have minimized the adverseimpacts of water withdrawal by installing additional water gauges tomonitor flows and regulate water use, reducing water intake duringcritical environmental periods, and by purchasing existing water rightsto return water to the system.Levee Maintenance: A levee is a natural or manmade structure,usually an earthen berm or riprap, that parallels the course of a river. Itfunctions to prevent flooding of the adjoining countryside. However, italso confines the flow of the river resulting in deeper, faster flows. Inrecent years, local levee maintenance projects have included settingback or removing levees.Stormwater Management: Surface water runoff results from rainfall or

Many of these local activities are conducted in cooperation withfederal, tribal, and state actions. The fisheries that would be allowedby the Proposed Action are predicted to have minimal to negligibleeffect on Washington State water quality. Because many of these localplans, policies, and programs would maintain water quality thatprovides for the protection and propagation of fish, it is predicted thatimplementation of the Proposed Action, in combination with localplans, policies, and programs, would have a net beneficial impact onfish resources, and the wildlife that feed on these fish.
Consequences

vest 4 - 215 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

ve effects on wildlife of the Proposed Action in combination with various plans, policies and laws. continued

Federal/Tribal/State/Local

ms

he

t)

Description and Intent Cumulative Effect when Combined with the Proposed Action

snow melt that does not infiltrate the ground or evaporate due toimpervious surfaces. Instead, this runoff flows onto adjacent land, orinto watercourses, or is routed into storm drainage collection systemsmanaged by local entities. Local cities and counties are in the processof developing watershed plans, subbasin plans, and revising codes tominimize the adverse impacts of surface water runoff. Wastewater Treatment Projects: Municipal wastewater treatmentplants process domestic sewage, and commercial and industrialwastewaters. Stormwater and groundwater infiltration may also enterwastewater treatment plants, though efforts are being made tosegregate these flows. Local cities and counties are in the process ofdeveloping Facilities Plans and revising codes to minimize adverseimpacts associated with wastewater treatment projects.Salmon Recovery Efforts: Local communities are undertaking activitiesto protect listed species and their habitat. Examples of activitiesconducted include, but are not limited to: reducing barriers to fishpassage; improving habitat forming processes; increasing channeldiversity; improving estuarine habitat; and enhancing streamsidevegetation.Watershed Conservation Plans: As mandated by the 1998 State ofWashington Watershed Management Act and Salmon RecoveryPlanning Act, counties are conducting watershed planning to addresswater quality, water quantity, and salmon habitat issues.Bald Eagle Management Plans: In 1984, the Washington StateLegislature enacted laws to protect bald eagle habitat through WDFWmanagement processes. From these laws, bald eagle protection ruleswere developed, requiring site-specific bald eagle management plansbe developed where landowner-proposed activities may adverselyimpact bald eagle habitat. Since 1987, more than 1,150 plans havebeen developed, the majority in the Puget Sound region.
Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 216 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.9 Ownership and Land Use – Parks and Recreation 

2 Activities under the Proposed Action or the alternatives considered are projected to have no perceptible 

3 adverse or beneficial effect on land ownership, land use, or designated recreational areas within the 

4 Puget Sound Action Area. Current trends in land use would continue under any alternative selected. 

5 Construction activities directly related to salmon fisheries during the duration of this action (the 2004

6 2005−2009 fishing seasons) would likely be limited to maintenance and repair of existing facilities, not 

7 expected to result in additional impacts to riparian habitats associated with the fisheries regulated by 

8 the resource management plan. 

9 Growth or decline in an economy is typically the propulsive force for land use changes. The probable 

10 economic consequences of the Proposed Action or alternatives would likely be too small to affect land 

11 use (see Subsection 4.6). 

12 Facilities used in association with river fisheries are essentially all in place. If there is a reduction in the 

13 salmon fishery program, some access points to the water might experience a reduction in traffic, but in 

14 most cases would continue to be used for other river activities, such as recreational boating. 

Section 4 – Environmental Consequences 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 4 - 217 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

1 4.10 Water Quality 

2 The Proposed Action or alternatives are not expected to differ significantly in their potential impacts to 

3 water quality since, in general, fishing activity has only a limited impact on water quality compared to 

4 the myriad of other sources of pollutant inputs to Puget Sound. Most pollutant sources affecting Puget 

5 Sound are land-based, as previously described in Subsection 3.10 (Puget Sound Water Quality Action 

6 Team 2002). While quantitative estimates of vessel traffic and pollution due to vessel activity are not 

7 available, the large number of potential land-based sources and their impact to water quality 

8 significantly exceeds potential variation in vessel activity that would result from differences between 

9 the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan and other fishing regime alternatives 

10 under consideration. 

11 Most vessels are used for more than salmon fishing activity. This is probably most true for sport fishing 

12 vessels rather than for commercial fishing vessels, but the majority of fishing vessel activity within the 

13 Puget Sound Action Area is related to sport fishing. Both sport and commercial fishing vessels are used 

14 to harvest other resources (such as, shrimp, herring, crab, rock fish, and shellfish), and smaller vessels 

15 are used for other leisure activities (like family trips, diving, pleasure cruising, and water skiing). 

16 Although the reductions in angler trips predicted to result from Alternatives 2, 3 or 4 may result in a 

17 decrease in vessel traffic in some areas, the reduction is likely to be low or immeasurable given the 

18 alternative uses available for these vessels. 

19 4.10.1 Sedimentation and Turbidity 

20 Neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives considered are predicted to have a measurable adverse 

21 or beneficial impact on the levels of sedimentation or turbidity in Puget Sound. No impact is expected. 

22 Also, no indirect, cumulative, or long-term impacts are expected to occur. 

23 4.10.2 Non-Point Source Pollution 

24 Neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives considered are predicted to have a measurable adverse 

25 or beneficial impact on the level of non-point source pollution in Puget Sound. No impact is expected. 

26 Similarly, no indirect, cumulative, or long-term impacts are expected to occur. 

Agency Determination of Preferred Alternative

Section 5 – Agency Determination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 5 - 1 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE AND AGENCY

2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

3 Section 5 describes the Environmentally Preferable Alternative, the agency’s Preferred Alternative, and

4 the primary factors in NMFS’ decision concerning the Agency Preferred Alternative. Center forouncil

5 on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR §1502.14[e]) require that the NEPA lead

6 agency “Identify the [agency’s] preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft

7 [environmental impact] statement...unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.”

8 CEQ Regulations do not require that the Environmentally Preferable Alternative be identified in the

9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR §1505.2[b]), but rather in the Record of Decision

10 based, in part, on the Final Environmental Impact Statement. However, both the agency’s Preferred

11 Alternative and the Environmentally Preferable Alternative are presented here in order to provide the

12 public with information as early in the environmental review and decision-making process as possible.

13 The Environmentally Preferable Alternative can be the same as the agency Preferred Alternative or

14 differ in some respects, depending on the EIS analysis.

15 This section builds on the impact analysis of the individual options and alternatives presented in

16 Section 4, Environmental Consequences. Subsection 5.1 summarizes the impacts described in Section 4

17 in tabular form. Subsection 5.2 then describes how those impacts were analyzed to identify the

18 Environmentally Preferred Alternative and the NMFS Preferred Alternative.

19 5.1 Impacts Summary

20 Four alternatives have been analyzed in detail in the Environmental Impact Statement. The alternatives

21 selected for detailed analysis represent different management frameworks from which to develop

22 annual fishing regimes. Except for Alternative 4 (No Action/No Authorized Take), each alternative

23 would provide a flexible framework for managing fisheries to meet conservation and use objectives.

24 Each year, the co-managers would use the framework to develop annual fishing regimes for Puget

25 Sound fisheries that are responsive to the year-specific circumstances related to the status of

26 populations and other resource use objectives. Each alternative represents a distinctly different

27 approach to setting management objectives, and each would have different outcomes in terms of

28 escapement levels, harvest-related mortality, long-term resource protection, and harvest opportunity.

29 The differences among the alternatives arise from 1) the type of management framework, and 2) the

30 geographic scope of the fisheries. A more detailed description of each of the alternatives is provided in

31 Section 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action. The predicted outcomes from implementing
Section 5 – Agency Determination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 5 - 2 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 each of the alternatives are described in Section 4 of this Environmental Impact Statement, and

2 summarized in Table 5.1-1 below.

3 Each alternative was evaluated for four scenarios that captured the general range in magnitude of

4 abundance and the level of Puget Sound chinook salmon harvest in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries

5 (Table 5.1-2) that is reasonably expected to occur across the duration of the Proposed Action (the 2004

6 20052009 fishing seasons), in order to capture the range of anticipated impacts of the Proposed

7 Action and its alternatives. A more detailed discussion of the basis for and choice of these scenarios is

8 presented in Subsection 4.2, Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives

9 Analysis.

10 Table 5.1-1. Abundance and Canadian/Alaskan fishery scenarios evaluated for each alternative.

Scenario Abundance Canadian/Alaskan Fisheries

Scenario A 2003 Puget Sound abundance 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest

Scenario B 2003 Puget Sound abundance High Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest

Scenario C 30% reduction from 2003 abundance 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries harvest

Scenario D 30% reduction from 2003 abundance High Alaskan/Canadian fisheries harvest

11 The indications of a plateau or potential reduction in marine survival and expectations that Canadian

12 fisheries will continue to increase as they have in recent years led the Interdisciplinary Team to

13 conclude that Scenario B is the most likely to occur during the implementation of the Proposed Action.

14 Therefore, the results in Table 5.1-1 are presented for Scenario B. However, the other scenarios follow

15 the same general pattern of impacts when comparing the alternatives as they relate to each resource.

16 To evaluate the effect of the various alternatives on listed and unlisted salmonids, NMFS compared the

17 predicted impacts against several standards for assessing the effects of fishing actions on the

18 sustainability of salmon populations. For listed Puget Sound salmonids, these standards are Rebuilding

19 Exploitation Rates (RER), critical escapement thresholds (CETs), and/or viable escapement thresholds

20 (VETs), as described in Subsection 4.3.1, Threatened and Endangered Fish Species: Environmental

21 Consequences. For unlisted salmonids (coho, pink, chum, sockeye and steelhead), the standards are

22 exploitation rate ceilings, or escapement goals established by the co-managers beginning with the 2001

23 management year (see Subsection 4.3.2, Unlisted Salmonid Species: Environmental Consequences),

24 intended to optimize population production.

25 Fishing regimes that provide for harvest rates at or below the RER level, by definition, do not cause

26 appreciable harm to the population or pose jeopardy to the ESU. Fishing regimes above the RERs may
Section 5 – Agency Determination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 5 - 3 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 also not pose jeopardy to the ESU depending on the status and distribution of the chinook salmon

2 populations throughout the ESU. The critical escapement threshold represents a point of biological

3 instability, below which the risk of extinction increases significantly, due to declining spawning

4 success, depensatory mortality, or risk of loss of genetic integrity. Viable escapement thresholds (in the

5 context of this EIS analysis) are a level of spawning escapement associated with rebuilding to recovery,

6 consistent with current environmental conditions. For most populations, VETs are well below the

7 escapement levels associated with recovery, but achieving these goals under current conditions is a

8 necessary step to eventual recovery when habitat and other conditions are more favorable.

9 In general, the farther the anticipated escapement is from the critical threshold, the less stable the

10 populations, and the closer the anticipated escapement to the viable or optimal production threshold,

11 the greater the confidence that the population will be sustainable over the long term. However, the

12 status of the population and the change in resulting escapement among the four alternatives must be

13 considered in the context of the environment of each population. In reality, alternatives in which

14 modeling results indicate that some populations would just achieve their critical escapement thresholds

15 may not perform any better than alternatives where those same populations are predicted to return just

16 under their critical escapement thresholds. Conversely, substantial increases in spawning escapements

17 may not result in commensurate increases in the progeny of those chinook salmon spawners. Salmon

18 productivity is generally thought to increase over a range of escapement, then reach a plateau or decline

19 at higher levels of escapement due to density-dependent survival; i.e., too many spawners for the

20 available habitat, or too many juvenile salmon for the available food in the river.

ination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

vest 5 - 4 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

on of predicted environmental effects among alternatives and a description of the Proposed Action for Scenario B in the order

ar in the EIS.

Alternative 1 



oposed Action/Status Quo

Alternative 2 



Escapement Goal Management,

Management Unit Level

Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal

Management, Population Level,

Terminal Fisheries

Alternative 4 –

No Action/No Authorized Take of

Listed Puget Sound Chinook

No to low beneficial impacts

to most populations relativeto Alternative 1.

Beneficial impacts to mostpopulations relative toAlternative 1.

Beneficial impacts to mostpopulations relative toAlternative 1.

ts 5 of 10 RERs. Exceeds

ERs by 4 to 10%.

Meets 5 of 10 RERs. Exceeds5 RERs by 3 to 43%.

Meets 8 of 10 RERs. Exceeds 2RERs by 2 to 7%.

Meets 9 of 10 RERs. Exceeds1 RER by 7%.

eeds 21 of 22 critical

pement thresholds by 2

110%; average 383%.

Meets or exceeds 20 of 22critical escapement thresholdsby 15 to 1110%; average364%.

Meets or exceeds 21 of 22critical escapement thresholdsby 15 to 1110%; average 378%.

Meets or exceeds 21 of 22critical escapement thresholdsby 15 to 1531%; average547%.

ts or exceeds 9 of 19

le escapement thresholds

 to 237%; average 68%

Subsection 4.3.1.1).

Meets or exceeds 9 of 19viable escapement thresholdsby 0 to 105%; average 33%(see Subsection 4.3.1.2).

Meets or exceeds 10 of 19viable escapement thresholdsby 0 to 105%; average 57% (eeSubsection 4.3.1.3).

Meets or exceeds 11 of 19viable escapement thresholdsby 9-261%; average 107% (eeSubsection 4.3.1.4).

FS has published a

osed determination for

ic comment that finds

rnative 1 meets the

ria of Limit 6 of the 4(d)

.

loitation rate

agement more robust to

pement goal

agement to uncertainty inival and management

r (see Subsection 4.3.8).

Escapement goalmanagement less robust thanexploitation rate managementto uncertainty in survival andmanagement error (seeSubsection 4.3.8).

Escapement goal managementless robust than exploitationrate management to uncertaintyin survival and managementerror (see Subsection 4.3.8).
ination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

vest 5 - 5 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

Alternative 1 



osed Action/Status Quo

Alternative 2 



Escapement Goal Management,

Management Unit Level

Alternative 3 – Escapement Goal

Management, Population Level,

Terminal Fisheries

Alternative 4 –

No Action/No Authorized Take of

Listed Puget Sound Chinook

r below all

oitation rate ceilings

3 to 27%.

Exploitation rates are low tosubstantially less than Alternative1 (8 to 37%).

Exploitation rates are low tosubstantially less than Alternative1 (8 to 37%).

Exploitation rates are low tosubstantially less thanAlternative 1 (8 to 49%).

ts or exceeds 11of 15

pement goals across

on-chinook salmon

ies by 6 to 294%.

Meets or exceeds 11 of 15escapement goals across all nonchinook salmon species by 15 to521%.

Meets or exceeds 11 of 15escapement goals across all nonchinook salmon species by 15 to521%.

Meets or exceeds 11 of 15escapement goals across allnon-chinook salmon speciesby 15 to 586%.

 of density

ndent effects (ee

section 4.3.2.1).

Low to substantial beneficialeffect to escapement dependingon species, but increased risk ofdensity-dependent declines inproductivity (see Subsection4.3.2.2).

Low to substantial beneficialeffect to escapement dependingon species, but increased risk ofdensity-dependent declines inproductivity (see Subsection4.3.2.3).

Low to substantial beneficialeffect to escapementdepending on species, butincreased risk ofdensitydependent declines inproductivity (see Subsection4.3.2.4).

erse impacts fromt fisheries.

mmercial catch

nown (see Subsection3).

Substantial beneficial effectcompared with Alternative 1since no catch of groundfish andforage species. However,increased predation on foragespecies from reduced catch ofsalmon likely to reduce beneficialeffects on forage species (seeSubsection 4.3.3).

Substantial beneficial effectcompared with Alternative 1since no catch of groundfish andforage species. However,increased predation on foragespecies from reduced catch ofsalmon likely to reduce beneficialeffects on forage species (seeSubsection 4.3.3).

Substantial beneficial effectsince no catch of groundfishand forage species comparedwith Alternative 1. However,increased predation on foragespecies from reduced catch ofsalmon likely to reducebeneficial effects on foragespecies (see Subsection4.3.3).

adverse impact to fish

tat (see Subsection

4).

Moderate adverse impact to fishhabitat in freshwater areascompared to Alternative 1 (seeSubsection 4.3.4).

Moderate adverse impact to fishhabitat in freshwater areascompared to Alternative 1 (seeSubsection 4.3.4).

Low beneficial impact to fishhabitat compared toAlternative 1 (see Subsection4.3.4).
ination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

vest 5 - 6 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

Alternative 1 



Proposed Action/Status Quo

Alternative 2 



Escapement Goal Management,

Management Unit Level

Alternative 3 – Escapement

Goal Management, Population

Level, Terminal Fisheries

Alternative 4 –

No Action/No Authorized Take of

Listed Puget Sound Chinook

Effects cannot be

stimated due to

ariability in spawnerensity (which variesreatly between species

nd in different reaches of

he rivers), and

nvironmental factors (see

ubsection 4.3.5.1).

Effects cannot be estimateddue to variability inspawner density (whichvaries greatly betweenspecies and in differentreaches of the rivers), andenvironmental factors (seeSubsection 4.3.5.2.

Effects cannot be estimateddue to variability inspawner density (whichvaries greatly betweenspecies and in differentreaches of the rivers), andenvironmental factors (seeSubsection 4.3.5.3).

Effects cannot be estimateddue to variability in spawnerdensity (which varies greatlybetween species and indifferent reaches of therivers), and environmentalfactors (see Subsection4.3.5.4).

No to low adverse effects

see Subsection 4.3.6.1).

Due to uncertainty aboutthe contrasting effects ofdecreased effects from theelimination of pre-terminalfishing and possibleincreased use of selectivegears in terminal fisheries,it is not possible to predicteffects of this alternative(see Subsection 4.3.6.2).

Due to uncertainty aboutthe contrasting effects ofdecreased effects from theelimination of pre-terminalfishing and possibleincreased use of selectivegears in terminal fisheries,it is not possible to predicteffects of this alternative(see Subsection 4.3.6.3).

No to low beneficial effectscompared to Alternative 1(see Subsection 4.3.6.4).

Low to moderate adverse

mpact (see Subsection

.3.7).

Moderate to substantialadverse impacts (seeSubsection 4.3.7).

Moderate to substantialadverse impacts (seeSubsection 4.3.7).

Moderate to substantialadverse impacts (see section4.3.7).

ee effects under Fish,

bove.

See effects under Fish,above.

See effects under Fish,above.

See effects under Fish, above.
ination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

vest 5 - 7 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

Alternative 1 



Proposed Action/Status Quo

Alternative 2 



Escapement Goal Management,

Management Unit Level

Alternative 3 – Escapement

Goal Management, Population

Level, Terminal Fisheries

Alternative 4 –

No Action/No Authorized Take of

Listed Puget Sound Chinook

No or low adverse effect

see Subsection 4.4).

Substantial adverse effect(see Subsection 4.4).

Substantial adverse effect(see Subsection 4.4).

Substantial adverse effect(see section 4.4)

No adverse effects (see

ubsection 4.5.1).

Substantial adverse effects(see Subsection 4.5.2).

Substantial adverse effects(see Subsection 4.5.3).

Substantial adverse effects(see section 4.5.4)

Moderate beneficial

ffects (see Subsection

.6.1.1).

Substantial adverse effects(see Subsection 4.6.2.2).

Substantial adverse effects(see Subsection 4.6.3.2).

Substantial adverse effects(see Subsection 4.6.4.2).

Moderate beneficial

ffects to all sport fishing

ectors (see Subsection

.6.1.1).

Substantial adverse effectsto all marine sport fishingsectors. Substantial adverseto 2 of 3 freshwater regions.Low beneficial effect tofreshwater sport fishingsectors in Hood Canal (seeSubsection 4.6.2.2).

Substantial adverse effectsto all marine sport fishingsectors. Substantial adverseto 2 of 3 freshwater regions.Low beneficial effect tofreshwater sport fishingsectors in Hood Canal (seeSubsection 4.6.3.2).

Substantial adverse effects toall marine and freshwatersport fishing sectors (seeSubsection 4.6.4.2).

Moderate beneficial

ffects to local economiesnd low beneficial effect

o regional economies (see

ubsection 4.6.1.1).

Substantial adverse effectsto local economies and lowadverse effects to regionaleconomies (see Subsection4.6.2.2).

Substantial adverse effectsto local economies and lowadverse effects to regionaleconomies (see Subsection4.6.3.2).

Substantial adverse effects tolocal economies and lowadverse effects to regionaleconomies (see Subsection4.6.4.2).

Low to no effect (see

ubsection 4.7.1).

Disproportionate andsubstantial adverse effect

(see Subsection 4.7.2).

Disproportionate andsubstantial adverse effect

(see Subsection 4.7.3).

Disproportionate andsubstantial adverse effect (seeSubsection 4.7.4).
ination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

vest 5 - 8 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

Alternative 1 



Proposed Action/Status Quo

Alternative 2 



Escapement Goal Management,

Management Unit Level

Alternative 3 – Escapement

Goal Management, Population

Level, Terminal Fisheries

Alternative 4 –

No Action/No Authorized Take of

Listed Puget Sound Chinook

Low adverse effect (see

ubsection 4.8.1.1).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative1 (see Subsection 4.8.1.2).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative1 (see Subsection 4.8.1.3).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative 1(see Subsection 4.8.1.4).

Low adverse effect (see

ubsection 4.8.2.1).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative1 (see Subsection 4.8.2.2).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative1 (see Subsection 4.8.2.3).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative 1(see Subsection 4.8.2.4).

No to low adverse effect

see Subsection 4.8.3.1).

No to low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative1 (see Subsection 4.8.3.2).

No to low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative1 (see Subsection 4.8.3.3).

No to low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative 1(see Subsection 4.8.3.4).

Low adverse effect (see

ubsection 4.8.4.1).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative1 (see Subsection 4.8.4.2).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative1 (see Subsection 4.8.4.3).

Low beneficial effectcompared with Alternative 1(see Subsection 4.8.4.4).

No effect (see Subsection

.9).

No effect (see Subsection4.9).

No effect (see Subsection4.9).

No effect (see Subsection4.9).

No effect (see Subsection

.10).

No effect (see Subsection4.10).

No effect (see Subsection4.10).

No effect (see Subsection4.10).

Section 5 – Agency Determination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 5 - 9 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 5.2 Identification of the Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternatives

2 CEQ Regulations (40 CFR §1502.14[e]) require that the NEPA lead agency “Identify the [agency’s]

3 preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft [environmental impact]

4 statement...unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.” The Environmentally

5 Preferable Alternative “ordinarily, means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological

6 and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances

7 historic, cultural and natural resources” (CEQ, 1981: 40 Most Asked Questions, No. 6a). The Preferred

8 Alternative is the alternative NMFS believes will best fulfill the purpose and need for the Proposed

9 Action. As provided for in NEPA and the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, the Preferred

10 Alternative and the Environmentally Preferable Alternative need not be the same, and in the case of

11 NMFS’ decision on this Proposed Action, they are not. NMFS has the authority to take into account

12 various other considerations in choosing its Preferred Alternative, including such factors as the

13 agency’s statutory mission and responsibilities and economic, environmental, technical, and social

14 factors (CEQ, 1981: 40 Most Asked Questions, No. 4a).

15 Based on Table 5.1-2 above, the following factors weighed most heavily in NMFS’ decision

16 concerning the Agency Preferred Alternative and the Environmentally Preferable Alternative: 1) fish,

17 and in particular the ESA-listed Puget Sound chinook salmon; 2) various levels of restriction on tribal

18 treaty rights (from voluntary to mandated), and trust responsibilities and the subsequent effects thereon;

19 3) treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence uses; 4) various levels of environmental justice effects on

20 Puget Sound tribes; 5) stable or increasingly adverse economic impacts to fishing communities; 6)

21 secondary effects of fishing resulting from interactions of hatchery salmon that escape fisheries with

22 wild salmon (i.e., straying); and, 7) fishing-related impacts to fish habitat. For other resources

23 evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement (i.e., wildlife, ownership and land use, water quality),

24 there were no or very small differences among the alternatives, or uncertainty in the outcome precluded

25 assessment of the effect (e.g., marine-derived nutrients).

26 5.2.1 The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

27 Based on the comparison of effects presented in Table 5.1-2, Alternative 4 (No Action/No Authorized

28 Take of Listed Puget Sound Chinook) is the Environmentally Preferable Alternative because it is

29 estimated to have, among the four alternatives considered, the most beneficial or least adverse effect on

30 biological resources in terms of effects on salmonids (listed and unlisted) and non-salmonids, fish

31 habitat and wildlife. The primary difference would be in the reduction of fish caught and, for salmon, a

32 corresponding increase in the probability of recovery and survival of individual salmon populations in
Section 5 – Agency Determination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 5 - 10 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU that may result from the reduction in harvest. Alternative 1 (the

2 Proposed Action) and Alternative 4 are predicted to have less adverse effect on fish habitat than

3 Alternative 2 or 3. Alternatives 2 through 4 are predicted to have a small beneficial effect on wildlife

4 compared with Alternative 1.

5 With regard to effects on fish species, there would be some beneficial effect from the higher

6 abundances predicted to result from Alternative 4, but it is difficult to determine how much difference

7 in environmental benefit there would be for this resource between Alternative 4 and the Proposed

8 Action. Habitat carrying capacity and productivity are limited in many salmon streams in Puget Sound

9 (see Subsection 4.3.8, Indirect and Cumulative Effects), and escapements that return in excess of the

10 capacity of these systems may create increased competition for mates, spawning and rearing area, food

11 and other limited resources so that substantial increases in escapement may not translate into similar

12 increases in subsequent returns. The same uncertainty exists regarding the potential effects of

13 substantial increases in the number of coho and chum salmon hatchery adults in natural spawning

14 areas, or increased predation by salmon on forage fishes that are predicted to occur under Alternative 4

15 when compared with Alternative 1. Potential increases in predation or competition for food resources

16 could also negate benefits realized from increased abundance for either salmon or non-salmon species.

17 5.2.2 The Agency Preferred Alternative

18 Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, is the NMFS Preferred Alternative because NMFS believes this

19 alternative would be most successful at balancing resource conservation, trust obligations to Native

20 American tribes, promotion of sustainable fisheries, and prevention of lost economic potential

21 associated with overfishing, declining species and degraded habitats. NMFS did not choose Alternative

22 4, the Environmentally Preferable Alternative, as its preferred alternative due to: 1) the substantial

23 adverse impacts to tribal treaty rights, treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing uses,

24 environmental justice effects, and economic effects on fishing communities predicted for this

25 alternative; 2) the expected reduction in adverse biological impacts from implementation of Alternative

26 4 were not predicted to be substantial enough to outweigh the losses in these other areas, particularly

27 for listed Puget Sound chinook salmon; and 3) failure to achieve the purpose and need for the Proposed

28 Action. NMFS also did not select Alternatives 2 or 3 for the first two reasons described above.

29 NEPA regulations and guidance indicate that agencies have discretion in choosing a preferred

30 alternative different from the environmentally preferred alternative “based on relevant factors including

31 economic and technical considerations and agency statutory missions” (40 CFR 1505.2[b]). NMFS has

32 three primary mandates with regard to this Proposed Action: 1) implement the ESA; 2) carry out
Section 5 – Agency Determination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 5 - 11 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 federal trust responsibilities with Native American tribes, including protecting the exercise of federally2 recognized treaty tribal fishing rights and; 3) provide for sustainable fishing opportunity. In addition,

3 Presidential Executive Orders require that NMFS minimize conflicts between its implementation of the

4 ESA and exercise of tribal activities (E.O. 13175); e.g., treaty-reserved fishing rights, and fishing (E.O.

5 12962). The Secretarial Order (Department of Interior Order 3206) requires that any restrictions of

6 tribal fishing under the ESA 1) be reasonable and necessary for the conservation of the species at issue;

7 2) occur only when the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved by reasonable

8 regulation of non-Indian activities; 3) be the least-restrictive alternative available to achieve the

9 conservation purpose; 4) not discriminate against Indian activities either as stated or implied; and 5)

10 that voluntary tribal measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. NMFS

11 staff propose to conclude that Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) would not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of survival or recovery of listed Puget Sound chinook salmon1 12 . Therefore, the further

13 reductions in fisheries, and tribal fisheries specifically, that would occur with implementation of

14 Alternative 2, 3, or 4 are not required to meet ESA requirements, and would represent an unreasonable

15 and unnecessary constraint on the exercise of federally-recognized treaty fishing rights. In addition, the

16 approach represented in Alternative 1 is more robust overall to management error and key uncertainties

17 in environmental parameters (see Subsection 4.3.8, Fish: Indirect and Cumulative Effects), and

18 therefore should better protect salmonid resources evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement

19 and better promote sustainable fishing opportunities.

20 Under the most likely scenario to occur over the duration of the Proposed Action (the 2004 20052009

21 fishing seasons), implementation of Alternative 2, 3, or 4 is predicted to result in the loss of more than

22 94 percent of the local and regional sales, employment, and personal income generated by commercial

23 salmon fishing associated with the Puget Sound fishery. Reductions in sport fishing-related economic

24 activity would range from 12 to 72 percent (see Subsection 4.6, Economic Activity and Value:

25 Environmental Consequences). These predicted effects would be most severe in communities

26 dependent upon commercial and sport fishing activities. Combined with substantial declines in fishing

27 industries that these communities have already experienced over the past 20 years, these predicted

28 effects would further affect the character and viability of these communities, especially tribal

29 communities (see Subsection 4.5, Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses:

30 Environmental Consequences; and Subsection 4.7, Environmental Justice: Environmental

 

1

 NMFS’ Proposed 4(d) Evaluation and Determination for the Puget Sound chinook resource management plan is

currently undergoing public comment and review.
Section 5 – Agency Determination of Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 5 - 12 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Consequences). As discussed in 5.2.1 above, the primary basis for the identification of Alternative 4 as

2 the Environmentally Preferred Alternative was the increased abundance in fish species. Alternative 4

3 (as well as Alternative 2 or 3) would provide for substantially larger escapements of salmonids, larger

4 abundance of forage fish, and a slightly greater possibility of rebuilding some individual listed Puget

5 Sound chinook populations more quickly. However, given the discussion above, it is unclear what

6 realistic effect this would have on the status of salmonid populations. NMFS has tentatively concluded

7 that Alternative 1 will meet ESA requirements. Management objectives for the other salmonid species

8 are also predicted to be met. Since Alternative 1 also provides for the conservation needs of these

9 resources, NMFS does not consider the predicted reduction in adverse biological impacts from the

10 implementation of Alternative 4 substantial enough to outweigh the significant economic losses that

11 would be prevented under Alternative 1.

12 Finally, NEPA regulations require that the selected alternative be consistent with the purpose and need

13 for the Proposed Action (see Subsection 2.3, Alternatives Considered in Detail). Alternative 4 would be

14 inconsistent with several elements of the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, and would not

15 have been considered were it not one of the alternatives identified for analysis in the settlement

16 agreement to Washington Trout v. Lohn. It would not: 1) provide for the meaningful exercise of

17 federally-protected treaty fishing rights; 2) provide for tribal and non-tribal fishing opportunity co18 managed under the jurisdiction of U.S. v. Washington; or 3) optimize harvest of abundance of Puget

19 Sound salmon while protecting weaker commingled chinook salmon stocks.
List of Preparers

Section 6 − List of Preparers 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 6 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

6.1 NEPA Evaluation Team 

Bob Anderson 

Agency/Business: University of Washington School of Law 

Position: Assistant Professor and Director, Native American Law Center 

Education: B.A. Bemidji State University; J.D. University of Minnesota School of Law 

Experience: 12 years experience as Tribal law practitioner; 6 years experience as Associate 

Solicitor and Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior 

Role in Preparing: Developed Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibilities legal analysis. 

Will Beattie 

Agency/Business: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Position: Conservation Management Coordinator 

Education: M.S. Fisheries Science 

Experience: 24 years experience in fisheries research and management in Alaska, Montana, 

and Washington 

Role in Preparing: Assisted drafting the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

sections on salmonid fish; harvest modeling; also consultant liaison. 

Susan Bishop 

Agency/Business: National Marine Fisheries Service 

Position: Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Team Leader 

Education: B.S. Marine Science, University of Miami (Coral Gables); 

M.S. Fisheries, University of Washington 

Experience: 16 years of experience in fisheries management 

Role in Preparing: Project Manager and contributing writer; oversaw 

coordination of all aspects of document preparation and analyses, and 

contributed to several sections. 

Steve Braund 

Agency/Business: Steve Braund and Associates 

Position: Owner/Proprietor 

Education: B.A. (Honors) Northern Studies/English, University of Alaska, Fairbanks; 

M.A. Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks 

Experience: 26 years experience in subsistence research; participation in numerous 

Environmental Impact Statements 

Role in Preparing: Anthropologist; responsible for editing the “Treaty Indian Ceremonial and 

Subsistence Salmon Uses” section and for preparing the Environmental 

Consequences section. 

Peter Dygert 

Agency/Business: National Marine Fisheries Service 

Position: Branch Chief, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Northwest Region 

Education: B.S. Zoology, Duke University; M.S. Marine Biology, San Diego State 

University; Ph.D. Fisheries, University of Washington 

Experience: 18 years experience as salmon management biologist with the Puget Sound 

Tribes and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

Role in Preparing: Advisor; provided advice and review of alternatives and analytical approach. 
Section 6 − List of Preparers 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 6 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Greg Green 

Agency/Business: TetraTech FW, Inc. 

Position: Ecology Science Lead 

Education: B.A. Biology, Eastern Oregon University, M.S. Wildlife Ecology, Oregon State 

University 

Experience: More than 25 years experience with wildlife and wildlife habitat relationships 

in the Pacific Northwest 

Role in Preparing: Wildlife Biologist; responsible for Wildlife sections on marine birds, mammals, 

and invertebrates. 

John Matthew Harrington 

Agency/Business: National Marine Fisheries Service 

Position: NEPA Advisor/Coordinator 

Education: B.A. Biology and Environmental Science, Drury University; Masters 

Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma 

Experience: 8 years in the field of environmental science and protection 

Role in Preparing: NEPA Coordinator; assisted with review and guidance on EA/EIS NEPA 

compliance. 

Larrie Lavoy

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Position: Salmon Policy Analyst

Education: B.S. Wildlife Science, University of Washington

Experience: 15 years of fishery management experience

Role in Preparing: Member of the Fishery Modeling Workgroup. Primary technical modeler. 

Conducted modeling simulations of action alternatives on salmon, and provided 

results to the NEPA Team for further evaluation.

Philip A. Meyer 

Agency/Business: Meyer Resources, Inc. 

Position: President 

Education: B.A. Economics and Political Science, University of British Columbia; M.A. 

Natural Resource Economics, University of California Santa Barbara. 

Experience: 35 years experience in fishery economics in the United States and Canada; 

30 years experience working with native peoples 

Role in Preparing: Developed Environmental Justice assessment. 

Doug McNair 

Agency/Business: The William Douglas Company 

Position: President 

Education: B.A. English Literature, Western Washington State University 

Experience: 17 years in fisheries consulting, most recently specializing in study of 

selective salmon fisheries and salmon harvest management 

Role in Preparing: Fisheries Analysis. 
Section 6 − List of Preparers 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 6 - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Vicki Morris 

Agency/Business: Vicki Morris Consulting Services 

Position: Owner 

Education: B.A. Education, Biological Sciences 

Experience: 23 years experience as project manager and primary author of Environmental 

Impact Statements 

Role in Preparing: Technical Editor and Document Production Coordinator. 

Pat Pattillo 

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Position: Salmon Policy Coordinator 

Education: B.S. Fisheries Management/ Quantitative Science University of Washington 

Experience: 25 years Fisheries Management 

Role in Preparing: Editor. 

Bruce Sanford 

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Position: Chinook Species Specialist 

Education: B.A. Conservation (Fish and Wildlife Management); M.A. Natural Sciences, 

San Jose State University 

Experience: 25 years of salmon management in Washington 

Role in Preparing: Contributor and reviewer. 

Keith Schultz 

Agency/Business: National Marine Fisheries Service 

Position: Fishery Biologist 

Education: B.S. Wildlife Management, University of Minnesota 

Experience: 20 years experience in fishery management in Alaska; 

3 years of experience as a Federal regulator of salmon fisheries in Washington 

Role in Preparing: Author, contributor and reviewer of several sections. 

Teresa Scott 

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Position: Natural Resource Policy Analyst 

Education: B.A. Zoology, University of Washington 

Experience: 12 years in commercial and recreational salmon fisheries management; 6 years 

in salmon recovery policy coordination 

Role in Preparing: Assisted drafting the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

sections on marine-derived nutrients, marine fish effects, and response to public 

commentsEditor. 

Richard Stone 

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Position: Wildlife Policy Lead 

Education: B.S. Zoology, University of California at Davis; 

M.S. Fisheries, University of Washington 

Experience: 22 years fisheries management in Washington 

Role in Preparing: Contributor and reviewer. 
Section 6 − List of Preparers 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 6 - 4 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Tom Wegge 

Agency/Business: TCW Economics 

Position: Principal/Senior Economist 

Education: B.A. Urban Studies, University of Southern California; 

M.S. Environmental Economics, California State University, Fullerton 

Experience: 25 years experience conducting economic analyses of fish, wildlife, and 

recreation programs in California, the Pacific Northwest, and Alaska 

Role in Preparing: Economist; primary author of the economic analysis of sport fishing effects. 

6.2 Contributors 

Gretchen Arentzen 

Agency/Business: National Marine Fisheries Service 

Position: Student intern and office assistant 

Education: University of Washington undergraduate: School of Aquatic and Fishery 

Sciences 

Experience: 4 years experience literature research and team involvement 

Role in Preparing: Team Assistant; Literary searches for requested reference documents; editorial, 

production and distribution assistance. 

Kyle Brakensiek 

Agency/Business: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Position: Salmon Ecologist 

Education: M.S. Fisheries Biology 

Experience: 4 years experience as research scientist in California and Washington 

Role in Preparing: Drafted Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences on Marine 

Derived Nutrients from Spawning Salmon. 

Robert Conrad

Agency/Business: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Position: Quantitative Services Manager

Education: B.S. and M.S. in Fisheries, University of Washington

Experience: 21 years as a fisheries biometrician: 6 years with Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game and 15 years with NWIFC

Role in Preparing: Contributed to analysis of and summary discussing potential selective effects of 

fisheries on chinook salmon.

Shannon Davis

Agency/Business: The Research Group

Position: Systems Research Specialist

Education: B. S. Physics, University of Oregon

Experience: 25 years in systems research and resource economic modeling

Role in Preparing: Net economics valuation assessment.
Section 6 − List of Preparers 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 6 - 5 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

LLyn De Danaan 

Agency/Business: LLyn De Danaan and Associates 

Position: Anthropologist 

Education: M.A. Anthropology, University of Washington; Ph.D. Anthropology, Union 

Institute 

Experience: 30 years as a professional anthropologist; 10 years of research focused on Puget 

Sound Tribes 

Role in Preparing: Consulting Anthropologist; primary author of ceremonial and subsistence uses 

of salmon by tribes; reviewer. 

David Hankin 

Agency/Business: Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 

Position: Chairman, Department of Fisheries Biology 

Education: Ph.D. Cornell University 

Experience: 25 years teaching and research on the biology and management of Pacific 

salmonids. 

Role in Preparing: Drafted baseline literature review and summary discussing potential selective 

effects of fisheries on chinook salmon. 

Jeff Hard 

Agency/Business: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Position: Supervisory Research Fishery Biologist (Population Biology Program 

Manager) 

Education: Ph.D., Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Oregon 

Experience: 20 years with NOAA Fisheries, 12 years as quantitative geneticist, 7 years in 

present position. 

Role in Preparing: Contributed to analysis of and summary discussing potential selective effects of 

fisheries on chinook salmon. 

Annette Hoffman

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Position: Quantitative Assessment Unit Leader

Education: Ph.D., Statistics, University of Washington

Experience: 9 years with WDFW, 12 years as an applied statistician

Role in Preparing: Contributed to analysis of and summary discussing potential selective effects of 

fisheries on chinook salmon.

Brent Hunter 

Agency/Business: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Position: Student intern/contractor 

Education: Graduate Student: Evergreen State College Tribal Government Program 

Experience: Cultural and natural resource management, government-to-government 

relations and Tribal fisheries management 

Role in Preparing: Assisted in the creation of base maps for the EA. 
Section 6 − List of Preparers 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 6 - 6 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Karen James 

Agency/Business: Self employed 

Position: Anthropologist 

Education: M.A. Anthropology, University of Washington 

Experience: 34 years of experience in ethnography and ethnohistory of western Washington 

Indians 

Role in Preparing: Assisted in research and preparation of Affected Environment section regarding 

contemporary social and ceremonial use of salmon by tribes that currently fish 

in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

Larrie Lavoy

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Position: Salmon Policy Analyst

Education: B.S. Wildlife Science, University of Washington

Experience: 15 years of fishery management experience

Role in Preparing: Member of the Fishery Modeling Workgroup. Primary technical modeler. 

Conducted modeling simulations of action alternatives on salmon, and provided 

results to the NEPA Team for further evaluation.

Barbara Lane 

Agency/Business: Lane and Lane Associates 

Position: President 

Education: Ph.D. Anthropology, University of Washington 

Experience: 44 years ethnographic/ethnohistorical research, Tribes of western Washington 

Role in Preparing: Lead anthropologist, study of contemporary social and ceremonial uses of 

salmon by tribes that currently fish in Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

Hans Radtke

Agency/Business: The Research Group

Position: Resource Economist

Education: Ph.D. Economics, Oregon State University

Experience: 30 years investigating the relationships of resource-based industries and 

regional, state, and national economies, including 6 years as a member of the 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council or its technical committees.

Role in Preparing: Net economics valuation assessment.

Kurt Reidinger

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Position: Fisheries Biologist

Education: BS, Fisheries, University of Washington

Experience: 25 years with WDFW, 4 years in present position

Role in Preparing: Contributed to analysis of and summary discussing potential selective effects of 

fisheries on chinook salmon
Section 6 − List of Preparers 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 6 - 7 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Kristen Ryding

Agency/Business: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Position: Fisheries Biometrician

Education: Ph.D., Quantitative Ecology and Resource Management, University of 

Washington

Experience: 8 months in current position; 1 year research consultant, School of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Science, University of Washington;

Role in Preparing: Contributed to analysis of and summary discussing potential selective effects of 

fisheries on chinook salmon

Roger Trott 

Agency/Business: TCW Economics 

Position: Research Associate 

Education: B.A. Economics, California State University, Sonoma; M.S. Agricultural 

Economics, University of California at Davis 

Experience: 21 years of experience conducting economic and fiscal analyses of water and 

fishery-related programs in California and the Pacific Northwest 

Role in Preparing: Assisted with the commercial fishery analysis, and the local and regional 

economic analysis. 

Ken Yu 

Agency/Business: Quicksilver 

Position: Owner 

Education: B.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania 

Experience: System, graphic and publication design 

Role in Preparing: Document production assistance. 

List of Agencies and Organizations Consulted

Section 7 – List of Agencies and Organizations Consulted 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 7 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

7.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 

The following agencies and persons were contacted in the course of preparing this Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Clark Group Clark, Mr. Ray 

Environmental Protection Agency Letournea, Mr. Mike 

Peterson, Mr. Ray 

Salcido, Ms. Susanne 

Sprinkel, Mr. Ron 

White, Mr. Jason 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Chitwood, Mr. Scott 

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Busch, Mr. Russell 

Morrill, Mr. Doug 

Lummi Indian Tribe Chapman, Mr. Alan 

Kinley, Mr. Randy 

Raas, Mr. Dan 

Makah Tribe Crewson, Mr. Mike 

Muckleshoot Tribe Hage, Mr. Paul 

Stay, Mr. Alan 

National Marine Fisheries Service Bancroft, Mr. Michael 

Bishop, Ms. Susan 

Darm, Ms. Donna 

Davies, Mr. Jeremy 

Dygert, Dr. Peter 

Freese, Mr. Steve 

Hard, Dr. Jeff 

Harrington, Mr. Matthew 

Hawe, Ms. Kathe 

Jackson, Mr. Lamont 

Kope, Dr. Robert 

Myers, Dr. Jim 

Norberg, Mr. Brent 

Ratner, Dr. Sue 

Robinson, Mr. Bill 

Roark, Dr. Shaun 

Ruckelshaus, Dr. Mary 

Sands, Dr. Norma 

Schultz, Mr. Keith 

Scordino, Mr. Joe 

Sears, Ms. Janet 

Simmons, Mr. Dell 

Simms, Mr. Gary 

Tynan, Mr. Tim 
Section 7 – List of Agencies and Organizations Consulted 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 7 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

National Oceanographic and Kokkinakis, Mr. Steve 

Atmospheric Administration Office of 

Strategic Planning 

Nisqually Indian Tribe Kautz, Ms. Georgiana 

Miniken, Ms. Joan 

Tobin, Mr. Bill 

Trout, Mr. Dave 

Nooksack Indian Tribe Currence, Mr. Ned 

 Griggs, Mr. Dale 

 Kelly, Mr. Robert 

Schlosser, Mr. Tom 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Anderson, Mr. James 

Beattie, Mr. Will 

Davies, Mr. Bruce 

Fieberg, Mr. John 

Graves, Mr. Gary 

Rankis, Mr. Andy 

Whitener, Mr. Robert 

Oncorh Consulting Knudsen, Mr. Curt 

Point No Point Treaty Council Harder, Mr. Randy 

Lampsakis, Mr. Nick 

Weller, Mr. Chris 

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Gray, Ms. Cindy 

Woodword, Ms. Tallis 

Puyallup Tribe Klapstein, Ms. Annette 

Phinney, Mr. Chris 

Quinault Tribe McMinds, Mr. Guy 

Samish Tribe Barsh, Mr. Russell 

Hansen, Mr. Ken 

Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Sanders, Mr. Allen H. 

Skagit Systems Cooperative Hayman, Mr. Robert 

Skokomish Tribe Herrera, Mr. Dave 

Smith and Lowney P.L.L.C. Smith, Mr. Richard 

Snoqualmie Tribe Kanair, Mr. Ian 

Mullen, Mr. Joseph 

Squaxin Island Tribe Dickison, Mr. Jeff 

Lyon, Mr. Kevin 
Section 7 – List of Agencies and Organizations Consulted 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 7 - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Stillaguamish Tribe Drott, Mr. John 

Suquamish Tribe Hansen, Ms Michelle 

Hayes, Mr. Merle 

Zischke, Mr. Jay 

Swinomish Tribe Bernard, Ms. Rebecca 

Foster, Ms. Alix 

Loomis, Ms. Lorraine 

Tulalip Tribe Morisset, Mr. Mason 

Rawson, Mr. Kit 

Williams, Mr. Terry 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Berg, Mr. Ken 

Dettlaff, Yvonne 

Grettenberger, Mr. John 

Upper Skagit Tribe Chesnin, Mr. Harold 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Adicks, Mr. Kyle

Ames, Mr. Jim

Busack, Dr. Craig 

Conrad, Mr. Robert

Cropp, Mr. Tom 

Desimone, Mr. Steve

Hoines, Mr. Lee 

Hoffman, DrMs. Annette 

Hunter, Mr. Mark

Jeffries, Mr. Steve

Johnson, Mr. Thom 

Kraemer, Mr. Curt 

Lavoy, Mr. Larrie 

Michael, Mr. Hal

Mills, Ms. Mary Lou

Milward, Mr. Doug 

Nyswander, Mr. Dave 

Pattillo, Mr. Pat 

Reidinger, Mr. Kurt 

Ryding, Dr. Kristen

Sanford, Mr. Bruce 

Scott, Ms. Teresa 

Stone, Mr. Richard 

Wiles, Mr. Gary

Wilson, Mr. Jackson 

Washington Trout Beardslee, Mr. Kurt 

Gayeski, Mr. Nick 

Ziontz, Chestnut and Arum Arum, Mr. John 

References

Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

8.0 REFERENCES 

References cited are organized by the document subsection in which they appear. 

1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. December 

20, 2002. Personal communication with Susan Bishop, Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest 

Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, re: 

number of chinook salmon caught in Puget Sound marine and freshwater fisheries. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. November 30, 2001. 2001 post-season report for Canadian treaty limit 

fisheries. Report prepared for the Pacific Salmon Commission by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 32 

pages. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. November 30, 2000. 2000 post-season report for Canadian treaty limit 

fisheries. Report prepared for the Pacific Salmon Commission by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 24 

pages. 

Hoh v. Baldrige, 522 Federal Supplement 683. U.S. District Court for the Western District of 

Washington, Tacoma District. 1981. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). June 10, 2004. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 

consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat consultation − Effects of programs 

administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs supporting tribal salmon fisheries management in 

Puget Sound and Puget Sound salmon fishing activities authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service during the 2004 fishing season. NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division. 280 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). June 2002. Draft programmatic environmental impact 

statement for Pacific salmon fisheries management off the coasts of southeast Alaska, Washington, 

Oregon, and California, and in the Columbia River basin. NMFS Northwest Region. Seattle, 

Washington. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). September 14, 2001. Endangered and threatened species −

section 7 consultation − biological opinion and incidental take statement − programs administered 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and activities authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

supporting tribal salmon fisheries affecting listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summerrun chum salmon evolutionarily significant units. NMFS Protected Species Division. 28 pages and 

two appendices. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). April 28, 2000. Endangered species act − reinitiated 

section 7 consultation − biological opinion − effects on Pacific coast ocean and Puget Sound 

salmon fisheries during the 2000-2001 annual regulatory cycle. NMFS Protected Species Division. 

101 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Endangered and threatened species: threatened 

status for three chinook salmon evolutionarily significant units in Washington and Oregon, and 

endangered status of one chinook salmon ESU in Washington; final rule. Federal Register, Volume 

64, Number 56. Pages 14308−14322. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). November 2002. Tribal fish ticket database search 

to determine number of salmon caught by region. NWIFC, Olympia, Washington. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). February 2002. Review of 2001 ocean salmon 

fisheries. Portland, Oregon. 

Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). December 2001. Preliminary 2001 post-season report for United 

States salmon fisheries of relevance to the Pacific salmon treaty. 34 pages. 

Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). November 2000. Preliminary 2000 post-season report for United 

States salmon fisheries of relevance to the Pacific salmon treaty. 30 pages. 

Pacific Salmon Commission, Chinook Technical Committee (CTC). 2001. Joint chinook technical 

committee report catch and escapement of chinook salmon under Pacific Salmon Commission 

jurisdiction 1997-2000. Report TCChinook (01)-1. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 89 pages 

and two appendices. 

Pacific Salmon Commission, Chinook Technical Committee (CTC). 1999. Joint chinook technical 

committee report 1995 and 1996 annual report. Report TCChinook (99)-2. Vancouver, British 

Columbia, Canada. 111 pages and seven appendices. 

Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. 1985. United States v. Washington (1606 Federal Supplement 

1405). 42 pages. 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. 2002. Independent populations of chinook in Puget Sound. 

April 8, 2002. Working Draft, not officially published. NOAA, Northwest Region, NWFSC. 

Seattle, Washington. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). September 8, 1997. Draft policy of 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife concerning wild salmonids. 49 pags. 

Western Washington Treaty Tribes (WWTT). 1997. Gravel to Gravel − Regional salmon recovery 

policy for the Puget Sound and the coast of Washington. 50 pages. 

2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

Johnson, J.K. 1990. Regional overview of coded-wire tagging of anadromous salmon and steelhead in 

Northwest America. American Fisheries Symposium Number 7: 782−816. 

Milward, D. 2003a. Pre-season operational plan for Puget Sound for 2003. Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Milward, D. 2003b. Ocean sampling program operational plan for 2003. Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (PSIT and WDFW). 

2004. Puget Sound comprehensive chinook management plan: Harvest management component. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. March 18, 2004. 247 pages. 

Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. 1985. United States v. Washington (1606 Federal Supplement 

1405). 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. 2003. Independent populations of chinook in Puget Sound. 

Final Draft. July 22, 2003. NOAA, Northwest Region, NWFSC. Seattle, Washington. 61 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

3.0 Affected Environment 

3.2 Environmental Setting 

Gustafson R.G., W.H. Lenarz, B.B. McCain, C.C. Schmitt, W.S. Grant, T.L. Builder, and R.D. Methot. 

2000. Status review of Pacific hake, Pacific cod, and walleye pollock from Puget Sound, 

Washington. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Technical Memorandum National Marine Fisheries Service − Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center 44. 275 p. 

Hutchinson, I. 1988. Estuarine marsh dynamics in the Puget Trough – Implications for habitat 

management. In Proceedings of the first annual meeting on Puget Sound research, pages 455-462. 

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. 

Kruckeberg, A.R. 1991. The natural history of Puget Sound country. 468 pages. 

Levings, C.D., and R.M. Thom. 1994. A description of the fish community of the Squamish River 

estuary, British Columbia: Relative abundance, seasonal changes and feeding habits of salmonids. 

Canada Fisheries and Marine Service. Manuscript Report 1475, 63 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

informational internet site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/chinpug.htm. Internet site 

accessed January 08, 2003. 

Reese, Gary Fuller. Managing Librarian, Tacoma Public Library, Northwest Room and Special 

Collections. 2002. Washington place names, an internet-accessible database 

(http://www.tpl.lib.wa.us/v2/nwroom/wanames.htm). Database accessed December 16, 2002. 

Ruckelshaus, M. Chair, Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. January 8, 2003. Personal 

communication with Keith Schultz, National Marine Fisheries Service, re: the definition of Puget 

Sound salmon populations. 

Schmitt, C., J. Schweigert, and T.P. Quinn. 1994. Anthropogenic influences on fish populations of the 

Georgia Basin. In R. C. H. Wilson, R. J. Beamish, F. Aitkens, and J. Bell, (editors), Review of the 

Marine Environment and Biota of Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, and Juan de Fuca Strait, p. 218-

252. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Technical Report 1948. 390 pages. 

Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal 

estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. In V. S. Kennedy (editor), 

Estuarine comparisons, pages 343-364. Academic Press, Toronto, Canada. 

Staubitz, W.W., G.C. Bortleson, S.D. Semans, A.J. Tesoriero, and R.W. Black. 1997. Water-quality 

assessment of the Puget Sound Basin environmental setting and its implications for water quality 

and aquatic biota. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 97-

4013. 76 pages. 

Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington 

Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia Washington. 212 pages plus 5 regional 

volumes. Available from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, 

Olympia, Washington 98501-1091. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 4 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

United States Census. 2000. Information obtained from the United States Census Bureau internet site: 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Internet site accessed on November 4, 2002. 

3.3 Fish 

Bargman, Greg, Groundfish Coordinator, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal 

communication with Doug McNair, The William Douglas Company, re: incidental groundfish 

catch in salmon sport fisheries. January 2003. 

Beamish, R.J., and D.R. Bouillon. 1993. Pacific salmon production trends in relation to climate. Can. J. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:1002-1016. 

Beamish, R.J., D.J. Noakes, G.A. MacFarlane, L. Klyshatorin, V.V. Ivanov, and V. Kurashov. 1999. 

The regime concept and natural trends in the production of Pacific salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

56:516-526. 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, December 

2002. Personal communication with Susan Bishop (NMFS NWR Sustainable Fisheries Division), 

regarding Puget Sound tribal catch of steelhead. 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, December 

2002. Personal communication with Doug McNair, The William Douglas Company, re: Puget 

Sound chinook exploitation rates. 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, 

Washington. January 12, 2003. Personal communication with Doug McNair, The William Douglas 

Company, re: coded-wire tag indicator stocks. 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, 

Washington. January 14, 2003. Personal communication with Doug McNair, The William Douglas 

Company, re: coded-wire tag indicator stocks. 

Big Eagle and Associates and LGL, Ltd. 1995. Pink salmon catch, escapement and historical 

abundance data. Electronic database of pink salmon abundance, containing data from Washington 

Department of Fisheries et al. (1993), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission run reconstruction, 

and Coordinated Information System (CIS) escapement data. Report to U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, January 1995 in: Hard et al. 1996. 

Bishop, Susan. Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, NMFS Seattle, Washington. January 14, 2003. Personal communication e-mail to with 

Doug McNair, The William Douglas Company, re: hatchery straying in the North Fork Nooksack 

River. 

Bishop, Susan. Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, NMFS Seattle, Washington. January 5, 2003. Personal communication to Doug McNair, 

The William Douglas Company, re: the status of Cedar River chinook salmon. 

Bishop, Susan. Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, NMFS Seattle, Washington. January 5, 2003. Comments on preliminary affected 

environment section draft Personal Communication to Doug McNair, The William Douglas 

Company, re: critical escapement levels for Puget Sound streams. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 5 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Bishop, S. and A. Morgan (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural chinook salmon 

stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State. Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission, Olympia, Washington, 105 p. (Available from Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission, 6730 Martin Way, E., Olympia, Washington 98506). 

Blakely, Ann. Fisheries Biologist, WDFW, Olympia, Washington. August 31, 2004. Personal 

communication, email to Teresa Scott (WDFW), regarding information on sea- and river-type 

sockeye salmon in Puget Sound. 

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. 

Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and 

California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 261 

pages. 

Cramer, S.P. and Associates, Inc. 1999. Status of chinook salmon and their habitat in Puget Sound. 

Volume II, Final Report. S.P. Cramer and Associates, Inc., Gresham, Oregon. 

Crone, R. A., and C. E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, in Sashin 

Creek, southeastern Alaska. Fishery Bulletin Volume 74, pages 897−923 in: Stillwater Sciences. 

1997. A review of coho salmon life history to assess potential limiting factors and the implications 

of historical removal of large woody debris in coastal Mendocino County Stillwater Sciences, 

Berkeley, California. 

Department of Ecology (DOE). 2004. 2002-2004 proposed assessment- Category 5- the 303(d) list, at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/2002_list.html. Web site accessed May 10, 2004. 

Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr. 1993. Entering the watershed: a new approach to 

save America’s river ecosystems. Island Press; Washington, D.C. 

Drucker, P. 1965. Cultures of the North Pacific Coast. Chandler Publishing Company. San Francisco, 

California. 

Drucker, B. 1972. Some life history characteristics of coho salmon of the Karluk River system, Kodiak 

Island, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin. U.S., Volume 70, pages 79-94. In Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. 

Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Cope, and R.S. Waples. 1995. Status review 

of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memo. NMFSNWFSC-24, 258 pages. 

Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM), Chinook validation file, for December 2002, provided 

by Will Beattie, Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM), Coho impact summary for 1999, provided by Phil 

Anderson, Recreational Fishing Liason, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. 

Frissell, C.A. 1993. A new strategy for watershed restoration and recovery of Pacific salmon in the 

Pacific Northwest. Prepared for Pacific Rivers Council; Eugene, Oregon. 

Groot, C. and L. Margolis (editors). 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia 

Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 6 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Gustafson, R.G., T.C. Wainwright, G.A. Winans, F.W. Waknitz, L.T. Parker, and R.S. Waples. 1997. 

Status review of sockeye salmon from Washington and Oregon. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-33, 282 pages. 

Gustafson, R.G., and G.A. Winans. 1999. Distribution and population genetic structure of river- and 

sea-type sockeye salmon in western North America. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 1999, Volume 8, 

pages 181-193. 

Hard, Jeffrey J., Robert G. Kope, W. Stewart Grant, F. William Waknitz, L. Ted parker, and Robin S. 

Waples. 1996. Status review of pink salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-25. 141 pages 

Hare, S.R., N.J. Mantua, and R.C. Francis. 1999. Inverse production regimes: Alaska and west coast 

Pacific salmon. Fisheries, Volume 24:(1), pages 6–14. 

Hawe, Frank. Northwest Marine Technologies, Olympia, Washington. October 2, 2002. Memo to Doug 

McNair, The William Douglas Company. re: length-weight relationship for coho and chinook 

salmon. 

Hayman, R.A., E.M. Beamer, and R.E. McClure. 1996. FY 1995 Skagit River chinook restoration 

research. Skagit System Cooperative Chinook Restoration Research Program Report No. 1. 

NWIFC Contract #3311 for FY95. 

Healey, M.C. 1991. Diets and feeding rates of juvenile pink, chum, and sockeye salmon in Hecate 

Strait, British Columbia. Transcripts of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 120(3), pages 

303−318. In: Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Cope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples. 

1997 status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32. 280 pages. 

Heard, W. R. 1991. Life history of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Pages 121-230 in C. Groot 

and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, 

Vancouver, British Columbia in: Hard, Jeffrey J., Robert G. Kope, W. Stewart Grant, F. William 

Waknitz, L. Ted parker, and Robin S. Waples. Status review of pink salmon from Washington, 

Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFSNWFSC-25. 

Henjum, M.G., and seven co-authors. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, 

and watersheds: national forests east of the Cascade Crest, Oregon, and Washington. J.R. Karr and 

E.W. Chu (eds). The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Horton, G. 1994. Effects of jet boats on salmonid reproduction in Alaskan streams. Masters thesis. 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska in: Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 1999. 

Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast salmon plan. Appendix A: Identification and description of 

essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon, page 

A-61. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. 

Jewell, E.D. 1966. Forecasting pink salmon runs. In W.L. Sheridan (editor), Proceedings of the 1966 

Northeast Pacific pink salmon workshop, pages 93−110 in: Hard et al. 1996. 

Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Cope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples. 1997 Status review 

of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 7 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

King, M.A. 2002. Kenai River riparian habitat studies. Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Kraemer, Curt. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. January 2003. 

Personal communication e-mail to Doug McNair, The William Douglas Company, re: Lower 

Skagit bull trout: age and growth information developed from scales collected from anadromous 

and fluvial char. 

 Kraemer, Curt, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. May 15, 2002. 

Personal communication e-mail to Doug McNair, The William Douglas Company, re: incidence of 

char in Puget Sound marine areas. 

Lestelle, L. and C. Weller. 1994. Summary report: Hoko and Skokomish River coho salmon indicator 

stock studies, 1986- 1989. Technical Report 94-1, Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, 

Washington. 

Light, J.T. 1987. Coastwide abundance of North American steelhead trout. (Document submitted to the 

annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Fisheries Research 

Institute Report FRI-UW-8710. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 18 pages, in: 

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. 

Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and 

California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 261 

pages. 

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal 

climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society, Volume 78, pages 1069-1079. 

McElhany, P., M.J. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T. Wainwright, and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid 

populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-NWFSC-42. 

McPhail, J.D. and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life history and 

habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities Department of Zoology, 

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Fisheries Management 

Report Number 104. 

Miller, D. J. and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. Fisheries Bulletin 

Number 157. California Department of Fish and Game. In Stillwater Sciences. A review of coho 

salmon life history to assess potential limiting factors and the implications of historical removal of 

large woody debris in coastal Mendocino County. Berkeley, California. Preliminary draft. May 

1997. 

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. 

Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pages. 

Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team (NCRT). 2001. Nisqually chinook recovery plan. August 2001. 59 

pages + Appendices. 

NMFS. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped 

Actions at the Watershed Scale. August 1996. 28 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 8 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Endangered species act reinitiated section 7 consultation. 

Biological Opinion on the Effects of Pacific Coast Ocean and Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries 

During the 2000-2001 Annual Regulatory Cycle. NMFS Protected Resources Division, Seattle, 

Washington. 

NMFS. 2003a. A joint tribal and state resource management plan (RMP) submitted under Limit 6 of 

the 4(d) Rule by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife for salmon fisheries and steelhead net fisheries affecting Puget Sound chinook salmon. 

Decision Memorandum. May 19, 2003. 

NMFS 2003b. Abundance and productivity tables for the North Fork and South Fork Nooksack 

populations. Excel spreadsheet. (AP01NFNooksackv65.xls and AP02SFNooksackv65SF_ 

NFfishingrates.xls). 

NMFS 2003c. Abundance and productivity tables for the Skykomish chinook population. Excel 

spreadsheet (AP11Skykomishv63.xls) 

Natural Resource Consultants. April 2004. Final Report – Derelict Fishing Gear Removal Project, 

Greystone Foundation. 

Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team (NCRT). 2001. Nisqually chinook recovery plan. Nisqually Tribe 

Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. 

Nooksack Rebuilding Exploitation Rate (RER) Workgroup 2003. Derivation of the Rebuilding 

Exploitation Rates (RER) for the Nooksack chinook salmon populations. December 1, 2003. 13 

pages. 

Northwest Straits Commission. March 2003. Derelict Fishing Gear Project: First Year 

Accomplishments. Available at: www.nwstraits.org

Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 1997. Puget Sound salmon stock review group report. August 

1997. Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Portland, Oregon. In: S.P. Cramer and Associates, 

Inc. 1999. Status of chinook salmon and their habitat in Puget Sound. Volume II, Final Report. S.P. 

Cramer and Associates, Inc., Gresham, Oregon. 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast salmon plan. 

Appendix A: Identification and description of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and 

recommended conservation measures for salmon, page A-61. Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 2001. Review of 2000 ocean salmon fisheries. (Document 

prepared for the COuncil and it’s advisory entities.) Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. 

Pacific Salmon Commission. 2002. Pacific salmon commission joint chinook technical committee 

report; annual exploitation rate analysis and model calibration. Report TC-Chinook 02-3. Pacific 

Salmon Commission. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. October 2002. 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). December 2002. PSMFC regional mark 

information service December 2002 database search of hatchery release information by The 

William Douglas Company, Seattle, Washington. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 9 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). December 2002. Regional mark information 

service December 2002 database search of coded-wire tag recoveries by The William Douglas 

Company, Seattle, Washington. 

Palsson, Wayne. Groundfish Coordinator, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, 

Washington. November 12, 2002. Personal communication with Douglas McNair, The William 

Douglas Company, re. presence of derelict fishing gear in Puget Sound. 

Palsson, Wayne. Groundfish Coordinator, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, 

Washington. December 9, 2002. Internal data summary on presence of derelict fishing gear in 

Puget Sound provided to The William Douglas Company, Seattle, Washington. 

Palsson, Wayne. Groundfish Coordinator, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, 

Washington. December 23, 2002. Summary of incidental groundfish catch in spot salmon fisheries 

from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife bottomfish catch estimate database. Provided to 

Douglas McNair, The William Douglas Company, Seattle, Washington. 

Point No Point Treaty Council. 1995. Documents submitted to the ESA Administrative Record for west 

coast chinook salmon by N. Lampsakis, September 1995. (Available from Environmental and 

Technical Services Division, NMFS, 525 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon 97232). 

Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group (PSSSRG). 1997. An assessment of the status of Puget 

Sound chinook and Strait of Juan de Fuca coho stocks as required under the Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council Review Draft, 78 pages. (Available from 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, Oregon 97201.) 

Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (PSIT and WDFW). 

2003. Puget Sound comprehensive chinook management plan: Harvest management component. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. February 19, 2003. 88 pages + appendices. 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. 2003. Independent populations of chinook in Puget Sound. 

Final Draft July 22, 2003. Working Draft, not officially published. NOAA, Northwest Region, 

NWFSC. Seattle, Washington. 59 pages + appendices. 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, January 2004. Independent populations of chinook salmon in 

Puget Sound. Final Draft, not officially published. 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. In preparation. Abundance and productivity data tables 

summarizing key biological and life history data for Puget Sound chinook populations. Excel 

spreadsheets. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. 2002. 2002 Puget Sound Update: Eighth Report of the Puget 

Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Olympia, 

Washington. Pages 104−113. 

Roberts, B.R. and R. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and pre-emergent 

fry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Volume 12, pages 450−459 in: Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast salmon plan. Appendix 

A: Identification and description of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended 

conservation measures for salmon, page A-61. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, 

Oregon. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 10 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Scott, W.B. and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of 

Canada Bulletin 184, pages 734-740. In Stillwater Sciences. A review of coho salmon life history 

to assess potential limiting factors and the implications of historical removal of large woody debris 

in coastal Mendocino County, Berkeley, California. Preliminary draft. May 1997. 

Seattle Times. August 21, 2004. Abandoned gill nets pose peril in Sound. Article by Ian Ith, Seattle 

Times staff reporter. Archived articles available for review online at: 

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com. 

Shared Strategy. 2004. Watershed planning efforts and profiles at: 

www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/watersheds.htm. Web site accessed August 26, 2004. 

Simmons, Dell. Sustainable Fisheries Division, NOAA Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. December 12, 

2002. Personal communication e-mail to Susan Bishop, Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest 

Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Seattle, Washington, re: harvest 

impacts on Columia River chinook populations in Puget Sound fisheries. 

Skagit Rebuilding Exploitation Rate (RER) Workgroup. 2003. Derivation of the Rebuilding 

Exploitation Rates (RER) for the Skagit Spring chinook salmon populations. 22 pages. 

Smith, C.J. and B. Sele. 1994. Dungeness River escapement goal. Interagency technical memorandum, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and Jamestown S'Klallam 

Tribe, Sequim, Washington. 

Smith, C.J. and B. Sele. 1995. Introduction. In: J. Smith and P. Wampler (editors), Dungeness River 

Chinook Salmon Rebuilding Project Progress Report 1992−1993, pages 1−3. Northwest Fishery 

Resource Bulletin Project Report Series 3 (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington). In: Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, 

W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of 

chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pages. 

Snohomish Basin Salmonid Technical Recovery Committee (SRTC). 1999. Initial Snohomish River 

basin chinook salmon conservation – recovery work plan. October 6, 1999, in: Puget Sound 

Technical Recovery Team. 2001. Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound. 

Public Review Draft, April 11, 2001. 

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to 

salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services 

Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon. 356 pages. 

Stanford, J.A., and J.V. Ward. 1992. Management of aquatic resources in large catchments: 

recognizing interactions between ecosystem connectivity and environmental disturbance. Pages 91-

124 in R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental 

change. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 

Stout, H.A., R.G. Gustafson, W.H. Lenarz, B.B. McCain, D.M. VanDoornik, T.L. Builder, and R.D. 

Methot. 2001. Status review of Pacific herring in Puget Sound, Washington. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC- 45, 175 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 11 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Sutherland, A. and D. Ogle. 1975. Effects of jet boats on salmon eggs. New Zealand Journal of Marine 

and Freshwater Research, Volume 9(3), pages 273−282, in: Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast salmon plan. Appendix A: Identification and description 

of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon, 

page A-61. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Federal Register, Volume 64 No. 210. November 1, 1999. Proposed special rule: Salvelinus 

confluentus. 

U.S. Federal Register, Volume 65 No. 132. July 10, 2000. Final rule governing take of 14 threatened 

salmon and steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs). 

Washington Conservation Commission. 2004. Habitat limiting factors reports at. 

(http://salmon.scc.wa.gov/reports/index.html). Web site accessed August 26, 2004. 

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW), and 

Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes (WWTIT). 1993. 1992 Washington state salmon and 

steelhead stock inventory (SASSI). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia 

Washington. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1995. Documents submitted to the ESA 

administrative record for west coast chinook salmon by B. Tweit. (Available from Environmental 

and Technical Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon), in: Myers, 

J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. 

Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory: Bull 

Trout/Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. 55 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Forage fish management plan. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. 1999−2000 Steelhead harvest summary. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Commercial fisheries landing data. Provided by 

Lee Hoines, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to Doug McNair, The William Douglas 

Company, July 27, 2002. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes. 2000. 

Summer chum salmon conservation initiative: A conservation plan to recover and restore summer 

chum salmon in Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes. 2003. 

Summer chum salmon conservation initiative: An implementation plan to recovery summer chum 

in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Region. Supplemental report No. 4. Report on 

summer chum salmon stock assessment and management activities for 2001 and 2002. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. October 2003. 219 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 12 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Puyallup Tribe of Indians, and Muckleshoot 

Indian Tribe. 1996. Recovery plan for White River spring chinook salmon. Report of the South 

Sound Spring Chinook Technical Committee. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. 81 pages. 

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Cope, and R.S. Waples. 

1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24, 258 pages. 

West, James E. 1997. Protection and restoration of marine life in the inland waters of Washington state, 

by James E. West; prepared for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force, 

Washington Work Group on Protecting Marine Life, with support from Puget Sound Water Quality 

Action Team and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. 

West Coast Biological Review Team (WCSBRT). 2003. Preliminary conclusions regarding the updated 

status of listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. West Coast Biological Review Team. 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

Santa Cruz, California. July 2003. 

Wright, Sam. February 1999. Petition to the Secretary of Commerce to list as threatened or endangered 

18 species/populations or ESUs of Puget Sound marine fishes and to designate critical habitats. 

Wydoski and Whitney. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington (2nd ed). American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, Maryland, in association with University of Washington Press, Seattle and London. 322 

pages. 

3.3.6 Marine-Derived Nutrients 

Achord, S., P.S. Levin, and R.W. Zabel. 2003. Density-dependent mortality in Pacific salmon: the 

ghost of impacts past?. Ecology Letters, Volume 6, pages 335-342. 

Bell, E. 2001. Survival, growth and movement of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) overwintering in alcoves, backwaters, and main channel pools in Prairie Creek, California. Master’s 

thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 85 pages. 

Ben-David, M., T.A. Hanley, and D.M. Schell. 1998. Fertilization of terrestrial vegetation by spawning 

Pacific salmon: the role of flooding and predator activity. Oikos. Volume 83, pages 47–55. 

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Fransen and P.A. Bisson. 1996. Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from spawning 

coho salmon into the trophic system of small streams: evidence from stable isotopes. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 53, pages 164−173. 

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Fransen, P.A. Bisson and J.K. Walter. 1998. Response of juvenile coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to the addition of salmon carcasses 

to two streams in southwestern Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. Volume 55, pages 1909−1918. 

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Fransen, J.K. Walter, C.J. Cederholm and W.J. Scarlett WJ. 2001. Preliminary 

evaluation of the use of nitrogen stable isotope ratios to establish escapement levels for Pacific 

salmon. Fisheries. Volume 26(1), pages 6−14. 

Bilton, H.T., D.F. Alderdice, and J.T Schnute. 1982. Influence of time and size at release of juvenile 

coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on returns at maturity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. Volume 39, pages 426−447. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 13 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1998. Organic matter and trophic dynamics. In: Naiman R.J. and R.E. 

Bilby, editors. 1998. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. 

Springer-Verlag. 696 pages. 

Bradford, M.J., B.J. Pyper and K.S. Shortreed. 2000. Biological responses of sockeye salmon to the 

fertilization of Chilko Lake, a large lake in the interior of British Columbia. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. Volume 20, pages 661−671. 

Brakensiek, K.E. 2002. Abundance and survival rates of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

in Prairie Creek, Redwood National Park. Master’s thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, 

California. 110 pages. 

Cederholm, C.J. and N.P. Peterson. 1985. The retention of coho salmon (Oncorhynchuskisutch) 

carcasses in spawning streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 42, 

pages 1222–1225. 

Cederholm, C.J., D.B. Houston, D.L. Cole and W.J. Scarlett. 1989. Fate of coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) carcasses in spawning streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. Volume 46, pages 1347−1355. 

Cederholm, C.J., D.H. Johnson, R.E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez, A.M. Garrett, W.H. Graeber, E.L. Greda, 

M.D. Kunze, B.G. Marcot, J.F. Palmisano and others. 2000. Pacific salmon and wildlife-ecological 

contexts, relationships, and implications for management. Special Edition Technical Report 

prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil (managing directors), Wildlife−Habitat Relationships 

in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

138 pages. 

Cederholm, C.J., M.D. Kunze, T. Murota, A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses: essential 

contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries. Volume 

24(10), pages 6−15. 

Garten, C.T. 1993. Variation in foilar 15N abundance and the availability of soil nitrogen on Walker 

Branch watershed. Ecology. Volume 74(7), pages 2098−2113. 

Glock, J.W., H. Hartman, and Dr. L. Conquest. 1980. Skagit River chum salmon carcass drift study. 

Technical Report. City of Seattle, City Light Department. June 1980. Seattle, Washington. 86 

pages. 

Gresh, T, J. Lichatowich, P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current levels of salmon 

production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem. Fisheries. Volume 25(1), pages 15−21. 

Griswold, R.G., D. Takai, and J.G. Stockner. 2003. Redfish Lake sockeye salmon: nutrient 

supplementation as a means of restoration. Pages 197-212 in J.G. Stockner, editor. Nutrients in 

salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. American Fisheries Society, 

Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Groot, C. and L. Margolis, editors. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British 

Columbia. 564 pages. 

Hager, R.C. and R.E. Noble. 1976. Relation of size at release of hatchery-reared coho salmon to age, 

size, and sex composition of returning adults. Progressive Fish Culturist. Volume 38, pages 144–

147. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 14 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Hartman G.F., Scrivener, J.C. 1990. Impacts of forestry practices on a coastal stream ecosystem, 

Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 

223. 

Helfield, J.H. and R.J. Naiman. 2001. Effects of salmon-derived nitrogen on riparian forest growth and 

implications for stream productivity. Ecology. Volume 82(9), pages 2403−2409. 

Hilderbrand, G. V., S.D. Farley, C.T. Robbins, T.A. Hanley, K. Titus, and C. Servheen. 1996. Use of 

stable isotopes to determine diets of living and extinct bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

74:2080-2088. 

Hilderbrand, G.V., T.A. Hanley, C.T. Robbins, and C. Schwartz. 1999. Role of brown bears (Ursus 

arctos) in the flow of marine nitrogen into a terrestrial ecosystem. Oecologia 121:546-550. 

Hocking, M.D. and T.E. Reimchen. 2002. Salmon-derived nitrogen in terrestrial invertebrates from 

coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. BMC Ecology. Volume 2(4). 

Holtby L.B. 1988. Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, 

and associated impacts on the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 45, pages 502−515. 

Hyatt, K.D. and J.G. Stockner. 1985. Responses of sockeye salmon to fertilization of British Columbia 

coastal lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 42, pages 320−331. 

Johnston, N.T., C.J. Perrin, P.A. Slaney and B.R. Ward. 1990. Increased juvenile salmonid growth by 

whole-river fertilization. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 47, pages 

862−872. 

Kline, T.C., J.J. Goering, O.A. Mathisen, and P.H. Poe. 1990. Recycling of elements transported 

upstream by runs of Pacific salmon: I. δ (isotope)15N and δ (isotope)13C evidence in Sashin Creek, 

southeastern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 47, pages 

136−144. 

Kyle, G.B., J.P. Koenings and J.A. Edmundson. 1997. An overview of Alaska lake-rearing salmon 

enhancement strategy: nutrient enrichment and juvenile stocking. Ecological Studies. Volume 119, 

pages 205−227. 

Larkin, G.A. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Trends in marine-derived nutrient sources to south coastal British 

Columbia streams: impending implications to salmonid production. Watershed Restoration 

Management Report No. X. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and 

Parks and Ministry of Forests. 356 pages. 

Michael, J.H. 1995. Enhancement effects of spawning pink salmon on stream rearing juvenile coho 

salmon: managing one resource to benefit another. Northwest Science 69(3), pages 231−232. 

Michael, J.H. 1998. Pacific salmon spawner escapement goals for the Skagit River watershed as 

determined by nutrient cycling considerations. Northwest Science. Volume 72(4), pages 239−248. 

Murota, T. The marine nutrient shadow: a global comparison of anadromous fishery and guano 

occurrence. Pages 17–32 in J.G. Stockner, editor. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining 

production and biodiversity. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Murphy, M.L. 1998. Primary production. In: Naiman R.J. and R.E. Bilby, editors. 1998. River ecology 

and management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag. 696 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 15 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Naiman, R.J., S.R. Elliott, J.M. Helfield and T.C. O'Keefe TC. 2000. Biophysical interactions and the 

structure and dynamics of riverine ecosystems: the importance of biotic feedbacks. Hydrobiologia. 

Volume 410, pages 79−86. 

Northcote, T.G. 1988. Fish in the structure and function of freshwater ecosystems: A "top-down" view. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 45, pages 361−379. 

Pieters, R., S. Harris, L.C. Thompson, L. Vidmanic, M. Roushorne, G. Lawrence, J. G. Stockner, H. 

Andrusak, K.I. Ashley, B. Lindsay, K. Hall, and Darcy Lombard. 2003. Restoration of kokanee 

salmon in the Arrow lakes Reservoir, British Columbia: preliminary results of a fertilizer 

experiment. Pages 177-196 in J.G. Stockner, editor. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining 

production and biodiversity. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Piorkowski, R.J. 1995. Ecological effects of spawning salmon on several southcentral Alaskan streams. 

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 177 pages. 

Polis, G.A., W.B. Anderson and R.D. Holt. 1997. Toward an integration of landscape and food web 

ecology. Annual review of ecology and systematics. Volume 28, pages 289−316. 

Quamme, D.L. and P.A. Slaney. 2002. The relationship between nutrient concentration and stream 

insect abundance. In Stockner, J.G., editor. 2003 American Fisheries Society Symposium: 

Proceedings of the 2001 Nutrient Conference, Restoring Nutrients to Salmonid Ecosystems; April 

24–26, 2001, Eugene, Oregon. 

Quinn, T.P., Peterson, N.P. 1996. The influence of habitat complexity and fish size on over-winter 

survival and growth of individually marked juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Big 

Beef Creek, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 53, pages 

1555−1564. 

Reimchen, T.E., D.D. Mathewson, M.D. Hocking, J. Moran, and D. Harris. 2003. Isotopic evidence for 

enrichment of salmon-derived nutrients in vegetation, soil, and insects in riparian zones in coastal 

British Columbia. Pages 59-70 in J.G. Stockner, editor. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: 

sustaining production and biodiversity. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, 

Maryland. 

Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 397−445 in: Groot, 

C. and L. Margolis, editors. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British 

Columbia. 564 pages. 

Schindler, D.E., M.D. Scheuerell, J.W. Moore, S.M. Gende, T.B. Francis, and W. J. Palen. 2003. 

Pacific salmon and the ecology of coastal ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

1:31-37. 

Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, and L. Kishimoto. 2003. 2002 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook production 

evaluation. Annual Research Report FPA 03-11. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Olympia, Washington. 52 pages. 

Seiler, D., L. Kishimoto, and S. Neuhauser. 1999. 1998 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook production 

evaluation. Annual Research Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 

Washington. 73 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 16 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Slaney, P.A., B.R. Ward, and J.C. Wightman. 2003. Experimental nutrient addition to the Keogh River 

and application to the Salmon River in coastal British Columbia. Pages 111-126 in J.G. Stockner, 

editor. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. American 

Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Stockner, J.G., editor. 2003. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. 

American Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Stockner, J.G. and K. I. Ashley. 2003. Salmon nutrients: closing the circle. Pages 3-16 in J.G. Stockner, 

editor. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. American 

Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Stillaguamish Technical Advisory Group. September 2000. Technical assessment and 

recommendations for chinook salmon recovery in the Stillaguamish watershed. Snohomish County 

Surface Water and the Stillaguamish Tribe. IAC Salmon Recovery Office Grant #99-1219P. 108 

pages and appendices. 

Simensted, C.A. 1997. The relationship of estuarine primary and secondary productivity to salmonid 

production: bottleneck or window of opportunity? In Emmett, R.L. and M.H. Schiewe, editors. 

Estuarine and ocean survival of Northeastern Pacific salmon. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-NWFSC-29. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passed in the 

landscape era? Biological Conservation. Volume 83(3), pages 247−257. 

Ward, B.R. and P.A. Slaney. 1988. Life history and smolt-to-adult survival of Keogh River steelhead 

trout (Salmo gairdneri) and the relationship to smolt size. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. Volume 45, pages 1110 – 1122. 

Ward, B.R., D.J.F. McCubbing, and P.A. Slaney. 2003. Evaluation of the addition of inorganic 

nutrients and stream habitat structures in the Keogh River watershed for steelhead trout and coho 

salmon. Pages 127-148 in J.G. Stockner, editor. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining 

production and biodiversity. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland. 

 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puyallup Tribe. 2000. Puyallup River fall chinook 

baseline report. WDFW. Olympia, Washington. 

Wilson, M.F. and K.C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate 

communities. Conservation Biology. Volume 9(3), pages 489-497. 

Winter, B.D., R.R. Reisenbichler and E. Schreiner. 2000. The importance of marine-derived nutrients 

for ecosystem health and productive fisheries. Elwha Restoration Documents, Executive Summary. 

Wipfli, M.S., J. Hudson and J. Caouette. 1998. Influence of salmon carcasses on stream productivity: 

response of biofilm and benthic macroinvertebrates in southeastern Alaska, U.S.A. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 55, pages 1503−1511. 

Wipfli, M. S., J. P. Hudson, J. P. Caouette, ad D. T. Chaloner. 2003. Marine subsidies in freshwater 

ecosystems: salmon carcasses increase growth rates of stream-resident salmonids. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society 132:371-381. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 17 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Wilson, G.A., K.I. Ashley, R.W. Land, and P.A. Slaney. 2003. Experimental enrichment of two 

oligotrophic rivers in south coastal British Columbia. 2003. Pages 149-162 in J.G. Stockner, editor. 

Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. American Fisheries 

Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, Maryland. 

3.3.7 Selectivity on Biological Characteristics of Salmon 

Baranov, F.I. 1918. On the question of the biological basis of fisheries. Nauchn. Issled. 

Ikthiologicheskii Institute Izvestiia 1: 81−128. (In Russian) 

Baxter, R.D. 1991. Chinook salmon spawning behaviour: Evidence for size-dependent male spawning 

success and female mate choice. Masters Thesis, Humboldt State University. Arcata, California. 

Berejikian, B.A, E.P. Tezak, A.L. LaRae, A.L. 2000. Female mate choice and spawning behaviour of 

chinook salmon under experimental conditions. Journal of Fisheries Biology. Volume 57, pages 

647−661. 

Bevan, D. 1988. Problems of managing mixed-stock salmon fisheries. In McNeil, William J. (editor). 

Salmon Production, Management, and Allocation: Biological, Economic, and Policy Issues. 

Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Bigler, B.S. D. Welch, and J.H. Helle, 1996. A review of size trends among North Pacific salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 53, pages 

455−465. 

Clarke, W.C. and J. Blackburn. 1994. Effect of growth on early sexual maturation in stream-type 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Aquaculture. Volume 121, pages 95−103. 

Conover, D.O., and S.B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. 

Science. Volume 297, pages 94−96. 

Donaldson, L.R. and D. Menasveta. 1961. Selective breeding of chinook salmon. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 90:160-164. 

Hankin, D.G. and M.C. Healey. 1986. Dependence of exploitation rates for maximum yield and stock 

collapse on age and sex structure of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) stocks. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 43(9), pages 1746−1759. 

Hankin, D.G., J.W. Nicholas, and T.W. Downey. 1993. Evidence for inheritance of age of maturity in 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

Volume 50(2), pages 347−358. 

Hard. J. 2002. Case study of Pacific salmon. In U. Dieckmann, O. R. Godø, M. Heino, and J. Mork, 

editors. Fisheries-induced adaptive change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts (in press). 

Hard, J.J., A.C. Wertheimer, W.R. Heard, and R.M. Martin. 1985. Early male maturity in two stocks of 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) transplanted to an experimental hatchery in 

southeastern Alaska. Aquaculture. Volume 48, pages 351−359. 

Healey, M.C. 2001. Patterns of gametic investment by female stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon. 

Journal of Fish Biology. Volume 58, pages 1545−1556. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 18 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Groot, C. and L. 

Margolis, editors. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, 

Vancouver, British Columbia. 564 pages. 

Healey, M.C. and W.R. Heard. 1984. Inter- and intra-population variation in the fecundity of chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and its relevance to life history theory. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 41, pages 476−483. 

Heath, D.D., R.H. Delvin, J.W. Heath, and G.K. Iwama. 1994. Genetic, environmental and interaction 

effects of the incidence of jacking in Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (chinook salmon). Heredity. 

Volume 72, pages 146−154. 

Heath, D.D., G.K. Iwama, and R.H. Delvin. 1994. DNA fingerprinting used to test for family effects on 

precocious sexual maturation in two populations of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (chinook salmon). 

Heredity. Volume 73, pages 616−624. 

Heath, D.D., C.W. Fox, and J.W. Heath. 1999. Maternal effects on offspring size: variation through 

early development of chinook salmon. Evolution. Volume 53(5), pages 1605−1611. 

Henry, K. 1972. Ocean distribution, growth, and effects of the troll fishery on yield of fall chinook 

salmon from Columbia River hatcheries. Fishery Bulletin (United States). Volume 70, pages 

431−445. 

Hilborn, R. 1985. Apparent stock-recruitment relations in mixed stock fisheries. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 41, pages 718−723. 

Law, R. 2000. Fishing, selection and phenotypic evolution. International Council for the Exploration of 

the Sea (ICES) Journal of Marine Science. Volume 57, pages 659−668. 

Law, R. 1991. On the quantitative genetics of correlated characters under directional selection in agestructured populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, London, 

England. Volume 331, pages 213−223. 

Nicholas, J.W. and Hankin, D. G. 1988. Chinook salmon populations in Oregon coastal river basins: 

Description of life histories and assessment of recent trends in run strengths. Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Research and Development Division. Portland, Oregon. 359 pages. 

Ricker, W.E. 1981. Changes in the average size and average age of Pacific Salmon. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 38, pages 1636−1656. 

Ricker, W.E. 1980. Causes of the decrease in age and size of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha). Canadian Technical Report, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 944, page 25. 

Ricker, W.E. 1976. Review of the rate of growth and mortality of Pacific salmon in salt water, and 

noncatch mortality caused by fishing. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board, Canada. Volume 

33, pages 1483−1524. 

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin 

191. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

Ricker, W.E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid populations. The 

stock concept in Pacific salmon. R.C. Simon and P. Larkin. Mitchell Press, Limited. Vancouver, 

British Columbia. Pages 19−160. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 19 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Ricker, W.E. 1958. Maximum sustained yields from fluctuating environments and mixed stocks. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board. Canada. Volume 15(5), pages 991−1006. 

Rutter, C. 1904. Natural history of the quinnat salmon. A report of investigations in the Sacramento 

River, 1986−1901. Bulletin of the U.S. Fisheries Commission. Volume 1902, pages 65−141. 

Silverstein, J.T., and W.K Hershberger. 1992. Precocious maturation in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch): Estimation of the additive genetic variance. Journal of Heredity. Volume 83, pages 

282−286. 

Silverstein, J.T., K.D. Shearer, et al. (1998). Effects of growth and fatness on sexual development of 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) parr. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. Volume 55, pages 2376−2382. 

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. 

1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24. September 1995. 258 pages. 

3.3.8 Hatchery-Related Fishery Effects on Salmon 

Bakkala, R.G. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum) 

1792. FAO Species Synopsis No. 41. Circular 315. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, 

D.C. 89 pages. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. 

Berejikian, B.A. 1995. The effects of hatchery and wild ancestry on the behavioral development of 

steelhead trout fry (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, 

Washington. 

Bishop, Susan. Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. 2001. Data for figure provided 

by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding age of chinook salmon caught in 

Puget Sound commercial fisheries. 

Bugert, R., K. Petersen, G. Mendel, L. Ross, D. Milks, J. Dedloff, and M. Alexandersdottir. 1992. 

Lower Snake River compensation plan, Tucannon River spring chinook salmon hatchery 

evaluation plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho. 

Busack, C.A. and K.P. Currens. 1995. Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations: Fundamental 

concepts and issues. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15, pages 71−80. 

Campton, D.E. 1995. Genetic effects of hatcheries on wild populations of Pacific salmon and steelhead; 

what do we really know? American Fisheries Society Symposium 15, pages 337−353. 

Chilcote, M.W. 2003. Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in 

mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss). Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 60, pages 1057−1067. 

Chilcote, M. 1997. Conservation status of steelhead in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 20 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Chilcote, M.W., S.A. Leider, and J.J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of hatchery and 

wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society. Volume 115, pages 726−735. 

Cuenco, M.L., T.W.H. Backman, and P.R. Mundy. 1993. The use of supplementation to aid in natural 

stock restoration. In Genetic Conservation of Salmonid Fishes, J.G., Cloud and G.H. Thorgaard, 

editors. Plenum Press, New York, New York. 

Grant, S.W., Editor. 1997. Genetic effects of straying of non-native hatchery fish into natural 

populations: Proceedings of the workshop. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-30. 130 pages. 

Groot, C. and L. Margolis (editors). 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia 

Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 564 pages. 

Hard, J.J. 2004. Evolution of chinook salmon life history under size-selective harvest. In A. Hendry 

and S. Stearns (editors), Evolution Illuminated: Salmon and their relatives. Oxford University 

Press. Pages 315−337. 

Hard, J.J., R.P. Jones, M.R. Delarm, and R.S. Waples. 1992. Pacific salmon and artificial propagation 

under the Endangered Species Act. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical 

Memo, NMFS F/NWC-2. 56 pages. 

Hard and Hershberger. 1995. Quantitative genetic consequences of captive broodstock programs for 

anadromous Pacific salmon. In T.A. Flagg and C.V. W. Mahnken (eds). An assessment of the 

status of captive broodstock technology for Pacific salmon. Bonneville Power Administration 

Project 93-56. Portland, Oregon. 

Hard, J.J., A.C. Wertheimer, W.R. Heard, and R.M. Martin. 1985. Early male maturity in two stocks of 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) transplanted to an experimental hatchery in 

southeastern Alaska. Aquaculture. Volume 48, pages 351−359. 

Hillman, T.W. and J.W. Mullan. 1989. Effect of hatchery releases on the abundance of wild juvenile 

salmonids. In: Summer and Winter Ecology of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout in 

the Wenatchee River, Washington. Report to Chelan County Public Utility District by D.W. 

Chapman Consultants, Inc. Boise, Idaho. 

Hulett, P.L., C.W. Wagemann, and S.A. Leider. 1996. Studies of hatchery and wild steelhead in the 

lower Columbia region. Progress report for fiscal year 1995. Fish Management Program Report, 

Research and Development (RAD) 96-01, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. 22 pages. 

Joyce, J., A.C. Wertheimer, and J.F. Thedinga. 1998. Effects of four generations of domestication on 

predator avoidance, growth in captivity and predation success in a stock of Southeast Alaska 

salmon. Page 112 In: Ecosystem considerations in fisheries management. American Fisheries 

Society symposium. Anchorage, Alaska. 

Leider, S.A., P.L. Huelett, J.J. Loch, and M.W. Chilcote. 1990. Electrophoretic comparison of the 

reproductive success of naturally spawning transplanted and wild steelhead trout through the 

returning adult stage. Aquaculture. Volume 88, pages 239−252. 

Myers and Ten Co-authors. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 

and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 21 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Interim standards for the use of captive propagation 

technology in recovery of anadromous salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS, 

Sustainable Fisheries Division, Hatchery and Inland Fisheries Branch. Portland, Oregon. February 

1999. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 452 pages. 

Nickelson, T. 2003. The influence of hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the productivity 

of wild coho salmon populations in Oregon coastal basins. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. Volume 60, pages 1050−1056. 

Phelps, S.R., B.M. Baker, P.L. Hulett, and S.A. Leider. 1994. Genetic analyses of Washington 

steelhead: initial electrophoretic analysis of wild and hatchery steelhead and rainbow trout. 

Fisheries Management Program Report 94-9, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Olympia, Washington. 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. November 10, 2003. Abundance and productivity data tables 

summarizing key biological and life history data for the Green River chinook population. NOAA 

Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (PSIT and WDFW). 

2003. Puget Sound comprehensive chinook management plan: Harvest management component. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. February 19, 2003. 88 pages + appendices. 

Reisenbichler, R.R. and S.P. Rubin. 1999. Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific 

salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. International Council for 

Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Journal of Marine Science. Volume 56, pages 459−466. 

Species Interaction Work Group (SIWG). 1984. Evaluation of potential interaction effects in the 

planning and selection of salmonid enhancement projects. J. Rensel, chairman, and K. Fresh editor. 

Report prepared for the Enhancement Planning Team for implementation of the Salmon and 

Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 80 pages. 

Steward, C.R. and T.C. Bjornn. 1990. Supplementation of salmon and steelhead stocks with hatchery 

fish: A synthesis of published literature. In: Analysis of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation, 

William H. Miller, Editor. Report to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Project No. 88-100. 

Copies available from BPA, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 126 pages. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Biological assessments for operation of U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service-operated or funded hatcheries in the Columbia River basin in 1995-1998. 

Submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under cover letter, dated August 2, 1994, 

from William F. Shake, Acting USFWS Regional Director, to Brian Brown, NMFS. 

Waples, R.S., G.A. Winans, F.M. Utter, and C. Mahnken. 1990. Genetic monitoring of Pacific salmon 

hatcheries. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration) Technical Report NMFS 

(National Marine Fisheries Service) 92. 

Waples, R.S. 1996. Toward a risk/benefit analysis for salmon supplementation. Unpublished paper 

presented at a workshop on captive breeding in the restoration of endangered species, Newport, 

Oregon. October 1996. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 22 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

3.4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibilities 

Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. United States, 966 F. 2d 583. 10th Circuit. 1992. 

Executive Order No. 13175, 65 Federal Register 67249. November 6, 2000. 

Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U.S. 86. 1949. 

Klamath Water Users Protective Association v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206. 9th Circuit. 2000. 

Letter from Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere to Ted Strong, Chairman of Columbia 

River Inter-tribal Fish Commission. July 21, 1998. 

Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404. 1968. 

Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa, 526 U.S.172. 1999. 

Muckleshoot v. Hall, 698 F.Supp.1504 Western District Washington. 1988. 

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation, 234 F.3d 1099. 9th Circuit. 2000. 

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Lummi Indian Nation, 141 F.3d 1355. 9th Circuit. 1998. 

Northwest Sea Farms v. Army Corps of Engineers, 931 Federal Supplement 1515. Western District 

Washington. 1996. 

Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association. v. State of Washington, 966 P.2d 928. Washington Appellate. 

1998. 

Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Department of Fish and Game, 391, U.S. 392. 1968. 

Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Department, 433 U.S. 165. 1977. 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 354 Federal Supplement 252. District Court for the 

District of Columbia. 1973. 

Secretarial Order No. 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and 

the Endangered Species Act. June 5, 1997. 

Seminole Nation v. United States, 316, U.S. 286. 1942. 

Settler v. Lameer, 507 F.2d 231. 9th Circuit. 1974. 

Seufert Brothers Company. v. United States, 249, U.S. 194. 1919. 

25 U. S. Code Section 177. 

Treaty of Medicine Creek , Article III, 10 Statute 1132. 

Treaty of Neah Bay, 12 Statute 939. 

Treaty of Olympia, 12 Statute 971. 

Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Statute 927. 

Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Statute 933. 

Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681. 1942. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 23 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

United States Constitution, Article. I, Section 8, clause 3. 

United States v. Billie, 667, Federal Supplement 1485. Southern District of Florida. 1987. 

United States v. Dion, 476, U.S. 734. 1986. 

United States v. Dion, 752 F.2d 1261 (8th Circuit 1985), reversed on other grounds, United States v. 

Dion, 476 U.S. 734. 1986. 

United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 304 U.S. 111. 1938. 

United States v. Washington – In reference to Chehalis Contempt Citations, 761 F. 2d 1419. 9th 

Circuit. 1985. 

United States v. Washington, 157 F.3d 630. 9th Circuit. 1998. 

United States v. Washington, 384 Federal Supplement 312. Western District Washington. 1974. 

United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676. 9th Circuit. 1975. 

United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353. 9th Circuit. 1985. 

United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371. 1905. 

Washington Game Department v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44. 1973. 

Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658. 

1979. 

Wilkinson, The role of bilateralism in fulfilling the federal-tribal relationship: The Tribal RightsEndangered Species Secretarial Order, 72 Wash. L Rev. 1063. 1977. 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Babbitt, 915 Federal Supplement, 957. District Court of the District of 

Columbia. 1996. 

Worcester v. Georgia, 31, U.S. 515. 1832. 

3.5 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Salmon Uses 

American Indians of the Pacific Northwest Digital Collection. University of Washington Digital 

Collections. http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/index.html. Native American Collection No. 

275 Negative No. NA 1937; Norman Edson Collection No. 475 Negative Number NA 709; 

General Indian Collection no. 564 Negative Number NA 689; Norman Edson Collection No. 475 

Negative No. NA 729; Norman Edson Collection No. 475 Negative No. NA 710; McCurdy 

Collection Negative No. MOHAI 1955.970.470.23; William F. Boyd Album Collection no.34 

Negative No. NA4183. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter 

I, Section 1996. 

Ballard, Arthur. 1957. The Salmon weir on Green River in Western Washington. Davidson Journal of 

Anthropology, Seattle, Washington. Volume 3. Pages 37-53. 

Ballard, Arthur. 1929. Mythology of Southern Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in 

Anthropology, Seattle, Washington. 3 (2). Pages 31-150. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 24 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Ballard, Arthur. 1927. Some tales of the Southern Puget Sound Salish. University of Washington 

Publications in Anthropology, Seattle, Washington. 2 (3). Pages 57-81. 

Bates, Dawn, Thom Hess, Vi Hilbert; edited by Dawn Bates. 1994. Lushootseed dictionary. University 

of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 381 pages. 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, 

Washington. January 13, 2003. Personal communication e-mail to Llyn De Danaan regarding “C & 

S” designation on fish receiving tickets. 

Clausen, Jan. 2000. One fish, two fish. The Nation. Volume 270, issue 3, page 22. 

Croes, Dale. 1996. The Hoko River archaeological site complex. Washington State University Press, 

Pullman, Washington. 256 pages. 

Deloria, Jr., Vine. 1977. Indians of the Pacific Northwest: from the coming of the whiteman to the 

present day. 207 pages. 

Elmendorf, William. [1960] 1992. The structure of Twana culture. Washington State University Press, 

Pullman, Washington. 576 pages. 

Gibbs, George. [1854] 1967. Indian tribes of Washington territory. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, 

Washington. facsimile reproduction. 56 pages. 

Gibbs, George. [1856] 1877. Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon. Contributions to 

North American ethnography. Volume 1 (2). John Wesley Powell, editor U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region. Pages 157−361, 

and 194−196. 

Gibbs, George. [1877] 1970. A dictionary of the Niskwalli (Nisqually) Indian language–Western 

Washington. Shorey Book Store facsimile reproduction, Seattle, Washington. Pages 285−361. 

Gunther, Erna. 1950. The Indian background of Washington history. Pacific Northwest Quarterly. July. 

Pages 189−202. 

Gunther, Erna. 1928. A further analysis of the first salmon ceremony. University of Washington 

publications in anthropology, Seattle, Washington. 2 (5). Pages 129−173. 

Gunther, Erna. 1927. Klallam ethnography. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology, 

Seattle, Washington. Volume 1(5), pages 173−314. 

Gunther, Erna. 1926. Analysis of first salmon ceremony. American Anthropologist. 28(4). Pages 605-

617. 

Haeberlin, Herman and Erna Gunther. 1930. The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington 

Press, Seattle, Washington. 83 pages. 

Hess, Thom. 1976. Dictionary of Puget Salish. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 

770 pages. 

Isely, Mary B. and others. 1970. Uncommon controversy: fishing rights of the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, 

and Nisqually Indians. A report prepared for American Friends Service Committee. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 232 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 25 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Smith, Marian. 1940. The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University contributions to anthropology. 

Volume XXXII. Columbia University Press, New York. 336 pages. 

Stein, Julie. 2003. Vashon Island archeology. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 

168 pages. 

Stein, Julie. 2000. Exploring Coast Salish prehistory. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 

Washington. 126 pages. 

Stern, Bernard. 1934. The Lummi Indians of northwest Washington. Columbia University 

contributions to anthropology, Volume 17. Columbia University Press, New York, New York: 127 

pages. 

Swindell, Edward G. 1942. Report on source, nature, and extent of the fishing, hunting, and 

miscellaneous related rights of certain Indian tribes in Washington and Oregon together with 

affidavits showing location of a number of usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations. 

United States Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, Division of Forestry and 

Grazing, Los Angeles, California. 483 pages. 

Upchurch, O.C. 1936. The Swinomish People and Their State. Pacific Northwest Quarterly. 1936, 

Volume 27 (4). Pages 283−310. 

Waterman, T.T. [1921] 1973. Notes on the ethnology of the Indians of Puget Sound. Museum of the 

American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York: 96 pages. 

Wilkinson, Charles. 2000. Messages from Frank’s Landing. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 

Washington. 118 pages. 

Wray, Jacilee, editor. 2002. Native peoples of the Olympic Peninsula. University of Oklahoma Press, 

Norman, Oklahoma. 185 pages. 

3.6 Economic Activity and Value 

Gentner, B., M. Price, S. Steinbeck. 2001. Marine angler expenditures in the Pacific Coast Region, 

2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-49. Silver Springs, Maryland. November 2001. 

Hoines, Lee. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). December 18, 2002 and January 

17, 2003. Personal communication with Tom Wegge, TCW Economics (one of the NEPA EIS 

authors) concerning data from the WDFW License and Fish Ticket database (LIFT) system. 

Loomis, John. 1996a. Measuring the Economic Benefits of Removing Dams and Restoring the Elwha 

River: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey. Water Resources Research, 32(2):441-447. 

Meyer, Phillip. 1974. Recreation and Preservation Values Associated With Salmon of the Frasier 

River. Environment Canada. PAC/IN-74-1, Vancouver, Canada. 

Manning, Terrie. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). December 19, 2002. 

Personal communication with Doug McNair, The William Douglas Company (one of the NEPA 

EIS authors) concerning data from the sport fishing database. 

McNair, Doug. The William Douglas Company. December 20, 2002. Personal communication with 

Tom Wegge, TCW Economics (one of the NEPA EIS authors) concerning data for the non-tribal 

harvest from the WDFW LIFT system. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 26 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Meyer, Phil. Meyer Resources, Inc. December 17, 2002. Personal communication with Tom Wegge, 

TCW Economics (one of the NEPA EIS authors), concerning data for tribal harvest from the 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Tribal Fish Ticket database. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group. 2000. Impact Analysis and Planning (IMPLAN) data package for 

Washington. Stillwater, Minnesota. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group. 2000. User’s guide, analysis guide, and data guide for the Impact Analysis 

and Planning (IMPLAN) Professional, Version 2.0. Stillwater, Minnesota. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Draft programmatic environmental impact statement for 

Pacific salmon fisheries management off the coasts of Southeast Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and 

California, and in the Columbia River Basin. Seattle, Washington. 

Olsen, Darryll, Jack Richards and R.Douglas Scott. 1991. Existence and Sport Values for Doubling the 

Size of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Runs. Rivers 2(1):44-56. 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 1999. Community descriptions, draft report. Portland, Oregon. 

Radtke, Hans. The Research Group. October 21, 2003. Personal communication, e-mail to Tom 

Wegge, TCW Economics (one of the NEPA EIS authors), concerning net economic values for 

commercial fishing for salmon in the Columbia River and Puget Sound. 

Randall, Alan and John Stoll. 1983. "Existence and Sport Values in a Total Valuation Framework." in 

R. Rowe and L. Chestnut, Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and 

Wilderness Areas. Westview Press: Boulder, CO. 

Ranta, Richard. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries Division, Northwest 

Region. April 4, 2003. Personal communication with Tom Wegge, TCW Economics (one of the 

NEPA EIS authors), concerning data from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

License and Fish Ticket (LIFT) database. 

Stoll, John and Lee Ann Johnson. 1984. Concepts of Value, Nonmarket Valuation and the Case of the 

Whooping Crane. Transactions of the 49th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, D.C. 

The Research Group. 1991. Oregon angler survey and economic study, final report. Prepared for the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Washington Department of Community Development. 1988. Economic impacts and net economic 

values associated with non-Indian salmon and sturgeon fisheries. Prepared by ICF Technology 

Incorporated. Olympia, Washington. 

3.7 Environmental Justice 

Hoines, Lee. Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. December 

2002. Personal communication with Phil Meyer, Meyer Resources, Inc., re: data that may 

distinguish the race of fishermen (none known). 

Seagar, Jim. Pacific Marine Fisheries Council, Olympia, Washington. December 2002. Personal 

communication with Phil Meyer, Meyer Resources, Inc., re: data that may distinguish the race of 

fishermen (none known). 

U.S. Census. 2000. Summary File 3, Tables P6 and P88. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 27 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. National guidance for conducting environmental justice 

analysis. Office of Environmental Justice. Specific pages cited: pages ix, 18, 42 (Figure 6), and 43 

(Figure 7). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. Reviewing for environmental justice: EIS and 

permitting resource guide. NEPA Review. Region 10 – Environmental Justice Office. Specific 

page cited: p. 2. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Participation and expenditure patterns of African-American, 

Hispanic and women hunters and anglers. Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. 1996 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated 

recreation: Washington. Specific page cited: page 25. 

United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision. 384 Federal Supplement 312; 1974 U.S. District LEXIS 

12291. Specific page cited: 100. 

3.8 Wildlife 

Anderson, J.D. 1993. Seabird interactions in Puget Sound purse seine fisheries. Paper presented to 

Pacific Seabird Group 20th Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, February 9-13, 1993. 

Anderson, D.W. and F. Gress. 1983. Status of a northern population of California brown pelicans. 

Condor. Volume 85, pages 79-88. 

Anderson, D.W., J.R. Jehl, Jr., R.W. Risebrough, L.A. Woods, Jr., L.R. Deweese, and W.G. 

Edgecomb. 1975. Brown pelicans: Improved reproduction off the southern California coast. 

Science. Volume 190, pages 806-808. 

Angell, T., K.C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine birds and mammals of Puget Sound. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 145 pages. 

Baird, R.W., K.M. Langelier, and P.J. Stacey. 1989. First records of false killer whales, Pseudorca 

crassidens, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist. Volume 103, pages 368-371. 

Barlow, J., R.L. Brownell, Jr., D.P. DeMaster, K.A. Forney, M.S. Lowry, S. Osmek, T.J. Ragen, R.R. 

Reeves, and R.J. Small. 1995. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-219. U.S. Department of Commerce, La Jolla, California. 162 

pages. 

Beach, R.J., A.C. Geiger, S.J. Jeffries, S.D. Treacy, and B.L. Troutman. 1985. Marine mammals and 

their interactions with fisheries of the Columbia River and adjacent waters, 1980-1982. Processed 

Report 237. NOAA, NMFS Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center. 316 pages. 

Beattie, William. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Olympia, Washington. December 19, 2003. Personal communication with Greg Green, TetraTech 

FW, re: current Puget Sound fishing effort. 

Beauchamp, W.D., F. Cooke, C. Lougheed, L.W. Lougheed, C.J. Ralph, and S. Courtney. 1999. 

Seasonal movements of marbled murrelets: evidence from banded birds. The Condor. Volume 101, 

pages 671-674. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 28 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Bessinger, S.R. 1995. Population trends of the marbled murrelet projected from demographic analyses. 

Pages 385-393 in: Ralph, C.J., G.L Hunt Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, technical editors. 1995. 

Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. 

Bessinger, S.R. and N. Nur. 1997. Population trends of the marbled murrelet projected from 

demographic analyses. Pages B1-B35 in: Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet 

(Brachyamphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 

Bigg, M.A., G.M. Ellis, J.K.B. Ford, and K.C. Balcomb, III. 1987. Killer whales. A study of their 

identification, genealogy, and natural history in British Columbia and Washington State. Phantom 

Press and Publishers, Inc. Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. 79 pages 

Booth, D.E. 1991. Estimating prelogging old-growth in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry. 

Volume 89(10), pages 25−29. 

Bowlby, C.E., G.A. Green, and M.L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of 

Washington and Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist. Volume 75, pages 33−35. 

Bowlby, C.E., B.L. Troutman, and S.J. Jeffries. 1988. Sea otters in Washington: distribution, 

abundance, and activity patterns. Final report, prepared for the National Coastal Resources 

Research and Development Institute. Newport, Oregon. 

Breen, P.A. 1990. A review of ghost fishing by traps and gill nets. Pages 571-599 in: Shomura, R.S. 

and M.L. Godfrey, editors. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 

April, 1989, Honolulu, HI. NOAA technical memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. 

Buchanan, J.B., D.H. Johnson, E.L. Greda, G.A. Green, T.R. Wahl, and S.J. Jeffries. 2001. Wildlife of 

coastal and marine habitats. Pages 389-422 in: Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neill, editors. 2001. 

Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

Oregon. 

Calambokidis, J., R.D. Everitt, J.C. Cubbage, and S.D. Carter. 1979. Harbor seal census for the inland 

waters of Washington, 1977-1978. The Murrelet. Volume 60, pages 110−112. 

Calambokidis, J., S.D. Osmek, and J.L. Laake. 1997. Aerial surveys for marine mammals in 

Washington and British Columbia inside waters. Final Report by Cascadia Research, Olympia, 

Washington, to National Marine Mammal Laboratory, AFSC, NMFS, Seattle, Washington. 96 

pages. 

Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, K. Rasmussen, J. Urbán-Ramirez, K.C. Balcomb, P. Ladrón de 

Guevera-Porras, M. Salinas-Zacarías., J.K. Jacobsen, C.S. Baker, L.M. Herman, S. Cerchio, and 

J.D. Darling. 2000. Migratory destinations of humpback whales that feed off California, Oregon, 

and Washington. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 192, pages 295−304. 

Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, J.M. Straley, L.M. Herman, S. Cerchio, D.R Salden, J. Urbán-Ramirez, 

J.K. Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K.C. Balcomb, C.M. Gabriele, M.E. Dahlheim, S. Uchida, G. Ellis, 

Y. Miyamura, P. Ladrón de Guevara-Porras, M. Yamaguchi, F. Sato, S.A. Mizroch, L. Schlender, 

K. Rasmussen, and J. Barlow. 2001. Movements and population structure of humpback whales in 

the North Pacific Basin. Marine Mammal Science. Volume 17, pages 769−794. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 29 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Calambokidis, John. Senior Research Biologist, Cascadia Research, Olympia, Washington. December 

16, 2002. Personal communication with Gregory Green, Foster Wheeler Environmental 

Corporation, re: gray whales and humpback whales in Washington waters. 

Cameron, G.A. and K.A. Forney. 1999. Preliminary estimates of cetacean mortality in the California 

gillnet fisheries for 1997 and 1998. Paper SC/51/O4 presented to the International Whaling 

Commission (unpublished). 14 pages. 

Carretta, J.V., K. A. Forney, M. M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, and M. Lowry. 2004.U.S. Pacific marine 

mammal stock assessments: 2003. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-358. 295 pages 

Carter, H.R., G.J. McChesney, D.L. Jaques, C.S. Strong, M.W. Parker, J.E. Takekawa, D.L. Jory, and 

D.L. Whitworth. 1992. Breeding populations of seabirds in California, 1989−1991. Volume 1. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Biological Services Division, California Science Center, Dixon, California. 

Carter, H.R., D.S. Gilmer, J.E. Takekawa, R.W. Lowe, and U.W. Wilson. 1995a. Breeding seabirds in 

California, Oregon, and Washington. Pages 43-49 in: LaRoe, E.T., G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. 

Doran, and M.J. Mac, editors. 1995. Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, 

abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. National Biological Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

Carter, H.R., M.L.C. McAllister, and M.E. Isleib. 1995b. Mortality of marbled murrelets in gill nets in 

North America. Pages 271-283 in: Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt Jr., M.C. Raphael, and F.J. Piatt, editors. 

Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-152. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. 

Carter, H.R, U.W. Wilson, R.W. Lowe, M.S. Rodway, D.A. Manuwal, J.E. Takekawa, and J.L. Yee. 

2001. Population trends of the common murre (Uria aalge californica). Pages 33-132 in D.A. 

Manuawal, H.R. Carter, T.S. Simmerman, and D.L. Orthmeyer, editors. Biology and conservation 

of the common murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Volume 1: 

Natural history and population trends. U.S. Geological Survey, Information and Technology Report 

USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0012, Washington, D.C. 

Cass, V. 1985. Exploitation of California sea lions, Zalophus californianus, prior to 1972. Marine 

Fisheries Review. Volume 47(1), pages 36−38. 

Chatwin, T.A., M.H. Mather, and T.D Giesbrecht. 2002. Changes in pelagic and double-crested 

cormorant nesting populations in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist. 

Volume 83(3), pages 109−117. 

Christensen, O. and W.H. Lear. 1977. Bycatches in salmon drift nets at West Greenland in 1972. 

Meddelelser om Grønland. Volume 205(5), pages 1−38. 

Clowater, J.S. 1998. Distribution and foraging behaviour of wintering western grebes. M.Sc. thesis, 

Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia. 76 pages. 

Courtney, S.P., D.M. Brosnan, R.A.J. Merizon, W. Beattie, D. Evans, T. Grubba, W. Kerschke, J. 

Luginbuhl, R. Millner, E. Neatherlin, D. Nysewander, M. Raphael, and M. Salema. 1997. Seabird 

surveys in Puget Sound 1996. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute report to the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission. Portland, Oregon. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 30 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

DeGange, A.R, R.H. Day, J.E. Takekawa, and V.M. Mendenhall. 1993. Losses of seabirds in gillnets in 

the North Pacific. Pages 204−211 in: Vermeer, K. K.T. Briggs, K.H. Morgan, and D. SiegelCausey, editors. Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Pacific Seabird Group, 

Canadian Wildlife Service, and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 

Victoria, British Columbia, February 1990. Published 1993 as Canadian Wildlife Service, Special 

Publication, Ministry of Supply and Services, Canada. Catalog Number CW66-124-1993E. 

Dethier, M.N. 1990. A Marine and Estuarine Habitat Classification System for Washington State. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 

56 pages. 

Drent, R.H. 1965. Breeding biology of the pigeon guillemot, Cepphus columba. Ardea. Volume 53, 

pages 99−160. 

Erstad, P., S.J. Jeffries, and D. J. Pierce. 1996. 1994 report for the Puget Sound fishery observer 

program in management areas 10/11 and 12/12B: Nontreaty chum gill net fishery. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 14 pages. 

Erstad, P., S.J. Jeffries, and D.J. Pierce. 1994. Preliminary report for Areas 7 and 7A Puget Sound 

Fishery Program: Non-treaty sockeye gill net fishery. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

report, Olympia, Washington. 10 pages. 

Evenson, J.R., D.R. Nysewander, B.L. Murphie, T.A. Cyra, and M. Mahaffy. 2001. Pigeon guillemot 

breeding colony status for the inland marine waters of Washington State, as captured by Puget 

Sound Ambient Monitoring Program efforts, 1999−2000. Poster presentation for, Puget Sound 

Research Conference, February 12−14, 2001. 

Evenson, J.R., D.R. Nysewander, B.L. Murphie, T.A. Cyra and M. Mahaffy. 2003. Status, abundance 

and colony distribution of breeding Pigeon Guillemots from the inland marine waters of 

Washington State, as documented by Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Efforts, 2000-2002. Poster 

presentation for: Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference, March 31-April 3, 2003, 

Vancouver, B.C. Available In: T.W. Droscher and D.A. Fraser (eds.). Proceedings of the 2003 

Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference. 

Everitt, R.D., C.H. Fiscus, and R.L. Delong. 1979. Marine mammals of northern Puget Sound and the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca: a report on investigations November 1, 1977 to October 31, 1978. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum ERL MESA 41. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. 191 pages. 

Everitt R., P. Gearin, J. Skidmore, and R. DeLong. 1981. Prey items of harbor seals and California sea 

lions in Puget Sound, Washington. Murrelet. Volume 62, pages 83−86. 

Ewins, P.J. 1993. Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba). Number 49 in Poole, A., P. Stennheim, and F. 

Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA; 

The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 24 pages. 

Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, L.G. Barrett-Lennard, A.B. Morton, R.S. Palm, and K.C. Balcomb III. 1998. 

Dietary specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal 

British Columbia and adjacent waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology. Volume 76, pages 

1456−1471. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 31 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Forney, K.A., S.R. Benson, and G.A. Cameron. 2001. Central California gillnet effort and bycatch of 

sensitive species, 1990-98. Pages 141−160 in: E. F. Melvin and J. K. Parrish (editors). 2001. 

Seabird bycatch: trends, roadblocks and solutions. Proceedings of an international symposium of 

the Pacific Seabird Group, Semi-Ah-Moo, Washington, February 1999. University of Alaska Sea 

Grant publication AK-SG-01-01, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Gearin, Patrick. Senior Research Biologist, NOAA−National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, 

Washington. December 30, 2002. Personal communication with Gregory Green, Foster Wheeler 

Environmental Corporation, re: gray whale entanglement. 

Gearin, P.J., R. Pfeifer, and S.J. Jeffries. 1986. Control of California sea lion predation of winter-run 

steelhead at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, Seattle, December 1985−April 1986. Fishery 

Management Report #86-20. Washington Department of Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington. 108 

pages 

Gearin, P.J., R. Pfeifer, S.J. Jeffries, R.L. DeLong, and M.A. Johnson. 1988. Results of the 1986-1987 

California sea lion-steelhead trout predation control program at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. 

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center Processed Report 88-30. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 

Seattle, Washington. 

Gearin, P.J., S.R. Melin, R.L. DeLong, H. Kajimura, and M.A. Johnson. 1994. Harbor porpoise 

interactions with a chinook salmon set-net fishery in Washington State. Pages 427−438 in: W.F. 

Perrin, G.P. Donovan, and J. Barlow, editors. Gillnets and cetaceans: incorporating the proceedings 

of the symposium and workshop on the mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps. 

October 1990, La Jolla, California. Whaling Commission Special Issue Number 15. 

Gearin, P.J., S.J. Jeffries, R.L. DeLong, and M.E. Gosho. 2001. Update of California sea lion captures 

and surveys in Puget Sound, Washington. 6 pages. 

Green, G.A., J.J. Brueggeman, C.E. Bowlby, R.A. Grotefendt, M.L. Bonell, and K.C. Balcomb, III. 

1992. Cetacean distribution and abundance off Oregon and Washington 1989-1990. Final report 

prepared by Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue, Washington, and Ecological Consulting, Inc., 

Portland, Oregon, for the Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

91-0093. 100 pages 

Hamel, N. and J. Parrish. 2001. On the trail of common murres in Puget Sound: heading for safe or 

troubled waters? Abstract, poster presentation, Puget Sound Research Conference, February 12−14, 

2001. 

Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting stands. 

Pages 69-82 in: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, technical editors. 1995. 

Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. 

High, W.L. 1985. Some consequences of lost fishing gear. Pages 430−437 in: Shomura, R.S. and H.O. 

Yoshida, editors. 1985. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, 

November 26−29, 1984, Honolulu, HI. NOAA technical memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC54. 

Hill, P.S., and D.P. DeMaster. 1999. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 1999. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-110. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Seattle, 

Washington. 166 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 32 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Hobbs, R.C. and D.J. Rugh. 1999. The abundance of gray whales in the 1997−98 southbound migration 

in the eastern North Pacific. International Whaling Commission, Scientific Committee document 

SC/51/AS10. 18 pages. 

Hoffman, W., J.A. Wiens, and J.M. Scott. 1978. Hybridization between gulls (Larus glaucescens and

L. occidentalis) in the Pacific Northwest. The Auk. Volume 95, pages 441−458. 

Jameson, R.J. and S. Jeffries. 2003. Results of the 2003 survey of the reintroduced sea otter population 

in Washington State. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Science Program, 600 Capitol 

Way No., Olympia, Washington. 

Jameson, R.J. and S. Jeffries. 2000. Results of the 2000 survey of the reintroduced sea otter population 

in Washington State. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Santa Cruz, 

California. 6 pages. 

Jaques, D.L., R.W. Lower, and D.W. Anderson. 1994. Brown pelican range expansion in the eastern 

north Pacific: roles of tradition and climate change. Chapter 1 in: Jaques, D.L. 1994. Range 

expansion and roosting ecology of non-breeding California brown pelicans. Masters thesis, 

Department of Ecology, University of California, Davis, California. 133 pages. 

Jeffries, S.J., P.J. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of seal and sea lion 

haulout sites in Washington. Wildlife Science Division, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 150 pages. 

Jeffries, S., H. Huber, J. Laake, and J. Calambokidis. 2001. Status and trends of harbor seal stocks in 

Washington State, 1978−1999. Abstract, poster presentation, Puget Sound Research Conference, 

February 12-14, 2001. 

Jeffries, S., H. Huber, J. Calambokidis, and J. Laake. 2003. Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 

67(1), pages 208-219. 

Jeffries, Steve. Research Scientist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. July 30, 2004. Personal communication to Susan Bishop, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, regarding life history and fishing effects on marine mammals and birds in Puget Sound. 

Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neill. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 736 pages 

Julian, F. and M. Beeson. 1998. Estimates of marine mammal, turtle, and seabird mortality for two 

California gillnet fisheries: 1990-95. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 96, pages 271−284. 

Kajimura, H. 1990. Harbor porpoise interactions with Makah salmon set net fishery in coastal 

Washington waters, 1988−89. Draft report. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington. 

Keyes, M.C. 1968. The nutrition of pinnipeds. Pages 359−395 in: R.J. Harrison, editor. The behavior 

and physiology of pinnipeds. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, New York. 

Knight, R.L., P.J. Randolph, G.T. Allen, L.S. Young, and R.J. Wigen. 1990. Diets of nesting bald 

eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, in western Washington. Canadian Filed-Naturalist. Volume 104, 

pages 545-551. 

Koelink, A.F. 1972. Bioenergetics of growth in the Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba. Master of 

Science thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 71 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 33 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Kozloff, E.N. 1996. Seashore life of the northern Pacific coast. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle, Washington. 539 pages. 

Laake, J.L., R.L. DeLong, J. Calambokidis, and S. Osmek. 1997a. Abundance and distribution of 

marine mammals in Washington and British Columbia inside waters, 1996. Pages 67−73 in:

MMPA and ESA Implementation Program, 1996. AFSC Processed Report 97−10. National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington. 

Laake, J.L., J. Calambokidis, S.D. Osmek, and D.J. Rugh. 1997b. Probability of detecting harbor 

porpoise from aerial surveys: estimating g(0). Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 61(1), 

pages 63−75. 

Lance, M.M., S.J. Jeffries and J.M. London. 2001. Diet of harbor seals in Hood Canal during 1998 and 

1999. Poster presentation, Puget Sound Research Conference, February 12−14, 2001. 

Lennert, C., S. Kruse, M. Beeson, and J. Barlow. 1994. Estimates of incidental marine mammal 

bycatch in California gillnet fisheries for July through December, 1990. Report of the International 

Whaling Commission (Special Issue 15). 

Leschner, L. 1976. The breeding biology of the rhinoceros auklet on Destruction island. Masters of 

Science thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 77 pages. 

London, J.M., M.M. Lance, and S.J. Jeffries. 2002. Observations of harbor seal predation on Hood 

Canal salmonids form 1998 to 2000. Final report, studies of expanding pinniped populations, 

NOAA Grant Number MA17FX1603, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. 

Lowe, Roy. Refuge Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newport, Oregon. February 25, 2003. 

Personal communication with Gregory Green, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, re: 

common murre populations in Oregon. 

Lummi Nation. 1994. Lummi seabird salmon fishery interaction project. Unpublished report to BIA 

and USFWS, Department of Natural Resources, Lummi Nation. 

Mahaffy, M.S., D.R. Nysewander, K.M. Ament, A.K. McMillan, and D.E. Tillit. 2001. Environmental 

contaminants in bald eagles nesting in Hood Canal, Washington, 1992−1997. Final report, study 

number 13410-1130-1F05. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. 33 pages. 

Manuwal, D.A., T.R. Wahl, and S.M. Speich. 1979. The seasonal distribution and abundance of marine 

bird populations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and northern Puget Sound in 1978. Technical 

Memorandum ERL-MESA-44. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Washington, D.C. 391 pages. 

Manuwal, D.A. and H.R. Carter. 2001. Natural history of the common murre (Uria aalge californica). 

Pages 1-32 in Manuawal, D.A., H.R. Carter, T.S. Simmerman, and D.L. Orthmeyer, editors. 

Biology and conservation of the common murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British 

Columbia. Volume 1: Natural history and population trends. U.S. Geological Survey, Information 

and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0012, Washington, DC. 

Matkin, G.O. and F.H. Fay. 1980. Marine mammal fishery interactions on the Copper River and in 

Prince William Sound, Alaska, 1978. Report Number MMC-78107. Marine Mammal Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 71 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 34 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Melvin, E.F. and L. Conquest. 1996. Reduction of seabird bycatch in salmon drift gillnet fisheries. 

1995 sockeye/pink salmon fishery final report. Washington Sea Grant Program, University of 

Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Melvin, E.F., L. Conquest, and J.K. Parrish. 1997. Seabird bycatch reduction: new tools for Puget 

Sound drift gillnet fisheries. 1996 sockeye and 1995 chum salmon test fisheries-final report. 

Washington Sea Grant publication WSG-AS 97-01. Seattle, Washington. 

Melvin, E.F, J.K. Parrish, and L.L. Conquest. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal 

gillnet fisheries. Conservation Biology. Volume 13(6), pages 1386−1397. 

Morejohn, G.V. 1979. The natural history of Dall’s porpoise in the North Pacific Ocean. Pages 45−83 

in: Winn, H.E. and B.L. Olla, editors. Behavior of marine animals: current perspectives in research. 

Vol. 3: Cetaceans. Plenum Press, New York, New York. 438 pages. 

Morgan, K.H. 1989. Marine birds of Saanich Inlet, a Vancouver Island fjord entering the Strait of 

Georgia. Pages 158−163 in: Vermeer, K. and R.W. Butler, editors. 1989. The ecology and status of 

marine and shoreline birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Proceedings of a symposium 

sponsored by the Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society and the Canadian Wildlife Service, 

held in Sidney, B.C., 11 December 1987. Special Publication, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001a. Supplemental environmental impact statement. 

Steller sea lion protection measures in the federal groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Alaska Regional 

Office, NMFS, Juneau, Alaska. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001b. Stock assessment report: Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus), eastern U.S. stock. 8 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000a. Stock assessment report: California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), U.S. stock. 7 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000b. Stock assessment report: Dall's porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli), California/Oregon/Washington stock. 4 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000c. Stock assessment report: harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena), Washington inland waters stock. 7 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Stock assessment report: harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 

richardsi), inland Washington stock. 7 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997. Investigation of scientific information on the 

impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems 

of Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-28. 172 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1992. Recovery plan for the Steller sea lion. Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Silver Springs, Maryland. 99 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for U.S. 

Pacific populations of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Springs, Maryland. 65 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 35 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2002. Notice of the continuing effect of 

the List of Fisheries. U.S. Federal Register, Volume 67, Number 12, pages 2410−2419. January 17, 

2002. 

Northridge, S.P. 1991. Driftnet fisheries and their impacts on non-target species: a worldwide review. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Fisheries Technical Paper 

Number 320. Rome, Italy. 115 pages. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). 1994. The interactions of seabirds and treaty Indian 

gill net and purse seine fisheries in the Puget Sound. Unpublished report to BIA and USFWS, 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

Noviello, D.T. 1999. Encounter and release rates for salmonids, birds and marine mammals in the 

marine sport salmon fishery in Puget Sound, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Report Number 99−06, Olympia, Washington. 17 pages. 

Nysewander, D.R., J.R. Evenson, B.L. Murphie, T.A. Cyra. 2001a. Report of marine bird and marine 

mammal component, Puget Sound ambient monitoring program, for July 1992 to December 1999 

period (draft). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound Action Team, 

Olympia, Washington. 162 pages. 

Nysewander, D.R., J.R. Evenson, B.L. Murphie, T.A. Cyra. 2001b. Status and trends for a suite of key 

diving marine bird species characteristic of Puget Sound, as examined by the Marine Bird 

Component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP). Poster presentation for: Puget 

Sound Research Conference, February 12−14, 2001, Bellevue, Washington. 

Nysewander, D.R., J.R. Evenson, B.L. Murphie, T.A. Cyra. 2003. Trends observed for selected marine 

bird species during the 1993-2002 winter aerial surveys, conducted by the PSAMP Bird 

Component in the inner marine waters of Washington State. Poster presentation for: Georgia 

Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference, March 31-April 3, 2003, Vancouver, B.C. Available In:

T.W. Droscher and D.A. Fraser (eds.). Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound 

Research Conference. 

Nysewander, Dave. July 30, 2004. Personal communication to Susan Bishop, Puget Sound/Washington 

Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Seattle, Washington, 

re: information on seabird distribution in Puget Sound. 

Osmek, S.D., M.B. Hanson, J.L. Laake, S.J. Jeffries, and R.L. DeLong. 1995. Harbor porpoise 

Phocoena phocoena population assessment studies for Oregon and Washington in 1994. 1994 

Annual Report to the MMPA Assessment Program, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, NOAA, 

Silver Springs, Maryland. 32 pages. 

Osmek, S., J. Calambokidis, J. Laake, P. Gearin, R. Delong, J. Scordino, S. Jeffries, and R. Brown. 

1996. Assessment of the status of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in Oregon and 

Washington waters. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-76. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. 46 pages. 

Palsson, Wayne. Research Scientist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 17, 2003. 

Personal communication with Gregory Green, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, re: crab 

capture in "ghost" gillnets. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 36 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Parrish, Julia. Associate Professor, University of Washington. February 13, 2003. Personal 

communication with Gregory Green, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, re: origin of 

murres involved in gillnet bycatch. 

Perez, M.A. and T.R. Loughlin. 1991. Incidental catch of marine mammals by foreign and joint venture 

trawl vessels in the U.S. EEZ of the North Pacific, 1973−88. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 104. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Seattle, Washington. 57 pages. 

Pfeifer, R. 1987. Managing around marine mammal predation on winter run steelhead returning to 

Lake Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division 

Report Number 87−7. 99 pages. 

Pfeifer, R., P. Gearin, S. Jeffries, M. Johnson, and R. DeLong. 1989. Evaluation of the 1987-88 

California sea lion predation control program in the Lake Washington estuary. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fishery Management Report 98-9. 216 pages. 

Piatt, J.F. and D.N. Nettleship. 1987. Incidental catch of marine birds and mammals in fishing nets off 

Newfoundland, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 18, pages 344−349. 

Piatt, J.F. and D.N. Nettleship. 1985. Diving depths of four alcids. The Auk. Volume 102, pages 

293−297. 

Pierce, D.J., W.P. Ritchie, and R. Kreuziger. 1994. Preliminary findings of seabird interactions with the 

non-treaty salmon gill net fishery: Puget Sound and Hood Canal Washington. Final Report, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 39 pages. 

Pierce, D. J., M. Alexandersdottir, S. J. Jeffries, P. Erstad, W. Beattie, and A. Chapman. 1996. 

Interactions of marbled murrelets and marine mammals with the 1994 Puget Sound sockeye gill net 

fishery. Final Report, Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 21 pages 

Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, technical editors. 1995. Ecology and conservation 

of the marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. 420 pages. 

Ralph, C.J., L.L. Long, B.P. O’Donnell, M. Raphael, S. Miller, and S. Courtney. 1996. Population and 

productivity of marbled murrelets during 1995 in the San Juan Islands, Washington. Unpublished 

report to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 113 pages. 

Raphael, M.G, D.E. Mack, B.M. Gallaher and R.J. Wilk. 2000. Marbled murrelet long-term population 

monitoring, Zone 1, Strata 2 and 3, Washington. Unpublished report to USFWS, November 25, 

2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Retfalvi, L. 1970. Food of nesting bald eagles on San Juan Island, Washington. The Condor. Volume 

72, pages 358−361. 

Richardson, S. and Allen, H. 2000. Draft Washington state recovery plan for the sea otter. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 67 pages 

Riemer, S.D., and R.F. Brown. 1996. Marine mammal (pinniped) food habits in Oregon. Technical 

Report Number 96-6-01. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 26 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 37 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Ross, P.S., G.E.M. Ellis, M.G. Ikonomou, L.G Barrett-Lennard, and R.F. Addison. 2000. High PCB 

concentrations in free-ranging Pacific killer whales, Orcinus orca: effects of age, sex and dietary 

preference. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 40(6), pages 504−515. 

Scheffer, V. B., and J. W. Slipp. 1944. The harbor seal in Washington State. American Midland 

Naturalist, Volume 32, pages 373–416. 

Scheffer, V.B., and J.W. Slipp. 1948. The whales and dolphins of Washington State with a key to the 

cetaceans of the west coast of North America. American Midland Naturalist. Volume 39, pages 

257−337. 

Scheffer, T.H. and C.C. Sperry. 1931. Food habits of the pacific harbor seal, Phoca richardii. Journal 

of Mammalogy. Volume 12, pages 214−226. 

Schmitt, F.P., C. de Jong, and F.H. Winter. 1980. Thomas Welcome Roys, America’s pioneer of 

modern whaling. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia. 253 pages. 

Speich, S.M. and T.R. Wahl. 1989. Catalog of Washington seabird colonies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Biological Report 88(6). 510 pages. 

Speich, S.M., B.L. Troutman, A.C. Geiger, P.J. Meehan-Martin, and S.J. Jeffries. 1987. Evaluation of 

military flight operations on wildlife of the Copalis National Wildlife Refuge, 1984−1985. 

Unpublished final report, U.S. Navy, Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 

San Bruno, California. 181 pages. 

Speich, S.M., T.R. Wahl, D.A. Manuwal. 1992. The numbers of marbled murrelets in Washington 

marine waters. Pages 48−60 in: Carter, H.R. and M.L. Morrison, technical editors. Status and 

conservation of the Marbled Murrelet in North America. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of 

Vertebrate Zoology, Volume 5, Number 1. 

Stanley, W.T. and K.E. Shaffer. 1995. Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) predation on seined salmonids in 

the lower Klamath River, California. Marine Mammal Science. Volume 11(3), pages 376−385. 

Stein, J. and D. Nysewander. 1999. An estimate of marbled murrelet productivity from observations of 

juveniles in the inland marine waters of Washington State during the 1993 through 1995 postbreeding seasons, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unpublished agency report, 

Olympia, Washington. 55 pages. 

Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Washington state status report for the bald 

eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Program, Olympia, Washington. 92 

pages. 

Taylor, R.H. 1989. Washington state midwinter bald eagle survey results for 1989. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Taylor, M. and B. Plater. 2001. Population viability analysis for the southern resident population of the 

killer whale (Orcinus orca). The Center for Biological Diversity, Tuscon, Arizona. 30 pages. 

Terres, J.K. 1991. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Wings Books, Avenel, 

New Jersey. Volume 1,109 pages. 

Thompson, C.W. 1997. Distribution and abundance of marbled murrelets on the outer coast of 

Washington – Winter 1996-1997. Draft report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Wildlife Management Division, Olympia, Washington. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 38 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Thompson, Christopher. Research Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, 

Washington, February 26, 2003. Personal communication with Gregory Green, Foster Wheeler 

Environmental Corporation, re: Caspian terns and alcids in Puget Sound waters. 

Thompson, C.W., M.L. Wilson, D.J. Pierce, and D. DeGhetto. 1998. Population characteristics of 

common murres and rhinoceros auklets entangled in gillnets in Puget Sound, Washington, from 

1993 to 1994. Northwestern Naturalist. Volume 79, pages 77−91. 

TENYO MARU Oil Spill Natural Resource Trustees (TMOSNRT). 2000. Final restoration plan and 

environmental assessment for the TENYO MARU oil spill. Unpublished report, Lacey, Washington. 

Vermeer, K. 1983. Diet of the harlequin duck in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Murrelet. 

Volume 64, pages 54−57. 

Vermeer, K., K.T. Briggs, K.H. Morgan, and D. Siegel-Causey, editors. 1993. The status, ecology, and 

conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific. Special Publication, Canadian Wildlife Service, 

Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 263 pages. 

Vermeer, K. and R.C. Ydenberg. 1989. Feeding ecology of marine birds in the Strait of Georgia. Pages 

62−73 in: Vermeer, K. and R.W. Butler, editors. 1989. The ecology and status of marine and 

shoreline birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored 

by the Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society and the Canadian Wildlife Service, held in 

Sidney, BC, 11 December 1987. Special Publication, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, 

Canada. 

Wahl, T.R., S.M. Speich, D.A. Manuwal, K.V. Hirsch, and C. Miller. 1981. Marine bird populations of 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and adjacent waters in 1978 and 1979. Interagency 

Energy/Environment Research and Development Program Report EPA-600/7-81-156. U.S. 

Department of Commerce NOAA, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

788 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2002. Marine bird densities from the inland 

marine waters of Washington as captured by PSAMP efforts 1992−2002. Puget Sound Ambient 

Monitoring Program (PSAMP), Marine Bird and Mammal Component. Internet-accessible 

database (https://test-fortress.wa.gov/dfw/psampdensity/speciespages). Database accessed 

December 12, 2002. 

Watson, J.W. and D.J. Pierce. 1998. Migration, diets, and home ranges of bald eagles breeding along 

Hood Canal and at Indian Island, Washington. Final Report. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Wendell, F.E., J.A. Ames, and R.A. Hardy. 1985. Assessment of the accidental take of sea otters, 

Enhydra lutris, in gill and trammel nets. Unpublished report, Marine Resources Branch, California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 30 pages. 

Wiles, G. J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 106 pages. 

Wilke, F. and K.W. Kenyon. 1952. Notes on the food of fur seal, sea-lion, and harbor porpoise. Journal 

of Wildlife Management. Volume 16, pages 396−397. 

Wilson, U.W. and D.A Manuwal. 1986. Breeding biology of the rhinoceros auklet in Washington. The 

Condor. Volume 88(2), pages 143−155. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 39 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Wilson, M.L. and C.W. Thompson. 1998. Dietary preferences of common murres and rhinoceros 

auklets in Puget Sound, Washington in late summer and fall 1993-1996. Pacific Seabirds. Volume 

25, pages 48-49 (abstract). 

Wolf, K., J. Grettenberger, and E. Melvin. 1996. Seabird bycatch in Puget Sound commercial salmon 

net fisheries. Pages 311-316 in: Solving bycatch: considerations for today and tomorrow: 

proceedings of the Solving Bycatch Workshop, Sept. 25−27, 1995, Seattle, Washington. Alaska 

Sea Grant College Program report number 96-03. Fairbanks, Alaska. 

3.9 Ownership and Land Use 

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 2003. Information obtained from the web site: 

http://boat.iac.wa.gov/ on January 14, 2003. 

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 2002. An assessment of outdoor recreation in 

Washington state, a state comprehensive outdoor recreation planning document, 2002-2007. 

October 2002. 116 pages. 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 2002. Information obtained from the web site: 

http://www.parks.wa.gov/ on December 9, 2002. 

3.10 Water Quality 

Newton, J.A., S.L. Albertson, K. Van Voorhis, C. Maloy, and E. Siegel. 2002. Washington State 

Marine Water Quality, 1998 through 2000. Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia, 

Washington. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0203056.pdf 

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT). 2002. 2002 Puget Sound update: Eighth report 

of the Puget Sound ambient monitoring program. Olympia, Washington. 

http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/Publications/update_02/ps_update_2002-sec.pdf. 

Varanasi, U. 1989. Metabolism of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the aquatic environment. Boca 

Raton, Florida. CRC Press, Inc. 341 pages. 

4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.2 Basis for Comparison of Alternatives and Approach to Alternatives Analysis 

Cramer, S.P., J. Norris, P. Mundy, G. Grette, K. O'Neal, J. Hogle, C. Steward, and P. Bahls. 1999. 

Status of chinook salmon and their habitat in Puget Sound. Volume 2, Final Report. June 1999. 

Mantua, N.J., S.R., Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M., Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal 

climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society, Volume 78, pages 1069−1079. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003. A joint tribal and state resource management plan 

(RMP) submitted under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for salmon fisheries and steelhead net fisheries 

affecting Puget Sound chinook salmon – Decision Memorandum, dated May 19, 2003. 8 pages plus 

attachments. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 40 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical Committee (CTC). 2003. Catch and escapement of 

chinook salmon under Pacific Salmon Commission jurisdiction, 2002 Report: Pacific Salmon 

Commission Joint Chinook Technical Committee report TCChinook (03)-1. Pacific Salmon 

Commission, Vancouver, British Columbia. 84 pages plus appendices. 

Simmons, Del. Salmon Fishery Analyst, Sustainable Fisheries Division, National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), Lacey, Washington. February 2, 2004. Personal communication with Susan 

Bishop, Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Team Leader, Sustainable 

Fisheries Division, NMFS, re: Columbia River and Puget Sound chinook salmon abundance 

projections. 

Simmons, Del. Salmon Fishery Analyst, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS; Pat Patillo, Salmon 

Policy Coordinator, WDFW; and Larrie Lavoy, Salmon Policy Analyst, WDFW, Lacey, 

Washington. July 2003. Personal communication with Susan Bishop, Puget Sound/Washington 

Coastal Harvest Management Team Leader, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, re: 

assumptions regarding future fishing patterns and harvest levels in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries. 

4.3 Fish 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. February 

17, 2004. Personal communication via e-mail to Doug McNair, The William Douglas Company, 

one of the NEPA EIS authors, re: Puget Sound coho management plans. 

Hayman, Bob. Skagit Systems Cooperative. July 15, 2003. Informational Memorandum to Susan 

Bishop, Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, NMFS, regarding suitability of using Suiattle productivity to represent other spring 

chinook salmon. 

McElhany, P., M.J. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T. Wainwright, and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid 

populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-NWFSC-42. 

Meyers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. 

Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Proposed evaluation of and pending determination 

on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), pursuant to the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule. April 8, 

2004. 

NMFS. 2003. A joint tribal and state resource management plan (RMP) submitted under Limit 6 of the 

4(d) Rule by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

for salmon fisheries and steelhead net fisheries affecting Puget Sound chinook salmon. Decision 

Memorandum. May 19, 2003. 

NMFS. 2001a. Joint state tribal resource management plan provided by the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes for salmon fisheries affecting Puget Sound 

chinook salmon under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule. Decision Memorandum. April 27, 2001. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 41 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

NMFS. 2001b. Joint State Tribal Resource Management Plan provided by the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife and the Point No-Point-Treaty Tribes for salmon fisheries affecting Hood 

Canal summer chum salmon under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule - Determination Memo. Memo from 

William L. Robinson to Donna Darm. NMFS NW Region. April 26, 2001. 

NMFS. 1999. Endangered Species Act-reinitiated section 7 consultation-biological opinion-approval of 

the Pacific Salmon Treaty by the U.S. Department of State and management of the Southeast 

Alaska salmon fisheries subject to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. November 18, 1999. 90 pages. 

Pacific Salmon Commission. 2002. Pacific salmon commission joint chinook technical committee 

report; annual exploitation rate analysis and model calibration. Report TC-Chinook 02-3. Pacific 

Salmon Commission. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. October 2002. 

Palsson, Wayne. Groundfish Program Coordinator, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

December 23, 2002. Personal communication via e-mail to Doug McNair, The William Douglas 

Company, one of the NEPA EIS authors, re: Puget Sound sport groundfish harvest. 

Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (PSIT and WDFW). 

2003. Puget Sound comprehensive chinook management plan: Harvest management component. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. February 19, 2003. 88 pages + appendices. 

Simmons, Dell. Sustainable Fisheries Division, NOAA Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. December 12, 

2002. Personal communication e-mail to Susan Bishop, Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest 

Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Seattle, Washington, re: harvest 

impacts to Columbia River chinook populations in Puget Sound fisheries. 

Skagit Rebuilding Exploitation Rate (RER) Workgroup. 2003. 2003. Derivation of the Rebuilding 

Exploitation Rates (RER) for the Skagit Spring chinook populations. 22 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Summer chum salmon conservation initiative − an 

implementation plan to recover summer chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca region. 

J. Ames, G. Graves and C. Weller [editors]. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. 382 pages + appendices. 

4.3.5 Marine-Derived Nutrients from Spawning Salmon 

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Hansen, P.A. Bisson, and J.K Walter. 1998. Response of juvenile coho salmon and 

steelhead to the addition of salmon carcasses to two streams in southwestern Washington. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 53, pages 164−173. 

Hayman, Robert. Salmon Recovery Planner, Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, Washington. 

August 19, 1999. Personal communication with the Skagit Chinook Workgroup re: correlation 

between chinook smolt abundance and escapement of other species. 

Lackey, R. 2003. Adding nutrients to enhance salmon runs: Developing a coherent public policy. 

Fisheries. Volume 28(8), pages 34–35. 

Seiler, D., L. Kishimoto, and S. Neuharuser. 2000. Annual report: 1999 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook 

production evaluation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 75 

pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 42 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, and L. Kishimoto. 2002. 2001 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook production 

evaluation. Annual report to Seattle City Light. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. 45 pages. 

Wipfli, M.S., J. Hudson, D.T. Chaloner, and J.P. Caouette. 1999. Influence of salmon spawner 

densities on stream productivity in southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. Volume 56, pages 1600–1611. 

4.3.6 Selectivity on Biological Characteristics of Salmon 

Hard, J.J. 2004. Evolution of chinook salmon life history under size-selective harvest. In A. Hendry 

and S. Stearns (editors). Evolution illuminated: Salmon and their relatives. Oxford University 

Press, pages 315−337. 

Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (PSIT and WDFW). 

2004. Puget Sound comprehensive chinook management plan: Harvest management component. 

Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. March 1, 2004. 94 pages + appendices. 

4.3.7 Hatchery-Related Effects on Salmon: Straying and Overfishing 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (PSTRT). 2003a. Abundance and productivity data tables 

summarizing key biological and life history data for the Duwamish-Green chinook population. 

NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. Excel workbook. November 10, 2003. 

PSTRT. 2003b. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

data for the North Fork Nooksack early chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, 

Seattle, Washington. Excel workbook. November 11, 2003. 

PSTRT. 2003c. Abundance and productivity data tables summarizing key biological and life history 

data for the Skykomish chinook population. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Region, Seattle, 

Washington. Excel workbook. November 20, 2003. 

4.3.8 Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

February 17, 2004. Personal communication via e-mail to Doug McNair, The William Douglas 

Company, one of the NEPA EIS authors, re: Puget Sound coho salmon management plans. 

Fieberg, John. 2004. Role of parameter uncertainty in assessing harvest strategies. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. Volume 28(2), pages 459–474. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. A joint tribal and state resource management plan 

(RMP) submitted under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for salmon fisheries and steelhead net fisheries 

affecting Puget Sound chinook salmon. Evaluation and Recommended Determination. April 2004. 

Public review draft. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 43 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

4.4 Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibility 

Pacific Salmon Commission. 2000. Pacific Salmon Treaty 1999 revised annexes, memorandum of 

understanding (1985) and exchange of notes. PSC Vancouver, British Columbia. 88 pages. 

Washington Trout v. D. Robert Lohn. National Marine Fisheries Service, and Donald Evans. No. 01-

CV-1863R (Western District, Washington 2002). 

4.6 Economic Activity and Value 

Washington Department of Community Development. 1988. Economic impacts and net economic 

values associated with non-Indian salmon and sturgeon fisheries. Prepared by ICF Technology 

Incorporated. Olympia, Washington. 

Washington State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch. 

2002. 1991 and 2000 annual average Washington state resident civilian labor force and 

employment. Olympia, Washington. 

4.7 Environmental Justice 

American Indian Health Care Association. 1993. Northwest area American Indian health status and 

policy assessment project. State of Washington Report. Saint Paul, Minnesota. Specific pages 

cited: C-3 and C-7. 

American Indian Health Care Commission for Washington State and Washington State Department of 

Health, 2001. American Indian health care delivery plan for Washington State – 2001 update. 

Section C. Specific pages cited: C-3 and C-7. 

Meyer, Philip. 1993. Analysis of the material circumstances of 17 Washington tribes. A Report to 

Evergreen Legal Services, Seattle, Washington. 

Meyer Resources. 1999. Tribal circumstances and impacts of the lower Snake River project on the Nez 

Perce, Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Shoshone-Bannock tribes. A Report to the Columbia 

River Intertribal Fish Commission. Portland, Oregon. Specific page cited: 141. 

Northwest Power Planning Council. 2000. Human effects analysis of the multi-species framework 

alternatives. Council Document 2000-5. Specific pages cited: 3 through 7. 

Portland Area Indian Health Service. 1994. American Indian and Alaska native mortality: Idaho, 

Oregon and Washington 1989−1991. Division of Research, Evaluation and Epidemiology, Seattle, 

Washington. Specific page cited: 3. 

Trafzer, Clifford E. 1997. Death stalks the Yakama. Michigan State University Press. East Lansing, 

Michigan. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. Reviewing for environmental justice: EIS and 

permitting resource guide. “NEPA Review”. Region 10 – Environmental Justice Office. Specific 

pages cited: 21 through 24. 

U.S. Minerals Management Service, 1991. Potential effects of OCS oil and gas exploration and 

development on Pacific northwest Indian tribes: Final technical report. OCS Study MMS 91-0056. 

Washington State Department of Health. 1992. People of color. Olympia, Washington. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 44 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. December 23, 2002. Database summary of tribal and 

non-tribal commercial salmon landings and values, prepared for The William Douglas Company, 

Seattle, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Statistics Division, 

Olympia, Washington. 

4.8 Wildlife 

Anderson, J.D. 1993. Seabird interactions in Puget Sound purse seine fisheries. Paper presented to 

Pacific Seabird Group 20th Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington. February 9-13, 1993. 

Angell, T., K.C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine birds and mammals of Puget Sound. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 145 pages. 

Barlow, J., S. Swartz, T. Eagle, and P. R. Wade. 1995. U.S. marine mammal stock assessments: 

Guidelines for preparation, background, and a summary of the 1995 assessments. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-219. 162 pages. 

Beattie, Will. Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, 

Washington. December 19, 2003. Personal communication with Greg Green, Foster Wheeler 

Environmental Corporation, one of the NEPA EIS authors, re: current Puget Sound fishing effort. 

Beauchamp, W.D., F. Cooke, C. Lougheed, L.W. Lougheed, C.J. Ralph, and S. Courtney. 1999. 

Seasonal movements of marbled murrelets: evidence from banded birds. The Condor. Volume 101, 

pages 671-674. 

Breen, P.A. 1990. A review of ghost fishing by traps and gill nets. Pages 571-599 in: Shomura, R.S. 

and M.L. Godfrey, editors. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 

April, 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA technical memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. 

Carretta, J.V., K. A. Forney, M. M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, and M. Lowry. 2004.U.S. Pacific marine 

mammal stock assessments: 2003. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-358. 295 pages 

Carter, Harry R., Michael L.C. McAllister, and M.E. “Pete” Isleib. 1995. Chapter 27 mortality of 

marbled murrelets in gill nets in North America. In: Ralph, C.J., G.L Hunt Jr., M.G. Raphael, J.F. 

Piatt, Technical Editors. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Albany, California. 

Carter, H.R, U.W. Wilson, R.W. Lowe, M.S. Rodway, D.A. Manuwal, J.E. Takekawa, and J.L. Yee. 

2001. Populations trends of the common murre (Uria aalge californica). Pages 33-132 in D.A. 

Manuawal, H.R. Carter, T.S. Simmerman, and D.L. Orthmeyer, editors. Biology and conservation 

of the common murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Volume 1: 

Natural history and population trends. U.S. Geological Survey, Information and Technology Report 

USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0012, Washington, D.C. 

Cederholm, C.J., D.B. Houston, D.L. Cole, and W.J. Scarlett. 1989. Fate of coho salmon 

(Onchorhyncus kisutch) carcasses in spawning streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences Volume 46, pages 1347-1355. 

Cederholm, C.J., M.D. Kunze, T. Muroata, A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses: essential 

contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries Volume 

24(10), pages 6−15. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 45 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Cederholm, C.J., D.H. Johnson, R.E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez, A.M. Garrett, W.H. Graeber, E.L. Greda, 

M.D. Kunze, B.G. Marcot, J.F. Palmisano, T.W. Plotnikoff, W.G. Pearcy, C.A. Simenstad, and 

P.C. Trotter. 2001. Pacific salmon and wildlife - ecological contexts, relationships, and 

implications for management. In D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil (managing directors) Wildlifehabitat relationships In Oregon and Washington. Oregon University Press, Corvallis. 768 pages. 

Christensen, O. and W.H. Lear. 1977. Bycatches in salmon drift nets at West Greenland in 1972. 

Meddelelser om Grønland. Volume 205(5), pages 1−38. 

Clowater, J.S. 1998. Distribution and foraging behaviour of wintering western grebes. M.Sc. thesis, 

Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia. 76 pages. 

Courtney, S.P., D.M. Brosnan, R.A.J. Merizon, W. Beattie, D. Evans, T. Grubba, W. Kerschke, J. 

Luginbuhl, R. Millner, E. Neatherlin, D. Nysewander, M. Raphael, and M. Salema. 1997. Seabird 

surveys in Puget Sound 1996. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute report to the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission. Portland, Oregon. 

DeGange, A.R, R.H. Day, J.E. Takekawa, and V.M. Mendenhall. 1993. Losses of seabirds in gillnets in 

the North Pacific. Pages 204−211 in: Vermeer, K. K.T. Briggs, K.H. Morgan, and D. SiegelCausey, editors. Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Pacific Seabird Group, 

Canadian Wildlife Service, and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 

Victoria, British Columbia, February 1990. Published 1993 as Canadian Wildlife Service, Special 

Publication, Ministry of Supply and Services, Canada. Catalog Number CW66-124-1993E. 

Dethier, M.N. 1990. A Marine and Estuarine Habitat Classification System for Washington State. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 

56 pages. 

Drent, R.H. 1965. Breeding biology of the pigeon guillemot, Cepphus columba. Ardea. Volume 53, 

pages 99−160. 

Erstad, P., S. L. Jeffries, and D. J. Pierce. 1996. 1994 report for the Puget Sound fishery observer 

program in management areas 10/11 and 12/12B: Nontreaty chum gill net fishery. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 14 pages. 

Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, L.G. Barrett-Lennard, A.B. Morton, R.S. Palm, and K.C. Balcomb III. 1998. 

Dietary specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal 

British Columbia and adjacent waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology. Volume 76, pages 

1456−1471. 

Forney, K.A., S.R. Benson, and G.A. Cameron. 2001. Central California gillnet effort and bycatch of 

sensitive species, 1990-98. Pages 141−160 in: E. F. Melvin and J. K. Parrish (editors). 2001. 

Seabird bycatch: trends, roadblocks and solutions. Proceedings of an international symposium of 

the Pacific Seabird Group, Semi-Ah-Moo, Blaine, Washington, February 1999. University of 

Alaska Sea Grant publication AK-SG-01-01, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Gearin, P.J., S.R. Melin, R.L. DeLong, H. Kajimura, and M.A. Johnson. 1994. Harbor porpoise 

interactions with a chinook salmon set-net fishery in Washington State. Pages 427−438 in: W.F. 

Perrin, G.P. Donovan, and J. Barlow, editors. Gillnets and cetaceans: incorporating the proceedings 

of the symposium and workshop on the mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps. 

October 1990, La Jolla, California. Whaling Commission Special Issue Number 15. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 46 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

High, W.L. 1985. Some consequences of lost fishing gear. Pages 430−437 in: Shomura, R.S. and H.O. 

Yoshida, editors. 1985. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, 

November 26−29, 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA technical memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFC-54. 

Hildebrand, G.V., S.D. Farley, C.T. Robbins, T. Hanley, K. Titus, and C. Servheen. 1996. Use of stable 

isotopes to determine diets of extinct and living bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 74, 

pages 2080–2088. 

Jeffries, Steve. Research Scientist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. July 30, 2004. Personal communication to Susan Bishop, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, regarding life history and fishing effects on marine mammals and birds in Puget Sound. 

Julian, F. and M. Beeson. 1998. Estimates of marine mammal, turtle, and seabird mortality for two 

California gillnet fisheries: 1990−95. Fishery Bulletin. Volume 96, pages 271−284. 

Koelink, A.F. 1972. Bioenergetics of growth in the Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba. Master of 

Science thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 71 pages. 

Krahn, Margaret M., Paul R. Wade, Steven T. Kalinowski, Marilyn E. Dahlheim, Barbara L. Taylor, 

M. Bradley Hanson, Gina M. Ylitalo, Robyn P. Angliss, John E. Stein, and Robin S. Waples. 2002. 

Status review of southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-54, 133 pages. 

Laake, J. L., R. L. DeLong, J. Calambokidis, and S. Osmek. 1997. Abundance and distribution of 

marine mammals in Washington and British Columbia inside waters, 1996. Pages 67-73, In: 

MMPA and ESA Implementation Program, 1996. AFSC Processed Report 97-10. 255 pages 

Available at National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, Washington 

98115. 

Lowe, Roy. Refuge Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newport, Oregon. February 25, 2003. 

Personal communication with Gregory Green, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, re: 

common murre populations in Oregon. 

Manuwal, D.A. and H.R. Carter. 2001. Natural history of the common murre (Uria aalge californica). 

Pages 1-32 in Manuawal, D.A., H.R. Carter, T.S. Simmerman, and D.L. Orthmeyer, editors. 

Biology and conservation of the common murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British 

Columbia. Volume 1: Natural history and population trends. U.S. Geological Survey, Information 

and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0012, Washington, D.C. 

Melvin et al. 1998. 

Melvin, E.F, J.K. Parrish, and L.L. Conquest. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal 

gillnet fisheries. Conservation Biology. Volume 13(6), pages 1386−1397. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000a. Stock assessment report: California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), U.S. stock. 7 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000b. Stock assessment report: Dall's porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli), California/Oregon/Washington stock. 4 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000c. Stock assessment report: harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena), Washington inland waters stock. 7 pages. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 47 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Stock assessment report: harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 

richardsi), inland Washington stock. 7 pages. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997. Investigation of scientific information on the 

impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems 

of Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-28. 172 pages. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2002. Notice of the continuing effect of 

the List of Fisheries. U.S. Federal Register, Volume 67, Number 12, pages 2410−2419. January 17, 

2002. 

NOAA. 2003. List of Fisheries for 2003. Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 135, pages 41725-

41741. July 15, 2003. 

Norberg, Brent. Biologist, NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region. April 4, 2003. Personal communication 

with Greg Green, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, one of the NEPA EIS authors, re: 

reporting of lethal marine mammal takes. 

Noviello, D.T. 1999. Encounter and release rates for salmonids, birds and marine mammals in the 

marine sport salmon fishery in Puget Sound, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Report Number 99−06, Olympia, Washington. 17 pages. 

Parrish, Julia. Associate Professor, University of Washington. February 13, 2003. Personal 

communication with Gregory Green, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, re: origin of 

murres involved in gillnet bycatch. 

Piatt, J.F. and D.N. Nettleship. 1985. Diving depths of four alcids. The Auk. Volume 102, pages 

293−297. 

Piatt, J. F., D. N. Nettleship, and W. Threlfall. 1984. Net-mortality of common murres and Atlantic 

puffins in Newfoundland, 1951−1981. Pages 196-207 In Nettleship, D.N.; Sanger, G.A.; Springer, 

P.F., editors. Marine birds: their feeding ecology and commercial fisheries relationships. 

Proceedings of the Pacific Seabird Group Symposium. Canadian Wildlife Service Special 

Publications, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 220 pages. 

Piatt, J.F. and D.N. Nettleship. 1987. Incidental catch of marine birds and mammals in fishing nets off 

Newfoundland, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 18, pages 344−349. 

Pierce, D.J., M. Alexandersdottir, S.J. Jeffries, P. Erstad, W. Beattie, and A. Chapman. 1996. 

Interactions of marbled murrelets and marine mammals with the 1994 Puget Sound sockeye gill net 

fishery. Final Report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 21 

pages. 

Pierce, D.J., W.P. Ritchie, and R. Kreuziger. 1994. Preliminary findings of seabird interactions with the 

non-treaty salmon gill net fishery: Puget Sound and Hood Canal Washington. Final Report, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 39 pages. 

Scheffer, V.B., and J.W. Slipp. 1948. The whales and dolphins of Washington State with a key to the 

cetaceans of the west coast of North America. American Midland Naturalist. Volume 39, pages 

257−337. 

Stanley, W.T. and K.E. Shaffer. 1995. Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) predation on seined salmonids in 

the lower Klamath River, California. Marine Mammal Science. Volume 11(3), pages 376−385. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 48 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Thompson, C.W., M.L. Wilson, D.J. Pierce, and D. DeGhetto. 1998. Population characteristics of 

common murres and rhinoceros auklets entangled in gillnets in Puget Sound, Washington, from 

1993 to 1994. Northwestern Naturalist. Volume 79, pages 77−91. 

TENYO MARU Oil Spill Natural Resource Trustees (TMOSNRT). 2000. Final restoration plan and 

environmental assessment for the TENYO MARU oil spill. Unpublished report, Lacey, Washington. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Biological opinion on the all-citizen Puget Sound Area 

commercial and recreational salmon fisheries for the years 2001-2011, and its effects on the 

marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. Letter to Donna Darm, NMFS, Acting Regional Director, form Ken Berg, Manager, 

Western Washington Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 20, 2001. 33 pages. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Biological opinion on the tribal Puget Sound Area 

commercial and recreational salmon fisheries for the years 2005-2010, and its effects on the 

marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

5.0 Identification of the Environmentally Preferable and Agency Preferred Alternative 

Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1981. NEPA's forty most asked questions. An internetaccessible list (http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm). 

Code of Federal Regulations. Volume 40, Section 1502. 1978. Council for Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) Regulations: Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Code of Federal Regulations. Volume 40, Section 1505. 1978. Council for Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) Regulations: Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Executive Order 13175. November 6, 2000. Consultation and coordination with Indian tribal 

governments. 

Executive Order 12962. June 7, 1995. Recreational fisheries. 

Secretarial Order No. 3206. June 5, 1997. American Indian tribal rights, federal−tribal trust 

responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act. 

Technical Appendix C − Technical Methods, Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and 

Fishery Impacts 

Biological Requirements Work Group. 1994. Analytical methods for determining requirements of 

listed Snake River salmon relative to survival and recovery. Progress Report, October 13, 1994. 

129 pages + appendices. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental and 

Technical Services Division, 525 N.E. Oregon Street, Portland, Oregon 97232-2734. 

Foley, Steve. Fisheries Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 18, 2004. 

Personal communication with Will Beattie, Conservation Planning Coordinator, Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission, re: escapement estimation methods for Cedar River chinook salmon. 

Hage, P., R. Hatch, and C. Smith. March 28, 1994. Interim escapement goals for Lake Washington 

chinook salmon. Interagency technical memorandum. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 49 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal 

climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society. Volume 78: pages 1069−1079. 

McElhaney, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. fork, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42, 158 pages. 

Mobrand, L. 2000. Preliminary assessment of recovery objectives based on properly functioning 

habitat conditions. Report to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission. Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., Vashon, Washington. 

Mobrand Biometrics. 1999. The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Method. Mobrand Biometrics, 

Inc., Vashon, Washington. 

Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team (NCRT). 2001. Nisqually chinook recovery plan. Nisqually Tribe 

Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. Chapter 5, page 46, and Appendix 4, 

Section 3.2. 

Peterman, R.M., and M.J. Bradford. 1987. Statistical power of trends in fish abundance. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Volume 44: pages 1879−1889. 

Peterman, R. M. 1977. A simple mechanism that causes collapsing stability regions in exploited 

salmonid populations. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Volume 34: pages 

1130−1142. 

Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (PSTT and WDFW). 

2001. Puget Sound comprehensive chinook management plan: Harvest management component. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and WDFW, Olympia, Washington. 129 pages. 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. 2003. Independent populations of chinook in Puget Sound. 

Final Draft July 22, 2003. Final draft. NOAA, Northwest Region, NWFSC. Seattle, Washington. 

59 pages + appendices. 

Rawson, Kit. Senior Fishery Management Biologist, Tulalip Department of Natural Resources. 

December 6, 2002. Personal communication with Will Beattie, Conservation Planning Coordinator, 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, re: marine survival conditions assumed in the spawnerrecruit analysis for Stillaguamish chinook salmon. 

Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, and L. Kishimoto. 2002. 2001 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook production 

evaluation. Annual report to Seattle City Light. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. 45 pages. 

Smith, C. and B. Sele. July 12, 1994. Dungeness River escapement goal. Interagency technical 

memorandum., Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and 

Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Sequim, Washington. 

Warren, W.A. 1994. Escapement goal development for naturally-spawning spring chinook in the White 

River: A literature review with recommendations. Report to the White River Spring Chinook 

Technical Committee. 

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). 1977. Puget Sound summer-fall chinook methodology: 

Escapement estimates and goals, run size forecasts, and in-season run size updates. WDF Technical 

Report 29. Olympia, Washington. 
Section 8 – References 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 8 - 50 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Puyallup Tribe of Indians, and Muckleshoot 

Indian Tribe. 1996. Recovery plan for White River spring chinook salmon. Report of the South 

Sound Spring Chinook Technical Committee. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. 81 pages. 

Technical Appendix D − Technical Methods, Economics 

Gentner, B., M. Price, S. Steinbeck. 2001. Marine angler expenditures in the Pacific Coast Region, 

2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-49. Silver Springs, Maryland. November 2001. 

ICF Technology Incorporated. 1988. Economic impacts and net economic values associated with nonIndian salmon and sturgeon fisheries. Prepared for the State of Washington Department of 

Community Development, Olympia, Washington. Redmond, Washington. 

McNair, Douglas. The William Douglas Company. January 2003. Personal communication with Tom 

Wegge, TCW Economics (one of the NEPA EIS authors), concerning the distribution of sport 

fishing trips in Puget Sound by mode of fishing. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2000. IMPLAN database for Washington state and counties. 

Stillwater, Minnesota. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Draft programmatic environmental impact statement for 

Pacific salmon fisheries management off the coasts of Southeast Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and 

California, and in the Columbia River Basin. Seattle, Washington. 

Olsen, D., J. Richards, R.D. Scott. 1990. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia 

River Basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers. Volume 1(1). Pages 44−56. 

Pattillo, Pat. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. December 20, 2003. Personal 

communication with Tom Wegge, TCW Economics (one of the NEPA EIS authors) concerning 

modes of sport fishing in Puget Sound. 

The Research Group. 1991. Oregon angler survey and economic study, final report. Prepared for the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, Oregon. 
#

%

π

∑

Ω

∞

Π

≤

≥

π

Ω

∞

∑

Π

Ω

#

∼

Π

∑

 

 

APPENDIX A 

 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest 

Resource Management Plan 

COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

FOR PUGET SOUND CHINOOK: 

HARVEST MANAGEMENT COMPONENT

Puget Sound Indian Tribes 

And 

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

March 1, 2004 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 i
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 ii

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

1. Objectives and Principles ............................................................................................................ 3

2. Population Structure – Aggregation for Management................................................................. 7

2.1 Population Structure.............................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Management Units ................................................................................................................ 8

3. Status of Management Units and Derivation of Exploitation Rate Ceilings. ............................ 11

3.1 Management Unit Categories.............................................................................................. 11

3.2 Abundance Designations..................................................................................................... 12

3.2.2 Abundances With No Harvestable Surpluses................................................................... 13

3.3 Response to Critical Status.................................................................................................. 15

4. The Fisheries and Jurisdictions ................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Southeast Alaskan Fisheries................................................................................................ 18

4.2 Fisheries in British Columbia.............................................................................................. 19

4.3 Washington Ocean Fisheries............................................................................................... 20

4.4 Puget Sound Fisheries......................................................................................................... 21

4.5 Regulatory Jurisdictions Affecting Washington Fisheries.................................................. 27

4.6 Distribution of Fishing Mortality........................................................................................ 30

4.7 Trends in Exploitation Rates............................................................................................... 30

5. Implementation.......................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Management Intent ............................................................................................................. 32

5.2 Rules for Allowing Fisheries .............................................................................................. 32

5.3 Rules That Control Harvest Levels ..................................................................................... 33

5.4 Steps for Application to Annual Fisheries Planning ........................................................... 34

5.5 Response to Critical Status.................................................................................................. 35

5.7 Compliance with Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Agreements.......................................... 36

5.8 Regulation Implementation................................................................................................. 37

5.9 In-season Management........................................................................................................ 37

5.10 Enforcement ...................................................................................................................... 38

6. Conservative Management ............................................................................................... 39

6.1 Harvest Objectives Based on Natural Productivity............................................................. 39

6.2 Accounting for Uncertainty and Variability........................................................................ 40

6.3 Protection of Individual Populations................................................................................... 41

6.4 Equilibrium Exploitation Rates........................................................................................... 43

6.5 Reduction in Exploitation Rates.......................................................................................... 47

6.6 Recovery Goals ................................................................................................................... 47

6.7 Protecting the Diversity of the ESU.................................................................................... 50

6.8 Summary of Conservation Measures .................................................................................. 53

7. Monitoring, Assessment and Adaptive Management................................................................ 55

7.1 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................. 55

7.2 Annual Chinook Management Report ................................................................................ 58

7.3 Spawning Salmon – A Source of Marine-derived Nutrients............................................... 60

7.4 Age- and Size-Selective Effects of Fishing......................................................................... 61

7.5 Amendment of the Harvest Management Plan ................................................................... 62

8. Glossary.................................................................................................................................... 63

9. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 66

Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles ........................................................................... 83

Nooksack River Management Unit Status Profile .................................................................... 85

Skagit River Management Unit Status Profiles......................................................................... 95
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 iii

Stillaguamish River Management Unit Status Profile ............................................................ 131

Snohomish River Management Unit Status Profile ................................................................ 136

Lake Washington Management Unit Status Profile................................................................ 152

Green River Management Unit Status Profile ........................................................................ 158

White River Spring Chinook Management Unit Profile......................................................... 162

Puyallup River Fall Chinook Management Unit Status Profile .............................................. 165

Nisqually River Chinook Management Unit Status Profile.................................................... 168

Skokomish River Management Unit Status Profile ................................................................ 172

Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit Status Profile................................................................. 178

Dungeness Management Unit Status Profile........................................................................... 181

Elwha River Management Unit Status Profile ........................................................................ 184

Status Profile for the Western Strait of Juan de Fuca Management Unit................................ 187

Appendix B. Non-landed Mortality............................................................................................ 191

Sources of Incidental Mortality............................................................................................... 195

Appendix C. Minimum Fisheries Regime.................................................................................. 199

Appendix D. Role of Salmon in Nutrient Enrichment of Fluvial Systems ................................ 209

Appendix E. Escapement Estimation .......................................................................................... 219

Appendix F. Selective Effects of Fishing.................................................................................... 237
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 iv

List of Tables

Table 1.Rebuilding exploitation rates (RERs), expressed either as total, southern U.S. (SUS), or 

pre-terminal southern US (PT SUS) rates, upper management thresholds, and low abundance 

thresholds for Puget Sound chinook.................................................................. 2

Table 2. Management units for natural chinook in Puget Sound. ................................................. 9

Table 3. Rebuilding exploitation rates, low abundance thresholds and critical exploitation rate 

ceilings for Puget Sound chinook management units............................................................ 16

Table 4. Chinook salmon harvest, all fisheries combined, in Southeast Alaska, 1998 – 2002 . ... 18

Table 5. Landed chinook harvest in British Columbia inshore marine fisheries in 2001 and 2002 .

............................................................................................................................................... 19

Table 6. Commercial troll and recreational landed catch of chinook in Washington Areas 1 – 4, 

1998 – 2002 .......................................................................................................................... 20

Table 7. Fraser sockeye and pink salmon harvest, and incidental chinook catch, in Puget Sound, 

1996 – 2002. . ....................................................................................................................... 23

Table 8. Commercial net fishery harvest of pink salmon from the Nooksack, Skagit, and 

Snohomish river systems, 1991 – 2001. ............................................................................... 24

Table 9. Landed coho harvest for Puget Sound net fisheries, 1998 - 2002. Regional totals include 

freshwater catch..................................................................................................................... 24

Table 10 . Chinook incidental mortality rates applied to commercial and recreational fisheries in 

Washington............................................................................................................................ 27

Table 11. Distribution of harvest for Puget Sound chinook indicator stocks ............................... 30

Table 12. Escapement levels (upper management thresholds) consistent with optimum 

productivity or capacity under current habitat conditions, and recent escapement for Puget 

Sound chinook management units......................................................................................... 43

Table 13. Decline in average total, adult-equivalent exploitation rate, from 1983 – 1987 to 1998-

2000, and 2001 – 2003, for Category 1 Puget Sound chinook management units ............... 47

Table 14. Escapement levels and recruitment rates for Puget Sound chinook populations under 

recovered habitat conditions.................................................................................................. 48

Table 15. Annual projected total exploitation rates compared with RERs for natural chinook 

management units in Puget Sound. ....................................................................................... 53

List of Figures

Figure 1. Commercial net and troll catch of chinook in Puget Sound , 1980 – 2002 ................... 22

Figure 2. Recreational salmon catch in Puget Sound marine areas, 1985 – 2002 ........................ 25

Figure 3. Recreational chinook harvest in Puget Sound freshwater areas 1988 - 2002 .............. 25

Figure 4. Trend in total ER for Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish summer/fall chinook . .. 31

Figure 5. Trend in total exploitation rate for Nooksack, Skagit, and White spring chinook ....... 31

Figure 6. The equilibrium exploitation rate for Skagit spring chinook. ....................................... 45

Figure 7. The equilibrium exploitation rate for Skagit summer/fall chinook............................... 46

Figure 8. The return of natural-origin (NOR) chinook to the North Fork Stillaguamish River has 

not increased, while the number of hatchery-origin adults (HOR) have increased 

significantly under reduced harvest rates .............................................................................. 49

Figure 9. Productivity (adult recruits) of North Fork Stillaguamish summer chinook under 

current and recovered habitat (PFC+) conditions. ................................................................ 50
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 v
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Executive Summary 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

1

Executive Summary 

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. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Executive Summary 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

2

Table 1.Rebuilding exploitation rates (RERs), expressed either as total, southern U.S. (SUS), or 

pre-terminal southern US (PT SUS) rates, upper management thresholds, and low abundance 

thresholds for Puget Sound chinook. 

Management Unit RER Upper Management 

Threshold 

Low Abundance 

Threshold 

Nooksack 1

 North Fork 

 South Fork 

Under 

development 

4,000 

2,000 

2,000 

1,000 

1,000 

Skagit summer / fall 

 Upper Skagit summer 

 Sauk summer 

 Lower Skagit fall 

50% 14,500 

8,434 

1,926 

4,140 

4,800 

2,200 

400 

900 

Skagit spring 

 Upper Sauk 

 Cascade 

 Siuattle 

38% 2,000 

986 

440 

574 

576 

130 

170 

170 

Stillaguamish 1

 North Fork summer 

 South Fork & MS fall 

25% 900 

600 

300 

650 

500 

N/A 

Snohomish 1

 Skykomish 

 Snoqualmie 

21% 4,600 

3,600 

1,000 

2,800 

1,745 

521 

Lake Washington 

 Cedar River 1

15% PT SUS 

1,200 200 

Green 15% PT SUS 5,800 1,800 

White River spring 20% 1,000 200 

Puyallup fall 

 South Prairie Creek 

50% 

500 

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 will be submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), for evaluation 

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. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Objectives and Principles 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

3

1. Objectives and Principles 

This Harvest Management Plan consists of management guidelines for planning annual harvest 

regimes, as they affect Puget Sound chinook, for the 2004 - 2009 management years. The Plan 

guides the implementation of fisheries in Washington, under the co-managers’ jurisdiction, and 

considers the total harvest impacts of all fisheries on Puget Sound chinook, including those in 

Alaska, British Columbia, and Oregon. The Plan’s objectives can be stated succinctly as intent to: 

Ensure that fishery-related mortality will not impede rebuilding of natural 

Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, to levels that will sustain fisheries, 

enable ecological functions, and are consistent with treaty-reserved fishing 

rights. 

This Plan will constrain harvest to the extent necessary to enable rebuilding of natural chinook 

populations in the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit (ESU), provided that habitat 

capacity and productivity are protected and restored. It includes explicit measures to conserve 

and rebuild abundance, and preserve diversity among all the populations that make up the ESU. 

The ultimate goal of this plan, and of concurrent efforts to protect and restore properly 

functioning chinook habitat, is to rebuild natural productivity so that natural chinook populations 

will be sufficiently abundant and resilient to perform their natural ecological function in 

freshwater and marine systems, provide related cultural values to society, and sustain 

commercial, recreational, ceremonial, and subsistence harvest. 

The co-managers and the Puget Sound Shared Strategy have adopted abundance and productivity 

goals for each population, which are the endpoint for all aspects of recovery planning, which will 

include components for management of harvest and hatchery production, and conservation and 

restoration of freshwater and marine habitat. 

In order to achieve recovery, the Harvest Management Plan adopts fundamental objectives and 

guiding principles. The Plan will: 

• Conserve the productivity, abundance, and diversity of the populations that make up 

the Puget Sound ESU. 

• Manage risk. The development and implementation of the fishery mortality limits in this 

Plan incorporate measures to manage the risks, and compensate for the uncertainty 

associated with estimating current and future abundance and productivity of populations. 

In addition, the ‘management error’ associated with forecasting abundance and the 

impacts of a given harvest regime is built into simulating the long-term dynamics of 

individual populations. Furthermore, the Plan commits the co-managers to ongoing 

monitoring, research, and analysis, to better quantify and determine the significance of 

risk factors, and to modify the Plan as necessary to minimize such risks. 

• Meet ESA jeopardy standards. The ESA standard, as interpreted by the NMFS, is that 

activities, such as harvest regulated by this Plan, may be exempted from the prohibition 

of take, prescribed in Section 9, only if they do not “appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival and recovery” of the ESU (50 CFR 223 vol 65(1):173). This Plan meets that 

standard, not just for the ESU as a whole, but in several respects sets a more rigorous 

standard for conserving the abundance, diversity, and productivity of each component 

population of natural chinook within the ESU. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Objectives and Principles 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

4

• Provide opportunity to harvest surplus production from other species and 

populations. This Plan provides for continued harvest of sockeye, pink, and coho 

salmon, as well as the abundant hatchery production of chinook from Puget Sound and 

the Columbia River This Plan eliminates directed fisheries on depressed Puget Sound 

chinook but permits incidental catch of these runs in fisheries aimed at other runs with 

harvestable surpluses. The level of incidental catch is constrained by specific 

conservative exploitation rate ceilings or other management objectives. 

• Account for all sources of fishery-related mortality, whether landed or non-landed, 

incidental or directed, commercial or recreational, and occurring in the U.S. (including 

Alaska) or Canada, when assessing total exploitation rates. 

• Adhere to the principles of the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (PSSMP), 

and other legal mandates pursuant to U.S. v. Washington (384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 

1974), and U.S. v Oregon, to ensure equitable sharing of harvest opportunity among 

tribes, and among treaty and non-treaty fishers. 

• Achieve the guidelines on allocation of harvest benefits and conservation objectives 

that are defined in the 1999 Chinook Chapter of Annex IV to the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty.

• Ensure exercise of Indian treaty rights. Indian fishing rights were established by 

treaties, and further defined by federal courts in U.S. v Washington. The exercise of 

fishing rights by individual tribes is limited to ‘usual and accustomed’ areas, according to 

their historical use of salmon resources. 

This Harvest Plan affects, primarily, management of Treaty Indian and non-Indian commercial 

and recreational salmon fisheries in Puget Sound, including net fisheries directed at steelhead. 

The geographic scope of the Plan encompasses fishing areas south of the Canadian border in the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca (east of Cape Flattery), and Georgia Strait. The Secretary of Commerce, 

through the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, is responsible for management of ocean 

salmon fisheries (i.e. troll and recreational) along the Oregon / Washington coast (i.e. in Areas 1 – 

4B, from May through September). As participants in the PFMC / North of Falcon processes, the 

Washington co-managers consider the impacts of these ocean fisheries on Puget Sound chinook, 

and may modify them to achieve management objectives for Puget Sound chinook (PSSMP 

Section 1.3). Fisheries mortality in Alaska, Oregon, and British Columbia is also accounted in 

order to assess, as accurately as possible, total fishing mortality of Puget Sound chinook. 

Mortality of Puget Sound chinook in other Washington commercial and recreational fisheries, 

e.g. those directed at rockfish, halibut, shellfish, or trout, is not directly accounted. 

Natural chinook abundance and productivity in Puget Sound is generally depressed, and for some 

populations, at critically low levels. Therefore, harvest of these populations must be limited, as 

part of a comprehensive recovery plan that addresses impacts from harvest, hatchery practices, 

and degraded habitat. Managing salmon fisheries in Washington to achieve this low impact on 

Puget Sound natural populations requires accounting of all sources of fishery-related mortality in 

all fisheries. This is not a trivial task since directed, incidental, and non-landed mortality must all 

be taken into account, and since Puget Sound chinook salmon are affected by fisheries in a large 

geographical area extending from southeast Alaska to the Oregon coast. However, since the 

1980s research has focused on assessing fishing mortality across the entire range of Puget Sound 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Objectives and Principles 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

5

chinook, so a large body of data and sophisticated computer models are available to quantify 

harvest rates and catch distribution. 

The management regime will be guided by the principles of the Puget Sound Salmon 

Management Plan (PSSMP), and other legal mandates pursuant to U.S. v. Washington (384 F. 

Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), and U.S. v Oregon, in equitable sharing of harvest opportunity 

among tribes, and among treaty and non-treaty fishers. The PSSMP is the framework for 

planning and managing harvest so that treaty rights will be upheld and equitable sharing of 

harvest opportunity and benefits are realized. The fishing rights of individual tribes are 

geographically limited to ‘usual and accustomed’ areas that were specifically described by 

subproceedings of U.S. v. Washington. This Plan is based on the principles of the PSSMP that 

assure that the rights of all tribes are addressed. Allocation of the non-Indian share of harvest 

among commercial and recreational users is decided by the policy of the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. 

The 1999 Chinook Chapter to Annex IV of the Pacific Salmon Treaty also limits harvest in many 

of the fisheries that impact Puget Sound chinook. The abundance-based chinook management 

framework contained in the Chapter applies fishery-specific constraints to achieve reduced 

harvest rates when escapement goals for indicator stocks are not achieved (see section V.B.1). 

This Plan states how the annual fishing regime developed by the co-managers will comply with 

the PST agreement. Nearly all of the fisheries implemented under this Plan will be directed at the 

harvest of species other than chinook or directed at strong chinook runs from other regions or 

strong hatchery chinook runs from Puget Sound. Therefore, nearly all of the anticipated harvestrelated mortality to natural Puget Sound chinook will be incidental to fisheries directed at other 

stocks or species. Consequently, a wide range of management plans and agreements had to be 

taken into account in developing this plan. 

Harvest-related mortality must be assessed in the context of other constraints on chinook survival. 

Non-harvest mortality is several orders of magnitude greater than the impact of harvest. If an 

adult female lays 5,000 eggs, and only two to six of those survive to adulthood, the non-harvest 

mortality rate exceeds 99.9%. Consequently, a small increase in the rate of survival to adulthood 

has a much greater effect on abundance than reduction of harvest. Increasing productivity, i.e. the 

recruitment per female spawner, is essential to recovery. Listing of the Puget Sound ESU has 

engendered a broad effort, shared by federal, tribal, state, and local governments and the private 

sector, to protect and restore habitat. Therefore, harvest must be managed so as not to impede 

recovery, if the capacity and productivity of habitat increases 

This Plan sets limits on annual fishery-related mortality for each Puget Sound chinook 

management unit. The limits are expressed either as exploitation rate ceilings, which are the 

maximum fraction of the total abundance that can be subjected to fishery-related mortality, or 

natural escapement thresholds, which trigger additional fishery conservation measures 

Exploitation rate ceilings for complex management units, comprised of more than one 

populations, were based, to the extent possible, on estimates of productivity for each component. 

Implementing this Plan requires assessing the effects of fisheries (i.e. the resulting escapement) 

for individual populations. 

The Plan asserts a specific role for harvest management in rebuilding the Puget Sound ESU and 

its population components. Implementing the Plan will enable attainment of optimum (MSH) 

escapement for some populations, but for most populations constraint of harvest can only assure 

that escapement will remain stable and enable the population to persist. Moreover, constraint of 

harvest will provide increased escapement to take advantage of any increased productivity or 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Objectives and Principles 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

6

capacity, should favorable conditions more favorable to survival occur. However, for a small 

number of critically depressed populations, harvest constraint cannot assure persistence, though 

extraordinary measures will be implemented to avoid increasing the risk of their extinction. 

Specific attention is paid to the projected escapement of all individual populations during annual 

fishery planning, and harvest restrictions applied where necessary to protect all populations. 

However, recovery of Puget Sound population depends on improving productivity (i.e., the 

capacity of freshwater and estuarine habitat, and the survival of embryonic and juvenile chinook 

in that habitat). Reducing harvest has no effect on productivity, except when such constraint may 

prevent escapement from falling to the point of biological instability. 

 

The development and implementation of the fishery mortality limits in this Plan incorporate 

measures to manage the risks and compensate for the uncertainty associated with quantifying the 

abundance and productivity of populations, where the information is available for such 

assessment. In addition, the ‘management error’ associated with forecasting abundance and 

estimating the impacts of a given harvest regime is built into the simulation of the future 

dynamics of individual populations, which is the basis for selecting exploitation rate objectives 

for some units. Furthermore, the Plan commits the co-managers to ongoing monitoring, research 

and analysis, to better quantify and determine the significance of risk factors, and to modify the 

Plan as necessary to minimize such risks. 

The 2001 and 2003 versions of the Plan (PSIT and WDFW 2001; PSIT and WDFW 2003) 

responded to the conservation standards of Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

after Puget Sound chinook were listed as threatened. However, management objectives and tools 

have been evolving since the early 1990s in response to the declining status of Puget Sound 

stocks. Concern over the declining status of Puget Sound and Columbia River chinook has 

motivated conservation initiatives in the arena of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and of the Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). Efforts continue within these forums to address the 

current status of Puget Sound chinook. This Plan as well will continue to evolve as necessary to 

address changing management requirements and the needs of this fishery resource. 

The ESA conservation standard, as implemented by the NMFS in the salmon 4(d) rule, is that 

activities that involve take of listed chinook, such as harvest regulated by this plan, may be 

exempted from the prohibition of take, prescribed in Section 9, if they do not ”appreciably reduce 

the likelihood of survival and recovery” (50 CFR 223 vol 65(1):173) of the ESU. This Plan 

meets that standard, and in several respects sets more rigorous standards for conserving the 

abundance, diversity and geographic distribution of Puget Sound chinook. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Population Structure 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

7

2. Population Structure – Aggregation for Management 

This section describes the population structure of the Puget Sound chinook ESU, and how 

populations of similar run timing are aggregated for the purposes of harvest management in some 

river systems. 

2.1 Population Structure 

Puget Sound chinook comprise an evolutionarily distinct unit (ESU) defined by the geographic 

distribution of their freshwater life stages, life history, and genetic characteristics (Myers et al. 

1998). This ESU includes many independent populations. The central intent of this Plan is to 

manage fishery-related risk, in order to conserve genetic and ecological diversity throughout the 

ESU, and to apply this standard to all its composite populations. The Chinook Status Review 

(Myers et al. 1998) designated the ESU to include populations originating from river basins 

beginning at the Elwha River, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, continuing east and south through 

Puget Sound, and north to the Nooksack River. This Plan also includes chinook originating in the 

Hoko River, in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

Puget Sound chinook populations are classified, according to their migration timing, as spring, 

summer, or fall chinook, but specific return timing toward their natal streams, entry into 

freshwater, and spawning period varies significantly within each of these ‘races’. Run timing is 

an adaptive trait that has evolved in response to specific environmental and habitat conditions in 

each watershed. Fall chinook are native to, or produced naturally, in the majority of systems, 

including the Hoko, lower Skagit, Snohomish, Cedar, Green, Puyallup, Nisqually, Skokomish, 

and mid-Hood Canal rivers, and in tributaries to northern Lake Washington. Summer runs 

originate in the Elwha, Dungeness, upper Skagit, lower Sauk, Stillaguamish, and Skykomish 

rivers. Spring (or ‘early’) chinook are produced in the South and North Forks of the Nooksack 

River, the upper Sauk River, Suiattle River, and Cascade River in the Skagit basin, and the White 

River in the Puyallup basin. 

Puget Sound chinook populations were formerly identified in the Salmon and Steelhead Stock 

Inventory (WDF et al. 1993); the 2001 Harvest Plan was generally based on the SASSI 

designation. This Plan conforms with the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team’s (TRT) more 

recent population delineation (Ruckelshaus et al. 2004) that was developed as part of recovery 

planning. The Plan omits some populations that were included in the SASSI, either because 

recent assessment concludes that they are extinct, or that they exist only due to artificial 

production in the drainage, or as strays from other natural populations or hatchery programs. 

These include fall chinook in the Samish River, Gorst Creek and other streams draining into 

Sinclair Inlet, White River, Deschutes River, and several independent tributaries in South Puget 

Sound, which are only present due to local hatchery programs. Spring chinook in the Snohomish, 

Nisqually, Skokomish, and Elwha systems are extinct; spring chinook are no longer produced at 

Quilcene National Fish Hatchery. 

The freshwater life history of most Puget Sound chinook populations primarily involves short 

freshwater (‘ocean-type’) residence following emergence (i.e. juvenile fish transform into smolts 

and emigrate to the marine environment during their first year). A small (less than 5 percent) 

proportion of juvenile fall chinook, and a larger and variable proportion of juvenile spring and 

summer chinook in some systems rear in freshwater for 12 to 18 months before emigrating, but 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Population Structure 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

8

expression of this ‘stream-type’ life history is believed to be influenced more by environmental 

factors than genotype (Myers et al. 1998). 

The oceanic migration of Puget Sound chinook typically extends up from the Washington coast 

as far north as southeast Alaska, with a large, for some stocks a majority, of their harvest taken in 

the southern waters of British Columbia. Adult chinook generally become sexually mature at the 

age of three to six years, although a small proportion of males (‘jacks’) may mature precociously, 

at age-two. Most Puget Sound chinook mature at age-3 or age-4. 

Freshwater life history and maturation rates for Puget Sound chinook populations were reviewed 

extensively in the Status Review (Myers et al. 1998). 

Puget Sound chinook are genetically distinct and uniquely adapted to the local freshwater and 

marine environments of this region. Retention of their unique characteristics depends on 

maintaining healthy and diverse populations. A central objective of the Plan is to assure that the 

abundance of each population is conserved, at a level sufficient to protect its genetic integrity. 

The most recent allozyme-based analysis of the genetic structure of the Puget Sound ESU 

indicates six distinct population aggregates – North and South Fork Nooksack River early, Skagit 

/ Stillaguamish / Snohomish rivers, south Puget Sound and Hood Canal summer / falls, White 

River springs, and Elwha River (Ruckelshaus et al. 2004). Adult returns to South Sound and 

Hood Canal are influenced by large-scale hatchery production that utilized common original 

broodstock (primarily from the Green River), so their apparent genetic similarity may not have 

been true of indigenous populations. However analysis of samples collected from 33 spawning 

sites indicate that, with few exceptions, allele frequencies are significantly different, and that 

spatial or temporal isolation of spawning populations has maintained genetic distinctiveness, even 

among similar-timed populations within a watershed. 

Life history traits were also useful in delineating natural population structure within Puget Sound. 

In order to determine the current population structure, the TRT (Ruckelshaus et al. 2004) 

examined juvenile freshwater life history, age of maturation, spawn timing, and physiographic 

characteristics of watersheds. Chinook also spawn naturally in other areas that may or may not 

have supported self-sustaining populations historically. Occurrence in these areas is thought be a 

consequence of straying from nearby natural systems or returns from hatchery programs. The 

most notable examples are in South Puget Sound, e.g. streams draining into Sinclair Inlet, and the 

Deschutes River entering Budd Inlet. 

2.2 Management Units 

A population is a biological unit. A management unit, in contrast, is an operational unit, whose 

boundaries depend on the fisheries acting on that unit. Salmon management units can range in 

size from something as large as the West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) coho run, which was 

managed as one unit in the WCVI troll fishery, to something as small as the males that return to a 

particular hatchery release site. 

Prior to the conclusion of U.S. v Washington in 1974, almost all fisheries on Puget Sound salmon 

were conducted in marine waters, with no explicit management units or escapement goals. The 

Boldt Decision, however, encouraged the development of significant tribal fisheries at the mouths 

of Puget Sound rivers, and required the development of spawning escapement goals for each 

management unit. This left the co-managers (and the court) with the task of defining what the 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Population Structure 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

9

management units would be. It was now possible, with significant fisheries at the mouths of 

rivers, to manage for separate escapement goals for units returning to areas as small as a separate 

river system. However, unless there were differences in run timing between groups of fish, it was 

not possible to manage separately for finer units without perpetually wasting large numbers of 

harvestable fish. Therefore, the court-ordered PSSMP prescribed that management units would 

not be established for units smaller than a system that flows into saltwater, unless component 

populations exhibit a difference in migration timing, or as otherwise agreed by the co-managers. 

With this understanding, the co-managers defined the natural chinook management units in Puget 

Sound (Table 2), conforming, with the exception of the Mid-Hood Canal unit, to the TRT 

population delineation. The default escapement goal for these natural management units was 

maximum sustained harvest (MSH) escapement. 

Table 2. Management units for natural chinook in Puget Sound. 

Management Unit Component Populations (category) 

Nooksack Early North Fork Nooksack River (1 

South Fork Nooksack River (1) 

Skagit Summer / Fall Upper Skagit River Summer (1) 

Lower Sauk River Summer (1) 

Lower Skagit River Fall (1) 

Skagit Spring Upper Sauk River (1) 

Siuattle River (1) 

Upper Cascade River (1) 

Stillaguamish North Fork Stillaguamish River Summer (1) 

South Fork & mainstem Stillaguamish River Fall (1) 

Snohomish Skykomish River Summer (1) 

Snoqualmie River Fall (1) 

Lake Washington Cedar River Fall (1) 

North Lake Washington Tributaries Fall (2) 

Green Green River Fall (1) 

White White River Spring (1) 

Puyallup Puyallup River Fall (2) 

Nisqually Nisqually River Fall (2) 

Skokomish North and South Fork Skokomish River Fall (2) 

Mid-Hood Canal 1 Hamma Hamma River Fall (2) 

Duckabush River Fall (2) 

Dosewallips River Fall (2) 

Dungeness Dungeness River Summer (1) 

Elwha Elwha River Summer (1) 

Western Strait of Juan de Fuca 2 Hoko River Fall (1) 

1 The three rivers comprise one population. 

2

 The western Strait of Juan de Fuca management unit is not part of the listed Puget Sound ESU. 

For the next several years, management units were the smallest units considered in management 

of fisheries in Puget Sound. Then, in the early 1990s, the co-managers undertook the Wild 

Salmonid Restoration Initiative. As part of this initiative, they published a list, known as SASSI, 

of all the identified or hypothesized separate salmon populations in Washington, and their status. 

For chinook, some of these populations were the same as the existing management units, and 

some were smaller components of management units. Guided by this list, the co-managers then 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Population Structure 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

10

developed a Wild Salmonid Policy (WDFW et al. 1997), which was intended to review and 

revise as necessary the existing management objectives. Although the Wild Salmonid Policy was 

not adopted by all the tribes, there was agreement to accept the genetic diversity performance 

standard: 

“No stocks will go extinct as a result of human impacts, except in the unique circumstance where 

exotic species or stocks may be removed as part of a specific genetic or ecological conservation 

plan.” 

Of the 15 management units covered in this Plan (Table 2), six contain more than one population. 

The other nine management units each consist of one population This Plan includes management 

measures intended to conserve the viability of all populations (see Chapter 6, and the 

management unit profiles for Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish in Appendix A). . This 

significant change in management means that management units are no longer the smallest units 

considered in management of Puget Sound fisheries. It does not mean that separate populations 

must be managed for the same objective as the management units (i.e., MSH escapement). It 

means that each separate population is managed to avoid its extinction. 

The availability and quality of data to inform management of individual populations varies 

widely. For some populations, the only directly applicable data are spawning escapement 

estimates. In such cases, estimates of migratory pathways, entry patterns, age composition and 

maturation trends, age at recruitment, catch distribution and contributions must be inferred from 

the most closely related population for which such information is available. Obtaining the 

information to test and evaluate these inferences and assumptions is one of the key data needs 

identified in Chapter 7 of this Plan. 

This Plan includes specific conservation measures for all populations within management units. 

However, it does not require that fisheries be managed to achieve the same objectives for each 

component population within a management unit (e.g., MSH escapement). 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Exploitation Rate Ceilings 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

11

3. Status of Management Units and Derivation of Exploitation 

Rate Ceilings. 

In this Plan, each management unit is classified according to its category and its abundance. The 

category determines the priority placed on recovery of that unit; the abundance determines the 

allowable harvest, depending on the category. 

3.1 Management Unit Categories 

The co-managers’ Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound chinook categorizes 

management units according to the presence of naturally produced, indigenous populations, the 

proportional contribution of artificial production, and the origin of hatchery broodstock. 

• Category 1 units consist of native stocks that are predominantly naturally produced, or 

enhanced to a greater or lesser extent by hatchery programs that rear indigenous chinook. 

• Category 2 units are predominantly of hatchery origin, in some cases comprised of nonindigenous broodstock, but where remnant indigenous populations may still exist, and 

where the habitat is capable of supporting self-sustaining natural production. 

• Category 3 units are designated where production occurs only because of returns to a 

hatchery program, or due to straying from adjacent natural populations or hatchery 

programs. This Plan does not state harvest objectives for Category III units. 

Conservation of Category 1 populations is the first priority of this plan, because they comprise 

genetically and ecologically essential and unique components of the ESU. The harvest 

management objectives for these units are set such that their recovery is not impeded, and the risk 

of decline in their status is very low. They include populations in the Nooksack, Skagit, 

Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Cedar, Green, White, Dungeness, Elwha, and Hoko rivers (Table 2). 

Hatchery supplementation is considered to be essential to protecting the genetic and demographic 

integrity of populations in the Nooksack, Stillaguamish, White, Dungeness, and Elwha rivers. 

Hatchery production in these systems is included in the ESA listing, because it deems essential to 

the recovery of the ESU (NMFS 1999). 

Natural populations in the North Lake Washington tributaries, and the Puyallup, Nisqually, 

Skokomish, and mid-Hood Canal rivers have been heavily influenced by artificial production, in 

most cases based on non-indigenous stocks, and are, therefore, Category 2 management units. 

This influence persists, even in cases where artificial production may have been redesigned, 

scaled down, or terminated. Some Puget Sound stocks, most notably from the Green River, have 

been disseminated into several of these systems, and into the Snohomish system. 

Past hatchery programs, frequently using non-indigenous stocks, were managed without informed 

consideration of the risk to indigenous populations, particularly when viewed in the light of 

current understanding of the ecological and genetic interactions of natural and hatchery 

production. Their primary goal was to enhance fisheries. Hatchery production was seen as a 

solution to increasing demand for fishing opportunity, particularly following the resolution of 

U.S. v. Washington, and the rapid urban growth around Puget Sound. This approach was also 

perceived to mitigate for severe and continuing habitat losses, including those from hydropower 

development, irrigation and other withdrawals, agricultural and forest practices, to name a few. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Exploitation Rate Ceilings 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

12

The policy intent was to fully utilize this increased hatchery production, and manage harvest 

primarily to achieve sufficient escapement to meet the broodstock requirements of the hatchery 

programs. The potential for restoring natural production in these systems was low, because of 

degraded habitat. The resulting high exploitation rates were not sustainable by the native, natural 

chinook populations. 

This Plan emphasizes conservation of Category 2 populations, in order to assure their continued 

viability. In some cases, large-scale hatchery enhancement programs operate in these systems, 

and hatchery returns contribute significantly to natural spawning. There is continued focus on 

quantifying the capacity of habitat in these rivers, and the current productivity of naturally 

spawning chinook. Until the results of these studies are credible, constraint of harvest will assure 

stable natural escapement, and in some cases provide variable increasing escapement in excess of 

the interim escapement goals. Where hatchery programs have been implemented specifically as 

mitigation for habitat loss, e.g. in the Nisqually River and Skokomish River, where habitat loss 

has resulted in greatly reduced fishing opportunity, harvest may take priority over increasing 

escapement beyond the level of assuring persistence, until the capacity of habitat is clearly 

defined, or functional habitat is restored. Assuring the viability of all these populations now 

preserves future options to manage for higher natural-origin production later, should those 

populations be deemed essential to a recovered ESU. 

Specific harvest objectives have not been established for Category 3 populations in this Plan, so 

their status is not discussed here in detail. Hatchery programs have been established on systems 

where there is no evidence of historical native chinook production. In these areas, terminal 

harvest is frequently managed to remove a very high proportion of the returning chinook, in 

excess of the broodstock required to perpetuate the program. However, if the harvest falls short 

of this objective, excess adults may spawn naturally, or be intentionally passed above barriers to 

utilize otherwise inaccessible spawning areas. Straying into adjacent streams is also likely under 

this condition. While some natural production may occur in these systems, the available habitat 

is not suitable to enable sustained production without the continued infusion of hatchery returns 

or strays. 

3.2 Abundance Designations 

This Plan classifies Puget Sound chinook management units into two abundance classifications: 

those that usually have harvestable surpluses, and those that usually don't. For those units 

without harvestable surpluses, the management units and their component populations are further 

classified by whether their abundance exceeds or is lower than their low abundance threshold. 

These abundance classifications are used to set the maximum allowable fishery-related mortality 

(see Implementation – Chapter 5). 

3.2.1 Abundances with Harvestable Surpluses 

The co-managers will establish an upper escapement level (hereafter, the ‘upper management 

threshold’), as the threshold for determining whether a MU has harvestable surplus. Consistent 

with the PSSMP, this threshold will be the escapement level associated with optimum 

productivity (i.e. maximum sustainable harvest (MSH), unless a different level is agreed to. After 

factoring in expected Alaskan catches, Canadian catches, and incidental, test, and ceremonial and 

subsistence catches in southern U.S. fisheries, if an MU is expected to have a spawning 

escapement greater than the upper management threshold, that MU will be classified as having 

harvestable surplus 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Exploitation Rate Ceilings 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

13

Derivation of Upper Management Thresholds 

The upper management threshold was calculated for some MUs (Skagit summer - fall, Skagit 

spring, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish) under current habitat conditions. The method used to 

calculate current productivity depends on the data available for that MU. Some MUs have data 

on spawning escapement, juvenile production, habitat measurements, CWT distribution, and adult 

recruitment; other units may have data only on escapement and terminal run size; and other units 

may have only index escapement counts and terminal area catches. The method used for each 

MU is described in its Management Unit Profile (Appendix A). Once the current productivity 

and capacity are calculated, the upper management threshold, depending on how it is defined, can 

be estimated from such methods as standard spawner-recruit calculations (Ricker 1975), 

empirical observations of relative escapement levels and catches, or Monte Carlo simulations that 

buffer for error and variability (Hayman 2003). 

For other MUs, the upper management threshold was set as the current escapement goal. In some 

cases this level is the best available estimate of current MSH escapement. In other cases (e.g. 

Nooksack, Puyallup, Nisqually, Skokomish, Mid Hood Canal, and Dungeness) the current 

escapement goal is substantially higher than current MSH level, according to habitat-based 

analysis of current productivity. 

 

Establishing the current MSH escapement level, or a buffered surrogate, as the upper 

management threshold is a conservative standard that assigns harvest management its rightful 

share of the burden of conservation, assures long-term increases in abundance, and does not 

impede recovery. As habitat conditions improve, this threshold can be increased to account for 

increased productivity or capacity (see Chapter 7, Plan Review). 

3.2.2 Abundances With No Harvestable Surpluses 

A MU that is projected to have a spawning escapement below its upper management threshold 

lacks harvestable surplus. Under this plan, no commercial or sport fisheries in Puget Sound can 

be conducted that target on MUs without harvestable surplus (see Application to Management 

section). Moreover, incidental impacts on each MU must be less than the specified ceiling 

rebuilding exploitation rate (RER). This ceiling is further reduced if the abundance of any MU, 

or a component population of a MU, is below a specified low abundance threshold (LAT). 

Derivation of Rebuilding Exploitation Rates 

Rebuilding exploitation rates were established for the Skagit summer / fall, Skagit spring, 

Stillaguamish, and Snohomish management units after simulating the future dynamic abundance 

of each unit under a range of exploitation rates. The RER is the highest exploitation rate that met 

the most restrictive of the following risk criteria: 

• A very low probability (less than five percentage points higher than under zero harvest) 

of abundance declining to a calculated point of instability; and either 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Exploitation Rate Ceilings 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

14

• A high probability (at least 80%) of the spawning escapement increasing to a specified 

threshold (see MU Profiles in Appendix A for details), or the probability of escapements 

falling below this threshold level differs from a zero harvest regime by less than 10 

percentage points. 

The simulation models relied on detailed information about the current productivity of the 

populations in question, including estimates of annual spawning escapement, maturation rates, 

harvest-related mortality that enable reconstruction of historical cohort abundance, and variability 

in marine and freshwater survival. With initial escapement and annual exploitation rate specified, 

the simulation predicts recruitment, harvest mortality, and escapement, for 25 years, under 

variable marine and freshwater survival and management error typical of recent years. 

Management error includes the differences between anticipated and actual chinook catch, changes 

in the harvest distribution of contributing stocks, and error in forecasting abundance. 

The essential data, and the methods used for derivation of the recruitment functions, upper and 

lower threshold values, and selection of the RER, for each of the four management units, are 

detailed in Appendix A. 

Risk tolerance criteria were chosen subjectively, through joint technical cooperation by tribal, 

state, and federal biologists, as adequately conservative for depressed chinook populations; they 

were not specified as jeopardy standards in the NMFS’ salmon 4(d) rule. Upper and lower 

escapement criteria were derived by various methods, which are detailed in Appendix A. The 

upper ‘rebuilding escapement threshold’ is not equivalent, for all management units, the upper 

management thresholds which defines harvestable abundance. The lower ‘critical abundance 

threshold’ is not equivalent to the low abundance threshold applied as an indicator of critical 

status for management purposes. 

The simulations indicate that the conservative risk criteria will be met if actual annual target 

exploitation rates are at the level of the RER. However, this Plan envisions actual annual 

exploitation rates to be less than the RER, for some units by substantial margins (see Table 12, 

Chapter 6), so the actual probability of increasing abundance is expected to exceed the 80% / 

10% criteria, and the actual probability of falling to the point of instability is expected to be less 

than 5% higher than under zero harvest. 

For units without such data, the ceiling rates were set with reference to observed minimum rates, 

or harvest ceilings set by the Pacific Salmon Treaty (see Appendix A). For these management 

units, total or southern U.S. (SUS, i.e., due to Washington and Oregon fisheries) exploitation rate 

ceilings are generally established at the low level of the late 1990s, which resulted in stable or 

increasing spawning escapement. These ceilings are usually SUS exploitation rates between 10 

and 20 percent. Since this Plan eliminates fisheries targeted at MUs without harvestable 

abundance, these ceilings allow the spawning escapements for these units to benefit from the 

recent reductions in Canadian and U.S. fisheries, in some cases providing terminal runs that 

exceed the upper management threshold. 

 Derivation of Low Abundance Thresholds 

Demographic and genetic theory indicates that when the spawning abundance of a salmon 

population falls to a very low level, there is a significant increase in the risk of demographic 

instability, loss of genetic integrity, and extinction. This level, termed the point of biological 

instability, has not been quantified for all salmon populations, but genetic and demographic 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Exploitation Rate Ceilings 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15

theory has drawn its boundaries (McIlhaney et al. 2000). At low spawner abundance, ecological 

and behavioral factors can cause a dramatic decline in productivity. Low spawner density can 

affect spawning success by reducing the opportunity for mate selection, or finding suitable mates. 

Depensatory predation can significantly reduce smolt production. However, the level at which 

these factors exert their effect will differ markedly between populations. 

The low abundance threshold (LAT), which triggers extraordinary conservation measures in 

fisheries (Table 3), is set well above the point of instability, so that harvest mortality can be 

constrained, severely if necessary, to prevent populations from becoming unstable. The derivation 

of the LAT varied, according to the data available for each population. In some cases, the 

threshold was set at or above an historical low escapement from which the population rebounded 

(i.e. survivors from that low brood escapement produced a higher number of subsequent 

spawners). In other cases, where spawner-recruit and management error data were deemed 

sufficient, we calculated a threshold at which the probability of falling below the calculated point 

of instability was acceptably low. In other cases, where specific data were lacking, we used 

values from the literature that estimated minimum effective population sizes that would avoid 

demographic instability or loss of genetic integrity (e.g., Franklin 1980; Waples 1990; Lande 

1995; McElhany et al. 2000). 

For example, thresholds for Skagit summer and fall populations were calculated as the forecast 

escapement level for which there is a 95 percent probability that actual escapement will be above 

the point of instability (i.e., 5 percent of the replacement escapement level). This calculation 

accounted for the difference between forecast and actual escapement in recent years, and the 

variance around recruitment parameters. For the Stillaguamish management unit, escapement of 

500 was identified as the low abundance threshold, because this level has resulted in recruitment 

rates of 2 – 5 adults per spawner. For other Puget Sound populations the low abundance 

threshold was set in accordance with the scientific literature, or more subjectively, at annual 

escapement of 200 to 1,000 (see Appendix A). 

3.3 Response to Critical Status 

This harvest Plan is designed to constrain fisheries impacts on all listed Puget Sound management 

units by eliminating all but a few fisheries directed at listed chinook. The only directed fisheries, 

defined as those where a majority of encounters are listed chinook, are a few tribal ceremonial 

and subsistence fisheries with small harvests, or terminal fisheries targeting management units 

with fixed escapement goals where harvestable surpluses have been identified. If abundance 

declines, and the spawning escapement for any population or management unit is projected to fall 

to or below its low abundance threshold, the co-managers will implement extraordinary 

restrictions on SUS fisheries to increase the spawning escapement above the low threshold, or 

reduce the SUS exploitation rate to or below a specified ceiling level. 

This response results in a significant reduction in incidental impacts on listed chinook, but 

preserves minimal harvest access to surplus production of non-listed chinook, and other salmon 

species. The response to critical status describes exploitation rate ceilings and fisheries that 

provide minimally acceptable access to sockeye, pink, chum, coho, and chinook salmon for 

which harvestable surpluses have been identified. 

This response to critical status is intended to prevent further decline in abundance, toward the 

point of biological instability. Restriction of harvest will not, by itself, enable recovery of 

populations that have suffered severe decline in abundance, resulting from loss and degradation 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Exploitation Rate Ceilings 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

16

of properly functioning chinook habitat conditions. Restriction of fishing below the level defined 

in this critical response would effectively eliminate treaty and non-treaty opportunity on nonlisted species and populations, without ensuring recovery. If further resource protection is 

necessary, it must be found by reducing exploitation rates in mixed-stock fisheries north of 

Washington State in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries, improving habitat conditions, and/or 

providing artificial supplementation where necessary and appropriate. 

Table 3. Rebuilding exploitation rates, low abundance thresholds and critical exploitation rate 

ceilings for Puget Sound chinook management units. 

Management Unit Rebuilding 

Exploitation Rate 

Low 

Abundance 

Threshold 

Critical Exploitation 

Rate Ceiling 

Nooksack 

 North Fork 

 South Fork 

Under development 1,000 1

1,000 1

7% / 9% SUS 3 

Skagit summer / fall 

 Upper Skagit summer 

 Sauk summer 

 Lower Skagit fall 

50% 

4,800 

2200 

400 

900 

15% SUS even-years 

17% SUS odd-years 

Skagit spring 

 Upper Sauk 

 Upper Cascade 

 Suiattle 

38% 

576 

130 

170 

170 

18% SUS 

Stillaguamish 

 North Fork Summer 

 South Fk & MS Fall 

25% 

650 1

500 1

N/A 

15% SUS 

Snohomish 

 Skykomish 

 Snoqualmie 

21% 

2,800 1

521 1 

1745 1 

15% SUS 

Lake Washington 

 Cedar River 

15% PT SUS 

200 1

12% PT SUS 

Green 15% PT SUS 1,800 12% PT SUS 

White River spring 20% 200 15% SUS 

Puyallup fall 50% 500 12% PT SUS 

Nisqually Terminal fishery managed to achieve 1,100 natural spawners 

Skokomish 15% PT SUS 1,300 2 12% PT SUS 

Mid-Hood Canal 15% PT SUS 400 12% PT SUS 

Dungeness 10% SUS 500 6% SUS 

Elwha 10% SUS 1,000 6% SUS 

Western JDF 10% SUS 500 6% SUS 

1

 natural-origin spawners. 

2

 The threshold is escapement of 800 natural and/or 500 hatchery (see Appendix A). 

3

 Expected SUS rate will not exceed 7% in 4 out of 5 years (see Appendix A) 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Exploitation Rate Ceilings 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

17

The management response to critical status has two principal components: 

1. A Critical Exploitation Rate Ceiling (CERC) is established for each management unit 

(Table 3), imposing an upper limit on SUS impacts when spawning escapement for that 

unit is projected to fall below its low abundance threshold. The CERCs are defined as 

total SUS ceiling exploitation rates for most management units. For the Lake 

Washington, Green, Puyallup, Nisqually, Mid Hood Canal and Skokomish units, the 

ceiling rates apply only to pre-terminal fisheries. For these units, additional terminal 

fishery management responses are detailed in the unit profiles (Appendix A). Except for 

Mid-Hood Canal, they are composite populations in that hatchery production contributes 

substantially to fisheries and natural spawning 

The MFR, which is described in detail in Appendix C for fisheries in Puget Sound and 

Washington coastal ocean areas, provides for Treaty Indian and non-Indian harvest of the surplus 

abundance of non-listed chinook, and sockeye, pink, coho, and chum salmon. 

The MFR represents the lowest level of fishing mortality on listed chinook that is possible, while 

still allowing a reasonable harvest of non-listed salmon. Reducing tribal fisheries to those 

specified in the MFR, while requiring significant sacrifice of fishing opportunity guaranteed by 

treaty rights, represent the minimum level of fishing that allows some exercise of those rights, 

and demonstrates their commitment to contribute, with concomitant and essential habitat 

protection and other recovery actions, to the recovery of Puget Sound chinook salmon to levels 

that would satisfy their treaty rights. 

The co-managers established the CERCs, after policy consideration of the MFR, and examination 

of FRAM simulations of the recent fisheries regimes that responded to critical status for some 

management units. Exploitation rates associated with constant mortality in SUS fisheries will 

change, in part due to variation in the abundance of stocks from British Columbia, the Columbia 

River, and Puget Sound, and variation in intercepting fishing mortality exerted by fisheries in 

British Columbia and Alaska. The CERCs reflect this source of variation (i.e. they are, in some 

cases, higher than the SUS exploitation rates projected in recent years). Furthermore, if 

significant changes are made to the FRAM that alter the calculation of exploitation rates, these 

ceilings may be adjusted in consultation with the NMFS. 

2. Within the constraint established by the CERCs, southern U.S. fisheries will be limited so 

that their impact on critical management units does not exceed the levels projected to 

occur with the 2003 fisheries (see Implementation, below). The CERCs, thus, impose a 

hard ceiling on SUS exploitation rates, but annual fishing plans are likely to result in 

impacts that fall below the CERC for some critical units. New fisheries, beyond those 

planned for 2003, will not be implemented with the intention of increasing impacts on 

critical units, unless other fisheries are shaped to reduce fishing mortality on those units 

to an equivalent degree. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

18

4. The Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

Puget Sound chinook contribute to fisheries along the coast of British Columbia and Alaska, in 

addition to those in the coastal waters of Washington and Puget Sound. Their management, 

therefore, involves the local jurisdictions of the Washington co-managers, and the jurisdictions of 

the State of Alaska, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Pacific Salmon 

Commission, and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

4.1 Southeast Alaskan Fisheries 

In Southeast Alaska (SEAK) chinook are harvested in commercial, subsistence, personal use, and 

recreational fisheries throughout Southeast Alaska. Since 1995, the total landed chinook catch has 

ranged from 217,000 to 339,000 (Table 4). These fisheries are managed by the Alaska Board of 

Fisheries and the Department of Fish and Game, under oversight of the North Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council to ensure consistency of fisheries management objectives with the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act (1996). 

Commercial fisheries employ troll, gillnet, and purse seine gear. Commercial trolling accounts 

for about 68% of the chinook harvest (NMFS 2002). Approximately 6% of the catch of chinook 

and coho is taken outside of State waters, in the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The majority 

of troll catch occurs during the summer season; but ‘winter’ and ‘spring’ troll seasons are also 

scheduled from October through April. The summer season usually opens on July 1st, targeting 

chinook, then shifts to a coho-directed fishery in August. Incidental harvest of pink, chum, and 

sockeye salmon also occurs in the troll fishery. Gillnet and seine fisheries occur within State 

waters, and target pink, sockeye, and chum salmon, with substantial incidental catch of coho, and 

relatively low incidental catch of chinook. 

Table 4. Chinook salmon harvest, all fisheries combined, in Southeast Alaska, 1998 – 2002 (PSC 

2001, PSC 2002). 

Recreational fishing in Southeast Alaska, in recent years, has comprised more than 500,000 

angler days annually. It occurs primarily in June, July, and August. A majority of the effort is 

associated with non-resident fishers, and is targeted at chinook salmon. Fishing is concentrated in 

the vicinity of the major populations centers; Ketchikan, Petersburg, Sitka, and Juneau, but it also 

occurs along the coast of Prince of Wales Island and other remote areas. Fishing in the vicinity of 

Sitka accounts for 47% of the recreational chinook harvest (Jones and Stokes 1991). 

Chinook from the Columbia River, Oregon coast, Washington coast, west coast of Vancouver 

Island (WCVI), and northern B.C. contribute significantly to harvest in Southeast Alaska (CTC 

2003). Few Puget Sound chinook are caught in Alaska, except for Strait of Juan de Fuca stocks, 

which have significant exploitation rates in Southeast Alaska (up to 30% of the catch of Elwha, 

and, in some years, over 50% of the catch of Hoko chinook). Also, in some years, between 5% 

1998 271,000

1999 251,000

2000 263,300

2001 260,000

2002 442,200
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

19

and 10% of the catch of Stillaguamish chinook has been taken in Southeast Alaska (Chinook TC 

1999). 

More than 3,000 subsistence and personal use permits were issued in Southeast Alaska in 1996 

(NMFS 2002), but only a small proportion of the subsistence harvest of salmon (33,000 in 1996) 

is made up of chinook. 

4.2 Fisheries in British Columbia 

In British Columbia, troll fisheries occur on the northern coast and on the WCVI. Conservation 

concerns over WCVI and Fraser River chinook and coho stocks have constrained these fisheries 

in recent years. Commercial and test troll fisheries directed at pink salmon in northern areas, and 

sockeye on the WCVI and the southern Strait of Georgia incur relatively low incidental chinook 

mortality. Time / area restrictions, and selective gear regulations have been implemented to 

reduce the harvest of weak chinook and coho stocks. 

Net fisheries, including gillnet and purse seine gear, in British Columbia marine inshore waters 

are primarily directed at sockeye, pink, and chum salmon, but also incur incidental chinook 

mortality. Conservation measures have limited chinook retention in many areas. Chinook catch 

in the Northern B.C. and WCVI troll fisheries increased markedly in 2002 (Table 5). 

Table 5. Landed chinook harvest in British Columbia inshore marine fisheries in 2001 and 2002 

(CDFO 2001, CDFO 2002). 

Recreational harvest of chinook in the Queen Charlotte Islands and on the WCVI have been 

similarly constrained by time / area and size regulations to conserve weak chinook stocks. 

Nearshore waters along the entire WCVI were closed to salmon fishing in 1999 – 2001 (CDFO 

2000; CDFO 2001). Limited recreational fisheries have been implemented in the ‘inside’ waters 

of the WCVI (e.g. in Nootka Sound, Esperanza Inlet, and Tlupana Inlet). Marine recreational 

fisheries occur along the Central B.C. coast, Johnstone Strait, Georgia Strait, and the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca. Sport fisheries in inshore marine areas comprise the largest portion of the chinook 

harvest in southern B.C. 

2001 2002

Northern BC troll 13,100 94,748

WCVI troll 77,000 133,693

Georgia Strait troll 485 369

Northern BC net 22,035 11,041

Central BC net 4,589 4,827

Native North and Central 7,231 5,379

Johnstone Strait net 1,000 1,025

WCVI outside sport 36,000 22,009

QCI & North coast sport 38,500 41,300

Central coast sport 7,736 6,305

JDF, GS, JS sport 57,526 84,426

Total 265,202 404,753
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

20

Fisheries in northern B.C. target local stocks, but chinook from the Columbia River, Washington 

and Oregon coasts, Georgia Strait, and the WCVI are also caught (CTC 2001). Puget Sound 

chinook make up a minor portion of the catch, but a significant portion of the mortality of North 

Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca spring and summer/fall chinook can occur in these fisheries (see 

Catch Distribution, below). WCVI fisheries, which target on Columbia River, Puget Sound, and 

Georgia Strait stocks, have a major impact on all Puget Sound summer/fall stocks, with a lower, 

but significant impact on springs. Georgia Strait fisheries target on Georgia Strait and Puget 

Sound chinook, and have heavy impacts on North Sound springs, North Sound summer/falls, and 

Hood Canal summer/falls, and significant, but lower impacts on all other Puget Sound stocks 

(Chinook TC 1999). 

4.3 Washington Ocean Fisheries 

Treaty Indian and non-treaty commercial troll fisheries directed at chinook, coho, and pink 

salmon, and recreational fisheries directed at chinook and coho salmon are scheduled from May 

through September, under co-management by the WDFW and Treaty Tribes. The Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council (PFMC), pursuant to the Sustainable Fisheries Act (1996), 

oversees annual fishing regimes. Tribal fleets operate within the confines of their usual and 

accustomed fishing areas. Principles governing the co-management objectives and the allocation 

of harvest benefits among tribal and non-Indian users, for each river of origin, were developed 

under Hoh v Baldrige (522 F.Supp. 683 (1981)). The declining status of Columbia River origin 

chinook stocks has been the primary constraint on coastal fisheries, though consideration is also 

given to attaining allocation objectives for troll, terminal net, and recreational harvest of coastalorigin stocks from the Quillayute, Queets, Quinault, Hoh, and Grays Harbor systems. These 

fisheries primarily target Columbia River chinook (Chinook Technical Committee 2001). Puget 

Sound chinook make up a low percentage of the catch, with South Sound and Hood Canal stocks 

exploited at a slightly higher rate than North Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca chinook. 

The ocean troll fishery (Table 6) has been structured, in recent years, as chinook-directed fishing 

in May and June, and chinook- and coho-directed fishing from July into mid-September, to 

enable full utilization of Treaty and non-Treaty chinook and coho quotas. These quotas (i.e. catch 

ceilings) are developed in a pre-season planning process that considers harvest impacts on all 

contributing stocks. Time, area, and gear restrictions are implemented to selectively harvest the 

target species and stock groups. In general, the chinook harvest occurs 10 to 40 miles offshore, 

whereas the coho fishery occurs within 10 miles off the coast, but annual variations in the 

distribution of the target species cause this pattern to vary. The majority of the chinook catch has, 

in recent years, been caught in Areas 3 and 4 (which, during the summer, includes the 

westernmost areas of the Strait of Juan de Fuca – Areas 4B). In the last five years, troll catch has 

ranged from 18,000 to 93,000 (Table 6). 

Table 6. Commercial troll and recreational landed catch of chinook in Washington Areas 1 – 4, 

1998 – 2002 (Simmons et al. 2002). 

Treaty Troll Non-Treaty troll Recreational Total 

1998 14,859 5,929 2,187 22,975

1999 27,664 17,456 9,887 55,007

2000 7,770 10,269 8,478 26,517

2001 28,100 21,229 22,974 72,303

2002 39,184 53,819 57,821 150,824
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

21

In odd-numbered years, the coastal troll fishery may also target pink salmon, the majority of 

which originate in the Fraser River. In the last six odd-numbered years, the annual troll harvest of 

pink salmon has ranged from 1,800 to 48,300. 

 Recreational fisheries, in Washington Ocean areas, are also conducted under specific quotas for 

each species, and allocations to each catch area. WDFW conducts creel surveys at each port to 

estimate catch and keep fishing impacts within the overall quotas. Most of the recreational effort 

occurs in Areas 1 and 2, adjacent to Ilwaco and Westport. Generally recreational regulations are 

not species directed, but certain time / area strata have had chinook non-retention imposed, as 

conservation concerns have increased, and to enable continued opportunity based on more 

abundant coho stocks. In the last five years, recreational chinook catch in Areas 1 – 4 has ranged 

from 2,187 to 53,819 (Table 3). 

Puget Sound chinook stocks comprise less than 10 percent of coastal troll and sport catch (see 

below for more detailed discussion of the catch distribution of specific populations). The 

contribution of Puget Sound stocks is higher in northern areas, along the coast. The exploitation 

rate of most individual chinook management units in these coastal fisheries is, in most years, less 

than one percent. However, these exploitation rates vary annually in response to the varying 

abundance of commingled Columbia River, local coastal, and Canadian chinook stocks. 

Amendment 14 to the PFMC Framework Management Plan restricts the direct oversight of 

conservation to those chinook stocks whose exploitation rate in fisheries under the jurisdiction of 

the PFMC (i.e., coastal ocean fisheries between the borders of Mexico and British Columbia, 

including Washington catch areas 1 – 4) have exceeded two percent, in a specified base period. 

However, the PFMC must also align its harvest objectives with conservation standards required 

for salmon ESUs, listed under the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, this Plan, along with 

the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, commits the co-managers to explicit consideration of 

coastal fishery impacts, to ensure that the overall conservation objectives are achieved for all 

Puget Sound Management Units. This requires accounting all impacts on all management units, 

even in fisheries where contribution is very low. 

4.4 Puget Sound Fisheries 

4.4.1 Tribal Ceremonial and Subsistence Fisheries 

Indian tribes schedule ceremonial and subsistence chinook fisheries to provide basic nutritional 

benefits to their members, and to maintain the intrinsic and essential cultural values imbued in 

traditional fishing practices and spiritual links with the natural resources. The magnitude of 

ceremonial and subsistence harvest of chinook is small relative to commercial and recreational 

harvest, particularly where it involves critically depressed stocks. 

4.4.2 Commercial Chinook Fisheries 

Commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound, including the U.S. waters of the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca, Rosario Strait, Georgia Strait, embayments of Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, are comanaged by the tribes and WDFW under the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. Several 

tribes conduct small-scale commercial troll fisheries directed at chinook salmon in the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca and Rosario Strait. In the western Strait of Juan de Fuca, most of the effort occurs 

in winter and early spring, with annual closure from mid-April to mid-June to protect maturing 

spring chinook. Annual harvest has ranged from 1,000 to 2,000 in the last five years. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

22

Commercial net fisheries, using set and drift gill nets, purse or roundhaul seines, beach seines, 

and reef nets are conducted throughout Puget Sound, and in the lower reaches of larger rivers. 

These fisheries are regulated, by WDFW (non-treaty fleets) and by individual tribes, with 

time/area and gear restrictions. In each catch area, harvest is focused on the target species or 

stock according to its migration timing through that area. Management periods are defined as that 

interval encompassing the central 80% of the migration timing of the species, in each 

management area. Because the migration timings of different species overlap, the actual fishing 

schedules may be constrained during the early and late portion of the management period to 

reduce impacts on non-target species. Incidental harvest of chinook also occurs in net fisheries 

directed at sockeye, pink, and coho salmon. 

Due to current conservation concerns, chinook-directed commercial fisheries are of limited scope 

and are mostly directed at abundant hatchery production in terminal areas; Bellingham /Samish 

Bay and the Nooksack River, Tulalip Bay, Elliot Bay and the Duwamish River, Lake 

Washington, the Puyallup River, the Nisqually River, Budd Inlet, Chambers Bay, Sinclair Inlet, 

southern Hood Canal and the Skokomish River. Purse or roundhaul seine vessels operate in 

Bellingham Bay and Tulalip Bay, although these are primarily gillnet fisheries. A small-scale, 

onshore, marine set gillnet fishery is conducted in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and on the coast 

immediately south of Cape Flattery. Small scale gillnet research or evaluation fisheries are also 

used in-season to acquire management and research data in the Skagit River, Elliot Bay, Puyallup 

River, and Nisqually River. Typically, these involve two or three vessels making a prescribed 

number of sets at specific locations, one day per week, during the run’s passage. 

Total commercial net and troll harvest of chinook has fallen from levels in excess of 200,000 in 

the 1980s to an average of 89,500 for the period 1998 – 2002. (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Commercial net and troll catch of chinook in Puget Sound, 1980 – 2002 (TFT 

database). 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

23

4.4.3 Commercial Sockeye, Pink, Coho, and Chum Fisheries 

Net fisheries directed at Fraser River sockeye are conducted annually, and at Fraser River pink 

salmon in odd-numbered years, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Georgia Strait, and the Straits and 

passages between them (i.e., catch areas 7 and 7A). Nine tribes and the WDFW issue regulations 

for these fisheries, as participants in the Fraser River Panel, under Pacific Salmon Treaty 

Annexes. Annual management plans include sharing and allocation provisions, but fishing 

schedules are developed based on in-season assessment of the abundance of early, early summer, 

summer, and late-run sockeye stocks and pink salmon. 

Sockeye harvest has exceeded 2 million in the last ten years, but the fishery has been constrained 

in recent years due to lower survival and pre-spawning mortality of sockeye, so harvest has 

ranged from 20,000 to 512,500 since 1998 (Table 7). In the last six seasons (1991 – 2001) the 

fishery for Fraser River pink salmon in harvested up to 1.74 million fish (Table 7). Most of the 

pink salmon harvest is taken by purse seine gear. Specific regulations to reduce incidental 

chinook mortality, including requiring release of all live chinook from non-treaty purse seine 

fishery hauls, have reduced incidental contribution to less than 1% of the total catch. 

Table 7. Fraser sockeye and pink salmon harvest, and incidental chinook catch, in Puget Sound, 

1996 – 2002. (TFT database, 2002 data are preliminary). 

Commercial fisheries directed at Cedar River sockeye stocks occur in Elliot Bay, the Ship Canal, 

and Lake Washington, and much smaller scale fisheries on Baker river sockeye may occur in the 

Skagit River. The Cedar River stock does not achieve harvestable abundance consistently, but 

significant fisheries occurred in 1996, 2000, and 2002. However, these fisheries exert very low 

incidental chinook mortality. 

 

Commercial fisheries directed at Puget Sound-origin pink salmon occur in terminal marine areas 

and freshwater in Bellingham Bay and the Nooksack River, Skagit Bay and Skagit River, and 

Possession Sound / Port Gardner (Snohomish River system). In the last six seasons, catch in the 

Nooksack system has ranged up to 17,500; in the Skagit system catch has ranged up to 525,000, 

and in the Snohomish system catch has ranged up to 86,100 (Table 8). Terminal-area pink 

fisheries involve significant incidental catch of chinook. 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Strait of sockeye 30,314 12,509 26,728 20,230 41,974 34,973 45,600

Juan de Fuca pink 6 3,017 35 4,105 91 7,064 173

chinook 606 492 264 589 640 931 1,074

Rosario and sockeye 243,918 1,268,078 499,939 22 428,661 206,435 389,921

Georgia Strait pink 1 1,740,356 807 10 253 466,494 21

chinook 3,934 29,215 3,804 3 1091 970 2,229
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

24

Table 8. Commercial net fishery harvest of pink salmon from the Nooksack, Skagit, and 

Snohomish river systems, 1991 – 2001. 2001 data are preliminary. (TFT database). 

Commercial fisheries directed at coho salmon, also occur throughout Puget Sound and in some 

rivers. Coho are also caught incidentally in fisheries directed at chinook, sockeye, pink, and chum 

salmon. In the last five years total landed coho catch has ranged from 107,646 to 315,124, with 

over 40% of the catch taken in central and south Puget Sound, and 20% taken in each of the 

Nooksack – Samish, and Snohomish regions (Table 9). Catch in every region has increased since 

2000 relative to the late-1990s, but is still below the levels of the early 1990s, when the total 

harvest exceeded one million coho. 

Table 9. Landed coho harvest for Puget Sound net fisheries, 1998 - 2002. Regional totals include 

freshwater catch (TFT database). 

4.4.4 Recreational Fisheries 

Recreational salmon fisheries in Puget Sound occur in marine (Areas 5 – 13) and freshwater 

areas, under regulations promulgated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. In 

marine areas, the principal target species are chinook and coho salmon. Since the mid-1980s the 

total annual marine harvest of chinook has steadily declined from levels in excess of 100,000 in 

the late 1980s to an average of 31,150 in the last five years (Figure 2). Marine-area coho harvest 

has varied widely in the last five years, averaging 98,250. Odd-year pink salmon harvest has also 

varied widely; it exceeded 117,000 in 2001. 

Recreational fisheries that target immature chinook (‘blackmouth’) occur during the summer 

months (July – September), and continue through the fall and winter months, and into the early 

spring, primarily in central Puget Sound. Recreational chinook catch has been increasingly 

constrained to avoid overharvest of weak Puget Sound populations. Recreational fisheries are 

managed under the same harvest objectives for chinook and coho salmon that apply to 

commercial fisheries. WDFW has exercised their policy prerogative in allocating, in recent 

years, more of the non-Treaty fishing opportunity to the recreational sector. 

Bellingham Bay & Skagit Bay & Possession Sound &

Nooksack River Skagit River Port Gardner

1991 17,447 133,672 46,039

1993 1,335 143,880 9,648

1995 7,339 524,810 48,006

1997 1,196 46,169 34,537

1999 2,484 32,339 13,055

2001 12,280 198,534 86,097

Strait of Georgia & Nooksack Stillaguamish So Puget Hood

Juan de Fuca Rosario Strait Samish Skagit Snohomish Sound Canal Total 

1998 8,083 1,980 22,892 10,359 24,743 65,617 21,974 155,648

1999 5,586 1 50,175 7,411 18,439 21,189 4,845 107,646

2000 4,338 1,501 67,587 11,151 86,328 186,397 20,860 378,162

2001 15,521 721 76,232 15,948 60,863 137,327 8,512 315,124

2002 9,458 3,638 50,863 7,688 48,578 107,236 7,547 235,008
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

25

Figure 2. Recreational salmon catch in Puget Sound marine areas, 1985 – 2002 (WDFW CRC 

estimates; 2002 data are preliminary). 

Perhaps in response to increasingly constrained bag limits and seasons in marine areas, and the 

increasing abundance of some stocks, recreational harvest of chinook in freshwater areas of Puget 

Sound has shown an increasing trend since the early 1990s (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Recreational chinook harvest in Puget Sound freshwater areas 1988 - 2002 (WDFW 

Catch Record Card estimates; excludes jacks). 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Chin

Coho

Pink
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

26

4.4.5 Non-Landed Fisheries Mortality 

In all fisheries, each type of commercial and recreational gear also exerts ‘non-landed’ mortality 

on chinook. The rates currently used to assess non-landed mortality are shown below (Table 10). 

A more detailed description of the basis for these rates and their application is included in 

Appendix B. 

 Hook-and-line fisheries are regulated by size limits, recreational bag limits, and non-retention 

periods. A proportion of all fish not kept will die from hooking trauma. A large body of relevant 

literature expresses a very broad range of hooking mortality rates. Rates are assumed to be higher 

for commercial troll than recreational gear, and higher for smaller fish. As bag limits on 

recreational fisheries have decreased, the proportion of non-landed mortality has risen 

accordingly. The Washington co-managers and the PFMC have periodically reviewed the 

literature, and adjusted the non-landed mortality rates associated with hook-and-line fisheries, so 

that fisheries simulation models used in management planning express the best available science. 

For hook and line gear, the release mortality (or “shaker mortality”) rate refers to the percentage 

of fish which are brought to the boat and released, because they are below the legal size limit, or a 

species for which regulations preclude retention. Drop-off mortality rate is calculated as a 

proportion of the landed catch, but refers to fish that are hooked but escape before being brought 

to the boat. 

The various types of net gear also exert non-landed mortality. Studies to quantify rates are 

difficult to design and implement, so few reference data are available. Though survival of gillnet 

entanglement is not well understood, a small proportion, currently assumed to be 3% of landed 

catch in pre-terminal areas, 2% in terminal fisheries, drops out of the mesh before the gear is 

retrieved. Marine mammal predation adds a significant additional loss in many areas of Puget 

Sound, but their effect varies from year to year, and among areas. The assumed rates do not 

express this variation in mammal predation, and the few available studies that exist are specific to 

certain areas (Young 1989). Purse seine gear, for the non-treaty fleet, has been modified, by 

regulation, to reduce the catch of immature chinook by incorporating a strip of wide-mesh net at 

the surface of the bunt. Nonetheless, small chinook are caught by seine gear, and are assumed 

more likely to be killed. Non-treaty seine fishers have been required to release all chinook in all 

areas of Puget Sound in recent years, in order to allocate mortality to other fisheries. Mortality 

rates vary due to a number of factors, but studies have shown that two-thirds to half of chinook 

survive seine capture, particularly if the fish are sorted immediately or allowed to recover in a 

holding tank before release. Because total catch is typically small for beach seine and reef net 

gear, chinook may be released without harm. Research continues into net gear that reduces 

release mortality, with promising results from recent tests of tangle nets (Vander Haegen et al. 

2003; Vander Haegen et al. 2002(a); Vander Haegen et al. 2002(b); Vander Haegen et al. 2001). 

In any case, non-landed mortality is accounted by managers, according to the best available 

information, to quantify the mortality associated with harvest. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

27

Table 10 . Chinook incidental mortality rates applied to commercial and recreational fisheries in 

Washington. 

4.5 Regulatory Jurisdictions Affecting Washington Fisheries 

Fisheries planning and regulation by the Washington co-managers are coordinated with other 

jurisdictions, in consideration of the effects of Washington fisheries on Columbia River and 

Canadian chinook stocks. Pursuant to U.S. v Washington (384 F. Supp. 312), the Puget Sound 

Salmon Management Plan (1985) provides fundamental principles and objectives for comanagement of salmon fisheries. 

The Pacific Salmon Treaty, originally signed in 1984, commits the co-managers to equitable 

cross-border sharing of the harvest and conservation of U.S. and Canadian stocks. The Chinook 

Chapter of the Treaty, which is implemented by the Pacific Salmon Commission, establishes 

ceilings on chinook exploitation rates in southern U.S. fisheries The thrust of the original Treaty, 

and subsequently negotiated agreements for chinook, was to constrain harvest on both sides of the 

border in order to rebuild depressed stocks. 

The PFMC is responsible for setting harvest levels for coastal salmon fisheries in Washington, 

Oregon, and California. The PFMC adopts the management objectives of the relevant local 

authority, provided they meet the standards of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The Endangered 

Species Act has introduced a more conservative standard for coastal fisheries, when they 

significantly impact listed stocks. 

4.5.1 Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (U.S. v. Washington) 

The PSSMP remains the guiding framework for jointly agreed management objectives, allocation 

of harvest, information exchange among the co-managers, and processes for negotiating annual 

harvest regimes. At its inception, the Plan implemented the court order to provide equal access to 

salmon harvest opportunity to Indian tribes, but its enduring principle is to “promote the stability 

and vitality of treaty and non-treaty fisheries of Puget Sound .... and improve the technical basis 

for ...management.” It defined management units (see Chapter III), and regions of origin, as the 

Fishery Release Mortality Drop-off, Drop-out, etc

Ocean Recreational 14% 5%

Ocean troll - barbless hooks 26% 5%

 - barbed hooks 30% 5%

Puget Sound recreational > 22" - 10% 5%

< 22" - 20% 5%

Gillnet terminal areas - 2%

pre-terminal areas - 3%

 Skagit Bay 52.4%

Purse Seine immature fish- 45% 0%

mature fish - 33% 0%

Beach Seine

 Skagit Bay pink fishery 50% 0%

Reef Net 0% 0%
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

28

basis for harvest objectives and allocation, and established maximum sustainable harvest (MSH) 

and escapement as general objectives for all units. The PSSMP also envisioned the adaptive 

management process that motivated this Plan. Improved technical understanding of the 

productivity of populations, and assessment of the actual performance of management regimes in 

relation to management objectives and the status of stocks, would result in continuing 

modification of harvest objectives. 

4.5.2 Pacific Salmon Treaty 

In 1999, negotiations between the U.S. and Canada resulted in a new, comprehensive chinook 

agreement, which replaced the previous fixed-ceiling regime with a new approach based on the 

annual abundance of stocks. It includes increased specificity on the management of all fisheries 

affecting chinook, and seeks to address the conservation requirements of a larger number of 

depressed stocks, including some that are now listed under the ESA. 

The new agreement establishes exploitation rate guidelines or quotas for fisheries subject to the 

PST based on the forecast abundance of key chinook stocks. This regime will be in effect for the 

1999 through 2008 period. Fisheries are classified as aggregate abundance-based management 

regimes (AABM) or individual stock-based management regimes (ISBM). As provided in the 

new chinook chapter of the agreement: “an AABM fishery is an abundance-based regime that 

constrains catch or total adult equivalent mortality to a numerical limit computed from either a 

pre-season forecast or an in-season estimate of abundance, and the application of a desired 

harvest rate index expressed as a proportion of the 1979-1982 base period.” (PSC 2000). 

Three fishery complexes are designated for management as AABM fisheries: 1) the SEAK sport, 

net and troll fisheries; 2) the Northern British Columbia troll (statistical areas 1-5) and the Queen 

Charlotte Islands sport (statistical areas 1 - 2); and 3) the WCVI troll (statistical areas 21,23-27, 

and 121-127) and sport, for specified areas and time periods. The estimated abundance index each 

year is computed by a formula specified in the agreement for each AABM fishery. Table 1 of the 

chinook chapter of the new Annex IV specifies the target catch levels for each AABM fishery as 

a function of that estimated abundance index. 

All chinook fisheries subject to the Treaty that are not AABM fisheries are classified as ISBM 

fisheries, including freshwater chinook fisheries. As provided in the new agreement, “an ISBM 

fishery is an abundance-based regime that constrains to a numerical limit the total catch or total 

adult equivalent mortality rate within the fisheries of a jurisdiction for a naturally spawning 

chinook stock or stock group.” For these fisheries the agreement specifies that Canada and the 

U.S. shall reduce the total adult equivalent mortality rate by 36.5% and 40% respectively, relative 

to the 1979-1982 base period, for a specified list of indicator stocks. In Puget Sound these 

include Nooksack early, Skagit summer/fall and spring, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Lake 

Washington, and Green stocks. 

If such reductions do not result in the biologically based escapement objectives for a specified list 

of natural-origin stocks, ISBM fishery managers must implement further reductions across their 

fisheries as necessary to meet those objectives or as necessary to equal, at least, the average of 

those reductions that occurred during 1991-1996. Although the specified ISBM objectives must 

be achieved to comply with the agreement, the affected managers may choose to apply more 

constraints to their respective fisheries than are specifically mandated by the agreement. The 

annual distribution of allowable impacts is left to each country’s domestic management 

processes. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

29

4.5.3 Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) provides recommendations to the Secretary 

of Commerce regarding management regulations and sets annual harvest levels for salmon and 

groundfish fisheries in the coastal marine waters of Washington, Oregon, and California, within 

the 200-mile EEZ of the United States. The Council was created by the Magnuson Fishery 

Management and Conservation Act in 1977, and re-authorized by Congress’ passage of the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. The Council coordinates and oversees the ocean fishery 

management objectives among the three state jurisdictions by mandating regulations that prevent 

overfishing and maintain sustainable harvest. The Council’s function is to assure that 

conservation objectives are achieved for all chinook and coho stocks, and that harvest is equitably 

shared among the various user groups. The State of Washington asserts jurisdiction regarding 

regulation of fisheries inside the EEZ (i.e., within three miles of the coast), by adopting the same 

catch quotas that are approved annually by the PFMC. 

The fundamental principles and implementation of the conservation standards are outlined in the 

Framework Management Plan (FMP). The Council has adopted amendments to the FMP to 

address specific conservation and management issues. The FMP includes specific management 

goals and objectives for salmon stocks, usually stated as escapement goals or exploitation or 

harvest rates. These objectives are based on the fundamental principle of providing optimum 

yield, which was re-defined to mean ‘maximum sustainable yield, as reduced by relevant 

economic, social, or ecological factors” (PFMC 1999). 

Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan included conservation objectives, expressed as 

the number of natural, adult spawners, for chinook stocks from Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca. These objectives could be revised without FMP amendment according to procedures in 

the PSSMP. Stocks listed under the ESA are treated as the third exception to the application of 

overfishing criteria in the SFA. The NMFS conducts a consultation to determine whether the 

impact of coastal fisheries pose jeopardy to listed species. The PFMC considers the requirements 

of the ESA are sufficient to also achieve the intent of the SFA’s overfishing provision. This 

implies that it is insufficient to just achieve current MSH escapement; the objective to achieve 

recovery to MSH escapement under restored habitat conditions. Meeting the jeopardy standard 

may be sufficient to stabilize the population until freshwater habitat is restored (Amendment 14 

Section 3.2.4.3). 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

30

4.6 Distribution of Fishing Mortality 

A significant portion of the fishing mortality on many Puget Sound chinook stocks occurs outside 

the jurisdiction of this plan, in Canadian and, in some cases, Southeast Alaskan fisheries (Table 

11), based on recoveries of coded-wire tagged indicator stocks. Of the Puget Sound indicator 

stocks, more than half of the total mortality of Stillaguamish summer, Hoko fall, Nooksack early, 

and Skagit spring chinook occurs in Alaska and Canada. Washington ocean troll fisheries 

generally account for a small proportion of the mortality of Puget Sound chinook, but their impact 

exceeds 5 percent of total fisheries-related mortality for Skokomish and South Puget Sound fall 

indicator stocks. Puget Sound net and Washington sport fisheries account for the largest 

proportion of fishing mortality for most Puget Sound stocks

Table 11. Distribution of harvest for Puget Sound chinook indicator stocks, expressed as an 

average (1996-2000) proportion of total, annual, adult equivalent fishing exploitation rate (CTC 

2003). 

4.7 Trends in Exploitation Rates 

FRAM ‘validation’ runs, which incorporate catch and stock abundance from post-season 

assessment, are available for management years 1983 – 2000, and provide an index of the trend in 

the total exploitation rate of Puget Sound chinook (A. Rankis, NWIFC, pers comm. October 27, 

2003). For these models, post-season abundances, in terms of total recruitment, are estimated 

from the observed terminal run sizes by using pre-terminal expansion factors estimated either 

from CWT preterminal exploitation rates, or from fishing effort scale factors 

For Category 1 MUs, fisheries management has reduced exploitation rates steadily since the 

1980s. Total exploitation rates on Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish units have declined 56 

to 64 percent from the 1983 - 1987 average to the 1998 – 2000 average (Figure 4). Total 

exploitation rates on spring chinook have also declined. The average rate on Nooksack early 

chinook has declined 63 percent, on White River spring chinook 51 percent, and on Skagit spring 

chinook 57 percent. (Fig 5). (A. Rankis, NWIFC pers. comm. October 27, 2003) 

Washington Puget Sound Washington

Alaska B.C. troll Net Sport

Samish Fall 2.3% 43.0% 1.8% 40.2% 12.7%

Stillaguamish Sum 17.8% 50.3% 0.3% 2.6% 29.1%

South Puget Snd Fall 2.0% 29.6% 6.0% 21.7% 40.7%

Nisqually Fall 0.5% 14.5% 2.6% 44.9% 37.6%

Skokomish Fall 1.7% 37.4% 9.0% 7.2% 44.7%

Hoko Fall 74.2% 25.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

Nooksack Spring 1.6% 75.7% 1.5% 3.0% 18.3%

Skagit Spring 1.0% 51.4% 1.2% 7.1% 39.2%

White River Spring 0.0% 4.5% 0.6% 3.5% 91.4%
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Fisheries and Jurisdictions 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

31

Figure 4. Trend in total exploitation rate for Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish summer/fall 

chinook management units (post season FRAM estimates). 

Figure 5. Trend in total exploitation rate for Nooksack, Skagit, and White spring chinook 

management units (post-season FRAM estimates). 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

SKSF

STILL

SNOH 

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

NKS

SKSP

WHT
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Implementation 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

32

5. Implementation 

5.1 Management Intent 

The co-managers’ primary intent is to control impacts on weak, listed chinook populations, in 

order to avoid impeding their rebuilding, while providing sufficient opportunity for the harvest of 

other species, abundant returns of hatchery-origin chinook, and available surpluses from stronger 

natural chinook stocks. For the duration of this Plan, directed fisheries that target listed chinook 

populations are precluded, unless a harvestable surplus exists, and except for very small-scale 

tribal ceremonial and subsistence harvest, and research-related fisheries in a few areas. 

For the purposes of this Plan, ‘directed’ fisheries are defined as those in which more than 50 

percent of the total fishery-related mortality is made up of listed, Puget Sound-origin chinook. 

Total mortality includes all landed and non-landed mortality (see Appendix B). 

Landed and non-landed incidental mortality of listed chinook will occur in fisheries directed at 

non-listed hatchery-origin chinook and other salmon species, but will be strictly constrained by 

harvest limits that are established expressly to conserve listed chinook. 

5.2 Rules for Allowing Fisheries 

The annual management strategy, for any given chinook management unit, shall depend on 

whether a harvestable surplus is forecast. This Plan prohibits targeted harvest on listed 

populations of Puget Sound chinook, unless they have harvestable surplus. In other words, if a 

management unit does not have a harvestable surplus, then harvest-related mortality will be 

constrained to incidental impacts. Directed and incidental fishery impacts are constrained by 

stated harvest rate ceilings or escapement goals for each management unit. The following rules 

define how and where fisheries can operate: 

 Fisheries may be conducted where there is reasonable expectation that more than 50 

percent of the resulting fishery-related mortality will accrue to management units and 

species with harvestable surpluses, as defined in Chapter 3. 

 Within this constraint, the intent is to limit harvest of listed chinook populations or 

management units that lack harvestable surplus, not to develop a fishing regime that 

exerts the highest possible impact that does not violate specified ceiling exploitation rates 

or escapement goals. 

 Incidental harvest of weak stocks will not be eliminated, but to avoid increasing the risk 

of extinction of weak stocks, harvest impacts will be reduced to the minimal level that 

still enables fishing opportunity on non-listed chinook and other species, when such 

harvest is appropriate. 

 Exceptions may be provided for test fisheries that are necessary for research, and limited 

tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. 

Where it is not possible to effectively target productive natural stocks or hatchery production, 

without a majority of the fishery impacts accruing to runs without a harvestable surplus, use of 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Implementation 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

33

the above rules will likely necessitate foregoing the harvest of much of the surplus from those 

more productive management units. 

5.3 Rules That Control Harvest Levels 

The co-managers’ will use the following guidelines when assessing the appropriate levels of 

harvest for proposed annual fishing regimes: 

 The annual fishing regime will be devised to meet the conservation objectives of the 

weakest, least productive management unit or component population. Because these 

units commingle to some extent with more productive units, even in terminal fishing 

areas, meeting the needs of these units may require reduction of the exploitation on 

stronger units to a significantly lower level than the level that would only meet the 

conservation needs of the stronger units. 

 A management unit shall be considered to have a harvestable surplus if, after accounting 

for expected Alaskan and Canadian catches, and incidental, test, and tribal ceremonial 

and subsistence catches in southern U.S. fisheries, an MU is expected to have a spawning 

escapement greater than its upper management threshold 1

 (see Section III), and its 

projected ER is less than its RER ceiling. In that case, additional fisheries (including 

directed fisheries) may be implemented until the exploitation rate ceiling is met, 

consistent with the Rules for Allowing Fisheries (above), or its expected escapement 

equals the upper management threshold. In this case, impacts may not be limited to 

incidental harvest mortality. The array of fisheries that may harvest the surplus can be 

widened, to include terminal-area, directed fisheries. 

 Implementation of SUS fisheries targeting harvestable surplus for any management unit 

will be initiated conservatively. Consistent forecasts of high abundance, substantially 

above the upper management threshold, and preferably corroborated by post-season 

assessment, would be necessary to initiate such fisheries. This condition is not expected 

to be met for any Puget Sound management unit within the duration of this plan. 

 If a MU does not have harvestable surplus, then, consistent with the rules for allowing 

fisheries (above), only incidental, test, and tribal ceremonial and subsistence harvests of 

that MU will be allowed in Washington areas. 

 The projected exploitation rate for management units with no harvestable surplus will not 

be allowed to exceed their rebuilding exploitation rate ceiling (RER). In the event that 

the projected ER exceeds the ceiling RER, the incidental, test, and subsistence harvests 

must be further reduced until the ceiling RER is not exceeded (except as noted below). 

 The annual fishing regime must meet the guidelines established by the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty chinook agreement, such that the non-ceiling fishery index will not exceed the 

Treaty-mandated ceiling (see Section IV, Pacific Salmon Treaty). If the ISBM index is 

projected to be exceeded, U.S. fisheries must be further reduced until the mandated 

ceiling is achieved. 

 

1

 For complex management units, meeting the unit upper threshold may not meet the upper thresholds for 

all component populations. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Implementation 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

34

 After accounting for anticipated Alaskan and Canadian interceptions, test fisheries, 

ceremonial and subsistence harvest, and incidental mortality in southern U.S. fisheries, if 

the spawning escapement for any management unit is expected to be lower than its low 

abundance threshold, Washington fisheries will be further shaped until either the 

escapement for the unit is projected to exceed its low abundance threshold, or its 

projected exploitation rate does not exceed the CERC (see section 5.5, below). 

 The comanagers may implement additional fisheries conservation measures, where 

analysis demonstrates they will contribute significantly to recovery of a management 

unit, in concert with other habitat and enhancement measures. 

5.4 Steps for Application to Annual Fisheries Planning 

Annual planning of Puget Sound fisheries proceeds concurrently with that of coastal fisheries, 

from February through early-April each year, in the Pacific Fishery Management Council and 

North of Cape Falcon forums. These offer the public, particularly commercial and recreational 

fishing interest groups, access to salmon status information and opportunity to interact with the 

co-managers in developing annual fishing regimes. Conservation concerns for any management 

unit are identified early in the process. The steps in the planning process are: 

Abundance forecasts are developed for Puget Sound, Washington coastal, and Columbia River 

chinook management units in advance of the management planning process. Forecast methods 

are detailed in documents available from WDFW and tribal management agencies. Preliminary 

abundance forecasts for Canadian chinook stocks, and expected catch ceilings in Alaska and 

British Columbia, are obtained through the Pacific Salmon Commission or directly from Canada 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 

The Pacific Fishery Management Council’s annual planning process begins in March by 

establishing a range of allowable catch (‘options’) for each coastal fishery. For Washington 

fisheries, this involves recreational and commercial troll chinook catch quotas for Areas 1 – 4 

(including Area 4B in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca). 

An initial regime for Puget Sound fishing is evaluated. Recreational fisheries are initially set at 

levels similar to the previous year’s regime. Incidental chinook harvest in pre-terminal net 

fisheries is projected from recent-year catch data, and the anticipated scope of fisheries for other 

species in the current year. Terminal area net fisheries in chinook management periods are scaled 

to harvest surplus production and achieve natural and / or hatchery escapement objectives. The 

fishery regimes for pre-terminal and terminal net fisheries directed at other salmon species are 

initially set to meet management objectives for those species. 

The FRAM is configured to simulate this initial regulation set for all Washington fisheries, based 

on forecast abundance of all contributing chinook management units. Spawning escapement for 

each population, and total and SUS exploitation rates, projected by this model run, are then 

examined for compliance with management objectives for each Puget Sound chinook 

management unit, and their component populations. 

The initial model runs are used to reveal the scope and magnitude of conservation concerns for 

any management units in critical status (i.e. where escapement falls short of the low abundance 

thresholds), and a more general perspective on the achievement of management objectives for all 

other management units. In accordance with the preceding rules that control harvest levels, 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Implementation 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

35

regulations governing directed and incidental chinook harvest impacts are adjusted, through 

technical assessment and negotiation among the co-managers, in order to arrive at a fishery 

regime that addresses the conservation concerns for weak stocks, ensures that exploitation rate 

ceilings are not exceeded and / or escapement objectives are achieved for all other units, while 

achieving the annual harvest objectives of the co-managers. 

5.5 Response to Critical Status 

When initial FRAM modeling indicates that Puget Sound Chinook units are in critical status (i.e., 

projected escapement their low abundance thresholds): 

1. The pre-season 2003 SUS fishing regime will be modeled, with current forecast abundance, 

to determine an SUS ER for each critical stock.

2. The objective of pre-season planning will be to achieve an SUS ER less than or equal to that 

rate (from step 1), provided that rate is below the CERC.

3. If the 2003 fisheries-based rate exceeds the CERC for any critical management unit, the 

CERC will be the planning objective. 

However, the co-managers may, by mutual consent, set the annual management objective for any 

critical unit between the 2003 fisheries-based rate and the CERC. Under no circumstances will 

the CERC be exceeded. 

Response to Expanding Northern Fisheries 

In 2002 and 2003, chinook harvest in some coastal fisheries in British Columbia increased 

substantially, indicating that those fisheries may reach the limits imposed by Annex IV, Chapter 3 

(1999) of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, within the duration of this harvest plan. Increasing 

Canadian fishery impacts on Puget Sound chinook, in combination with recent SUS fishing 

regimes, may result in total fisheries impacts exceeding the rebuilding exploitation rates (RER) 

for one or more of those Puget Sound chinook management units that have total RERs established 

in this plan. 

During preseason planning, if the total exploitation rate for a management unit is projected to 

exceed the RER established by this Plan (Table 3), the co-managers will constrain their fisheries 

such that either the RER is not exceeded, or the SUS exploitation rate is less than or equal to the 

CERC. Modeling exercises have demonstrated potential for this to occur for several Puget Sound 

units that are unlikely to fall into critical status in the duration of this plan. The CERC, in this 

circumstance, would constrain SUS fisheries to the same degree as if that unit were in critical 

status. While this measure imposes a further conservation burden on Washington fisheries, 

pursuant to the underlying rationale for the MFR, it maintains access to the harvestable surplus of 

non-listed chinook, and other species 

Because of annual variability in abundance among the various populations, there is no single 

fishing regime that can be implemented from one year to the next to achieve the management 

objectives for all Puget Sound chinook units. The co-managers have, at their disposal, a range of 

management tools, including gear restrictions, time / area closures, catch or retention limits, and 

complete closures of specific fisheries. Combinations of these actions will be implemented in 

any given year, as necessary, to insure that management objectives are achieved. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Implementation 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

36

Discretionary Conservation Measures 

The co-managers may, by mutual agreement, implement further conservation constraint on SUS 

fisheries, in response to critical status of any management unit, or in response to declining status 

or heightened uncertainty about status of any management unit, or to achieve allocation 

objectives. In doing so, they will consider the most recent information regarding the status and 

productivity of the management unit or population, and past performance in achieving its 

management objectives. The conservation effect of such measures may not always be 

quantifiable by the FRAM, but, based on the best available information on the distribution of 

stocks, will be judged to have beneficial effect 

5.7 Compliance with Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Agreements 

The proposed regime will be examined for compliance with PST chinook agreements, and further 

adjustments implemented as necessary to achieve compliance.

In 1999, the parties to the Pacific Salmon Treaty agreed to a new abundance-based chinook 

management regime for fisheries in the United States and Canada. Southern U.S. fisheries are to 

be conducted as individual stock-based management (ISBM) fisheries keyed to specific stock 

groups. With respect to Puget Sound chinook, this agreement refers to the abundance status (i.e. 

spawning escapement) of certain indicator stock groups with respect to their identified 

escapement goals2

. The summer/fall indicator group includes the Hoko, Skagit, Stillaguamish, 

Snohomish, Lake Washington, and Green units; the spring indicator group includes Skagit spring 

and Nooksack early units. Stepped reductions in ISBM fisheries will be imposed when two or 

more of these indicator units are projected not to meet their escapement objectives. These 

reductions will comply with the pass through provisions and general obligations for individual 

stock-based management regimes (ISBM) pursuant to the chinook chapter within the US/Canada 

Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

Escapement projected by the FRAM, at the conclusion of pre-season planning, will be compared 

to PST objectives. According to the PST agreement: “the United State shall reduce by 40%, the 

total adult equivalent mortality rate, relative to the 1979-82 base period, in the respective ISBM 

fisheries that affect those stocks.” The reduction shall be referred to as the “general obligation”. 

For those stock groups for which the general obligation is insufficient to meet the agreed 

escapement objectives, the jurisdiction within which the stock group originates shall implement 

additional reductions: 

i) reductions as necessary to meet the agreed escapement objectives; or 

ii) which taken together with the general obligation, are at least equivalent to the average of 

those reductions that occurred for the stock group during the years 1991-96. 

 

2

 Escapement goals for the Puget Sound indicator stocks, equivalent to the upper management thresholds 

stated in this plan, have been proposed to the Joint Chinook Technical Committee of the Pacific Salmon 

Commission for incorporation into the chinook agreement. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Implementation 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

37

The Chinook Technical Committee defined the non-ceiling fishery index (CTC 1996). The PST 

defers to any more restrictive limit mandated by the Puget Sound chinook management plan, or 

otherwise implemented by the co-managers. 

5.8 Regulation Implementation 

Individual tribes promulgate and enforce regulations for fisheries in their respective ‘usual and 

accustomed’ areas, and WDFW promulgates and enforces non-Indian fishery regulations, 

consistent with the principles and procedures set forth in the PSSMP. All fisheries shall be 

regulated to achieve conservation and sharing objectives based on four fundamental elements: (1) 

acceptably accurate determinations of the appropriate exploitation rate, harvest rate, or numbers 

of fish available for harvest; (2) the ability to evaluate the effects of specific fishing regulations; 

(3) a means to monitor fishing activity in a sufficient, timely and accurate fashion; and (4) 

effective regulation of fisheries, and enforcement, to meet objectives for spawning escapement, 

harvest sharing, and fishery impacts. 

The annual fishing regime, when developed and agreed-to by the co-managers through the PFMC 

and NOF forums, will be summarized and distributed to all interested parties, at the conclusion of 

annual pre-season planning. This document will summarize regulatory guidelines for Treaty 

Indian and non-Indian fisheries (i.e. species quotas, bag limits, time/area restrictions, and gear 

requirements) for each marine and freshwater management area on the Washington coast and in 

Puget Sound. Preseason forecasts and management agreements will be detailed in Management 

Status reports, as required by the Puget Sound Salmon management Plan. Regulations enacted 

during the season will implement these guidelines, but may be modified, based on catch and 

abundance assessment, by agreement between parties. In-season modifications shall be in 

accordance to the procedures specified in the PSSMP and subsequent court orders. 

Further details on fishery regulations may be found in the respective parties regulation 

summaries, and other State/Tribal documents. The co-managers maintain a system for 

transmitting, cross-indexing and storing fishery regulations affecting harvest of salmon. Public 

notification of fishery regulations is achieved through press releases, regulation pamphlets, and 

telephone hotlines. 

5.9 In-season Management 

Fisheries schedules and regulations may be adjusted or otherwise changed in-season, by the comanagers or through other operative jurisdictions (e.g. the Fraser Panel, Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council). Schedules for fisheries governed by quotas, for example, may be 

shortened so that harvest quotas are not exceeded. Commercial net fishery schedules in Puget 

Sound may be modified to achieve allocation objectives or in reaction to in-season assessment of 

the abundance of target stocks, or of stocks harvested incidentally. In each case, the co-managers 

will assess the effect of proposed in-season changes with regard to their impact on natural 

chinook management units, and determine whether the management action constrains fishery 

impacts within the harvest limits stated in this plan. Particular attention will be directed to inseason changes that impact management units or populations in critical status, or where the preseason plan projections indicated that total impacts were close to ceiling exploitation rates or 

projected escapement close to the respective escapement goals. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Implementation 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

38

The co-managers will notify the NMFS when in-season management decisions will result in an 

exploitation rate higher than the relevant ceiling prescribed by this Plan or escapement less than 

the low abundance threshold for any management unit. The notification will include a description 

of the change, an assessment of the resulting fishing mortality, and an explanation of how impacts 

of the action still achieve the larger objective of not impeding recovery of the ESU. 

5.10 Enforcement 

Non-treaty commercial and recreational fishery regulations are enforced by WDFW. The WDFW 

Enforcement Program currently employs 163 personnel. Of that number, 156 are fully 

commissioned Fish and Wildlife officers who ensure compliance with licensing and habitat 

requirements, and enforce prohibitions against the illegal taking or poaching of fish and wildlife 

(www.wa.gov/wdfw/enf/enforce.htm). The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Program is primarily 

responsible for enforcing the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Code (Title 57). However, 

officers are also charged with enforcing many other codes as well, and are often called upon to 

assist local city, county, other state, or tribal law enforcement agencies. On an average, officers 

currently make more than 300,000 fisheries-related public contacts annually (93% of 

Enforcement FTE's are field deployed). WDFW Enforcement also cooperates with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the NMFS Enforcement branch, and the U.S. Coast Guard in fisheries 

enforcement. 

Each tribe exercises authority over enforcement of tribal commercial fishing regulations, whether 

fisheries occur on or off their reservation. In some cases enforcement is coordinated among 

several tribes by a single agency (e.g. the Point No Point Treaty Council is entrusted with 

enforcement authority over Lower Elwha Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, and Port Gamble 

S’Klallam, tribal fisheries). Enforcement officers of one tribal agency may be cross-deputized by 

another tribal agency, where those tribes fish in common areas. Prosecution of violations of tribal 

regulations occurs through tribal courts and governmental structures. 

Participation by Indian and non-treaty fishers in pre-season fishery planning, at local meetings 

conducted by tribal resource managers and WDFW, and through the Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council hearings and the North of Cape Falcon forum, promotes education about 

salient conservation concerns that are of particular relevance to planning fisheries. These forums 

also promote a wide awareness of changes in regulations, well in advance of the onset of most 

fisheries, directly to fishers and through the news media. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

39

6. Conservative Management 

This chapter summarizes the conservative rationale and technical methods underlying the harvest 

management objectives of the Plan, noting how they have changed from previous management 

practices, and how they exceed the conservation standards of the ESA. As stated in Chapter 1, 

this Plan constrains harvest of all management units to the point where fishing mortality does not 

impede rebuilding and eventual recovery of the ESU. However, rebuilding and recovery is, for 

most populations, contingent on restoring the functionality of habitat. Harvest constraint will 

play an essential role in maintaining the existing diversity of populations that make up the ESU, 

by stabilizing, and in some cases increasing natural spawning escapement. However, rebuilding 

more robust population abundance, and effecting progress toward recovery, depends on the 

restoration of higher productivity that will only result from improved habitat quality. 

The conservation standard of the ESA, as expressed in Limit 4 of the salmon 4(d) rule (50 CFR 

223 vol 65 p 170 - 188) regarding state / tribal harvest management plans (Limit 6), is that 

harvest-related mortality must not “appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of 

the ESU”. The 4(d) rule defines ’survival and recovery’ as protecting the abundance, 

productivity, and diversity of the ESU. . Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule asserts that harvest actions 

should: 1) maintain healthy populations at abundance above their recovery thresholds; 2) not 

impede the recovery of populations whose abundance is above their low threshold but below their 

recovery threshold; and 3) not impose increased demographic or genetic risk on populations at 

critically low abundance, unless imposing greater risk does not appreciably reduce the likelihood 

of survival and recovery of the entire listed ESU (50 CFR 223, 65(132): 42476). 

The management objectives and constraints imposed by the Plan will maintain healthy 

populations (i.e., those at or near the abundance associated with recovery) by assuring that 

spawning escapement is sufficient for optimum productivity (MSH escapement). However the 

abundance of most of the populations in Puget Sound is well below the level associated with 

recovery, and in some cases is severely or chronically depressed. For some of these depressed 

populations, harvest constraint can only maintain escapement at the optimum level associated 

with current habitat quality. When that optimum level is not defined with certainty, harvest 

constraint will experimentally probe optimum capacity by providing higher numbers of spawners 

in some years, to better define current productive capacity. For very depressed populations, 

harvest will be severely constrained. Extraordinary measures defined by the Plan are expected to 

assure that the abundance of these populations will remain above their point of instability. 

However, because natural production (survival) is so reduced for these weak populations, some 

populations require hatchery supplementation for their maintenance Further harvest constraint 

would not materially improve the likelihood that these populations will survive in the long term. 

 

Considering the significant influence that harvest has on abundance (i.e. spawning escapement), 

the objectives and conservation measures contained in this Plan were developed with specific 

intent to maintain all populations at their current status and allow them to rebuild as other 

constraining factors are alleviated. This chapter describes how the Plan’s objectives protect the 

abundance and diversity of the ESU. 

6.1 Harvest Objectives Based on Natural Productivity 

The harvest objectives for each management unit are stated as ceiling exploitation rates or 

escapement goals for naturally spawning or, for some units, natural-origin chinook. Though 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

40

fisheries in some areas are shaped to harvest surplus hatchery production, the primary objective is 

to assure protection and conservation of natural populations. 

Specifying the objectives for all management units in terms of natural production is a significant 

change, when compared to past management practices. Formerly, management of some units was 

based primarily on harvesting surplus hatchery production, without regard to the consequences of 

these high harvest rates on natural-origin chinook. These units were designated ‘secondary’ in 

the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. This Plan imposes conservation constraints on 

harvest for all natural populations. It establishes specific escapement goals for Category II 

(formerly secondary) units, to ensure that natural production remains viable. For these units, inseason abundance assessment tools, followed by specific management responses when abundance 

falls short of the forecast level, will be implemented or under development. 

Prior to 1998, chinook harvest objectives were stated as escapement goals for many Puget Sound 

management units. The PSSMP stated the preference that escapement goals be based on 

achieving maximum sustainable harvest, which implied the ability to quantify current natural 

productivity (i.e. spawner – recruit functions) and productive capacity. However, the escapement 

goals that were established by the co-managers for ‘primary’ management units were not always 

biologically based, but often consisted of an historical average of escapement during a period of 

relatively high abundance and survival, (i.e. 1968 - 1977 for summer fall stocks, 1959 - 1968 for 

Skagit River spring stocks). For most units, these historical escapements were a result of fishing 

levels in the base years, and were not related to the current capacity or quality of spawning or 

freshwater rearing habitat, or marine survival, particularly as habitat conditions were further 

degraded through the 1980s and 1990s. These goals were in effect until the late 1990s. 

Continuing decline in stock status, and the subsequent listing of Puget Sound chinook as 

threatened, with its requirement for development of recovery goals, prompted re-assessment of 

the old escapement goals, and development of new harvest objectives for many management 

units. 

This Plan commits the co-managers to setting harvest and escapement objectives for all 

management units to conform with their current or recent productivity, to the extent the requisite 

data are available. Rebuilding exploitation rate ceilings may be developed and implemented, 

within the duration of this plan, for additional management units. For other units, even where 

current productivity is estimated, shaping of terminal fisheries to achieve escapement goals, 

particularly where in-season assessment provides more accurate estimates of abundance, will 

remain the preferred management approach. In-season assessment methods will be developed 

and refined, and escapement estimates refined, to improve the performance of escapement goal 

management. 

6.2 Accounting for Uncertainty and Variability 

Uncertainty and annual variability are inherent in estimating the productivity of salmon 

populations. In order to manage the associated risk, the derivation of biologically based harvest 

objectives must account and compensate for this uncertainty and variability. Methods outlined in 

Chapter 3, and described in detail in Appendix A, describe how the current procedure for 

developing rebuilding exploitation rates accomplishes this objective. This strategy may be 

summarized as follows: 

• To the extent possible, variability in freshwater and marine survival rates will be 

quantified separately; 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

41

• Simulation of population dynamics will incorporate a range of values for marine and 

freshwater survival parameters that were typical of recent years, and therefore probably 

characteristic of the immediate future; 

• Even when current survival is relatively high, as is currently believed to be the case for 

marine survival of Puget Sound populations, the simulation will assume lower survival in 

the future; 

• Adaptive management will update these objectives as actual exploitation rates, 

escapement, and survival are monitored closely. 

6.3 Protection of Individual Populations 

This Plan establishes harvest limits (i.e. ceiling exploitation rates) for entire management units, 

but annual fishing planning will also pay specific attention to the status (i.e., projected spawning 

escapement) of individual populations, where a unit consists of more than one population, 

providing that data are available that quantify productivity and capacity for those populations. 

Annual exploitation rate targets will be influenced by escapement that is projected for each 

population, by the fishery simulation model, and the recent historical trend in population 

escapement. Actual exploitation rates, for most units, are likely to fall well below the 

exploitation rate ceilings, due to concern for weak or critical populations. Specific conditions are 

established for implementing fisheries that would increase the exploitation rate up to the ceiling 

for any unit. In order to guard against escapement declining to a level that may jeopardize 

demographic or genetic integrity, a low abundance threshold is established, for each population, 

as triggers for further constraint of harvest. 

6.3.1 Populations exceeding their low abundance thresholds 

Escapement for most Puget Sound chinook populations has, in recent years, exceeded the critical 

abundance threshold referred to in the 4(d) rule. Harvest of these populations is managed such 

that escapement, if habitat conditions allow, will attains or exceed the level associated with 

optimum current productivity (see Table 12) This assurance of stable or increasing escapement 

achieves the 4(d) standard of not impeding recovery of the ESU. 

For populations with sufficient data, current productivity is quantified by spawner – recruit 

analysis (see Chapter 3). Freshwater conditions are highly variable, so ‘current’ productivity 

reflects the range of survival and recruitment rates observed in recent years. Exploitation rate 

ceilings are established for these units at the level consistent with achieving MSH escapement 

(Table 14) Implementation of this harvest plan will result in actual exploitation rates that are 

lower than that ceiling in most years, thereby intentionally exceeding MSH escapement under 

current conditions. The strategy of managing harvest under exploitation rate ceilings, as 

implemented under this plan, carries some risk of exceeding the spawning capacity of habitat, and 

lowering productivity, but will enable higher production should conditions in freshwater improve. 

The strategy of this Plan is to probe the productivity of populations at increased escapement 

levels, and capitalize on favorable environmental conditions as they occur, or as habitat is 

restored. It also recognizes the current limits of management tools. Given the current accuracy of 

abundance forecasting, and the capability of the fishery simulation model, exploitation rates for a 

specified fishery regime can be projected with greater accuracy than spawning escapement. 

Exploitation rates may also be consistently and accurately estimated post-season, enabling 

continual, adaptive assessment of management performance. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

42

The Plan sets also sets total exploitation rate objectives for the Puyallup fall and White spring 

populations that have been demonstrated to provide adequate seeding of spawning habitat. 

Analysis of the current potential of habitat (see Profile, Appendix A) suggests that the 

productivity is quite low in the Puyallup system, but returns from local hatchery production have 

contributed significantly to natural spawning and smolt production. Returns to the White River 

have increased, under the current exploitation rate objective, to levels well in excess of the low 

abundance threshold. Research is underway to refine estimates of current productivity and habitat 

capacity in these systems. 

For other management units, exploitation rate ceilings are specified in this plan for southern U.S. 

fisheries, or ceilings are specified for pre-terminal fisheries in combination with specific terminalarea management measures, to assure that the naturally- populations remain viable. For the 

duration of this plan they will persist, at abundance substantially above their low abundance 

thresholds. The upper management threshold for some of these units may be achieved or 

exceeded in some years. For other units, the upper management threshold will be achieved only if 

existing habitat constraints are alleviated. Hatchery-origin chinook contribute to natural spawning 

in these systems, and provide a necessary measure of assurance that natural production will be 

stable or increase in these systems where habitat conditions cannot currently sustain abundance 

absent supplementation 

6.3.2 Management Units In Critical Status 

The critical or near-critical abundance expected for a small group of Puget Sound populations, 

will necessitate severe constraint of fisheries, in order to prevent further decline in their status, 

and achieve the conservation guidelines stated under Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule. For some 

populations (e.g. the North and South Fork Nooksack and Dungeness), recent natural-origin 

spawning escapement has been consistently below their low abundance thresholds (Table 3). 

Extraordinary fisheries conservation measures, described in Chapters 3 and 5, are prescribed by 

this Plan to prevent further decline in natural-origin spawner abundance. 

For some other populations, escapement has in some years fallen below their low abundance 

thresholds (e.g., Lake Washington, Mid Hood Canal). Hatchery supplementation programs have 

maintained natural spawning abundance, in some cases well above their low threshold, for some 

populations (e.g. Stillaguamish, White, and Elwha), but natural productivity has been chronically 

depressed. As described in their management unit profiles (Appendix A) terminal area fisheries 

affecting these populations have, in recent years, been constrained or eliminated, as if they were 

in critical status. Upper management thresholds been established for these populations, but, 

because of their status, the objective most relevant to current management is their low abundance 

threshold. Habitat-based analyses of productivity indicate that the upper management threshold is 

substantially higher than current MSH for the North Fork and South Fork Nooksack, Mid-Hood 

Canal, and Dungeness populations. However, the management intent is to exceed current MSH 

escapement as often as possible, to guard against the uncertain ecological and genetic risks of low 

abundance. 

 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

43

Table 12. Escapement levels (upper management thresholds) consistent with optimum 

productivity or capacity under current habitat conditions, and recent escapement for Puget Sound 

chinook management units 

Management 

Unit 

Upper Mgmt 

Threshold 1 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Nooksack early 4000 2

 254 194 251 444 531 513 

Skagit spring 2000 3

 1041 1086 471 1021 1856 1065 

Skagit sum / fall 14500 3

 4872 14609 4924 16930 13793 19591 

Stillaguamish S/F 900 4

 1156 1540 1098 1646 1349 1588 

Snohomish S/F 4600 5

 4292 6304 4799 6092 8164 7220 

L. Washington 

 Cedar River 1200 6 227 432 241 120 810 369 

Green R. 5800 7

 9967 7300 9100 6170 7975 13950 

White R. spring 1000 8

 400 316 553 1523 2002 803 

Puyallup 1200 9 1550 4995 1986 1193 1915 1,590 

Nisqually 1100 10 340 834 1399 1253 1079 1,542 

Skokomish 3650 11 2337 6761 9119 4959 10729 1,479 

Mid Hood Canal 750 12 N/A 287 873 438 322 65 

Dungeness 925 13 50 110 75 218 453 633 

Elwha River 2900 14 2517 2358 1602 1851 2208 2,376 

Juan de Fuca 

Hoko River 850 15 765 1618 1497 612 768 645 

1 Management threshold from quantified current productivity or best available estimate of current habitat capacity 

2 Nooksack Endangered Species Action Team 2000. 

3 Hayman 2003, 

4 Stillaguamish management unit profile (Appendix A) 

5

 Snohomish management unit profile (Appendix A) 

6 Hage et al. 1994. 

7 Ames and Phinney 1977. 

8 WDFW et al 1996. Natural-origin spawners transported past Mud Mountain Dam 

9 Puyallup citation?. 

10 Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team. 2001. Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan. 11 Ames and Phinney 1977. Composite of 1,650 natural spawners and hatchery escapement target of 2000. 12 U.S. v. Wash. Civil 9213, Ph. I (Proc. 83-8). Order Re: Hood Canal Management Plan (1985). 13 Smith and Sele 1994. 14 Ames and Phinney 1977. Composite of 500 natural and 2,400 hatchery escapement. Hatchery is listed as essential to 

recovery. 

15 Ames and Phinney 1977. Modified to exclude capture of adults for supplementation program.

6.4 Equilibrium Exploitation Rates 

Managing harvest under rebuilding exploitation rate ceilings assures stable or increasing 

escapement for those management units. The underlying recruitment function, which is based on 

current performance, predicts that productivity declines as abundance (escapement) increases, 

such that for any level of escapement an exploitation rate may be identified that assures 

replacement of the parent brood. Setting the rebuilding exploitation rate objective conservatively, 

with a view to recent abundance, assures a high probability that escapement will trend upward. 

The following analysis illustrates this concept for the Skagit River summer / fall and spring 

management units. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

44

The equilibrium exploitation rate at each level of spawning escapement (i.e., the exploitation rate 

that would, on average, maintain the spawning escapement at the same level) was calculated from 

the Ricker spawner-recruit parameters used in the RER analyses that set the ER ceilings for each 

management unit. These equilibrium rates are represented by the curve that forms the border 

between the shaded and white regions in Figures 6 and 7. Note that, due to declining 

productivity, the equilibrium ER decreases as escapement increases. In the region below this 

curve (i.e., the exploitation rate is lower than the equilibrium rate that applies to that level of 

spawning escapement), escapement should, on average, increase in the next cycle. In the region 

above this curve, escapement should, on average, decrease in the next cycle. 

For Skagit chinook, NMFS’ “viable threshold” is the same thing as the “rebuilding escapement 

threshold” that was used in the RER analyses to set the ER ceiling. For Skagit spring chinook, 

this is the MSY escapement level, which, from the Ricker spawner-recruit parameters that were 

used in the RER analysis, is about 850 spawners (Fig. 6). The Limit 6 “critical threshold”, 

however, is NOT the same thing as the “critical threshold” defined in this plan – the Limit 6 

threshold is a point of instability below which the spawner-recruit relation destabilizes and the 

risk of extinction increases greatly. The low abundance threshold in this plan, in contrast, is a 

buffered level that is set sufficiently above the point of instability that the risk of getting an 

escapement below the point of instability, through management error or uncertainty, is low. The 

critical threshold for Skagit spring chinook, in this plan, is 576 spawners; the point of instability 

(i.e., the Limit 4 “critical threshold”), calculated using the Ricker parameters from the RER 

analysis and Peterman’s (1977) rule-of-thumb, (i.e., that the point of instability is 5% of the 

replacement level), would be about 110 spawners (Fig. 6).” 

The plan mandates that, if escapement is projected to fall below the LAT, SUS fisheries will be 

constrained to exert an exploitation rate less than or equal to the CERC, though the total 

exploitation rate may range higher, as shown in the crosshatched region in Figure 6, due to 

northern fisheries. 

For Skagit spring chinook, when abundance is between the point of instability and the viable 

threshold, this plan’s ER ceiling is well within the region of increasing escapement (Fig. 6), 

which satisfies the criterion that the plan must allow abundances in this range to increase to the 

viable level. In fact, even ER’s significantly above the ER ceiling satisfy this criterion. For 

escapements greater than the viable threshold, the ER ceiling allows for increasing escapements 

up to the point where the ER ceiling intersects the equilibrium ER curve. This occurs at an 

escapement of about 1700 (Fig. 6). For escapements above that level, if harvest met the ER 

ceiling each year (which is not what is expected under this plan), escapements would tend to 

decrease in the next cycle; however, they would be expected to stabilize around an escapement of 

about 1700, which is well above the viable threshold. Thus, the plan also satisfies the criterion 

that, for escapements above the viable threshold, abundance will, on average, be maintained in 

that region. 

For escapements below the point of instability, recruitments will, by definition, be inconsistent 

and largely unrelated to the escapement level. This means that harvest management cannot be 

used effectively to increase escapements above the point of instability. Rebuilding above this 

level could only be accomplished through fortuitous returns or increase in productivity. This plan 

deals with abundances below the point of instability largely by trying to prevent abundance from 

getting that low. For Skagit springs, the trigger for reducing SUS impacts to the minimum regime 

occurs at a threshold of 576, which is over 5 times higher than the calculated point of instability, 

and, at that threshold and exploitation rate, is well within the region of increasing escapement 

(Fig. 6). In the event that abundance falls below the point of instability, and then was followed 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

45

by a fortuitous recruitment that exceeded that level, the ceiling exploitation rate is low enough 

that equilibrium momentum will tend to increase the escapement further, rather than reduce it to 

below the point of instability again. Thus, this plan should not increase the genetic and 

demographic risk of extinction for Skagit springs. In practical application, the lowest observed 

Skagit spring chinook escapement has been 470 (in 1994 and 1999), which is over 4 times higher 

than the calculated point of instability – escapements have exceeded 1,000 during each of the last 

3 years, which is higher than the viable threshold, and again indicates that this plan should not 

increase the genetic and demographic risk of extinction for Skagit springs. 

Figure 6. The equilibrium exploitation rate, at each escapement level, for Skagit spring chinook. 

Exploitation rates below the curve should, on average, result in higher escapements on 

subsequent cycles; exploitation rates above the curve should, on average, result in lower 

escapements on subsequent cycles. Equilibrium rates were calculated from the Ricker parameters 

that were used for the RER analysis used to set the ER ceiling for the Skagit spring chinook 

management unit. The MSY exploitation rate (MSY ER), rebuilding exploitation rate (RER), and 

critical exploitation rate ceiling (CERC), and three escapement levels – the calculated point of 

instability, the low abundance threshold (LAT), and the rebuilding escapement threshold (RET), 

are marked for reference (see text) 

 

For Skagit summer/fall chinook, the rebuilding escapement threshold is approximately 8500 

spawners; the low abundance threshold is 4800; and the calculated point of instability is 

approximately 1100. As with Skagit springs, in the range between the point of instability and the 

MSH escapement level, the ER ceiling is well within the region of increasing escapement (Fig. 

7), which satisfies the criterion that the plan must allow abundances in this range to increase to 

the viable level. For escapements greater than the calculated MSH level, the ER ceiling allows 

for increasing escapements up to an escapement of about 13,500 (Fig. 7). If escapement was 

higher than that, and harvest met the ER ceiling each year (which, again, is not what is expected 

under this plan), escapements would be expected to stabilize around an escapement of about 

13,500, which is well above the viable threshold. Thus, this plan also satisfies the criterion that, 

for escapements above the viable threshold, summer/fall abundance will, on average, be 

maintained in that region. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Escapement

Equiibrium ER

Point of Instability

LAT

RET

MSY ER

RER

CERC

Region of Decreasing Escapement

Region of Increasing 

Escapement
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

46

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Escapement

Equiibrium E

R

Point of Instability

LAT

RET

MSY ER

RER

CERC

Region of Decreasing Escapement

Region of Increasing 

Escapement

Figure 7. The equilibrium exploitation rate, at each escapement level, for Skagit summer/fall 

chinook. 

Exploitation rates below the curve should, on average, result in higher escapements on 

subsequent cycles; exploitation rates above the curve should, on average, result in lower 

escapements on subsequent cycles. Equilibrium rates were calculated from the Ricker parameters 

that were used for the RER analysis used to set the ER ceiling for the Skagit summer/fall chinook 

management unit. The MSY exploitation rate (MSY ER), rebuilding exploitation rate (RER), and 

critical exploitation rate ceiling (CERC), and three escapement levels – the calculated point of 

instability, the low abundance threshold (LAT), and the rebuilding escapement threshold (RET), 

are marked for reference (see text). 

As previously noted for Skagit spring chinook, the combined impacts from northern fisheries and 

constrained SUS fisheries, that would be implemented if the summer / fall unit were to decline to 

critical status, would be expected to exert total exploitation rates well below the equilibrium rate, 

and assure higher subsequent escapement well below the equilibrium ER that applies to 

escapements between the LAT and the point of instability, so, on average, equilibrium pressures 

would force escapement to increase. 

As with spring chinook, it is not possible to project any relation between escapement and 

recruitment for escapements below the point of instability. To prevent summer/fall escapements 

from falling below this level, the trigger for reducing SUS impacts to the minimum regime occurs 

at a threshold of 4800, which is over 4 times higher than the calculated point of instability, and, at 

that threshold and exploitation rate, is well within the region of increasing escapement (Fig. 7). 

The same equilibrium momentum would, on the next cycle, tend to increase escapements further, 

rather than reduce them, if escapement did drop below the point of instability and then 

experienced a fortuitous recruitment. In terms of actual observations, the lowest observed Skagit 

summer/fall chinook escapement has been 4900 (in 1997 and 1999), which is over 4 times higher 

than the calculated point of instability, and escapement has exceeded 13,500 during each of the 

last 3 years, which is well above the calculated MSH escapement level. Thus, for Skagit 

summer/fall chinook, this plan should not increase the genetic and demographic risk of 

extinction. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

47

6.5 Reduction in Exploitation Rates 

The annual exploitation rate targets that will result from implementing this Plan will likely be 

substantially lower than the rates that occurred in the 1980s. Annual exploitation rates for 

Category 1 management units have declined 44 to 64 percent, based on comparison of the 1983-

1987 and 1998 -2000 average rates estimated by post-season FRAM runs (Table 13). Pre-season 

model projections confirm that total exploitation rates are being held to this low level in the past 

three years. Exploitation rates in Washington fisheries (ocean and Puget Sound areas combined) 

have fallen 28 to 77 percent for Category 1 units. 

Table 13. Decline in average total, adult-equivalent exploitation rate, from 1983 – 1987 to 1998-

2000, and 2001 – 2003, for Category 1 Puget Sound chinook management units (post-season 

FRAM estimates for 1983 – 2000, preseason estimates for 2001- 2003). 

 

In consequence, the actual risk incurred by management units with RER objectives will be lower 

than the 4(d) risk criteria used to select the RERs. The probability of achieving the upper 

management threshold, or current MSH escapement, will be higher than 80%, and the probability 

of falling to critical abundance will also be reduced. For MUs without RER objectives, Table 12 

suggests that risks due to excessive harvest pressure have already been substantially eliminated. 

6.6 Recovery Goals 

The Washington co-managers have identified recovery goals for several Puget Sound 

management units, based on quantitative assessment of the potential productivity associated with 

recovered habitat conditions (Table 14). These interim planning targets are intended to assist 

local governments, resource management agencies, and public interest groups with identifying 

harvest and hatchery management changes, and habitat protection and restoration measures 

necessary to achieve recovery in each watershed and the ESU as a whole. Recovery goals are 

expressed as a range of natural-origin or natural spawning escapement and associated recruitment 

rates (i.e. adult recruits per spawner). The lower boundary represents the number of spawners 

that will provide maximum surplus production (i.e. MSH) under properly functioning habitat 

conditions, assuming recent marine survival rates. The upper boundary represents the 

equilibrium escapement under these conditions, (i.e. the number of adults surviving to spawn is 

equal to the parent brood-year escapement). 

83-87 Avg 98-00 Avg % Decline 01 - 03 Avg % Decline

Skagit S/F 0.67 0.27 59.7% 0.34 49.0%

Stillaguamish 0.54 0.19 64.1% 0.15 71.2%

Snohomish 0.59 0.26 56.4% 0.20 66.8%

Green 0.65 0.36 44.1% 0.49 24.0%

Nooksack Spr 0.43 0.16 63.3% 0.17 60.1%

Skagit Spr 0.60 0.26 56.6% 0.22 62.8%

White 0.52 0.20 60.5% 0.19 62.8%

JDF 0.76 0.38 50.7% 0.18 76.5%
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

48

In most cases, the management objectives (upper management thresholds), and recent 

escapements, are substantially below the lower end of the recovery range (see section 6.7, below), 

reflecting their different points of reference with regard to habitat quality. Notable exceptions 

include the Upper Skagit summer, Cascade Spring, and Siuattle Spring populations, where recent 

escapement has exceeded the lower boundary of the recovery goals. These three examples 

notwithstanding, upper management thresholds represent MSH escapement under current habitat 

conditions, and imply that current conditions limit the potential for recovery for most 

populations. 

 

Table 14. Escapement levels and recruitment rates for Puget Sound chinook populations, at MSH 

and at equilibrium, under recovered habitat conditions. 

MSH Population Escapement Adult R/S 

Equilibrium 

Escapement 1 

North Fork Nooksack 

South Fork Nooksack 

3,400 

2,300 

3.3 

3.6 

14,000 

9,900 

Upper Cascade Spring 

Suiattle Spring 

Upper Sauk Spring 

290 

160 

750 

3.0 

2.8 

3.0 

1,160 

610 

3,030 

Lower Skagit Fall 

Upper Skagit Summer 

Lower Sauk Summer 

3,900 

5,380 

1,400 

3.0 

3.8 

3.0 

15,800 

26,000 

5,580 

North Fork Stillaguamish 

South Fork Stillaguamish 

4,000 

3,600 

3.3 

3.4 

18,000 

15,000 

Snoqualmie 

Skykomish 

5,500 

8,700 

3.6 

3.4 

25,000 

39,000 

Puyallup 5,300 2.3 18,000 

Nisqually 3,400 3.0 13,000 

Mid Hood Canal 1,320 2.9 5,200 

Dungeness 1,170 3.0 4,740 

1

 Recruitment (returns per spawner) at equilibrium, by definition, equals 1.0.

With the exceptions noted above, the recovery goals are not of immediate relevance to current 

harvest management objectives. A subset, at least, of management units will have recover for the 

ESU to be de-listed, but ESU recovery (i.e. that subset or alternative subsets of recovered units) 

has not been defined. The recovery goals, as stated by the co-managers, exceed the increase in 

abundance and productivity necessary for delisting. 

6.6.1 Harvest Constraint Cannot Effect Recovery 

Population recovery (i.e., increase in abundance to levels well above the stated upper thresholds, 

for most populations) cannot be accomplished solely by constraint of harvest. If harvest 

mortality is not excessive, and spawning escapement is not reduced to the point where 

depensatory mortality and other ecological factors become significant and threaten genetic 

integrity, harvest does not affect productivity. Productivity is primarily constrained by the quality 

and quantity of freshwater and estuarine environment that determines embryonic and juvenile 

survival, and oceanic conditions that influence survival up to the age of recruitment to fisheries. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

49

Physical or climatic factors, such as stream flow during the incubation period, will vary annually, 

and are expected in some years to markedly reduce smolt production. The capacity of chinook to 

persist under these conditions is primarily dependent on their diverse age structure and life 

history, and habitat factors (e.g. channel structure, off-channel refuges, and watershed 

characteristics that determine runoff) that mitigate adverse conditions 

For several Puget Sound populations, mass marking of hatchery production has enabled accurate 

accounting of the contribution of natural- and hatchery-origin adults to natural escapement. 

Sufficient data has accumulated to conclude that a significant reduction of harvest rates, in 

concert with increased marine survival, has increased the number of hatchery-origin fish that 

return to spawn, whereas returns of natural-origin chinook, though stable, have not increased. It 

is evident that natural production has not increased under reduced harvest pressure, and is 

constrained primarily by the condition of freshwater habitat. Therefore, the current, relatively 

low, harvest rates proposed in the HMP, are not impeding recovery. 

These escapement data are also available for the North Fork Nooksack and Skykomish 

populations, but the North Fork Stillaguamish trend is cited here as an example. Fingerlings 

released by the summer chinook supplementation program are coded wire tagged, enabling 

accurate estimation of their contribution to escapement. Harvest exploitation rates have fallen 

70% since the late 1980s (Table 12). The return of hatchery-origin chinook has increased 

markedly, exceeding 800 in 2000, while natural-origin returns have remained relatively stable, 

averaging 522 in the last five years. (Figure 8), 

Figure 8. The return of natural-origin (NOR) chinook to the North Fork Stillaguamish River has 

not increased, while the number of hatchery-origin adults (HOR) have increased significantly 

under reduced harvest rates 

Harvest constraint has, for most populations, resulted in stable or increasing trends in escapement 

on the spawning grounds (for many populations this includes a large proportion of hatcheryorigin adults). But the trend in NOR returns strongly suggests that, although escapement may be 

stable or even trend upward toward or above the optimum (MSH) level associated with current 

habitat condition, NOR recruitment will not increase much beyond that level unless constraints 

limiting freshwater survival are alleviated. Habitat quality appears to be the biggest constraint on 

freshwater productivity. 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1988 1992 1996 2000

HOR

NOR
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

50

Spawner-recruit functions for the North Fork Stillaguamish population, under current and 

recovered habitat conditions, provide an example (Figure 9). Derived from EDT analysis of 

habitat capacity under current and recovered conditions, they demonstrate that natural production 

is now constrained to a ceiling (asymptote) far below that associated with recovery (‘properly 

functioning condition’ or ‘PFC+’). 

Figure 9. Productivity (adult recruits) of North Fork Stillaguamish summer chinook under 

current and recovered habitat (PFC+) conditions. Beverton-Holt functions derived from habitat 

analysis using the EDT method. 

The reduction of harvest pressure in SUS fisheries has, at least, stabilized NOR escapement, and 

the listed hatchery supplementation program further guards against catastrophic decline. While 

acknowledging the risk of density dependent effects, implementing the HMP will experimentally 

test production at these higher escapement levels, and capitalize on favorable freshwater survival 

conditions that may occur. Under the current harvest objectives, NOR escapement may achieve 

the current MSH level, but a significant increase in productivity will be necessary for the 

population to recover. Further harvest constraint will not, by itself, effect an increase above the 

asymptote associated with current productivity, until habitat conditions improve. 

Very similar conclusions can be drawn from examination of current NOR escapement trends in 

the North Fork Nooksack, Skykomish, and Dungeness rivers. In these systems, NOR returns have 

remained at very low levels, while total natural escapement has increased where hatchery 

supplementation programs exist. The contrast between current productivity, and the higher level 

of recruitment possible under restored habitat condition is marked in all cases. 

6.7 Protecting the Diversity of the ESU 

The Plan includes management objectives for 21 chinook populations in the Puget Sound ESU, 

and the one population (the Hoko River) in the western SJDF. The HMP provides a high degree 

of assurance that, within its six-year duration, all of these populations will persist. The Plan 

asserts that all extant populations are valuable diversity elements of the ESU. It will allow some 

populations to reach their viable thresholds, hold others at stable abundance levels, well above 

their critical thresholds, and assure persistence of those at or near critical abundance. It assures 

that no population will decline to extinction as a result of harvest. 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Spawners

Recruits

Recovered

Current
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

51

Highly conservative management objectives are established for the eight natural populations in 

the Skagit and Snohomish systems. Despite habitat constraints in their watersheds and estuaries, 

these core populations, in the aggregate, comprise abundant and essential natural production by 

indigenous stocks that is not dependent on hatchery augmentation. These populations inhabit 

large watersheds, with habitat, capable of supporting genetically diverse subpopulations of 

chinook with diverse life histories. The Plan, therefore, emphasizes protection of these core 

populations which, for the foreseeable future, comprise the strongest element of the ESU, given 

the uncertainty about recovery of production in other more densely developed and degraded 

watersheds Protection of these core populations is essential to the integrity of the ESU. 

Management objectives for these populations are based on a low tolerance for risk of decline to 

critical status. Should survival rates and abundance decline, ceiling exploitation rates for SUS 

fisheries would be reduced. This lower exploitation rate would be well below the equilibrium ER 

(see section 6.4) that applies to escapements between the LAT and the point of instability, so, on 

average, equilibrium pressure would force escapement to increase. The rebuilding exploitation 

rate ceiling provides similar assurance that, given sufficient abundance, under current 

productivity (survival) conditions, escapement will achieve the level associated with optimum 

productivity (MSH), as defined by the rebuilding escapement threshold. Escapement will 

increase, even at exploitation rates higher than the RER, according to the equilibrium exploitation 

rate assessment, so the RER ceiling gives assurance of not impeding rebuilding. Furthermore, 

annual target exploitation rates for these populations are expected to be substantially lower than 

their respective ER ceilings, in most years, thus further improving the probability that escapement 

will increase or remain at optimum levels. . 

Indigenous populations persist in the North Fork Nooksack, North and South Forks of the 

Stillaguamish River, the Cedar River, the White River, the Green River, the Elwha River and the 

Dungeness River. Natural spawning is supplemented by hatchery production in the North Fork 

Nooksack, North Fork Stillaguamish, White, Green, Elwha, and Dungeness rivers, and, for the 

foreseeable future, will be required, in order to maintain these populations at current abundance 

levels. Non-indigenous populations persist, and are supplemented by hatchery production, in the 

Puyallup, Nisqually, and Skokomish rivers. 

Except for the Stillaguamish system, the productivity of the naturally spawning chinook in these 

systems is not yet quantified. Rebuilding exploitation rate and critical exploitation rate ceilings 

for the Stillaguamish populations provide the same kind of risk-averse management objectives 

provided for the core, larger populations described above. Habitat-based analysis (EDT), or other 

information, suggests that natural productivity is very low in the remainder of these systems. 

Constrained fishing exploitation rates will continue to assure that escapement to natural spawning 

areas will meet or exceed current escapement goals. 

The ecological and genetic risks associated with hatchery supplementation programs, as well as 

their benefits to ESU diversity and harvest opportunity, have been addressed and considered in 

the Puget Sound Chinook Hatchery Management Plan (2003). For most of these populations the 

benefits provided by hatcheries in maintaining higher levels of natural production and continued 

harvest opportunity may outweigh their ecological or genetic risks. Fishery constraints, by either 

exploitation rate ceilings and / or escapement goals, are expected to maintain the current status of 

these ten populations, well above their low abundance thresholds. For the remaining populations, 

pre-terminal or total SUS harvest is constrained by ER ceilings, and terminal fisheries are 

carefully structured to meet, and in many cases exceed, natural escapement goals. For the 

populations whose abundance has been at critical or near-critical levels in the recent past (e.g. the 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

52

Nooksack, Stillaguamish, Cedar3

, and White rivers), terminal-area harvest has been and will 

continue to be tightly constrained to minimize even the small remaining incidental fishery 

mortality. Rebuilding of abundance to viable levels for these populations may be a long-term 

prospect (100+ years), dependent on alleviating habitat constraints. The potential for recovery 

may be higher in drainages that are not heavily urbanized or developed for industrial purposes, 

such as the Nooksack, the Stillaguamish, and the Elwha systems, providing that stringent habitat 

protection measures are implemented. Habitat protection and restoration is being aggressively 

pursued in each watershed. 

Populations with critically low abundance are present in the South Fork Nooksack, Mid-Hood 

Canal, and Dungeness rivers. A hatchery supplementation program has increased the returns to 

the Dungeness system in recent years, and affords assurance that this population will not become 

extinct. Harvest mortality of these populations, in SUS waters, is highly constrained because of 

their critical status, and because the precision of fishery simulation modeling for these small 

populations is subject to error. The harvest plan, by imposing very low SUS exploitation rate 

ceilings, will ensure that their risk of extinction is not increased, and will provide sufficient 

escapement to these rivers to allow these populations to persist in the near term. Critical 

exploitation rate ceilings will assure small but significant increases in the proportion of each 

population that escapes to spawn, and maintenance of their genetic diversity. However, given the 

status of the South Fork Nooksack and Mid-Hood Canal populations, the comanagers will 

consider the need for artificial supplementation programs to protect them against extinction. 

The limits on harvest mortality provided by this plan, or further reduction of incidental harvest 

mortality in SUS fisheries, will not, by themselves, provide assurance of increased abundance or 

viability. They can only contribute to recovery of the ESU if habitat constraints are alleviated. 

The role of harvest management to enable recovery of the ESU is to ensure that spawning 

escapement is sufficient to optimize the productivity of populations, in the context of current 

habitat conditions. Harvest objectives and their implementation will compensate for the 

uncertainty in productivity and for management error. The constraints on harvest exerted by the 

HMP assure that the majority of any increase in abundance associated with favorable survival in 

the freshwater or the marine environment, will accrue to escapement, in order to facilitate 

increased future production that benefits from the improved productivity conditions. 

Implementation of the HMP will, in general, allow escapements higher than the current MSH 

level, to capitalize on the production opportunity provided by favorable, higher freshwater 

survival conditions. For populations with more uncertain current productivity, implementation 

will provide stable natural escapement (in many cases considerably higher than the optimum level 

likely under current conditions) to preserve options for recovering production throughout the ESU 

in the long term. 

In summary, the HMP provides a high degree of assurance that, for the next six years, the core 

indigenous populations in the Puget Sound ESU will continue to rebuild, and that all other 

populations will persist at, or above, their current abundance. A recovered ESU will necessarily 

include regional balance (i.e. geographic and diversity). The NMFS has not yet defined which of 

the extant populations are essential to a recovered ESU, so the qualifying language in the 4(d) 

rule, with respect to non-essential populations, does not provide a criterion for the adequacy of 

this plan. Clearly, systems where non-indigenous populations have been established through 

 

3

 An independent population may also exist in the northern tributary streams of Lake Washington, but 

specific management objectives for that population await development of key information regarding the 

abundance and distribution of natural-origin chinook in those streams. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

53

hatchery programs also comprise valuable elements of geographic and genetic diversity. But the 

ability of harvest management to preserve all existing diversity is limited. Despite the optimism 

created by the complex recovery planning effort now underway, the current diversity of the ESU 

may not persist unless habitat constraints are alleviated, thus allowing the natural productivity of 

chinook population to increase. For those populations that are unlikely to recover in the near 

term, due to habitat constraints, the HMP preserves the future option to recover if the collective 

societal will is exerted to preserve their habitat. 

6.8 Summary of Conservation Measures 

1. Exploitation rates have been substantially reduced from past levels. The fisheries constraints 

in this plan will keep ER’s at low rates. 

2. Exploitation rate ceilings established for each management unit using the best available 

biological information, have been shown to achieve a high degree pf probability of stable 

abundance under current habitat constraints, while not impeding recovery to higher 

abundance as habitat conditions and marine survival allow.

3. Rebuilding exploitation rates are ceilings, not annual targets for each management unit. 

Under current conditions most management units are not producing a harvestable surplus, as 

defined by this plan, so weak stock management procedures that assure meeting conservation 

needs of the least productive unit(s) forces the annual target rates for most units below the 

RER ceiling. Projected ER’s in 2000 – 2002 for the Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish 

management units were substantially below their respective ceiling rates (Table 15). 

Table 15. Annual projected total exploitation rates compared with RERs for natural chinook 

management units in Puget Sound. 

Management Unit RER Projected ER 

2000 2001 2002 2003 

Skagit summer/fall 52% 26% 38% 24% 48% 

Skagit spring 42% 21% 22% 24% 23% 

Stillaguamish summer/fall 25% 13% 17% 14% 17% 

Snohomish summer/fall 35% (2000); 

32% (2001-02); 

24% (2003) 

20% 21 18% 19% 

4. If a harvestable surplus is available for any management unit, that surplus will only be 

harvested if a fishing regime can be devised that is expected to exert an appropriately low 

incidental impact on weaker commingled populations, so that their conservation needs are 

fully addressed. 

5. Exploitation rate objectives will be met for each MU, unless interceptions in Canadian and 

Alaskan fisheries increase to the extent that unacceptable further reductions in Washington 

fishing opportunity, on harvestable chinook or species, is necessary to achieve those 

objectives. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Conservative Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

54

6. If annual abundance is forecast to result in escapement at or below the low abundance 

threshold, SUS fisheries exploitation rate will be further reduced to the CERC. The low 

abundance thresholds are intentionally set at levels substantially higher than the actual point 

of biological instability, so that fisheries conservation measures are implemented to prevent 

abundance falling to that point. 

7. High exploitation rates in the past may have selected against larger, older spawners, thereby 

changing the age composition or reducing the size of spawning chinook. To the extent that 

this has occurred, the reduction in exploitation rates required under this plan will increase the 

proportion of larger, older spawners. The potential for size-, age-, and sex-selective effects of 

fisheries on spawning chinook are reviewed in Appendix F. 

8. The reduction in exploitation rates required under this plan will increase the number of 

chinook carcasses on the spawning grounds. Any increase in productivity that results from 

this increase in carcasses will accelerate recovery beyond what was assumed when deriving 

the ceiling ER’s (see Chapter 8 and Appendix D for a more detailed discussion of the nutrient 

re-cycling role of salmon carcasses). 

9. Under all conditions of management unit status, whether critical or not, the co-managers 

maintain the prerogative to implement conservation measures that reduce fisheries-related 

mortality farther below any ceiling stated in this Plan. Responsible resource management will 

take into account recent trends in abundance, freshwater and marine survival, and 

management error for any unit. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Adaptive Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

55

7. Monitoring, Assessment and Adaptive Management 

The performance of the fishery management regime will be evaluated annually, to assess whether 

management objectives were achieved, and identify the factors contributing to success or failure 

of management. This performance assessment will be documented in an annual report, to be 

completed by mid-February each year for reference during the annual fishery management 

planning process. 

 

While much of the information in the annual report will be preliminary, and it can only point to 

major events, the annual review is intended to inform the co-managers of any significant reasons 

for possible deviations from expected outcomes in the immediately preceding season. To the 

extent possible, the co-managers will use this information to assess whether these deviations were 

caused by the management system, or to unpredictable variation in the catch distribution of the 

various management units, migration timing, freshwater entry timing, or other environmental and 

behavioral factors. Management system inaccuracies might include error or bias in abundance 

forecasts, inaccuracy or bias in the FRAM fishery simulation, inaccurate in-season abundance 

assessment tools, or the failure of specific regulations to constrain harvest-related impact in the 

desired manner. 

The co-managers recognize that some degree of inaccuracy and imprecision is inherent in these 

aspects of the management system. The intent of the annual review is to detect significant and 

consistent inaccuracies that may become problematic over the short term, and to adjust existing 

tools or devise new tools, to address them. 

7.1 Monitoring and Evaluation 

The Northwest Washington Indian Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW), independently and jointly conduct a variety of research and monitoring programs that 

provide the technical basis for fisheries management. These activities were mandated by the 

PSSMP in 1985, though activities related to chinook management have evolved as management 

tools have improved. Monitoring and assessment essential to the management of Puget Sound 

chinook is described in detail below, with discussion of how the information is used to validate 

and improve management regimes. This section is not an exhaustive inventory of chinook 

research. A wide variety of other studies are underway to identify factors that limit chinook 

production in freshwater, and to monitor the effectiveness of habitat restoration. 

7.1.1 Catch and fishing effort 

Chinook harvest in all fisheries, including incidental catch, and fishing effort are monitored and 

compared against pre-season expectations. Commercial catch, and ceremonial, subsistence, and 

‘take-home’ harvest in Washington waters are recorded on sales receipts (‘fish tickets’), copies of 

which are sent to WDFW and tribal agencies and recorded in a jointly maintained database. A 

preliminary summary of catch and effort is available four months after the season, though a final, 

error-checked record may require a year or more to develop. 

Catch and effort are estimated in-season for certain chinook fisheries that are limited by catch 

quotas, such as the ocean troll and recreational fisheries that are managed under the purview of 

the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Recreational catch in Areas 1 – 6 is estimated in-
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Adaptive Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

56

season by creel surveys. Creel sampling regimes have been developed to meet acceptable 

standards of variance for weekly catch. 

For other Puget Sound fishing areas, recreational harvest is estimated from a sample of catch 

record cards obtained from all anglers. The baseline sampling program for recreational fisheries 

provides auxiliary estimates of species composition, effort, and catch per unit effort (CPUE) to 

the Salmon Catch Record Card System. The baseline sampling program is geographically 

stratified among Areas 5-13 in Puget Sound. For this program, the objectives are to sample 120 

fish per stratum for estimation of species composition, and 100 boats per stratum for the 

estimation of CPUE. 

Catch and effort summaries allow an assessment of the performance of fishery regulations in 

constraining catch to the desired levels. Time and area constraints, and gear limitations, are 

imposed by regulations, but with some uncertainty regarding their exact effect on harvest. For 

many fisheries, catch is often projected preseason based on the presumed effect of specific 

regulations. Post-season comparison to actual catch assesses the true effect of those regulations, 

and guides their future application or modification. 

Incidental mortality in fisheries directed at other species has comprised an increasingly significant 

proportion of the total harvest mortality of Puget Sound chinook, after the elimination of most 

directed harvest . For many commercial net fisheries in Puget Sound, incidental mortality is 

projected by averaging a recent period, either as total chinook landed or as a proportion of the 

target species catch. Recent-year data are the basis for continually updating these projections. 

Non-landed mortality of chinook is significant for commercial troll, recreational hook-and-line, 

and certain net fisheries, regulations for which may mandate release of sub-adult chinook, or all 

chinook, during certain periods. Studies are periodically undertaken to estimate encounter rates 

and hooking mortality for these fisheries. Findings from these studies are required to validate the 

encounter rates and release mortality rates used in fishery simulation models. 

Higher priority has been assigned to sampling the catch from certain terminal-area fisheries, to 

collect biological information about mature chinook. Collection of scales, otoliths, and sex and 

length data will characterize the age and size composition of the local population, and distinguish 

hatchery- and natural-origin fish. 

7.1.2 Spawning escapement 

Chinook escapement is estimated from surveys in each river system. A variety of sampling and 

computational methods are used to calculate escapement, including cumulative redd counts, peak 

counts of live adults, cumulative carcass counts, and integration under escapement curves drawn 

from a series of live fish or redd counts. A detailed description of methods used for Puget Sound 

systems is included in Appendix E. 

Escapement surveys also provide the opportunity to collect biological data from adults to 

determine their age, length, and weight, and to recover coded-wire tags. Tissue or otolith samples 

are also used to determine whether they are of hatchery or wild origin, and coded wire tags or 

otoliths may be used to identify strays from other systems. Depending on the accuracy required 

of such estimates, more sampling effort will be directed to gathering basic biological data to 

determine age and sex composition. State and tribal technical staff are currently focusing 

attention on the design and implementation of these studies.
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Adaptive Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

57

Escapement surveys also describe the annual variation in the return timing of chinook 

populations. Given that terminal-area fisheries for chinook have been highly restricted or 

eliminated throughout Puget Sound, escapement surveys are increasingly relied on to monitor run 

timing, as well as age composition. 

7.1.3 Reconstructing Abundance and Estimating Exploitation Rates 

Estimates of spawning escapement and its age composition, and of fishery exploitation rates 

enable reconstruction of cohort abundance. After adjustment to account for non-landed and 

natural mortality, these estimates of recruitment define the productivity of specific populations. 

The principal intent of the current chinook harvest management regime is to set management unit 

objectives based on the current productivity of their component populations. These objectives 

will change over time, therefore, in response to change in productivity. 

Indicator stocks, using local hatchery production, have been developed for many Puget Sound 

populations, as part of a coast-wide program established by the Pacific Salmon Commission. 

These include Nooksack River early, Skagit River spring, Stillaguamish River summer, Green 

River fall, Nisqually River fall, Skokomish River fall, and Hoko River fall stocks. Additional 

indicator stocks are being developed for Skagit River summer and fall, and Snohomish summer 

stocks. To the extent possible, indicator stocks have the same genetic and life history 

characteristics as the wild stocks that they represent. Indicator stock programs are intended to 

release 200,000 tagged juveniles annually, so that tag recoveries will be sufficient for accurate 

estimation of harvest distribution and fishery exploitation rates. 

Commercial and recreational catch in all marine fishing areas in Washington is sampled to 

recover coded-wire tagged chinook. For commercial fisheries, the objective is to sample at least 

20% of the catch in each area, in each statistical week, throughout the fishing season. For 

recreational fisheries, the objective is to sample 10% of the catch in each month / area stratum. 

These sampling objectives have been consistently achieved or exceeded in recent years (cite 

Milward or annual 2001 and 2002 annual reports). Mass marking of hatchery-produced chinook, 

by clipping the adipose fin, has necessitated electronic sampling of catch and escapement to 

detect coded-wire tags. 

Coded-wire tag recovery data enables the calculation of total, age-specific fishing mortality in 

specific fisheries. These estimates of fishery mortality may be compared with those made by the 

fishery simulation model (FRAM) to check model accuracy. The FRAM may incorporate forecast 

or actual abundance and catch, which are scaled against base-year abundance and fisheries. It is 

recognized that the model cannot perfectly simulate the outcome of the coast-wide chinook 

fishing regime, so, periodically, the bias in simulation modeling will be assessed. The migration 

routes of chinook populations may vary annually, and the effect of changing fisheries regulations 

cannot be perfectly predicted in terms of landed or non-landed mortality. 

Mark-selective fisheries, if implemented on a large scale, will exert significantly different landed 

and non-landed mortality rates on marked and unmarked chinook populations. Accurate postseason assessment of age- and fishery-specific harvest mortality, through a gauntlet of nonselective and mark-selective fisheries, represents a daunting technical challenge, particularly due 

to the complex age structure of chinook. Release of double index CWT groups (i.e. equal 

numbers of marked (adipose clipped) and unmarked fish containing distinct tag codes) has been 

initiated for many indicator stocks, as a means of maintaining the objectives of the coast-wide 

CWT indicator stock programs. Analyses are in progress to assess if the accuracy of exploitation 

rates is significantly reduced. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Adaptive Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

58

7.1.4 Smolt Production 

Smolt production from several Puget Sound management units is estimated to provide additional 

information on the productivity of populations, and to quantify the annual variation in freshwater 

(i.e. egg-to-smolt) survival. Methods and locations of smolt trapping studies are described in 

detail elsewhere (e.g. Seiler et al. 2002, Patton 2003), but in general, traps are operated through 

the outmigration period of chinook (January – August). By sampling a known proportion of the 

channel cross-section, with experimental determination of trapping efficiency, estimates of the 

total production of smolts are obtained. These estimates are essential to understanding and 

predicting the annual recruitment, particularly in large river systems where freshwater survival 

has been shown to vary greatly. Abundance forecasts may incorporate any indications of 

abnormal freshwater survival.

Survival of juvenile chinook is highly dependent on favorable conditions in the estuarine and 

near-shore marine zones. For many Puget Sound basins, degraded estuarine and near-shore 

marine habitat is believed to limit chinook production. Studies are underway to describe 

estuarine and early marine life history, and to quantify survival through the critical transition 

period as smolts adapt to the marine environment (Beattie 2002). 

7.2 Annual Chinook Management Report 

 The co-managers will write an annual report on chinook fisheries management. Post-season 

review is part of the annual pre-season planning process, and is necessary to permit an assessment 

of the parties’ annual management performance in achieving spawning escapement, harvest, and 

allocation objectives. The co-managers review stock status annually and where needed, identify 

actions required to improve estimation procedures, and correct bias. Such improvements provide 

greater assurance that objectives will be achieved in future seasons. Annual review builds a 

remedial response into the pre-season planning process to prevent excessive fishing mortality 

levels relative to the conservation of a management unit. The annual report will include: 

Fisheries Summary

The chronology and conduct of all fisheries within the co-managers’ jurisdiction will be 

summarized, comparing expected and actual fishing schedules, and landed chinook catch. 

Significant deviations from the pre-season plan will be highlighted, with a summary of in-season 

abundance assessments and changes in fishing schedules or regulations. 

Catch 

Landed catch of chinook in all fisheries during the management year (May – April) will be 

compared with pre-season expectations of catch, including revised estimates of landed catch for 

the previous management year. For the most recent management year, preliminary estimates of 

commercial catch from all fisheries will be reported. Creel survey-based estimates of recreational 

catch in Areas 1 – 6 will also be available. The causes of significant discrepancies between 

expected and actual catch will be examined, with a view to improving the accuracy of the preseason projections. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Adaptive Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

59

Non-landed Mortality: 

Recreational and troll fisheries typically allow retention of chinook above a minimum size, or 

prohibit retention of chinook during some periods. The ocean troll fishery has been monitored 

since 1999, using on-board observers and fishers to collect data on encounters with sub-legal 

chinook. These studies enable comparison of encounters, and consequent mortality, with preseason expectations. 

Spawning Escapement 

Spawning escapement for all management units will be compared to pre-season projections, with 

detail on individual populations reported as possible. Escapements will be compared to 

escapement goals and critical escapement thresholds. Final and detailed estimates of escapement 

for the previous year will also be tabulated. 

Sampling Summary

The annual review will also include summary of CWT sampling rates achieved in the previous 

year, and describe biological sampling (i.e., collection of scales, otoliths, and sex and size data) of 

catch and escapement. 

Exploitation Rate Assessment

Annual, adult equivalent exploitation rates for each management unit will be estimated 

periodically, using the FRAM, incorporating actual chinook catch from all fisheries, and 

estimates of the actual annual abundance of all chinook units, based on spawning escapement or 

terminal abundance. These rates will be compared to the preseason expected ER’s and ceiling 

ER’s. The 2002 annual report will include post-season FRAM estimates through 2000. Methods 

are also being developed for assessing annual exploitation rates, for management units with 

representative indicator stocks, based on coded-wire tag data. 

ISBM Index Rates: 

The annual report will summarize the Chinook Technical Committee’s assessment of whether 

non-ceiling fishery exploitation rates for indicator management units achieved the PST 

benchmarks (either 60% of the 1979-1982 mean non-ceiling rate or the 1991-1996 average 

reduction compared with that base period), for units failing to achieve agreed escapement goals 

for two consecutive years 

The following assessments will be done every 5 years: 

Cohort Reconstruction and Exploitation Rate (from CWT data)

Coded-wire tag data will be used to reconstruct brood year AEQ recruitment and exploitation 

rates for management units with representative indicator stocks, for the five most recently 

completed broods with complete data. Because coded-wire tag recoveries require at least one 

year to process and record, estimates for a given brood year will be made six years later, (i.e. 

after the brood is completely matured). 

Comparison to FRAM 

The AEQ fishing year and brood year exploitation rates generated from coded-wire tag data will 

be compared to the corresponding rates estimated annually from post-season runs of the 

assessment model. Biases will be examined and either accounted for or corrected in future 

management. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Adaptive Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

60

Spawner-Recruit Parameters

The spawner-recruit parameters used to generate the ceiling ER’s, thresholds, and recovery goals 

will be re-examined by including the most recent data on escapement, juvenile production, habitat 

productivity, marine survival, and recruitment. As appropriate, the ceiling ER’s, thresholds, and 

recovery goals will be updated to account for changes in productivity.

7.3 Spawning Salmon – A Source of Marine-derived Nutrients 

Adult salmon provide essential marine-derived nutrients to freshwater ecosystems, as a direct 

food source for juvenile or resident salmonids and invertebrates, and as their decomposition 

supplies nutrients to the food web. A body of scientific literature, reviewed in Appendix D, 

supports the contention that the nutrient re-cycling role played by salmon is particularly important 

in nutrient-limited, lotic systems in the Northwest. Some studies assert that declining salmon 

abundance and current spawning escapement levels exacerbate nutrient limitation in many 

systems. Controlled experiments to test the effect of fertilizing stream systems with salmon 

carcasses or nutrient compounds show increased primary and secondary productivity, and 

increased growth rates of juvenile coho and steelhead. 

The question this issue poses to chinook harvest management is whether the management 

objectives stated in this Plan will result in spawning escapement levels that, in fact, are likely to 

cause or exacerbate nutrient limitation, and thus negatively influence the growth and survival of 

juvenile chinook, or otherwise constrain recovery of listed populations. Several aspects of this 

issue are relevant to determining whether such negative influence exists 

The role of adult chinook must be examined in the context of escapement (i.e. nutrient potential) 

of all salmon species. In the large river systems that support chinook, escapements of pink, 

coho, and chum salmon comprise a large majority of total nutrient input. Changing chinook 

escapement, therefore, will not increase nutrient loading significantly. 

The fertilizing influence of salmon carcasses on chinook depends on a complex array of factors, 

including their proximity to chinook rearing areas, the influence of flow and channel structure on 

the length of time carcasses are retained, and chinook life history. 

Harvest management strategy must be informed by credible direct or circumstantial evidence 

indicating that chinook survival is currently limited by nutrient supply. 

Post-emergent survival of juvenile chinook is undoubtedly affected by a complex array of other 

biotic and physical factors. The incidence and magnitude of peak flow during the incubation 

season, for example, is correlated very strongly with outmigrant smolt abundance in the Skagit 

River and other Puget Sound systems (Seiler et al. 2000). 

Currently available evidence does not support the contention that increasing escapement goals, 

for chinook or other species, would likely to result in higher chinook abundance or, in the long 

term, increased harvestable surplus. Under exploitation rate management, which this Plan 

describes for several management units, escapement will increase as abundance increases. These 

principles have been in effect since 1998, and increases in escapement have resulted in some 

systems. This has the same effect as increasing the escapement goal. 

The nutrient benefit of increased escapement affects, predominantly, smolt production from that 

brood year, especially for chinook populations that outmigrate as sub-yearlings. Spawner – recruit 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Adaptive Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

61

analyses will reflect the potential effect of nutrient loading on productivity. Regular updating of 

the spawner – recruit function is mandated by this plan, and will detect changes in productivity 

that result from widely variable, and in some systems, increasing, nutrient loading associated with 

spawning escapement of all salmon. 

Unquestionably, further study of the potential for nutrient limitation of chinook growth and 

survival is warranted. Studies should be designed and implemented to test nutrient limitation 

hypotheses in several chinook-bearing systems, and in smaller tributary systems that allow 

controlled experimental design. These studies should include monitoring secondary production of 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, fingerling condition, smolt abundance and survival to adulthood 

under controlled conditions to allows isolation of the effect of carcass nutrient loading. They will 

be difficult to design and implement, such that results are clear and unconfounded by the 

complexity of physical factors and trophic dynamics freshwater systems. Such studies may, 

ultimately, lead to quantifying nutrient loading thresholds where effects on chinook growth and 

survival are evident, to guide harvest management. 

Manipulating spawning escapement, or supplementing nutrient loading with surplus hatchery 

returns will require resource management agencies to consider benefits and potential negative 

effects from a wider policy perspective. Artificial nutrient supplementation, despite its potential 

benefits to salmon production, contradicts the long-standing effort to prevent eutrophication of 

freshwater systems. Use of surplus carcasses from hatcheries also has serious potential 

implications for disease transmission. Public policy will, therefore, have to be carefully crafted to 

meet potentially conflicting mandates to protect water quality and restore salmon runs (Lackey 

2003). 

7.4 Age- and Size-Selective Effects of Fishing 

Commercial and recreational salmon fisheries exert some selective effect on the age, size, and sex 

composition of mature adults that escape to spawn (Appendix F). When and where fisheries 

operate, the catchability of size and age classes of fish associated with different gear types, and 

the intensity of harvest determine the magnitude of this selective effect. In general, hook-and-line 

and gillnet fisheries are thought to selectively remove older and larger fish. To a certain extent 

related to the degree to which age at maturity and growth rate are genetically determined, 

subsequent generations may composed of fewer older-maturing or faster growing fish. Fisheryrelated selectivity has been cited as contributing to long-term declines in the average size of 

harvested fish, and the number of age-5 and age-6 spawners. Older, larger female spawners are 

believed to produce larger eggs, and dig deeper redds, which improve survival of embryos and 

fry. . 

There is no evidence of long-term or continuing trends in declining size or age at maturity for 

Puget Sound chinook.. Available data suggest that the fecundity of mature Skagit River summer 

chinook has not declined from 1973 to the present. (Orrell 1976; SSC 2002). The age 

composition of Skagit summer / fall chinook harvested in the terminal area has varied widely 

over the last 30 years, particularly with respect to the proportions of three and four year-old fish, 

but there is no declining trend in the contribution of five year-olds, which has averaged 15 

percent (Henderson and Hayman 2002; R. Hayman, SSC December 9, 2002, pers comm.) 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Adaptive Management 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

62

7.5 Amendment of the Harvest Management Plan 

The Plan will continue to evolve. Harvest objectives will change in response to change in the 

status and productivity of chinook populations. It is likely that the assessment tools will evolve to 

improve estimation of spawning escapement and cohort abundance. Data gaps are identified for 

each management unit in their profiles (Appendix A). As these new data accumulate, the comanagers will periodically re-assess harvest objectives for all management units. In general this 

will occur on a five-year cycle, unless information suggests that rapidly changing status demands 

more frequent attention. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Glossary 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

63

8. Glossary 

Abundance - Abundance is the number of individuals comprising a population or a component 

of the population, at a given life stage. Abundance may be expressed as brood year escapement 

(spawners of all ages that survive from one brood year) or return year escapement (the individuals 

maturing and returning to spawn in a single year). Abundance goals are expressed as numeric life 

stage targets reflective of the capacity of the associated ecosystem. 

Adult Equivalent (AEQ) - The adjustment of fishing mortality to account for the potential 

contribution of fish of a given age to the spawning escapement, in the absence of fishing. 

Because not all unharvested fish will survive to contribute to spawning escapement, a two-yearold chinook has a lower probability of surviving to spawn, in the absence of fishing, than does a 

five-year-old. 

Catch Ceiling - A fishery catch limitation expressed in numbers of fish. A ceiling fishery is 

managed so as not to exceed the ceiling. A ceiling is not an entitlement. [see also catch quota] 

Catch Quota - A fishery catch allocation expressed in numbers of fish. A quota fishery is 

managed to catch the quota; actual catch may be slightly above or below the quota. [see also 

catch ceiling] 

Cohort Analysis - Reconstruction of the abundance of a population or management unit prior to 

the occurrence of any fishing mortality. The calculation sums spawning escapement, fisheriesrelated mortality, and adult natural mortality.

Cohort Size (initial) - The total number of fish of a given age and stock at the beginning of a 

particular year of life. 

Coded-Wire Tag (CWT) - Microtags are implanted in juvenile salmon prior to their release from 

hatcheries. Recovered by sampling catch and escapement, the binary code on the tag provides 

specific information about the age and origin of the fish. 

Low abundance threshold - A spawning escapement level, set intentionally above the point of 

biological instability, which triggers extraordinary fisheries conservation measures to minimize 

fishery related impacts and increase spawning escapement. 

Diversity - Diversity is the measure of the heterogeneity of the population or the ESU, in terms of 

the life history, size, timing, and age structure. It is positively correlated with the complexity and 

connectivity of the habitat. 

 

Drop-off Mortality - The fraction of salmon encountered by a particular gear type that "dropoff" before they are landed, and die from their injuries prior to harvest or spawning. 

Escapement – Adult salmon that survive fisheries and natural mortality, and return to spawn. 

Evaluation or Test Fishery - A fishery scheduled specifically to obtain technical or 

management information, e.g. run timing, abundance, and age composition. 

Exploitation Rate (ER) - Total mortality in a fishery or aggregate of fisheries expressed as the 

proportion of the sum of total mortality plus escapement. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Glossary 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

64

Extreme Terminal Fishery – A fishery in freshwater that is assumed to harvest fish from the 

local management unit. 

Fishery – Harvest by a specific gear type in a specific geographical area during a specific period 

of time. 

FRAM - The Fishery Regulation Assessment Model is a simulation model developed to estimate 

the impacts of Pacific Coast fisheries on chinook and coho stocks. 

Gamma Distribution - The gamma distribution is member of the exponential family of 

distributions. Values of the gamma distribution are positive, ranging from zero to infinity, a 

property which makes it attractive for modeling variances. Shape and scale parameters describe 

the distribution. 

Harvest Rate (HR) - Total fishing mortality of a given stock expressed as a proportion of the 

total fish abundance available in a given fishing area at the start of a time period. 

Landed Catch – Harvested fish that are taken aboard vessels or shore and retained by fishers. 

[see also Nonlanded Mortality] 

Management Period – Based on information about migration timing, the management period is 

the time interval during which a given species or management unit may be targeted by fishing in 

a specified area. [see also Management Unit] 

Management Unit - A stock or group of stocks that are aggregated for the purpose of achieving a 

management objective. 

Maximum Sustainable Harvest (MSH) - The maximum number of fish of a management unit 

that can be harvested on a sustained basis, that will result in a spawning escapement level that 

optimizes productivity. 

MSH Exploitation Rate – The maximum sustainable harvest (MSH) exploitation rate is the 

proportion of the stock abundance that could be harvested if long-term yield was to be 

maximized. The MSH exploitation rate is typically computed assuming stable stock productivity, 

although annual variability may occur. 

Non-landed Mortality – Fish not retained that are otherwise killed as a result of encountering 

fishing gear. It includes a proportion of sub-legal fish that are captured and released, hook-and 

line drop-off, and net drop-out mortality. [see Landed Catch] 

Non-treaty Fisheries - All fisheries that are not treaty Indian fisheries. [see Treaty Fisheries] 

North of Cape Falcon Forum– A pre-season, management planning process for fisheries in 

Washington and Oregon, consisting of two public meeting, which occur between the March and 

April Pacific Fishery Management Council meetings. These meetings provide for an opportunity 

for discussion, analysis and negotiation among management entities with authority over southern 

US fisheries. 

 

Parties - The State of Washington and 17 Puget Sound tribes comprise the parties to this plan. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan Glossary 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

65

Point of instability - that level of abundance (i.e., spawning escapement) that incurs substantial 

risk to genetic integrity, or exposes the population to depensatory mortality factors. 

Pre-terminal Fishery- A fishery that harvests significant numbers of fish from more than one 

region of origin. 

Productivity - Productivity is the ratio of the abundance of juvenile or adult progeny to the 

abundance of their parent spawners 

Recruitment – Production, quantified at some life stage (e.g. smolts or sub-adults) from a single 

parent brood year. 

Run Size - The number of adult fish in an allocation unit, management unit, stock or any 

aggregation thereof that is subject to harvest in a given management year. 

Shaker Mortality - Nonlanded fishing mortality that results from releasing sub-legal fish, or 

non-target species. [see Nonlanded Mortality] 

Southern US Non-Ceiling Index – The index compares the expected AEQ mortalities (assuming 

base period exploitation rates and current abundance) with the observed AEQ mortalities, by 

calendar year, over all non-ceiling fisheries in southern US. This index originates from the pass 

through provision of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

Stock - a group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular lake or stream (or portion 

thereof) at a particular season and which, to a substantial degree, does not interbreed with fish 

from any other group spawning in a different place or in the same place at a different season. 

Terminal Fishery - A fishery, usually operating in an area adjacent to or in the mouth of a river, 

which harvests primarily fish from the local region of origin, but may include more than one 

management unit. Non-local stocks may be present, particularly in marine terminal areas. 

Treaty Fisheries - Fisheries authorized by tribes possessing rights to do so under the Stevens 

treaties (see also Non-treaty Fisheries).

Tribes - Puget Sound treaty tribes that are parties to this Plan include the: Lummi, Nooksack, 

Swinomish, Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, Tulalip, Stillaguamish, Muckleshoot, Suquamish, 

Puyallup, Nisqually, Squaxin Island, Skokomish, Port Gamble S’Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, 

Lower Elwha Klallam, and Makah. 

Viable – In this plan, this term is applied to salmon populations that have a high probability of 

persistence (i.e. a low probability of extinction) due to threats from demographic variation, local 

environmental variation, or threats to genetic diversity. This meaning differs from that used in 

some conservation literature, in which viability is associated with healthy, recovered population 

status (see McElhany et al. 2000). 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

66

9. REFERENCES 

Ames, J. 1984. Puget Sound Chum Salmon Escapement Estimates Using Spawner Curve 

Methodology. IN: Can. Tech. Rep. Fish & Aquatic Sci. No. 1326, Symons & 

Waldichuck eds. (Proc. Workshop Stream Index. for Salmon Esc. Est., W. Vancouver, 

B.C., 2-3 Feb.1984) p.133-147. 

Ames, J., and D.E. Phinney. 1977. 1977 Puget Sound Summer-Fall Chinook Methodology: 

Escapement Estimates and Goals, Run Size Forecasts, and In-season Run Size Updates. 

Technical Report Number 29, Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, 

Washington. 71p. 

Anonymous. 1996. Puget Sound Chinook Spawning Ground Surveys. Manual for Wash. Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, Wa. 98501-1091. 

Baranov, F.I. 1918. On the question of the biological basis of fisheries. Nauchn. Issled. 

Ikthiologicheskii Inst. Izv. 1: 81-128. (In Russian). 

Barrowman, N. J. and R. A. Myers (2000). "Still more spawner-recruitment curves: the hockey 

stick and its generalizations." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 

665-676. 

Baxter, R.D. 1991. Chinook Salmon Spawning Behaviour: Evidence for size-dependent male 

spawning success and female mate choice. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, 

Arcata, California. 

Beattie, W.D., 2002. Tribal chinook research in Puget Sound – 2001 Annual Report to NMFSNWR Protected Species Division. NWIFC, Olympia, WA. 24 p. 

Bell, E. 2001. Survival, growth and movement of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch)over-wintering in alcoves, backwaters, and main channel pools in Prairie Creek, 

California. MS.Thesis Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 85p. 

Ben-David, M., T.A. Hanley, and D.M. Schell. 1998. Fertilization of terrestrial vegetation by 

spawning Pacific salmon: the role of flooding and predator activity. Oikos 83: 47 – 55. 

Berejikian, B. A, E.P. Tezak, A.L. LaRae, A. L.. 2000. Female mate choice and spawning 

behaviour of chinook salmon under experimental conditions. J. Fish Biology 57: 647-

661. 

Bevan. D. 1988. Problems of managing mixed-stock salmon fisheries. In McNeil, William J. 

(editor). Salmon Production, Management, and Allocation: Biological, Economic, and 

Policy Issues. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fisheries 

Investment Series 2, Vol. 19 U.K. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, London. 

Bigler, B.S. D. Welch, and J.H. Helle, 1996. A review of size trends among North Pacific salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53:455-465. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

67

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Fransen, J.K. Walter, C.J. Cederholm and W.J. Scarlett WJ. 2001. Preliminary 

evaluation of the use of nitrogen stable isotope ratios to establish escapement levels for 

Pacific salmon. Fisheries 26(1):6-14. 

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Fransen, P.A. Bisson and J.K. Walter. 1998. Response of juvenile coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to the addition of salmon 

carcasses to two streams in southwestern Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1909-1918. 

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Fransen and P.A. Bisson. 1996. Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from 

spawning coho salmon into the trophic system of small streams: evidence from stable 

isotopes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:164-173. 

Bilby, R.E. and P.A. Bisson. 1992. Allochthonous versus autochthonous organic matter 

contributions to the trophic support of fish populations in clear-cut and old-growth 

forested streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:540-551. 

Bilton, H.T., D.F. Alderdice, and J.T Schnute. 1982. Influence of time and size at release of 

juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on returns at maturity. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:426-447. 

Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1998. Organic matter and trophic dynamics. In: Naiman R.J. and 

R.E. Bilby (editors). River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal 

Ecoregion: Springer-Verlag. p 696. 

Bradford, M.J., B.J. Pyper and K.S. Shortreed. 2000. Biological responses of sockeye salmon to 

the fertilization of Chilko Lake, a large lake in the interior of British Columbia. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:661-671. 

Brakensiek, K.E. 2002. Abundance and survival rates of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) in Prairie Creek, Redwood National Park. Master’s thesis. Humboldt State 

University, Arcata, California. 110 p. 

Bue, G.B., S.M. Fried, S. Sharr, D.G. Sharp, J.A. Wilcock and H.J. Geiger. 1998. Estimating 

Salmon Escapement using Area-Under-the-Curve, Aerial Observer Efficiency, and 

Stream-Life Estimates: The Prince William Sound Pink Salmon Example. N. Pac. 

Anadr. Fish. Comm. Bull. No. 1: 240-250. 

Carrasco, K, S. Foley, B.Mavros, and K.Walter. 1998. Chinook Spawner Survey Data Technical 

Report for the Lake Washington Watershed . King County Department of Natural 

Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Muckleshoot Indian Tribal 

Fisheries Department . 

Cederholm, C.J. and N.P. Peterson. 1985. The retention of coho salmon (Oncorhynchuskisutch) 

carcasses in spawning streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 

1222 – 1225. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

68

Cederholm, C.J., D.H. Johnson, R.E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez, A.M. Garrett, W.H. Graeber, E.L. 

Greda, M.D. Kunze, B.G. Marcot, J.F. Palmisano and others. 2000. Pacific salmon and 

wildlife-ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for management. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Special Edition Technical Report Prepared 

for D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil (Managing directors), Widlife-Habitat Relationships in 

Oregon and Washington. 138p. 

Cederholm, C.J., M.D. Kunze, T. Murota, A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses: essential 

contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries 

24(10):6-15. 

Cederholm, C.J., D.B. Houston, D.L. Cole and W.J. Scarlett. 1989. Fate of coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) carcasses in spawning streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 46:1347-1355. 

Chapman, D.W. 1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid populations in streams. 

American Naturalist 100: 345 – 357. 

Chilcote, M.W. , S.A. Leider, and J.J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of hatchery 

and wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Trans.Am. Fish. Society, 

115:726-735. 

Chinook Technical Committee. 2003. Annual exploitation rate analysis and model calibration 

(TCChinook (03) – 2). Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, B.C. 

Chinook TechnicalCommittee. 1996. Joint Chinook Technical Committee 1994 Annual Report 

Tchinook (96)-1. Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver. B.C. 

Clarke, W. C. and J. Blackburn. 1994. Effect of growth on early sexual maturation in stream-type 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Aquaculture 121: 95-103. 

Conover, D.O., and S.B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. 

Science 297: 94-96. 

Conrad, R. 1996. Escapement Estimate of Chinook Salmon to the North Fork Stillaguamish River 

– 1996. NW Indian Fish Comm., Olympia, Wa. 14p. Attachment to memo. Dated April 

26, 1996 to John Drotts, Stillaguamish Tribal Fisheries. 

Conrad, R. 1995. Escapement Estimate of Chinook Salmon to the North Fork Stillaguamish River 

– 1995. NW Indian Fish Comm., Olympia, Wa. 24 p. Attachment to memo. Dated ? to 

John Drotts, Stillaguamish Tribal Fisheries. 

Conrad, R. 1994. Stillaguamish Chinook Salmon Escapement Estimate – 1993. NW Indian Fish 

Comm., Olympia, Wa. 20 p. Attachment to memo. Dated Jan. 13, 1994 to John Drotts, 

Stillaguamish Tribal Fisheries. 

Conrad, R. 1993. Stillaguamish Chinook Salmon Escapement Estimate – 1992. NW Indian Fish 

Comm., Olympia, Wa. 15 p. Attachment to memo. Dated Jan. 7, 1993 to John Drotts, 

Stillaguamish Tribal Fisheries. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

69

Dill, L.M., R.C. Ydenberg, and A.H.G. Fraser. 1981. Food abundance and territory size in 

juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Zoology 59: 1801 – 

1809. 

Donaldson, L. R. and D. Menasveta. 1961. Selective Breeding of Chinook Salmon. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 90:160-164. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2002. Post season report for 2002 Canadian treaty limit fisheries. 

Report to the Pacific Salmon Commission December 6, 2002. 

Fleming, I.A., M.R. Gross. 1993. Breeding Success of Hatchery and Wild Coho Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Competition. Ecological Applications, 3(2) pp. 230-245. 

Franklin, I.R. 1980. Evolutionarychange in small populations. In M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox 

(eds), Conservation Biology: an evolutionary – ecological perspective. P. 135 – 149. 

Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 

Garten, C.T. 1993. Variation in foilar 15N abundance and the availability of soil nitrogen on 

Walker Branch watershed. Ecology 74(7):2098-2113. 

Glock, J.W., H. Hartman, and Dr. L. Conquest. 1980. Skagit River Chum Salmon Carcass Drift 

Study, City of Seattle, City Light Department. Technical Report, June 1980: 86p. 

Gregory, S.V., G.A. Lamberti, D.C. Erman, K.V. Koski, M.L. Murphy and J.R. Sedell. 1987. 

Influence of forest practices on aquatic production. In Streamside management: forestry 

and fishery interactions. Edited by E.O. Salo and T. Cundy. University of Washington, 

Institute of Forest Resources Contrib. No. 57. Seattle, WA pp. 223 – 255. 

Gresh, T, J. Lichatowich, P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current levels of 

salmon production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem. Fisheries 25(1):15-21. 

Groot, C. and L. Margolis, eds. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, 

British Columbia. 

Gutmann, J. 1998. 1998 chinook management. Memo dated February 24, 1998, from Jennifer 

Gutmann, NWIFC, to WDFW and Tribal PFMC Technical Participants. Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Comm., Olympia, WA. 3 p. 

Hage, P., R. Hatch, and C. Smith. 1994. Interim escapement goals for Lake Washington chinook. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and Suquamish 

Tribe Technical memorandum, March 28, 1994. 

Hager, R.C. and R.E. Noble. 1976. Relation of size at release of hatchery-reared coho salmon to 

age, size, and sex composition of returning adults. Prog. Fish. Cult. 38: 144 – 147. 

Hahn, P.K.J. 2001. Washington State Chinook Salmon Spawning Escapement Assessment in the 

Stillaguamish and Skagit Rivers 1998. Report to U.S. CTC and U.S. NMFS Wa. Dept. of 

Fisheries, Olympia, Wa. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

70

Hahn, P.K.J. 1998. Stillaguamish River Chinook Salmon Assessment. Hahn Biometric 

Consulting Report #027A, Wash. Dept. Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, WA 98501-1091. 

August 28, 1998. 

Hankin, D.G. and M.C. Healey. 1986. Dependence of exploitation rates for maximum yield and 

stock collapse on age and sex structure of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

stocks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43(9):1746-1759. 

Hankin, D.G., J.W. Nicholas, and T.W. Downey. 1993. Evidence for inheritance of age of 

maturity in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 50 (2): 347-358. 

Hard. J. J. 2003. Evolution of chinook salmon life history under size-selective harvest. Pp 315-

337 in A. Hendry and S. Stearns (editors), Evolution Illuminated: Salmon and their 

Relatives. Oxford University Press. 

Hard, J.J., A.C. Wertheimer, W.R. Heard, and R.M. Martin. 1985. Early Male Maturity in Two 

Stocks of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Transplanted to an Experimental 

Hatchery in Southeastern Alaska. Aquaculture 48:351-359. 

Hartman, G.F., Scrivener, J.C. 1990. Impacts of forestry practices on a coastal stream ecosystem, 

Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

223. 

Hayman, B. 2003. Calculation of management thresholds for Skagit summer/fall and spring 

chinook. Skagit System Cooperative Salmon Recovery Technical Report No. 03-1. 

Skagit System Cooperative, La Conner, Washington. 

Hayman, B. 2000a. Low abundance thresholds for Skagit summer/fall chinook stock components. 

Memorandum to the co-managers’ chinook technical workgroup. March 6, 2000. 2 p. 

Hayman, B. 2000b. Skagit spring chinook exploitation rate target and escapement floor. January 

19, 2000, subject: 12p. 

Hayman, B. 1999a. Calculating the exploitation rate target and floor escapement (for Skagit 

chinook). Technical memorandum to the co-managers’ chinook technical workgroup. 

November 24, 1999. 13 p. 

Hayman, B. 1999b. Summary of Upper Skagit summers constraints. Memorandum to Skagit 

Chinook Workgroup, August 17, 1999. 

Hayman, B. 2000c. FRAM-izing Skagit chinook ceilings (exploitation rates). Technical 

memorandum to the co-managers’ chinook technical workgroup. March 17, 2000. 2 p. 

Hayman, B. 2002. Skagit chinook fecundity. Pers comm. to W. Beattie, NWIFC. December 9, 

2002. 

Healey, M. C. 2001. Patterns of gametic investment by female stream- and ocean-type chinook 

salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 58:1545-1556. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

71

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 313-

393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, ed. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British 

Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Healey, M. C.and W.R. Heard. 1984. Inter- and Intra-Population Variation in the Fecundity of 

Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and its relevance to Life History Theory. 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41: 476-483. 

Heath, D. D., R.H. Delvin, J.W. Heath, and G.K. Iwama, 1994. Genetic, Environmental and 

Interaction Effects of the Incidence of Jacking in Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Chinook 

salmon). Heredity 72:146-154. 

Heath, D. D., G.K. Iwama, and R.H. Delvin. 1994. DNA fingerprinting used to test for family 

effects on precocious sexual maturation in two populations of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

(Chinook salmon). Heredity 73:616-624. 

Heath, D.D., C.W. Fox, and J.W. Heath. 1999. Maternal effects on offspring size: variation 

through early development of chinook salmon. Evolution 53(5): 1605-1611. 

Helfield, J.H. and R.J. Naiman. 2001. Effects of salmon-derived nitrogen on riparian forest 

growth and implications for stream productivity. Ecology 82(9):2403-2409. 

Henderson, R, and R.A. Hayman. 2002. Fiscal year 2002 Skagit summer chinook indicator stock 

study. Final project performance report to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Contract 3901. 16p. 

Henry, K. 1972. Ocean distribution, growth, and effects of the troll fishery on yield of fall 

chinook salmon from Columbia River hatcheries. Fishery Bulletin (US) 70: 431-445. 

Hilborn, R., B.G. Bue and S. Sharr. 1999. Estimating Spawning Escapements from Periodic 

Counts: A Comparison of Methods. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 888-896. 

Hilborn, R. 1985. Apparent stock-recruitment relations in mixed stock fisheries. Can. J. Fish. 

Aquat. Sci. 41: 718-723. 

Hill, R.A. 1997. Optimizing Aerial Count Frequency for Area-Under-the-Curve Method of 

Estimating Escapement. N. Amer. J. Fish Mgmt. 17: 461-466. 

Hirshi and M. Reed. 1998. Salmon and Trout Life History Study in the Dungeness River. Report 

to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Sequim, Washington. 

Hocking, M.D. and T.E. Reimchen. 2002. Salmon-derived nitrogen in terrestrial invertebrates 

from coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. BMC Ecology 2(4). 

Holtby LB. 1988. Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, British 

Columbia, and associated impacts on the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:502-515. 

Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan (HCSMP). 1985. U.S. v. Wash. Civil 9213, Ph. I (Proc. 

83-8). Order Re: Hood Canal Management Plan (1986). 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

72

Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan Production Memorandum of Understanding (HCSMP 

Prod MOU). 1996. 

Hyatt, K.D. and J.G. Stockner. 1985. Responses of sockeye salmon to fertilization of British 

Columbia coastal lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:320-331. 

Jacobs, S.E. and T.E. Nickleson. 1998. Use of Stratified Randon Sampling to Estimate the 

Abundance of Oregon Coastal Coho Salmon. Oregon Department if Fish and Wildlife, 

Final Reports (Fish) Project # F-145-R-09. 

Jacobs, S.E. , and J. Firman, G. Susac, E. Brown, B. Roggers and K.Tempel 2000. Status of 

Oregon coastal stocks of anadromous salmonids. Monitoring Program Report Number 

OPSW-ODFW-2000-3, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 

Johnston, N.T., C.J. Perrin, P.A. Slaney and B.R.Ward. 1990. Increased juvenile salmonid 

growth by whole-river fertilization. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

47:862-872. 

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1991. Southeast Alaska sport fishing economic study. Final 

Research Report prepared for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game by Jones and 

Stokes Associates, Inc, Sacramento, California. 

Kline, T.C. Jr. 2002. Trophic level implications when using natural stable isotope abundance to 

determine effects of salmon-derived nutrients on juvenile sockeye salmon ecology. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium XX:000-000. 

Kline, T.C., J.J. Goering, R.J. Piorkowski. 1997. The effect of salmon carcasses on Alaskan 

freshwaters. Ecological Studies 119:179-204. 

Kline, T.C., J.J. Goering, O.A. Mathisen, P.H. Poe. 1993. Recycling of elements transported 

upstream by runs of Pacific salmon: II. δ15N and δ13C evidence in the Kvichak River 

watershed, Bristol Bay, Southwestern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 50:2350-2365. 

Kline, T.C., J.J. Goering, O.A. Mathisen and P.H. Poe. 1990. Recycling of elements transported 

upstream by runs of Pacific salmon: I. δ15N and δ13C evidence in Sashin Creek, 

southeastern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:136-144. 

Kyle, G.B., J.P. Koenings and J.A. Edmundson. 1997. An overview of Alaska lake-rearing 

salmon enhancement strategy: nutrient enrichment and juvenile stocking. Ecological 

Studies 119:205-227. 

Lackey, R.T. 2003. Adding nutrients to enhance salmon runs: developing a coherent public 

policy. Fisheries 28(8):34-35. 

Lande, R. 1995. Mutation and conservation. Conservation Biology 9(4):782-791. 

Larkin, G.A. and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Trends in marine-derived nutrient sources to south coastal 

British Columbia streams: impending implications to salmonid production. Province of 

British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. 

Watershed Restoration Management Report No. 3 56p. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

73

Law, R. 2000. Fishing, selection and phenotypic evolution. ICES Journal of Marine Science 

57:659-668. 

Law, R. 1991. On the quantitative genetics of correlated characters under directional selection in 

age-structured populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal society of London, B 

331: 213-223. 

Lawson, P.W. and D.B. Sampson. 1996. Gear-Related Mortality in Selective Fisheries for Ocean 

Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 512-520. 

Leon, H., and M. Crewson. 2000. Observations on Hoko River Chinook Data and Discussion of 

Management Objectives. Unpublished document on file with Makah Fisheries 

Management. 

Lestelle, L. and C. Weller. 1994. Summary report: Hoko and Skokomish River coho salmon 

indicator stock studies, 1986 – 1989. Technical Report 94-1, Point No Point Treaty 

Council. Kingston, WA. 

Lestelle, L.C., L.E. Mobrand, J.A. Lichatowich, and T.S. Vogel. 1996. Applied ecosystem 

analysis – a primer, EDT: the ecosystem diagnosis and treatment method. Project no. 

9404600. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

Liao, S. 1994. Statistical Models for Estimating Salmon Escapement and Stream Residence 

Time Based on Stream Survey Data. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA. 

191 pp. 

Lichatowich, J., L.E. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the diagnosis 

and treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in freshwater ecosystems. Fisheries 

20:10-18. 

Management and Research Division. 1975. 1975 status of the salmon resource of the Puget 

Sound and Coastal regions, Washington. Wash. Dept. Fisheries, Olympia, WA. 26 p. 

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal 

climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society Vol. 78, pp. 1069-1079. 

Marshall, A.R. , C. Smith, R. Brix, W. Dammers, J. Hymer, and L. LaVoy. 1995. Genetic 

diversity units and major ancestral lineages for chinook salmon in Washington. In 

Busack, C., and J.B. Shaklee (eds). 1995. Genetic Diversity Units and Major Ancestral 

Lineages of Salmonid Fishes in Washington. p111-173. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife Technical Report RAD 95-02. 

Mathisen, O.A., P.L. Parker, J.J. Goering, T.C. Kline, P.H. Poe, and R.S. Scalan. 1988. 

Recycling of marine elements transported into freshwater systems by anadromous 

salmon. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 23: 2,249 – 2,258. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

74

McCubbing, D.J.F. and B.R. Ward. 2000. Stream rehabilitation in British Columbia’s 

Watershed Restoration Program: positive response by juvenile salmonids in the Keogh 

River compared to the untreated Waukwaas River in 1999. Province of British Columbia, 

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Watershed Restoration Project Report No. 

16: 34 p. 

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionary significant units. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 158p 

Michael, J.H. 1998. Pacific salmon spawner escapement goals for the Skagit River watershed as 

determined by nutrient cycling considerations. Northwest Science 72(4):239-248. 

Michael, J.H 1995. Enhancement Effects of Spawning Pink Salmon on Stream Rearing Juvenile 

Coho Salmon: Managing One Resource to Benefit Another. Northwest Science 69(3) 

231-232. 

Mobrand, L. 2000. Preliminary Assessment of Recovery Objectives Based on Properly 

Functioning Habitat Conditions. Report submitted to Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife and the Northwest Indian Fish Commission. 

Mobrand Biometrics. 1999. The EDT Method. August 1999 – Draft. Mobrand Biometrics, 

Incorporated, Vashon Island. 

Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, N.P. Peterson, D. Schuett-Hames, T.P. Quinn. 1996. 

Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed 

surface mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 53:1061-1070 

Murota, T. 2002. The marine nutrient shadow; a global comparison of anadromous salmon 

fishery and guano occurrence. . In J. Stockner (editor). Nutrients in salmonid 

ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. Symposium 34. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium, Bethseda. Md. 

Murphy, M.L. 1998. Primary production. In: Naiman R.J. and R.E. Bilby (editors). River 

ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion: Springer-Verlag. p 

696. 

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. 

Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of 

chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443p. 

Naiman, R.J., S.R. Elliott, J.M. Helfield and T.C. O'Keefe TC. 2000. Biophysical interactions 

and the structure and dynamics of riverine ecosystems: the importance of biotic 

feedbacks. Hydrobiologia 410:79-86. 

Nason, K. 1999. Estimated Escapement of Chinook Salmon to the North Fork of the 

Stillaguamish River - 1998. Attachment to Memo. dated Nov. 30, 1999 to John Drotts, 

Stillaguamish Tribal Fisheries. NW Indian Fish. Comm., Olympia, Wa. 20 p. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

75

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

National Standard Guidelines; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 63. No. 84, 1998. Pp – 

24211-24237. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Threatened Status for three Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units in 

Washington and Oregon, and Endangered Status of one Chinook Salmon ESU in 

Washington; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 64. No.56, 1999. Pp – 14308-14322. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Endangered Species Act – Reinitiated 

Section 7 Consultation. Biological Opinion. Effects of Pacific Coast Ocean and Puget 

Sound Salmon Fisheries During the 2000-2001 Annual Regulatory Cycle. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division. p. 96. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. RAP – A risk assessment procedure for 

evaluating harvest mortality on Pacific salmonids. NOAA NWR Sustainable Fisheries 

Division and NFSC Resource Utilization and Technology Division. Seattle, WA. Draft of 

May 30, 2000. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Pacific salmon fisheries management off the coasts of Southeast Alaska, 

Washington, Oregon, and California, and in the Columbia Rive Basin. June, 2002. 

NMFW Northwest Region. Seattle, WA. 

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. 

Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids, 

National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. 

Nicholas, J. W. and Hankin, D. G. 1988. Chinook Salmon Populations in Oregon Coastal River 

Basins: Description of Life Histories and Assessment of Recent Trends in Run Strengths. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - Research and Development Division. 359 pp. 

Northcote, T.G. 1988. Fish in the structure and function of freshwater ecosystems: a "top-down" 

view. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:361-379. 

O’Keefe, T.C. and R.T Edwards. 2002. Evidence of hyporheic transfer and removal of marinederived nutrients in sockeye streams in southeast Alaska. . In J. Stockner (editor). 

Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. Symposium 

34. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Bethseda. Md. 

Orrell, R. 1977. Chinook Spawning ground Surveys and Escapement Estimates. Memorandum 

to Jim Ames, dated Feb. 1, 1977, IN: Tech. Report No. 29, Wash. Dept. Fisheries, 

Olympia, WA, by Ames and Phinney 1977. 

Orrell, R. 1976. Skagit Chinook Race Differentiation Study. Proj. Comp. Report to National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA-NMFS Grant in Aid Program Project No. 1098-R, 

Wash. Dept. Fisheries, Olympia, WA. 53 p. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon 

Plan (1997). Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland, 

Oregon. 48p. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

76

Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) 2002. Preliminary 2002 post season report for United States 

salmon fisheries of relevance to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Pacific Salmon Commision, 

Vancouver, British Columbia.. 

Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) 2001. Preliminary 2001 post season report for United States 

salmon fisheries of relevance to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Pacific Salmon Commision, 

Vancouver, British Columbia.. 

Pacific Salmon Treaty. 1999. The Pacific Salmon Agreement, signed between the 

United States and Canada, June 30, 1999. Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, 

British Columbia. 

Patton, W. 2003. 2002 Annual report of the effects of tribal research programs on Puget Sound 

chinook and Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum. NWIFC, Olympia, 

WA. 

Pearsons, T. N., and C.H. Hopley, 1999. A Practical Approach for Assessing Ecological Risks 

Associated with Fish Stocking Programs. Fisheries Management, Vol.24, No. 9. 

Perrin, C.J. and J.S. Richardson. 1997. N and P limitation of benthos abundance in the Nechako 

River, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2574 - 

2583. 

Perrin, C.J., M.L. Bothwell and P.A. Slaney. 1987. Experimental enrichment of a coastal stream 

in British Columbia: effects of organic and inorganic additions on autotrophic periphyton 

production. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:1247-1256. 

Peterman, R.M. 1977. A simple mechanism that causes collapsing stability regions in exploited 

salmonid populations. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:1130-1142. 

Peterson, B.J. and B. Fry. 1987. Stable isotopes in ecosystem studies. Annual review of ecology 

and systematics 18:293-320. 

Piorkowski, R.J. 1995. Ecological effects of spawning salmon on several southcentral Alaskan 

streams [Doctor of Philosophy]. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. 177 p. 

Polis, G.A., W.B. Anderson and R.D. Holt. 1997. Toward an integration of landscape and food 

web ecology. Annual review of ecology and systematics 28:289-316. 

Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Puget Sound 

comprehensive chinook management plan: harvest management component. Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA. 239 p. 

Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Puget Sound 

comprehensive chinook management plan: harvest management component. Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA. 129 p 

Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (PSIT and 

WDFW). 2003. Puget Sound Chinook Hatchery Program Management Plan. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

77

Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. 1985. United States vs. Washington (1606 F.Supp. 

1405) 

Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group (PSSSRG). 1997. Council Review Draft – 

An Assessment of the Status of Puget Sound Chinook and Strait of Juan De Fuca Coho 

Stocks as Required Under the Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. Portland, Oregon. 65p. 

Quamme, D.L. and P.A. Slaney. 2002. The relationship between nutrient concentration and 

stream insect abundance. . In J. Stockner (editor). Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: 

sustaining production and biodiversity. Symposium 34. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium, Bethseda. Md. 

Quinn, T.P., Peterson NP. 1996. The influence of habitat complexity and fish size on over-winter 

survival and growth of individually marked juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) in Big Beef Creek, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 53:1555-1564. 

Rawson, K. 2000. Stillaguamish Summer Chinook: Productivity Estimates from Coded-Wire 

Tag Recoveries and A simple Model for Setting Interim Exploitation Rate Objectives – 

January 26, 2000. Tulalip Fisheries. Marysville, Washington. 15p. 

Rawson, K., C. Kraemer, et al. (2001). "Estimating the abundance and distribution of locally 

hatchery-produced chinook salmon throughout a large river system using thermal massmarking of otoliths." North Pacific Anadromous Fisheries Commission Technical Report

3: 31-34. 

Rawson, K., C. Kraemer, and E. Volk. 2001. Estimating the Abundance and Distribution of 

Locally Hatchery-Produced Chinook Salmon Throughout a Large River System Using 

Thermal Mass-Marking of Otoliths. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission. Tech. 

Report No. 3, 2001, pp.31-34. 

Reimchen, T.E., D. Mathewson, M.D. Hocking, J. Moran and D. Harris . 2002. Isotopic 

evidence for enrichment of salmon-derived nutrients in vegetation, soil and insects in 

riparian zones in coastal British Columbia. . In J. Stockner (editor). Nutrients in 

salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. Symposium 34. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium, Bethseda. Md. 

Reisenbichler, R.R. 1997. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids in 

the Pacific Northwest. Pages 223-244 in D.J. Stouder, P.A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman 

[eds.] Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. Chapman & 

Hall, Inc., N.Y. 

Ricker, W.E. 1981. “Changes in the Average Size and Average Age of Pacific Salmon.” 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 1636-1656. 

Ricker, W.E. 1980. “Causes of the decrease in age and size of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha).” Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 944: 25. 

Ricker, W. E. (1975). Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. 

Ottawa, Fisheries and Marine Service. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

78

Ricker, W.E. 1976. “Review of the rate of growth and mortality of Pacific salmon in salt water, 

and noncatch mortality caused by fishing.” J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 33: 1483-1524. 

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. 

Bulletin 191. Fisheries Research Board Canada, Ottawa. 

Ricker, W. E. 1972. Hereditary and Environmental Factors Affecting Certain Salmonid 

populations. In Simon, R.C. and P. Larkin (eds) The Stock Concept in Pacific salmon. 

Vancouver, Mitchell Press Limited: 19-160. 

Ricker, W.E. 1958. Maximum Sustained Yields from Fluctuating Environments and Mixed 

Stocks. J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 15(5): 991-1006. 

Roni, P. 1992. Life history and spawning habitat in four stocks of large-bodied chinook salmon. 

M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. WA. 96p. 

Ruckelshaus, M., K. P. Currens, R. Fuerstenberg, W. Graeber, K. Rawson, N. J. Sands, and J. B. 

Scott. 2004. Independent populations of chinook salmon in Puget Sound. National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Seattle, WA. 

Rutter, C. 1904. Natural history of the quinnat salmon. A report of investigations in the 

Sacramento River, 1986-1901. Bull. U.S. Fish. Comm. 1902: 65-141. 

Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 397-445 in 

C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, 

British Columbia. 

Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, and L. Kishimoto. 2002. 2001 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook 

production evaluation. Annual Report funded by Seattle City Light. Wash. Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 45 p. 

Seiler, D., L. Kishimoto, and S. Neuhauser. 2000. Annual Report: 1999 Skagit River wild 0+ 

chinook production evaluation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

WA. 75 p. 

Silverstein, J.T., and W.K Hershberger. 1992. Precocious maturation in coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch): estimation of the additive genetic variance. J. Heredity 83: 282-

286. 

Silverstein, J., T., K. D. Shearer, et al. 1998. “Effects of Growth and Fatness on Sexual 

Development of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) parr.” Can. J. Fish. 

Aquat. Sci. 55: 2376-2382. 

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passe in 

the landscape era. Biological Conservation 83(3):247-257. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

79

Simenstad CA. 1997. The relationship of estuarine primary and secondary productivity to 

salmonid production: bottleneck or window of opportunity? In: Emmett RL, Schiewe 

MH, editors. Estuarine and ocean survival of Northeastern Pacific salmon: proceedings of 

the workshop. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-29: U.S. Department of 

Commerce. p 133-145. 

Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1985. The role of Puget Sound and Washington 

coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pgs. 

343-363, in, Kennedy, V.S. (ed.) Estuarine Comparisons, Academic Press, New York. 

Simmons, D., A. Grover, R. Kope, D. Milward, M. Mohr, G. Morishima, C. Melcher, and H. 

Yuen. 2003. Review of 2002 ocean salmon fisheries. Salmon Technical Team report to 

the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Portland, Oregon. 

Smith, C. and P. Castle. 1994. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Escapement Estimates and Methods-1991. Northwest Fishery Resource Bulletin. Project 

Report Series No. 1. 

Smith, C. and B. Sele. 1994. Evaluation of chinook spawning capacity for the Dungeness River. 

Memorandum to Bruce Crawford (WDFW), Pat Crain (Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe), 

Bruce Williams (Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe), Nick Lampsakis (Point No Point Treaty 

Council). 

Smith, J.J., M.R. Link, and P.J. Hahn. 2001. Evaluation of a fishwheel and beach seine operation 

as tools for mark-recapture studies of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) on 

the Skagit River, 2001. Prepared by LGL Limited for the National Marine Fisheries 

Service via U.S. Chinook Technical committee and the Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. 

Snohomish Basin Salmonid Recovery Technical Committee (SBSRTC). 1999. Initial Snohomish 

basin chinook salmon conservation/recovery technical work plan. 

State of Washington. 2000. Habitat Changes. Puyallup River Fall Chinook Baseline Report. 

Puyallup Tribe. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Stillaguamish Technical Advisory Group. 2000. Factors affecting the population. Freshwater and 

Estuarine Habitat Management. Technical Assessment & Recommendations for Chinook 

Salmon Recovery in the Stillaguamish Watershed. 

Sustainable Fisheries Act. 1996. Public Law 104-297. 16 USC 1801.110 STAT 3559-3621. 

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river 

continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130 – 137. 

Varanasi, Usha. 1999. Memorandum to Will Stelle (NMFS) dated August 2, 1999, 

subject: Certification of overfishing definitions in Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast 

Salmon FMP. 6p. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. Seattle, 

Washington 

Waples, R. 1990b. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. II. Effective population size and 

rate of loss of genetic variability. J. Heredity: 267-276. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

80

Waples, R. 1990a. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. III. Estimating effective population 

size. J. Heredity 81:277-289. 

Ward, B.R. and P.A. Slaney. 1988. Life history and smolt-to-adult survival of Keogh River 

steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) and the relationship to smolt size. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 1110 – 1122. 

Ward, B.R., D.J.F. McCubbing, P.A. Slaney. 2003. Evaluation of the addition of inorganic 

nutrients and stream habitat structures in the Keogh River watershed for steelhead trout 

and coho salmon. In J. Stockner (editor). Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining 

production and biodiversity. Symposium 34. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 

Bethseda. Md. 

Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and 

Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes (WDF et al. 1993). 1993. 1992 Washington 

State salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SASSI). Wash. Dep. Fish Wildlife, Olympia 

212 p. + 5 volumes. 

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1994. 

1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory: Appendix One Puget 

Sound Stocks, North Puget Sound Volume. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Puyallup Indian Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian 

Tribe (WDFW et al). 1996. Recovery Plan for White River Spring Chinook Salmon. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 

Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams. Vol. 1. 

Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. 

Willson, M.F., S.M. Gende, B.H. Marston. 1998. Fishes and the forest. Bioscience 48(6):455-

462. 

Willson, M.F. and K.C. Halupka.1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate 

communities. Conservation Biology 9(3):489-497. 

Wilson, G.A., K.I. Ashley, R.W. Land and P.A. Slaney PA. 2002. Experimental enrichment of 

two oligotrophic rivers in south coastal British Columbia. . In J. Stockner (editor). 

Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. Symposium 

34. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Bethseda. Md. 

Winter, B.D., R.R. Reisenbichler and E. Schreiner. 2000. The importance of marine derived 

nutrients for ecosystem health and productive fisheries. Elwha Restoration Documents, 

Executive Summary. 

Wipfli, M.S., J.P. Hudson, J.P. Caouette,2003. Marine subsidies in fresh water: salmon carcasses 

increase growth rate of stream-resident salmonids. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 132:371-381. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

81

Wipfli, M.S., J.P. Hudson, D.T. Chaloner and J.P. Caouette. 1999. Influence of salmon spawner 

densities on stream productivity in southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 56:1600-1611. 

Wipfli, M.S., J. Hudson and J. Caouette. 1998. Influence of salmon carcasses on stream 

productivity: response of biofilm and benthic macroinvertebrates in southeastern Alaska, 

U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(1503-1511). 

Young, C. 1989. 1985 – 1989 Harbor seal – gillnet fishery interaction studies in Dungeness Bay 

and Hood Canal, Washington. Technical Report 89-1. Point No Point Treaty Council, 

Kingston WA. 36 p. 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

82
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

83

Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles 
Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan 

________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

84
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

85 

Nooksack River Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

North/Middle Fork Nooksack early chinook 

South Fork Nooksack early chinook

Geographic description 

 

The Nooksack River natural chinook management unit is comprised of two early-returning, 

native chinook stocks that are genetically distinct, geographically separated, and exhibit slightly 

different migratory and spawning timing. They have been combined into a management unit 

because their similar migration timing through the fishing areas in the Nooksack River, below the 

confluence with the South Fork, and Bellingham and Samish Bays. 

The North and Middle Forks drain high altitude, glacier-fed streams. Early-timed chinook spawn 

in the North Fork and Middle Fork from the confluence of the South Fork (RM 36.6) up to 

Nooksack Falls at RM 65, and in the Middle Fork downstream of the diversion dam, located at 

RM 7.2. Spawning also occurs in numerous tributaries including Deadhorse, Boyd, Glacier, 

Thompson, Cornell, Canyon, Boulder, Maple, Kendall, Racehorse, and Canyon Lake creeks. A 

hatchery-based egg bank and restoration program has operated at the Kendall Creek facility since 

1981. Since then up to 2.3 million fingerlings, 142,458 unfed fry and 348,000 yearlings have been 

released annually into the North Fork, or at various acclimation sites. The yearling release 

program was discontinued after the 1996 brood because returns showed that survival rates were 

lower than those of fed fry releases. Since 2001, fingerlings have been released into the Middle 

Fork, in anticipation of removal of a blocking diversion dam. Beginning in 2003, the Kendall 

Creek program releases were downsized due to habitat capacity and straying concerns. 

The South Fork drains a lower-elevation watershed that is fed primarily by snowmelt and rainfall, 

not by glaciers. Consequently, river discharges are relatively lower and temperatures relatively 

higher than the North and Middle forks during mid to late summer and early fall. Some South 

Fork tributaries have temperature regimes more similar to those in the North and Middle Forks 

during the late summer and early fall. A hatchery-based egg bank and restoration program 

operated at the Lummi Skookum Creek facility in brood years 1980 – 1993, but was discontinued 

when the returns to the hatchery ladder did not occur in significant numbers, and the capture of 

wild broodstock was not considered appropriate at such low abundances. 

Life History Traits 

Nooksack early chinook enter the lower Nooksack River from March through July, and migrate 

upstream over a 30 – 40 day period to holding areas. In the North / Middle Fork spawning occurs 

in the upper reaches from mid-July through late September, peaking in August. Spawning is 

currently concentrated in the North Fork, from RM 44 to RM 64, but may not represent the 

historical spawning distribution. The current distribution may be influenced by station and offstation release locations. Early chinook spawn in the South Fork from its confluence with the 

North Fork to a cascade at RM 30.4, and in Hutchinson, Skookum, Deer and Plumbago creeks. 

In the mainstem South Fork spawning is currently concentrated between RM 8 and RM 21. 

Hutchinson Creek has had the majority of the tributary spawning in recent years. South Fork 

spawning begins in August, and peak spawning occurs two to three weeks later than in the North / 

Middle Fork. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

86 

The North/Middle Fork Restoration Program utilizes several release strategies from the Kendall 

Creek Hatchery. Thermal otolith marks are applied to each release group, so their survival and 

spawning distribution can be evaluated when the fish return as adults. Otolith analysis has shown 

that strays into the South Fork, while small relative to the total returns of cultured fish to the 

watershed, can make up to 46% of the early stocks returning to the South Fork. 

The release strategy in the of the North/Middle Fork restoration program was changed in 2001 to 

reduce the on-station release from Kendall Hatchery, which had shown the highest stray rate into 

the South Fork, from 900,000 fingerlings in 1998 in a series of reductions to 150,000 fingerlings 

in 2003, the current release goal. At the same time the total off-station release was reduced from 

1,700,000 fingerlings in 1999 to 400,000 fingerlings in the North Fork, 200,000 in the Middle 

Fork, and 50,000 remote site incubator fry in the North Fork in 2003. 

Earlier analysis of scales collected from North Fork spawners showed that a large majority 

(91%) emigrated from freshwater at age-0(WDFW 1995 cited in Myers et al 1998). In contrast, a 

larger and highly variable (as much as 69 percent) proportion South Fork spawners emigrated as 

yearling smolts. A more thorough, recent review of the adult scale data collected from naturalorigin spawners, for those years when at least 40 samples collected, determined that 29% and 

38% of North/Middle and South Fork early chinook, respectively, migrated from the river as 

yearlings. The number of naturally-produced fingerling and yearling smolts produced by the 

North / Middle and South forks has not been quantified. 

Available information on the age composition of adults returning to the North/Middle forks and 

the South Fork is presented in Table 1, and indicate a predominance of age-4 returns. Age-5 

proportions of these magnitudes are also observed among other Puget Sound spring chinook 

stocks, e.g. the Suiattle River and White River. Low sample sizes as a result of difficulties in 

recovering carcasses on the spawning ground require caution in the interpretation of this data. 

Table 1. Estimates of the age composition of returning adult early chinook in the North / Middle 

and South Forks of the Nooksack River. 

 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 

North/Middle Fork NOR 1% 16% 73% 10% 

South Fork NOR 0% 12% 72% 16% 

Status 

The current status of the Nooksack early chinook stocks is critical. The geometric mean number 

of natural-origin spawners in the North / Middle Fork, for 1998 – 2002, was 124, though NOR 

escapement has increased slightly in recent years from very low levels in the late 1990s (Table 2). 

The number of native, natural-origin spawners in the South Fork remains low, but is also 

apparently stable. The geometric mean NOR escapement in South Fork, for 1998 – 2002, was 

224. 

Table 2. Natural-origin escapement of early chinook to the North / Middle Forks and South Fork 

of the Nooksack River. 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

No/Mid Fork 335 8 171 209 74 37 85 160 264 224

South Fork 235 118 290 203 180 157 166 284 267 289
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

87 

Total natural spawning escapement has been substantially higher, due to returns from the Kendall 

Creek Hatchery supplementation program, which is considered essential to the protection and 

recovery of the North / Middle Fork population. In the North / Middle Fork, escapement has 

increased markedly since 1998, and exceeded 3,700 in 2002. The number of natural spawners in 

the South Fork has also increased, and reached 625 in 2002 (Table 3). 

Table 3. The total number of natural early chinook spawners (i.e., hatchery- and natural-origin) 

in the North / Middle and South Forks of the Nooksack River. North / Middle Fork estimates 

exclude hatchery turnbacks. 

Survey effort has increased to better estimate the abundance and distribution of spawners 

throughout the Nooksack Basin, but turbidity due to the glacial origin of the North and Middle 

Forks hampers efforts to enumerate live fish or redds. 

North/Middle Fork escapement in the last three years has been more than three times the average 

for the preceding five-year period (1992-96), while South Fork populations escapement has been 

stable at about 200 for the last five years. The recent increase in escapement to the North/Middle 

Fork (Table 4, Figure 1) is attributable in large part to the increase in releases from the Kendall 

Creek supplementation program, although earlier increases might be related to the reduction of 

Canadian harvest in the late 1990s. Recruits per natural-origin spawner in the North and Middle 

Forks have consistently remained below one recruit per pair of spawners. Preliminary estimates 

of the number of natural origin spawners in the North/Middle Forks, as determined from otolith 

studies, indicate that the return rate of natural origin spawners for brood years 1992 through 1995 

ranged from 0.08 to 0.59 per spawner (Table 5), well below the replacement rate. The large and 

increasing number of hatchery-origin fish escaping to the North and Middle Forks suggests that 

harvest in the southern U.S. is not impeding the rebuilding of the abundance of natural origin 

spawners. The failure of the NORs to show a substantial increase in abundance similar to that of 

hatchery-origin fish, during the restricted fisheries in the late 1990s, suggests limitations in the 

ability of existing habitat conditions to support substantial productivity from the increased 

spawner abundance. 

Table 4: Origin of Spawners in the North/Middle Forks of the Nooksack River (Co-Manager 

unpublished data). 

Return 

Year 

Natural 

Origin 

Cultured Origin Hatchery 

Turnbacks 

Total 

1995 171 53 228 

1996 209 328 537 

1997 74 500 574 

1998 37 333 370 

1999 85 738 823 

2000 160 1082 891 2133 

2001 264 1921 4802 6987 

2002 224 3517 3731 7472 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

No Mid Fk 445 45 224 537 574 370 823 1242 2185 3741

South Fk 235 118 290 203 180 157 290 373 420 625
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

88 

Figure 1. Natural-origin and total natural escapement to the North / Middle Fork of the Nooksack 

River, and Kendall Creek Hatchery releases three years prior. 

Table 5. Natural origin return per spawner rates for early chinook in the North/Middle Fork of 

the Nooksack River (Co-Manager unpublished data). 

Brood 

year 

Natural 

spawners 

Total age 3 - 6 

Returns 

Return per 

Spawner 

1992 493 185 0.38 

1993 445 76 0.17 

1994 45 25 0.56 

1995 224 17 0.08 

1996 533 247 0.46 

1997 574 339 0.59 

1998 370 103 0.36 

1999* 823 149 0.18 

 * age 3 and 4 returns only 

While there is high variability in the relationship between natural-origin spawners and subsequent 

returns per spawner for the North / Middle Fork population, and statistical relationship is not 

significant, the data suggest that the recruitment rate is lower at higher spawner abundance. With 

the significant increase in natural spawners in recent years, the next four years will provide a 

clearer picture of the relationship between the number of spawners in the wild and the subsequent 

recruitment. 

The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) methodology has produced habitat-based 

estimates of the productivity and abundance of the Nooksack early populations, under current, 

historical, and recovered (i.e. ‘properly functioning’ as identified by the NMFS in the FEMAT 

process) habitat conditions. 

The EDT results for the North/Middle Forks under current conditions estimate capacity at 2,059 

adults, equilibrium (i.e. replacement) abundance at 760, and productivity 1.6 adult recruits per 

spawner, without consideration of fisheries mortality. These results largely agree, but suggest 

slightly higher productivity than the spawner –recruit relationship derived directly from NOR 

escapements (Table 4). The EDT analysis indicates that productivity under recovered habitat 

conditions would be much greater (Figure 2). 

North Fork Early Chinook 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Return Year 

Chinook Abundance

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

Release 3 Years Earlier

NOR

Total North Fork Return

Hatchery Release 3

Years Earlier
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

89 

Figure 2. Spawner-recruit relationships under current, recovered, and historical habitat conditions 

in the North / Middle Fork of the Nooksack River, as estimated by EDT analysis. 

A similar analysis of the current productivity in the South Fork indicates adult capacity of 885, 

equilibrium (i.e., replacement) abundance of 80,and a return of 1.1 recruits per spawner. 

Productivity under recovered conditions would be far in excess of the current level. (Figure 3) 

Figure 3. The spawner – recruit functions for South Fork Nooksack early chinook under current, 

recovered, and historic habitat conditions, as estimated by the EDT method. 

The status of the South Fork stock is more difficult to determine in the absence of a reliable brood 

year return per spawner. The comparison of South Fork early escapement to the early 

escapement four years later suggest an average spawner replacement rate of 1.21 (Table 6). With 

the advent of otolith marks for each release strategy in the Kendall Creek Hatchery Program, the 

North/Middle Fork stock has been identified in the early chinook spawners in the South Fork. 

Because the 1991 release was the first to be otolith marked and pre-dated the substantial releases 

of cultured fish in the North and Middle Forks, it is assumed that the straying of North/Middle 

Fork chinook into the South Fork was low prior to 1995. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Spawners

Recruits

Current Conditions

Historic Reconstruction

PFC plus

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000

Spawners

Recruits

Current Conditions

Historic Reconstruction

PFC plus
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

90 

Table 6. Origin and replacement rate of early chinook spawners in the South Fork Nooksack 

River 

Brood 

Year 

South Fk 

Stock 

(no mark) 

North Fk 

Stock 

Stray 

Other or 

Unknown 

Total NOR 

BY+4 

Replacement 

Rate 

1991 365 365 290 0.79 

1992 103 103 203 1.97 

1993 235 235 180 0.77 

1994 118 118 157 1.33 

1995 166 87 37 290 166 0..57 

1996 284 74 14 373 284 1.40 

1997 267 138 15 420 267 1.48 

1998 289 289 44 625 289 1.84 

1999 204 217 148 570 204 0.70 

 Average 1.21 

Recent information indicates that as much as 46% of the early chinook spawners in the South 

Fork have been strays from the Kendall Creek Hatchery program. 

Table 7. Estimates of the contributions the native South Fork stock to natural spawning in the 

South Fork of the Nooksack River, 1999 - 2003.

Return Year Total Early South Fork Stock 

Number Number Percent 

1999 290 166 57% 

2000 373 284 76% 

2001 420 267 64% 

2002 625 289 46% 

2003 570 204 36% 

 

The relationship between the number of early chinook spawners in the South Fork and the 

number of natural origin recruits to the spawning grounds 4 years after the brood year (Figure 4) 

strongly suggests that habitat conditions constrain productivity in the South Fork. This 

relationship assumes that the reproductive success of the North Fork and other strays is similar to 

that of the South Fork population, and that the unmarked fish represent only NORs returning to 

the South Fork, regardless of the origin of the stock. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

91 

Figure 4. The relationship between natural origin early chinook spawners in the South Fork and 

their replacement rate for spawners four years later.

Harvest distribution 

Recoveries of coded-wire tagged North Fork early chinook indicate that a majority of the historic 

harvest mortality occurs outside of Washington waters, primarily in Georgia Strait and other net 

and recreational fisheries in British Columbia (Table 8). The principles of abundance-based 

management of chinook, which were agreed to in the re-negotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty 

Chinook Annex in 1999, did not constrain harvest of Nooksack early chinook in Georgia Strait, 

where they comprise less than one percent of the total catch. Conservation measures aimed at 

reducing spring chinook harvest in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and northern Puget Sound have been 

in place since the late 1980s. There have been no directed commercial fisheries in Bellingham 

Bay and the Nooksack River since the late 1970's. Incidental harvest in fisheries directed at fall 

chinook in Bellingham Bay and the lower Nooksack River was reduced in the late 1980s by 

severely reducing July fisheries. Since 1997, there has been a very limited subsistence fishery in 

the lower river in early July. Commercial fisheries in Bellingham Bay that target fall chinook 

have been delayed until August for tribal fishers, and mid-August for non-treaty fishers. After 

1997, the release of summer fall chinook from the Kendall hatchery was moved down to the tidal 

portion of the river and then to the Maritime Heritage Hatchery on the eastern shore of 

Bellingham Bay, and then eliminated entirely. Fall chinook production at the Lummi Sea Ponds 

facility was reduced by about 50% to about 1.0 million fingerlings in 1995. This has shifted the 

emphasis of the terminal area fishery away from the Nooksack River to the Samish Bay and 

Lummi Bay areas and reduced the proportion of the tribal harvest taken in the Nooksack River. 

Table 8. Average harvest distribution of Nookack early chinook, for management years indicated, 

as percent of total adult equivalent fishery mortality (CTC 2003). 

 Alaska B.C. Wa troll PS net Wa sport 

1995-1999 yearlings 0.0% 67.4% 1.9% 6.4% 24.3% 

1997-2001 fingerlings 21.5% 65.8% 3.0% 1.5% 8.2% 

Relationship Between South Fork Early Chinook Spawners 

and the NOR BY +4

y = -1.0284Ln(x) + 6.6535

R2

 = 0.7197

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Brood Year Spawners

NOR BY +4
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

92 

Coded-wire tag recoveries indicate that, in Washington waters, Nooksack early chinook have 

been caught in the Strait of Juan de Fuca troll fishery, recreational fisheries in southern and 

northern Puget Sound, and net fisheries (primarily in Areas 7 and 7A, Bellingham Bay, and the 

Nooksack River) in northern Puget Sound. The Kendall Creek facility currently releases only 

fingerling early chinook. 

Exploitation rate trends: 

The total annual fisheries exploitation rate for Nooksack early chinook, as estimated by postseason FRAM runs, has declined 59 percent, since the 1980s (Figure 1), from levels in excess of 

40 percent in 1983 – 1988, to less than 20 percent in the last five years. Some uncertainty is 

associated with the absolute value of FRAM-based exploitation rates, but they are believed to 

accurately index the trend in rates. There are no current CWT data to enable a specific 

computation for the South Fork stock. 

Figure 5. Total adult equivalent Exploitation rate of Nooksack early chinook for management 

years 1983 – 2000, estimated by post-season FRAM runs. 

Management Objectives 

Management objectives for Nooksack early chinook constrain harvest under co-manager 

jurisdiction so that it will not impede recovery, while allowing for the exercise of treaty-reserved 

fishing rights and providing non-treaty fishing opportunity on harvestable salmon. The 

management objective will assure that natural-origin chinook, significantly in excess if MSY 

escapement levels under current conditions, escape to the spawning grounds to test existing 

habitat conditions to promote the recovery of the North / Middle and South Fork populations. 

The upper management threshold for each Nooksack early population is set at 2,000 NOR 

spawners. The low abundance threshold for each population is 1,000 NOR spawners. For the 

next six years it is not expected that the abundance of natural origin spawners of either of the 

Nooksack early chinook stocks will exceed the low abundance threshold. Under this 

circumstance, fisheries that impact the escapement of these stocks will be shaped so a critical 

exploitation rate ceiling of 9% in southern US fisheries is not exceeded; the co-managers’ intent 

is to constrain fisheries so that the projected SUS rate does not exceed 7% in more than once in 

the next six years. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

93 

The low abundance management threshold is currently under review and under current conditions 

may be significantly less than 1000 spawners. After reviewing the best available information the 

co-managers in consultation with NMFS may establish more appropriate low abundance 

management thresholds. 

 

With 87% percent of the total annual harvest mortality occurring in Alaskan and Canadian 

fisheries (Table 8), the scope for total reducing fisheries impacts in Washington waters is limited. 

Net, troll, and recreational fisheries in Puget Sound have been shaped to minimize incidental 

chinook mortality to extent possible while maintaining fishing opportunity on other species such 

as sockeye and summer/fall chinook. The net fishery directed at Fraser River sockeye, in catch 

areas 7 and 7A in late July and August, has caught very few Nooksack early chinook. 

Table 9. Estimates of the Origin of the Early Chinook Stocks Entering the Nooksack River. 

Return 

Year 

North Fk 

NOR 

Total NF w/ 

Stray to SF 

South Fk 

NOR 

Total River 

Entry 

SF+NF 

NOR 

% NOR 

1995 171 224 290 514 461 90% 

1996 209 537 203 740 412 56% 

1997 74 574 180 754 254 34% 

1998 37 370 157 527 194 37% 

1999 85 3820 166 3986 251 6% 

2000 160 3426 284 3710 444 12% 

2001 264 8146 267 8413 531 6% 

2002 224 9723 289 10012 513 5% 

2003 210 8519 204 8723 414 5% 

There will be a limited ceremonial and subsistence harvest of Nooksack early chinook in the 

river, amounting to less than 10 natural origin spawners, and co-migrating cultured stock in 

excess of spawning requirements, as determined during preseason modeling. In addition, a 

limited tribal subsistence fishery, targeted at less than 20 natural origin spawners and comigrating cultured stock in excess of spawning requirement, will occur in early July to meet 

minimum tribal requirements. These fisheries will occur from Slater Road crossing to the river 

mouth in the lower Nooksack, and from the Mosquito Lake road crossing down to the SR 9 

bridge in the lower North Fork. The projected total harvest of early chinook by in-river tribal 

ceremonial and subsistence fisheries will be determined, during preseason planning, with 

reference to forecasted abundance of natural-origin and hatchery returns. 

Fisheries in Bellingham Bay and the Nooksack River directed at fall chinook will not open prior 

to August 1. Subsequent fishing in the Nooksack River occurs in progressively more upstream 

zones as early chinook clear these areas. Thus the area extending two miles downstream of the 

confluence of the North and South Forks will not open prior to September 16. 

Total exploitation rates projected by the FRAM model for the 2001 – 2003 management years 

were 18%, 15%, and 20%, respectively. The analysis supporting derivation of a rebuilding 

exploitation rate (RER) for the Nooksack MU is in progress. It is recognized that tag data do not 

exist to support a direct analysis of the productivity of the South Fork stock, and given its status, 

there is ample reason to exert conservative caution in planning fishing regimes. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Nooksack 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

94 

The co-managers are evaluating the productivity, abundance and diversity of the early chinook 

runs that could be expected from the Nooksack watershed under properly functioning habitat 

conditions, as well as those that might have been expected to exist under historical conditions at 

Treaty time. The calculation of a normal exploitation rate has not be made but at the current 

escapement goal of 2000 natural origin spawners in each population, and an exploitation rate of 

60%, a AEQ recruit abundance of 5,000 in each population would be anticipated. An ambitious 

and long-term effort to restore and protect habitat, working in concert with appropriate hatchery 

production and harvest management regimes, is essential to recovery. 

Data gaps 

Following are the highest priority needs for technical information necessary to understand stock 

productivity and refine harvest management objectives: 

1) Improve estimates of population specific total escapement to the Nooksack basin, with 

emphasis on North/Middle and South Fork populations, including natural origin fish, and age 

data on these fish. 

a) Secure resources to read backlog of otoliths collected at the Kendall Creek hatchery to 

provide a complete evaluation of the contribution of the different release strategies. 

b) Improve the microsatellite DNA stock baselines of all chinook in the Nooksack Basin 

and conduct analyses to evaluate 

i) the NOR contribution of North/Middle Fork strays to the South Fork that can no 

longer be identified by otolith marks 

ii) the most appropriate break point to separate early and late chinook spawning in 

the South Fork 

iii) the relative success of chinook in the South Fork of the different populations as 

indicated by samples from the South Fork Smolt Trap 

iv) the relative success of North/Middle Fork spawners as indicated by samples 

collected at the Hovander smolt trap after eliminating the supplementation 

production identifiable by external mark (Calcein flourescense or fin clip) 

c) Develop alternative spawning ground population estimates that will allow: 

i) Update pre-spawning migration behavior through radio tags or DIDSON 

technology. 

ii) Increase recovery of carcasses on the spawning ground to improve estimates of 

the NOR age structure, yearling/sub-yearling contributions, and population 

composition. 

 

2) Investigate rearing conditions in the river and the estuary and near shore areas to assist in the 

development of habitat restoration and protection actions. 

3) Improve estimates of stock specific natural early chinook smolt outmigration from the 

North/Middle and South Fork populations and late timed chinook. 

4) Develop stock/recruit functions, or other estimates of freshwater survival data to 

monitor the productivity of the two populations and late timed chinook. 

5) Collect information to determine whether the current SUS fishing regime, or the hatchery 

supplementation program, are exerting deleterious selective effects on the size, sex, or age 

structure of spawners. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

95 

Skagit River Management Unit Status Profiles 

Component Stocks 

Summer/fall chinook management unit 

 Lower Sauk River (summer) 

 Upper Skagit River mainstem and tributaries (summer) 

 Lower Skagit River mainstem and tributaries (fall) 

Spring chinook management unit 

 Upper Sauk River 

 Suiattle River 

 Upper Cascade River 

Geographic description 

There are two wild chinook management units originating in the Skagit River system - spring 

and summer/fall chinook. . The co-managers (WDFW and WWIT 1994) identified three spring 

and three summer/fall populations. The Puget Sound TRT concurred with this delineation in their 

assessment historical population structure (Currens et al. in prep. 2003). 

Summer/fall management unit 

The three populations tentatively identified within the summer/fall management unit are: Upper 

Skagit summers, Lower Sauk summers, and Lower Skagit falls. Upper Skagit summer chinook 

spawn in the mainstem and certain tributaries (excluding the upper Cascade River), from above 

the confluence of the Sauk River to Newhalem. Spawning also occurs in Diobsud, Bacon, Falls, 

Goodell, Illabot, and Clark creeks. Gorge Dam, a hydroelectric facility operated by Seattle City 

Light, prevents access above river mile (RM) 96, but historical spawning in the high-gradient 

channel above this point is believed to have been very limited. The lower Sauk summer stock 

spawns primarily from the mouth of the Sauk to RM 21 - separate from the upper Sauk spring 

spawning areas above RM 32. The lower mainstem fall stock spawns downsteam of the mouth 

of the Sauk River, and in the larger tributaries, including Hansen, Alder, Grandy, Jackman, Jones, 

Nookachamps, Sorenson, Day, and Finney creeks. 

Skagit summer/fall stocks are not currently supplemented to a significant extent by hatchery 

production. A PSC indicator stock program collects summer broodstock (about 40 spawning pairs 

per year) from the upper river. Eggs and juveniles are reared at the Marblemount Hatchery. The 

objective of the program is to release 200,000 coded-wire tagged fingerlings for monitoring catch 

distribution and harvest exploitation rate. Summer chinook fingerlings are acclimated in the 

Countyline Ponds before they are released. Development of a lower river fall indicator stock was 

initiated in 1999, with similar production objectives. Production programs for fisheries 

enhancement of Skagit summer/fall chinook, and plants of fall chinook fingerlings into the Skagit 

system from the Samish Hatchery have been discontinued.

Spring management unit 

The Skagit spring management unit includes stocks originating in the upper Sauk, the Suiattle, 

and upper Cascade rivers. The upper Sauk stock spawns in the mainstem, primarily above the 

town of Darrington up to RM 40, the Whitechuck River, and tributary streams. The Suiattle stock 

spawns in several tributaries including Buck, Downey, Sulphur, Tenas, Lime, Circle, Straight, 

and Big creeks. Cascade springs spawn in the mainstem above RM 19, and are thus spatially 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

96 

separated from the lower Cascade summer chinook. Spring chinook reared from Suiattle River 

broodstock are released from the Skagit Hatchery. Annual releases averaged 112,000 yearlings 

for the period 1982 – 1991 (WDF et al. 1993). Since then, about 250,000 subyearlings have also 

been released each year. All spring chinook releases are coded-wire tagged. 

Life History Traits 

The upper mainstem and lower Sauk River and summer stocks spawn from September through 

early October. Operational constraints imposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

on the Skagit Hydroelectric Project’s operation have, to some extent, mitigated the effects of flow 

fluctuations on spawning and rearing in the upper mainstem, and reduced the impacts of high 

flood flows by storing runoff from the upper basin. The lower river fall stock enters the river and 

spawns later than the summer stocks; spawning peaks in October. Age of spawning is primarily 4 

years, with significant Age 3 and Age 5 fish. Most summer/fall chinook smolts emigrate from the 

river as subyearlings, though considerable variability has been observed in the timing of 

downstream migration and residence in the estuary, prior to entry into marine waters (Hayman et 

al. 1996). 

Spring chinook begin entering freshwater in April, and spawn from late July through early 

September. Adult spring chinook returning to the Suiattle River are predominantly age-4 and 

age-5 (WDF et al. 1993 and WDFW 1995 cited in Myers et al. 1998). Glacial turbidity from the 

Siuattle River and Whitechuck River limit egg survival in the lower Sauk River. Analysis of 

scales collected from adults on the spawning grounds indicates that the proportion of spawners 

that outmigrated as yearlings ranged from 20% to 85% in the Suiattle, 35% to 45% in the Upper 

Sauk, and 10% to 90% in the Upper Cascade system. 

Status 

Stocks that comprise the summer/fall management unit are depressed. Annual spawning 

escapement has increased in the last five years (Table 1), but approached the critical threshold of 

4,800 in 1997 and 1999. The geometric mean of the last five years’ escapement was 12,690, an 

increase from the geometric mean of 1992-1996, 7,537 (Myers et al. 1998). Recent assessment of 

freshwater productivity for summer/fall chinook suggests that the current MSY escapement is 

about 14,500 (see below). 

Table 1. Spawning escapement of Skagit River chinook, 1992- 2002. 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Sauk sum 469 205 100 263 1103 295 460 295 576 1103 910 

U Skagsum 5548 4654 4565 5948 7989 4168 11761 3586 13092 10084 13815 

L Skag fall 1331 942 884 866 1521 409 2388 1043 3262 2606 4866 

S/F MU 7348 5801 5549 7077 10613 4872 14609 4924 16930 13793 19591 

Cascade sp 205 168 173 226 208 308 323 83 273 625 340 

Siuattle sp 201 292 167 440 435 428 473 208 360 688 265 

Sauk sp 580 323 130 190 408 305 290 180 388 543 460 

Sprg MU 986 783 470 856 1051 1041 1086 471 1021 1856 1065 

Spawning escapement for the spring unit has been consistently below 2,000, but has, with the 

exception of 1994 and 1999, been above the critical abundance threshold of 576. The geometric 

mean of escapement in 1998 – 2002 was 1,006. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

97 

Harvest distribution 

Coded-wire tag recovery data for PSC indicator stocks provide a description of the harvest 

distribution of Skagit chinook, and contrast the differences between summer / fall and spring 

stocks. Yearling and fingerling releases from Marblemount Hatchery describe the distribution of 

spring chinook. The Samish Hatchery fall fingerling releases are believed to provide an accurate 

surrogate for describing the distribution of Skagit summer / fall chinook. Local summer and fall 

indicator stocks are being developed. Approximately 33 percent of the mortality of summer / fall 

chinook has occurred in fisheries in British Columbia and Alaska (i.e. outside the jurisdiction of 

the Washington co-managers). Twelve percent of summer / fall chinook are caught in 

Washington ocean fisheries. Puget Sound net fisheries and Washington sport fisheries accounted 

for 54 percent and 11 percent, respectively, of total summer / fall fishing mortality (Table 2). The 

harvest distribution of yearling and fingerling spring chinook differ, with about 51 and 75 percent 

of mortality occurring in northern fisheries, respectively. Puget Sound net fisheries account for 4 

percent. Washington recreational fisheries account for 43 percent of yearling mortality, and 20 

percent of fingerling mortality. 

Table 2. Average harvest distribution of Skagit River chinook, for management years 1997 – 

2001, as percent of total adult equivalent fishery mortality (CTC 2003 in press) 

 Alaska B.C. Wash. 

Ocean 

Puget Sound 

Net 

Washington 

sport 

Summer Fall 2.6% 30.5% 1.9% 54.1% 11.0% 

Spring yrlng 1.1% 50.2% 1.8% 4.2% 42.7% 

Spring fing 7.6% 67.6% 0.5% 3.8% 20.5% 

Coded wire-tagged Skagit summer and fall indicator stocks, reared from indigenous broodstock at 

the Marblemount Hatchery, are now being released, and will allow more accurate estimation of 

harvest distribution and exploitation rates. 

Exploitation rate trend: 

Annual (management year) exploitation rates for Skagit summer/falls, as estimated by postseason FRAM runs, , have fallen 60 percent, from levels in excess of 60 percent in 1983 – 1987, 

to an average of 27 percent in 1998 - 2000. Over the same period, exploitation rates for spring 

chinook have fallen 57 percent, from similar historical levels to a recent average of 26 percent 

(Figure 1). 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

98 

Figure 1. Total AEQ fisheries exploitation rate of Skagit summer / fall and spring chinook, 

estimated from post-season FRAM runs for management years 1983 – 2000. 

Management Objectives 

Derivation of Upper Management Thresholds 

The Puget Sound chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) was listed as “threatened” under 

the Endangered Species Act in 1999, reflecting the overall poor abundance of the ESU (Myers et 

al. 1998). While the overall abundance of the ESU is poor, and fisheries have been significantly 

reduced as a result (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildlife 2003), there 

may exist, from time to time, management units within the ESU that have relatively high 

abundance, which could support additional harvests. In order to access these harvestable fish, the 

abundance level that can support additional harvests must first be quantified for each 

management unit 

In the harvest management component of the Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management 

Plan (“Comprehensive Chinook”), this threshold for harvestable abundance (hereafter, “upper 

management threshold”) is expressed as a spawning escapement level. Under this plan, a 

management unit has harvestable abundance if, after accounting for expected Alaskan and 

Canadian catches, and incidental, test, and tribal ceremonial and subsistence catches in southern 

U.S. fisheries, the spawning escapement is expected to exceed this level, and the unit’s projected 

exploitation rate is expected to be less than its exploitation rate (ER) ceiling. In such cases, 

additional fisheries, including directed fisheries (fisheries in which this unit comprises the 

majority of the catch), may be implemented until either the ER ceiling is met, or the expected 

escapement equals the management threshold (Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Wash. Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife 2003). 

Under the court-ordered Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, the default threshold that 

defines harvestable surplus is the level that provides maximum sustained harvest. This objective 

can, however, be modified by co-manager agreement. For the Skagit summer/fall and spring 

chinook management units, recognizing the inherent variability in forecasting and recruitment, 

we define the management threshold as the escapement level that, within the framework of 

Comprehensive Chinook, is most likely to maximize the long-term catch of that unit. This paper 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

SKSF

SKSP
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

99 

describes the methods used to calculate those thresholds for both Skagit chinook management 

units. 

Methods 

Given this definition, the upper management threshold can be calculated analytically. To do this 

analysis, I wrote a QuickBasic program (CkUBPAge.BAS) (Appendix I) that simulates 

recruitment, catches, and escapement over a selected period of years, under conditions of 

uncertainty and error in management, and environmental variation. Because each Skagit chinook 

management unit is believed to be composed of three separate populations, I wrote this program 

to simulate up to six populations, each of which can have different productivity and capacity. To 

mimic current management, the harvest rate is applied on a calendar year basis; thus, each age 

that matures in a given year experiences the same harvest rate, but each age within a cohort can 

be harvested at a different rate. 

Before doing the modeling, however, it was necessary to resolve three input and modeling 

questions: 

Do we use spawner-recruit parameters that apply to current habitat conditions, or to properly 

functioning conditions (PFC)? 

Because we lack agreed recruitment values for the separate Skagit chinook populations, I used 

spawner-recruit parameters that had been derived from a habitat-based method, Ecosystem 

Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) (Lichatowich et al. 1995; Mobrand Biometrics 1999), to get the 

population-specific spawner-recruit parameters. But because EDT gave Beverton-Holt spawnerrecruit parameters under historic conditions and PFC, as well as current conditions, we had a 

choice to make: which set of parameters should we use for this modeling? 

The co-manager policy decision was to use current habitat conditions. The ER ceilings were 

calculated under assumed current survival rates, so it seemed consistent to assume current 

conditions when setting the management thresholds. In response to questions about whether this 

assumption would be responsive to any improvements in habitat, it was noted that these 

thresholds will be re-evaluated after 5 years, and also that harvest rates would be limited to the 

current ER ceiling, so if productivity did improve, constraining harvests to the current ER ceiling 

would allow for escapements to increase above the management threshold. Analyses for 

Snohomish chinook indicated that, while the calculated MSY escapement under current 

conditions (approximately 3,000) has been exceeded only 32% of the time in past years, if habitat 

improved to PFC, and the ER ceiling calculated under current conditions (24%) remained in 

place, the new MSY escapement (approximately 6,000) would be exceeded 95% of the time, 

even though the MSY escapement doubled (C. Kraemer, WDFW, pers. comm.). 

Which point of instability estimates would be used for the summer/fall populations? 

For Skagit summer/fall chinook, two sets of point of instability estimates were available: a set 

derived in 1999 (J. Scott, WDFW, pers. comm.), which has been used by NOAA Fisheries for 

their assessments, and 5% of the EDT-derived historic capacity (5% of capacity is a rule-ofthumb point of instability estimate discussed in Peterman 1977). 

Empirical observations indicated that the EDT-derived estimates were too high. In 5 of the last 

10 years, Lower Skagit and Lower Sauk escapements were both below the EDT-derived numbers, 

and in each case, the recruits/spawner rate was well above 1.0 (my program assumes that 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

100 

recruits/spawner averages 1.0 for escapments below the point of instability). During that same 

time, we did have one Lower Sauk escapement that was also less than its 1999-estimated point of 

instability, and the recruits/spawner rate for that brood was also well above 1.0, which indicates 

that that number may also be an overestimate of the point of instability, but, lacking any 

alternatives, I used the set of estimates derived in 1999 as the points of instability for Skagit 

summer/falls (Table 1). 

Because there were no alternative estimates from earlier years for Skagit springs, and the EDTderived estimates were the only ones available, I used 5% of the EDT-derived historic capacity as 

the points of instability for Skagit springs (Table 1). There have been no observed escapements 

below this point for Suiattle springs, and one near that level for the Upper Cascade population; 

however, that was in 1999, and the returning brood has not yet fully recruited. For Upper Sauk 

springs, there have been three observations below its point of instability, two of which have fully 

recruited, and in both cases the recruits/spawner rate exceeded 1.0. 

When modeling a regime that includes a directed fishery, should the denominator used in the 

calculation of the target ER be the predicted recruitment, or the actual recruitment? 

When there is a directed fishery, I modeled the target harvest rate as the harvestable number 

divided by the recruitment (see Step 8c below). The question was whether the denominator in 

that calculation should be the predicted recruitment or the actual recruitment. I decided that using 

the predicted recruitment more accurately simulates our real-world management, in which 

harvestable numbers are calculated according to predictions; therefore, I used the predicted 

recruitment in the denominator of that equation. 

With these modeling and input questions answered, the steps used to generate the upper 

management thresholds are as follows: 

1. Set the initial inputs. Run-specific inputs are the range of management thresholds that will be 

tested, the number of runs for each management threshold (each of which starts with a 

different random number sequence), the number of years for each run, and the populations 

that will be modeled in the run. Management inputs are the management error distribution, 

the forecast error distribution, the distribution of freshwater peak flows and marine survival, 

and the management unit-specific ERs: the ceiling ER, the average ER under incidental 

fisheries only, the average ER when abundance is critical, the minimum possible ER, and the 

maximum possible ER. Population-specific inputs are the Beverton-Holt spawner-recruit 

parameters, point of instability (the escapement level below which the mean recruits/spawner 

is 1), cohort age composition, initial escapements, and initial recruitments for the ages that 

precede the recruitments that result from the initial escapements. These inputs are listed in 

Tables 1 to 5. 

2. Set the management threshold. 

3. Seed the random number generator 

4. Begin each year of a run. Simulate environmental variation that year by multiplying a 

randomly-chosen freshwater survival factor (Table 4) by the exponential of a cyclicallygenerated marine survival factor (Table 5). The marine survival factor is of the form: 

 Factor = A * sin((Year / c) + b – 1/c) + σsine * ε
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

101 

Where A is half the amplitude of the sine curve; b is the starting point on the sine curve, in 

radians, in Year 1 of the run, with b set at the start of each run to vary randomly between -2π

and 2π (i.e., the marine survival cycle can start in Year 1 of each run anywhere from the 

beginning of the down cycle to the beginning of the up cycle); c * 6 gives the approximate 

period of the cycle (e.g., c = 4 gives about a 24-year cycle); 1/c is an adjustment I needed to 

account for starting the run in Year 1, rather than Year 0; σsine is the standard deviation of the 

spread around the sine curve; and ε is a normally-distributed error variable with a mean of 0 

and standard deviation = 1. A and c were calculated by fitting a sine curve by least squares 

to the natural logarithms of the 1980-1992 marine survival indices provided by Jim Scott (J. 

Scott, WDFW, pers. comm.) (Table 5; Fig. 1). σsine is the standard deviation of those indices 

around that fitted curve. 

5. From the spawning escapements that have been initially input or calculated through the 

program, and the environmental variation factor produced in Step 4, use the Beverton-Holt 

parameters to generate the population-specific recruitments that will result in 3 to 5 years, and 

distribute them by age according to the cohort age composition of the population. 

6. Sum the age-specific and population-specific recruitments that apply to the current year to 

calculate the current year’s true total recruitment. 

7. Multiply the true recruitment by a randomly-chosen forecast error value (Table 2) to calculate 

the current year’s forecasted total recruitment. 

8. Using the forecast, generate the current year’s target ER. Assume initially that the ER is the 

average ER under incidental fisheries. If: 

a) The resulting escapement would be less than the sum of the points of instability for all 

populations modeled, then the critical abundance ER becomes the target; 

b) Otherwise, if the resulting escapement would be less than the management threshold, 

then the average ER under incidental fisheries remains the target; 

c) Otherwise, the harvestable number is the lesser of the difference between the recruit 

forecast and the management threshold, and the recruit forecast multipled by the ER ceiling. 

The target ER becomes the harvestable number divided by the recruit forecast. 

9. Divide the target ER by a randomly-chosen management error value (Table 3), to generate 

the actual ER. Constrain this ER so that it is between the minimum and maximum possible 

ERs (Table 1). 

10. Multiply the actual ER by the true recruitment to generate the catch, and multiply each 

population-specific and age-specific component of the true recruitment by the complement of 

the actual ER to get the escapement by population. 

11. Go to Step 4 and repeat for 40 years. 

12. Increment the random number generator, go to Step 3, and repeat 1000 times. 

13. Go to Step 2 and use a different management threshold. Continue until I’ve identified the 

management threshold that produces the highest mean catch. That level becomes the 

management threshold for the Skagit chinook unit being examined. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

102 

Results 

In preliminary model runs, I tested the sensitivity of the model results to three inputs that are 

fairly arbitrary: the number of years per run; the number of runs (each started with a different 

random number seed) for each management threshold tested; and the starting random seed. The 

results were not affected by the number of runs (the minimum number I tested was 1000 runs) or 

by the random seed; however, the estimate of the summer/fall chinook management threshold that 

maximized long-term catch was sensitive to the number of years per run (more years/run gave 

higher management thresholds). This sensitivity occurred because, as modeled, when abundance 

drops below the point of instability, it tends to stay there. If this occurs in, e.g., year 20 of a 25-

year run, the long-term average catch gets depressed for only 5 years, whereas catch can be 

depressed for 20 years if this occurs in year 20 of a 40-year run. So there’s more of a penalty to 

falling below the point of instability in longer runs. Since it’s more likely that abundance will 

drop below the point of instability when the management threshold is lower, the runs with more 

years should favor higher management thresholds. 

So I had a subjective decision to make: what should be the number of years per run? I chose 40 

years/run (Table 1), feeling that this provided a middle-ground on the penalty for letting 

abundance fall below a point of instability – more than a 25-year run, and less than a 100-year run 

(the lengths of the runs were also limited by the amount of time it took to run the program). A 

40-year run is about 10 generations of chinook salmon, and approximately 2 marine survival 

cycles, which I felt provided a sufficient range of variability in the analysis. 

Skagit summer/fall chinook: 

The maximum mean modeled catch, 13,094, occurred at management thresholds of both 14,000 

and 15,000 (Table 6). I therefore split the difference, thereby deriving a Skagit summer/fall 

chinook management threshold of 14,500. As explained above, I used 40-year runs to derive this 

threshold. If I had used 25-year runs (which is the time period that was used to establish the 

ceiling ERs), the maximum mean modeled catch would have occurred at a management threshold 

of 12,000. With 100-year runs, the maximum mean modeled catch would have occurred at a 

management threshold of 16,000. 

Skagit spring chinook: 

The maximum mean modeled catch, 1598, occurred at management thresholds of both 2000 and 

2100 (Table 7). Splitting the difference would give a management threshold of 2050. However, 

while rounding the threshold to the nearest hundred is consistent with other Puget Sound chinook 

goals, rounding to the nearest ten isn’t. So the choice was between 2000 and 2100, and, since the 

previous Skagit spring chinook goal had been rounded to the nearest thousand (3000), the comanagers agreed to use 2000 as the management threshold for Skagit spring chinook. For 

springs, the management threshold was not sensitive to the number of years/run; with both 25-

year runs and 100-year runs, the management threshold would still have been 2000. 

Discussion 

It might be argued that there is not much difference between the average catches shown in Tables 

6 and 7, and that a different management threshold might be selected with little effect on longterm catch. That may or may not be true (I didn’t examine the degree of fluctuation between 

individual catch years). However, the intent of this exercise was to calculate an answer that had a 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

103 

single solution that would achieve previously-defined criteria, in order to avoid the conflicts that 

result from trying to agree on arbitrary buffers or numbers that “look good”. In this case, the 

criterion was maximization of mean catch, no matter how small the difference in mean catch. 

And, while there was subjectivity involved in some of the inputs (e.g., years/run – see above), it 

was objective in that the analysis yielded a single solution. 

The proposed management thresholds, 14,500 for summer/falls and 2,000 for springs, are 

considerably higher than the MSY escapement levels that would be calculated analytically, 

without consideration of management error and environmental variation, from the spawnerrecruit parameters listed below. From the parameters listed below, using Ricker’s (1975) 

formulae for computing MSY escapement levels in a Beverton-Holt function, the MSY 

escapement levels under current conditions would be 7,700 for summer/falls and 900 for springs. 

Thus, by accounting for observed levels of management error and bias (both the forecasts and the 

target exploitation rates have tended to be overestimates of the post-season numbers – see Tables 

4 and ?), and environmental variation, and by assuming the incidental catch rates observed in 

recent years under the Comprehensive Chinook framework, the management thresholds that 

maximize long-term catch are approximately double the MSY escapement levels calculated from 

formulae that do not account for those factors. 

For summer/falls, this management threshold of 14,500 is almost the same as the former 

spawning escapement goal, 14,900, that was set in 1977. It is somewhat surprising that the two 

numbers are so close, since the former goal was nothing more than the average escapement 

calculated for the years 1965-1976 (Ames and Phinney 1977), and no analysis of production 

relationships was involved in its calculation. 

For Skagit springs, on the other hand, the management threshold of 2,000 is considerably lower 

than the former spawning escapement goal of 3,000, which was set in 1975. This former goal 

was also calculated only as the average of escapements from an earlier period of years (1959-

1973 in this case), rounded to the nearest thousand (Management and Research Division 1975), 

and the fact that the currently-calculated threshold is significantly different is not a great surprise, 

especially given that the biologists who now do the spawning escapement estimates have 

expressed considerable skepticism about the accuracy of the escapement estimates from those 

earlier years (P. Castle, WDFW, pers. comm.). In addition, it has been noted (C. Kraemer, 

WDFW, pers. comm.) that, with exploitation rates on springs slashed by about 70% in recent 

years, it would be expected that there would be a significant increase in resulting run sizes if there 

is a lot of unused capacity in the system. The fact that run sizes have instead remained fairly 

stagnant probably indicates that recent escapement levels (the highest in recent years was about 

1900) are not far under the system capacity. By this reasoning, therefore, using directed fisheries 

to crop off escapement, when the escapement is expected to exceed 2,000, would be unlikely to 

detract from future production. 

In summary, the calculated upper management thresholds for Skagit chinook are: 

Skagit summer/fall chinook: 14,500 

Skagit spring chinook: 2,000 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

104 

Table 3. Input values used to generate management thresholds for Skagit summer/fall and spring 

chinook. See Tables 4 to 6 and Appendix I for data sources. 

Run-Specific Inputs: 

Number of years/run: 40 

Number of runs: 1,000 

Initial random seed: -15,000 

Increment between seeds: 1 

Management and Environmental Inputs: 

Forecast Error: (See Table 2) 

Exploitation Rate Error: (See Table 3) 

ER Inputs: Summer/Fall Chinook Spring Chinook

Ceiling ER 52% 42% 

Mean ER Under Incidental Fisheries 34% 28% 

Mean ER Under Critical Abundance 29% 25% 

Minimum Possible ER 15% 6% 

Maximum Possible ER 90% 90% 

Distribution of Peak Flows: See Table 6 

Marine Survival Parameters (see Table 7 for the historic indices): 

A (half of amplitude): 0.53 

Period: 24 years 

c (period/6): 4 

σsine: 0.633 

Maximum Deviation Factor from Spawner-Recruit Curve: 5.0 

Minimum Deviation Factor from Spawner-Recruit Curve: 0.1 

Population-Specific Inputs: 

 Up Skagit 

Summers

Lo Skagit 

Falls

Lo Sauk 

Summers

Up Sauk 

Springs

Suiattle 

Springs

Up Casc 

Springs

Bev-Holt a 17,600 10,600 4,500 2,600 500 900 

Slope at Origin 9.2 3.3 5.9 8.5 8.2 8.0 

Point of 

Instability 

967 251 200 210 40 80 

% Age 3 25% 25% 25% 5% 5% 5% 

% Age 4 60% 60% 60% 59% 59% 59% 

% Age 5 15% 15% 15% 36% 36% 36% 

Initial 

Escapement 

9,600 2,300 610 350 430 330 

Initial 

Recruitment 

Calculated by age as Initial Escapement/(1-Incidental ER) * Age Comp 

Extinction Level 10 10 10 10 10 10 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

105 

Table 4. Run size estimation error values used in the program to generate management thresholds 

for Skagit summer/fall and spring chinook. The in-season update (ISU) error was used, rather 

than the preseason forecast error, because directed fisheries (which would be conducted if the 

escapement is predicted to exceed the management threshold) would most likely be managed 

according to an in-season update. 

Table 5. Exploitation rate error values used in the program to generate management thresholds 

for Skagit summer/fall and spring chinook. The error values used in the program are the 1988-93 

and 1997-2000 rates listed in the two right-hand columns, under “S/F Ck” and “Spr Ck”. The 

1997-2000 values were calculated from the validation (post-season) and FRAM ER Index 

(preseason) values shown in this table. The 1988-1993 error values were calculated by Gutmann 

(1998). 

% Error

Year ISU Post-Season Difference (ISU/Post - 1)

1984 15838 16791 -953 -5.7%

1985 23360 25444 -2084 -8.2%

1986 18583 22500 -3917 -17.4%

1987 17347 13542 3805 28.1%

1988 18992 16229 2763 17.0%

1989 21403 13568 7835 57.7%

1990 16586 20615 -4029 -19.5%

1991 17382 9707 7675 79.1%

1992 17933 11855 6078 51.3%

1993 15150 8255 6895 83.5%

Mean 18257 15851 2407 26.6%

Std Dev 2507 5597 4782 39.4%

SE Mean 793 1770 1512 12.5%

% Difference

FRAM Preseason U (PSF/Validation - 1)

Year S/F Ck Spr Ck S/F Ck Spr Ck S/F Ck Spr Ck S/F Ck Spr Ck Combined

1988 58% 59% 22.6% 8.1%

1989 71% 75% -10.1% -17.7%

1990 50% 50% 12.6% -0.6%

1991 53% 65% -7.1% -16.2%

1992 63% 57% -12.7% -6.9%

1993 65% 46% -18.6% 20.8%

1994 57% 51%

1995 60% 47%

1996 30% 45%

1997 37% 42% 85.0% 80.6% 51.3% 47.3% 38.7% 12.5%

1998 23% 30% 62.7% 53.6% 37.9% 31.4% 64.6% 4.7%

1999 33% 23% 74.9% 74.4% 45.2% 43.6% 37.1% 89.6%

2000 24% 32% 45.2% 39.4% 27.3% 23.1% 13.8% -27.9%

2001 62.8% 37.7% 37.9% 22.1%

2002 40.7% 41.4% 24.6% 24.3%

2003

89-93 avg 60.4% 58.6% -2.2% -2.1% -2.2%

97-02 avg 29.3% 31.8% 61.9% 54.5% 37.4% 31.9% 38.5% 19.7% 29.1%

all yrs avg 14.1% 6.6% 10.4%

Std Dev 27.0% 32.8% 29.5%

SE Mean 8.5% 10.4% 6.6%

Validation Run FRAM ER Index
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

106 

Table 6. Freshwater flow survival values for Skagit chinook. The values used in the program to 

compute management thresholds are those in the column labeled “Ratio to Mean”. “RI” is flood 

return interval. Survival rates were calculated from a relation between flood return interval and 

incubation survival, using survival vs. peak flow data provided by Seiler et al. (2002), and 

converting peak flow to a flood return interval (E. Beamer, Skagit System Cooperative, pers. 

comm.). 

Date Brood Year Survival Ratio to Mean Peak Discharge RI (yr)

December 26, 1972 1972 17.5% 1.15 53600 1.8

January 16, 1974 1973 16.0% 1.05 77600 4.3

December 21, 1974 1974 17.6% 1.15 51400 1.6

December 4, 1975 1975 6.2% 0.40 130000 30.9

January 19, 1977 1976 17.6% 1.15 52800 1.7

December 3, 1977 1977 16.9% 1.11 65600 2.8

November 8, 1978 1978 18.0% 1.18 40300 1.1

December 19, 1979 1979 10.6% 0.69 112000 15.7

December 27, 1980 1980 10.2% 0.66 114000 17.0

February 16, 1982 1981 17.5% 1.14 55800 1.9

December 4, 1982 1982 16.5% 1.08 71600 3.5

January 5, 1984 1983 14.8% 0.97 88200 6.5

January 0, 1900 1984 18.0% 1.18 1.0

January 19, 1986 1985 16.4% 1.07 72800 3.6

November 24, 1986 1986 16.6% 1.08 70700 3.4

December 10, 1987 1987 18.2% 1.19 32100 0.8

October 17, 1988 1988 17.4% 1.14 56700 2.0

December 5, 1989 1989 13.4% 0.88 97800 9.2

November 25, 1990 1990 1.5% 0.10 152000 70.3

February 1, 1992 1991 18.0% 1.18 40100 1.1

January 26, 1993 1992 18.3% 1.19 27600 0.7

December 11, 1993 1993 18.2% 1.19 32100 0.8

December 28, 1994 1994 17.3% 1.13 58600 2.1

November 30, 1995 1995 3.5% 0.23 141000 46.6

January 20, 1997 1996 17.7% 1.15 50800 1.6

October 5, 1997 1997 17.0% 1.11 64800 2.7

December 14, 1998 1998 17.3% 1.13 58200 2.1

November 13, 1999 1999 16.1% 1.05 76000 4.1

October 21, 2000 2000 18.3% 1.19 26700 0.6

January 8, 2002 2001 16.5% 1.08 71900 3.5

Mean 15.3% 1.000 70441 8.2

Std Dev 4.4% 0.290 33040

SE Mean 0.81% 0.053 6135
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

107 

Table 7. Values used to fit a sine curve to the natural logarithm of the marine survival index for 

Skagit summer/fall chinook. Period of cycle is approximately 24 years. 

Brood Marine S 

Year Index ln(index) aSin((Yr+b)/c) Deviation Dev-squared

80 0.755 -0.2810 0.52832 -0.8094 0.655059 

81 4.313 1.4616 0.501463 0.9602 0.921928 

82 1.232 0.2086 0.443427 -0.2348 0.055126 

83 1.281 0.2476 0.357822 -0.1102 0.01214 

84 1.783 0.5783 0.249969 0.3283 0.1078 

85 0.413 -0.8843 0.126574 -1.0109 1.021881 

86 2.352 0.8553 -0.00469 0.8600 0.739526 

87 0.739 -0.3025 -0.13566 -0.1668 0.02782 

88 0.775 -0.2549 -0.2582 0.0033 1.1E-05 

89 0.801 -0.2219 -0.36469 0.1428 0.02039 

90 1.66 0.5068 -0.4485 0.9553 0.912626 

91 0.293 -1.2276 -0.50442 -0.7232 0.522962 

92 0.374 -0.9835 -0.52898 -0.4545 0.206585 

 SSE 5.20385 

Mean 1.290077 -0.02288 MSE 0.400 

Median 0.801 -0.22189 RMSE 0.63269 

 

a = 0.53 

b = 2 

c = 4 

Figure 2. The best fit sine-curve to Skagit summer/fall chinook marine survival indices for brood 

years 1980-1992. The period of the curve is about 24 years. 

-1.5000

-1.0000

-0.5000

0.0000

0.5000

1.0000

1.5000

2.0000

78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

108 

Table 8. Modeled mean annual catch, escapement, number of directed fisheries, and number of 

population extinctions, in 1,000 runs of 40 years each, at different management thresholds, for 

Skagit summer/fall chinook. Threshold with maximum catch is bolded. 

Skagit Summer/Fall Chinook

Management 

Threshold Mean Catch

Mean 

Escapement

Number of 

Directed Fisheries

Population 

Extinctions

10000 12943 9430 29190 7 

11000 13003 9706 27435 6 

12000 13053 10000 25565 4 

13000 13083 10290 24338 4 

14000 13094 10579 23167 1 

15000 13094 10885 21783 0 

16000 13084 11189 20599 0 

17000 13066 11484 19480 0 

18000 13044 11780 18493 0 

19000 13006 12085 17348 0 

20000 12961 12386 16243 0 

Table 9. Modeled mean annual catch, escapement, number of directed fisheries, and number of 

population extinctions, in 1,000 runs of 40 years each, at different management thresholds, for 

Skagit spring chinook. Threshold with maximum catch is bolded. 

Skagit Spring Chinook

Management 

Threshold Mean Catch

Mean 

Escapement

Number of 

Directed Fisheries

Population 

Extinctions

1500 1569 1664 28056 0 

1600 1578 1692 27244 0 

1700 1586 1724 26317 0 

1800 1592 1755 25323 0 

1900 1597 1785 24441 0 

2000 1598 1812 23483 0 

2100 1598 1838 22558 0 

2200 1596 1860 21732 0 

2300 1592 1880 20922 0 

2400 1587 1898 20145 0 

2500 1582 1916 19499 0 

Derivation of exploitation rate objectives 

Summer / fall chinook 

The management objectives for Skagit summer/fall include a recovery exploitation rate that 

insures, while maintaining fishing opportunity, that harvest will not impede recovery, and low 

abundance thresholds that guard against abundance falling below the point of instability (Hayman 

1999a; 2000a; 2000b). Recovery exploitation rate objectives were developed to meet the 

following criteria: 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

109 

1) The percentage of escapements less than the critical abundance (i.e. escapement) threshold 

increases by less than 5 percentage points relative to the baseline (i.e., in the absence of 

fishing mortality). 

2) Escapements at the end of 25 years exceed the rebuilding escapement threshold at least 80% 

of the time; or the percentage of escapements less than the rebuilding threshold at the end 

of 25 years differs from the baseline by less than 10 percentage points. 

The critical abundance threshold is defined as that which would result in a 5 percent probability 

that the management unit would become extinct (i.e. fall below 100) at the end of ten years. Since 

a satisfactory method to calculate critical escapement has not been developed, escapement equal 

to 5 percent of the stock replacement level was chosen (Hayman 1999a). Replacement 

escapement is based on the current productivity of the management unit, and therefore 

incorporates parameters that define the Ricker stock / recruit functions for Skagit units, and recent 

freshwater and marine survival. For the summer / fall unit, the critical escapement level is 1,165 

(Hayman 2000a and 2000b). 

The rebuilding escapement threshold is that current level for which there is a 99 percent 

probability that the run will persist at viable levels. Put another way, if current exploitation rates 

and freshwater and marine survival conditions were maintained, the probability that the run 

would go extinct (i.e., fall below 100) at the end of 100 years would fall below one percent. The 

rebuilding escapement threshold for summer / fall chinook was computed by simulating the 

population dynamics for 100 years, given a recent average brood year exploitation rate and age 

composition of escapement, for a range of initial escapement levels. Simulations were replicated 

2,000 times, until an initial escapement resulted in extinction in fewer than 1 percent of those 

replicate runs (Hayman 1999a; 2000b). The rebuilding escapement threshold is 4,700 for the 

summer/fall unit 

With the critical and rebuilding escapement levels established, the population dynamics of the 

summer / fall Skagit unit was simulated for 25-year periods into the future. The simulation model 

incorporated the average age composition and age-specific escapement of the units, and randomly 

or cyclically varying productivity and management error parameters. Each model run used an 

input exploitation rate, and was replicated 2000 times. The probabilities of exceeding the 

recovery escapement level, or falling below the critical escapement level, at the end of the 

simulation period were computed for each run from the 2000 outcomes. A range of exploitation 

rates, from 0 to 80 percent, were simulated to determine the maximum exploitation rate at which 

the conservation criteria were met (Hayman 1999a; 2000b). The Washington co-managers have 

set a rebuilding exploitation rate ceiling of 5 percent for the Skagit summer/fall management unit, 

as estimated from coded-wire tag recoveries. This management objective was developed from 

productivity functions characteristic of brood years of Skagit chinook, and was translated into an 

annual exploitation rate, that is output from the FRAM model, of 50% (Table 4). This 

exploitation rate objective was set to be 82 percent of the mean rate from fishing years 1989-1993 

for summer/fall chinook (Hayman 2000c). 

Low abundance thresholds (“crisis escapement levels”) were also established for the summer/fall 

management unit. These thresholds are defined as the pre-season forecast escapement for which 

there is a 95 percent probability that the actual escapement will be above the point of instability, 

given management error and uncertainty about what level the point of instability is (Hayman 

1999a;2000b). The derivation of these thresholds takes into account the difference between 

forecast and observed escapement in previous years, and variance of the spawner-recruit 

parameters used to calculate the point of instability, thereby reducing the probability of actual 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

110 

escapement falling below the actual point of stock instability. The derivation involved varying the 

preseason forecast until the area of overlap between the management error distribution curve and 

the uncertainty curve about the point of instability is less than 5% of the error distribution curve 

(Hayman 2000b). 

In low-abundance years, when projected spawning escapement (from the FRAM model) fall to 

the lower thresholds, fisheries managers will implement further conservation measures in 

fisheries to reduce mortality, as described in Section 3 and Appendix C. For the summer/fall 

management unit, the low abundance threshold is 4,800. For the summer/fall unit, low 

abundance thresholds have been developed for each component population, so that forecast 

weakness in any one population may trigger the more conservative harvest regime. The low 

abundance thresholds for Upper Skagit summers, Lower Sauk summers, and Lower Skagit falls 

are 2,200, 400, and 900, respectively (Hayman 2000a). 

The escapement of individual summer/fall populations may be projected from the aggregate 

escapement, which is output from the simulation model, in proportion to brood year escapement 

for each population, or in proportion to estimated age-3 and age-4 adults recruited from their 

brood-year escapement. Survival rates to compute recruitment will be those implied by the 

Ricker spawner / recruit function for each population. 

Spring chinook 

Population Modeled CET Modeled RET A&P RER FRAM RER 

Suiattle 170 400 50% 41% 

Upper Sauk 130 330 46% 38% 

Cascade 170 

Data insufficient to derive a spawner-recruit 

analysis. RERs for other Skagit spring 

populations will be used as surrogate 

Spring MU 4704 990 47% 38% 

Introduction

The rebuilding exploitation rate (RER) is the highest allowable (“ceiling”) exploitation rate for 

the population under normal conditions of stock abundance. This rate is designed to meet the 

objective that, compared to a hypothetical situation of zero harvest impact, the impact of harvest 

at this rate will not significantly impede the opportunity for the population to grow towards the 

recovery goal. Fisheries are then managed to not exceed the ceiling rate. Recovery will require 

changes to harvest, hatchery, and habitat management. However, our task involves examining 

only the impacts of harvest on survival and recovery within the context of actions that are 

occurring in the other sectors affecting listed salmon. Therefore, we evaluate the RER based on 

Monte Carlo projections of the near-term (25 years) future performance of the population under 

current productivity conditions, i.e., assuming that the impact of hatchery and habitat 

management actions remain as they are now. The RER will be periodically evaluated to see if the 

actions taken in hatchery and habitat management, or changes in natural environmental 

 

4

 In order to account for management error and uncertainty, the spring chinook LAT in this plan will 

remain at 576 (Hayman 2000b). 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

111 

conditions would require revisions of our assumptions about productivity or capacity. The RER is 

defined as the rate that would result in escapements unlikely to fall below a critical escapement 

threshold (CET) and likely to rebuild above a rebuilding escapement threshold (RET). All 

sources of fishing-related mortality are included in the assessment of harvest. 

There are two phases to the process of determining an RER for a population. The first, or model 

fitting phase, involves using recent data from the target population itself, or a representative 

indicator population, to fit a spawner-recruit relationship representing the performance of the 

population under current conditions. Population performance is modeled as 

R = f(S,e ),

where S is the number of fish spawning in a single return year, R is the number of adult 

equivalent recruits5

, and e is a vector of environmental, density-independent correlates of annual 

survival. 

Several data sources are necessary for this: a time series of natural spawning escapement, a time 

series of total recruitment, age distributions for both of these, and time series for the 

environmental correlates of survival. In addition, one must assume a functional form for f , the 

spawner-recruit relationship. Given the data, one can numerically estimate the parameters of the 

assumed spawner-recruit relationship to complete the model fitting phase. 

The second, or projection phase, of the analysis involves using the fitted model in a Monte Carlo 

simulation to project the probability distribution of the near-term future performance of the 

population assuming that current conditions of productivity continue. Besides the fitted values of 

the parameters of the spawner-recruit relationships, one needs estimates of the probability 

distributions of the variables driving the population dynamics, including the process error 

(including first order autocorrelation) of the spawner-recruit relationship itself and each of the 

environmental correlates. Also, since fishing-related mortality is modeled in the projection 

phase, one must estimate the distribution of the deviation of actual fishing-related mortality from 

the intended ceiling. This is termed “management error” and its distribution, as well as the others 

are estimated from available recent data. 

We used the viability and risk assessment procedure (VRAP)(N. Sands, in prep.) for the 

projection phase. For a series of target exploitation rates the population is repeatedly projected 

for 25 years. From the simulation results we computed the fraction of years in all runs where the 

escapement is less than the CET and the fraction of runs for which the average of the spawning 

escapements in years 21-25 is greater than the RET. Target exploitation rates for which the first 

fraction is less than 5% and the second fraction is greater than 80% (or less than 10% than would 

have occurred without harvest) are considered acceptable for use as ceiling exploitation rates for 

harvest management. These are the RERs. 

 

5

 Equivalently, this could be termed “potential spawners” because it represents the number of fish that 

would return to spawn absent harvest-related mortality. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

112 

MODEL FITTING PHASE 

General 

To derive the Suiattle and Upper Sauk spring chinook RERs, we examined the 1981 to 1997 

brood years. Uncertainty about data quality of escapement and fishing rates, and residual 

analyses that indicated a change in system productivity, precluded use of data before 1980. After 

adjusting for environmental factors, there was no evidence of depensation in the data (Figures 3a 

and 3b). The 1997 brood year was the last year for which data were available to conduct 

complete cohort reconstruction. 

Figures 3a and 3b. Upper Sauk (1a) and Suiattle (1b) spring chinook recruits adjusted for marine 

and freshwater environmental conditions 

Upper Sauk: Predicted Recruits for given spawners, marine survival and fw index

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

-100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

Observed Spawners

Recruits

Replace

Est R

Adj. Recruits - Ric

Adj. Recruits-BH

Adj. Recruits-Hockey

Suiattle: Predicted Recruits for given spawners, marine survival and fw index

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 500 1000 1500

Observed Spawners

Recruits

Replace

Est R

Adjusted Recruits-Ric

Adjusted Recruits-BH

Adjusted Recruits-Hockey

94 92

90

95

The symbols marked Adj. Recruits (-Bev, -Ric, and –Hoc) in the above figures denote the recruits 

that would have been produced without the influence of the environmental correlates that drive 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

113 

year to year survival. This allows us to look at the effect of spawners only on the number of 

recruits produced. We need to remove the effects of other factors, such as the environment, if we 

want to look for possible depensation which is a function of the number of spawners. Adjusted 

recruits are calculated for each year as follows: 

Adjusted recruits = ___________________Recruits ________________

 (Annual Environmental Factor/Average Environmental Factor) 

Annual Environmental Factor = (Marine survival index^c)(e(d*freshwater flow)) 

Average Environmental Factor = t

Annual Environmental Factor

t

year

∑=1

_ _

Where c and d are constants from the spawner-recruit relationship 

Escapement estimation methods changed in 1994. Although the two methods result in different 

escapement estimates in any one year, preliminary comparisons of the two methods do not 

indicate a consistent difference. There was some concern that because the correlation between 

the old and new method was weaker for the Upper Sauk than for the Suiattle population, it might 

preclude use of the data to derive an RER for the Upper Sauk spring population. For the Suiattle, 

the coefficient of variation of the escapement estimates made before this method change is 

approximately the same as the coefficient of variation of the estimates since 1994, which 

indicates comparable measurement accuracy in both time periods; in contrast, the greater 

coefficient of variation in the Upper Sauk before 1994 indicates that measurement error in the 

Upper Sauk was probably greater before 1994 than since that time (Table 10). 

Table 10. Average number of spawners with standard deviation and coefficient of variation (CV) 

for three time periods. 

 Cascade Upper Sauk Suiattle 

1952-1974 

average 1225 825 

st dev 917 378 

Cv 75% 46% 

autocorrel 0.35 0.27 

1975-1993 

average 192 540 546 

st dev 84 384 234 

Cv 44% 71% 43% 

autocorrel 0.22 0.16 

1994-2002 

average 284 309 385 

st dev 151 138 158 

Cv 53% 45% 41% 

autocorrel 0.39 (0.37) 

While more variable than those of the Suiattle, the Upper Sauk escapements correlated with 

independent estimates of marine survival, both before and after the change in escapement 

estimation methods in 1994. This suggests that the estimates prior to 1994 provide useful 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

114 

information about the behavior of the population. If the data were random, one would not expect 

any correlation with marine survival, and, in fact, when this assumption was tested, the 

randomized data had no correlation with any marine survival indices (probability of recruitment 

fit from random data = 96.2-99.9%)(N. Sands, memo to Skagit RER workgroup, 9/2/03). For the 

Upper Sauk data, since the information is used to derive the productivity parameter for the 

spawner-recruit models, we also looked to see if the ratio of recruits/spawner (productivity) was 

significantly different depending on which escapement estimation method was used. Examination 

of the 1989-1997 data did not indicate a significant difference in the slopes (t-stat = -1.5; prob = 

0.1<x< 0.2) or intercepts (t-stat = 1.34; prob = 0.2) of the relationship between spawners and the 

natural log of recruits/spawner using the old and new escapement estimates. Therefore, we 

concluded that we did not have sufficient data to demonstrate that the spawner-recruit 

relationship for the Upper Sauk spring population would be significantly different depending on 

the escapement estimation methodology used. Therefore, we used the available escapement data 

(1981-1993 using peak live and dead counts, 1994-1997 using redd counts) to derive the 

spawner-recruit parameters for the Upper Sauk population (Table 11). When sufficient data is 

available using the current method based on cumulative redd counts, the RERs will be revised 

based on that method. 

Table 11. Comparison of R/S values under the escapement estimation methods used before and 

after 1994. The 1989 brood year would be the first returns affected since they would return as 5 

year olds in 1994.

R/S estimates

old new old new old new

1989 668 668 1325 821 2.0 1.2 0.8

1990 557 557 659 146 1.2 0.3 0.9

1991 747 747 4282 852 5.7 1.1 4.6

1992 580 580 844 656 1.5 1.1 0.3

1993 323 323 711 749 2.2 2.3 -0.1

1994 574 130 498 496 0.9 3.8 -2.9

1995 1115 190 191 193 0.2 1.0 -0.8

1996 1079 408 553 551 0.5 1.4 -0.8

1997 264 305 3193 3212 12.1 10.5 1.6

1989-97 geomean 596 379 897 589 1.5 1.6

1989-97 minimum 264 130 191 146 0.2 0.3

1989-97 maximum 1,115 747 4,282 3,212 12.1 10.5

1989-97 st. deviation 293 215 1,407 920 3.8 3.2

Spawners Recruits Difference 

Brood yr (oldR/S-newR/S)

Fishery Rates 

Fishery rates for both populations were based on the Skagit spring yearling chinook hatchery 

indicator stock. Although the stock also has a significant fingerling component (41% and 50% on 

average for the Suiattle and Upper Sauk, respectively), there are only four years (three 

consecutive) of available exploitation rate data for the fingerling component; too few to define a 

spawner-recruit relationship. Preliminary analysis indicates there may be differences between 

yearling and fingerling exploitation rate patterns, but the data is insufficient to determine with any 

certainty the direction and magnitude of those differences. We considered using fingerling data 

from the Nooksack early populations, but that population has a much lower percentage of 

naturally-occurring yearlings and a different harvest pattern, so there was a great deal of 

uncertainty about whether the Nooksack population would be representative. A Skagit spring 

chinook fingerling hatchery indicator stock has been established and the co-managers’ are 

collecting data on fingerling exploitation rate patterns. We will re-examine the data for 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

115 

differences in exploitation rate patterns when several more years of data are available. The 

hatchery indicator stock is used to represent the natural component also because the natural 

component is not tagged. 

The Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) CWT exploitation rate 

analysis for the Skagit spring indicator stock by age was used for brood years 1981 to 1996, ages 

2-4 for brood year 1997 and ages 2-3 for brood year 1998. The 1997 age 5+ fishery rate was 

based on an average of the 1995-96 rates and the 1998 ages 4-5+ were based on an average of the 

1996-1997 rates because the current CTC CWT exploitation rate analysis is not complete for 

these ages for these brood years. For the purposes of the analysis, fishing rates through brood 

year 1997 were used since this is the most recent brood year for which we have the most available 

information. Fishery rates will continue to be updated as data become available. 

Maturation Rates

Maturation rates were derived from age data collected from scales from the spawning grounds 

combined with the age-specific fishing rates described above. Age data taken from scales 

sampled from the spawning grounds were available for return years 1986-90 and 1992-2001 for 

the Suiattle, and 1986, 1992-95 and 1997-2001 for the Upper Sauk population (WDFW and SSC 

data 2002). However, we identified two potential concerns that should be taken into account 

when using the data: 1) age 2 fish are generally underrepresented in spawning ground samples for 

several reasons: e.g., carcasses decay faster, the smaller body size makes them more susceptible 

to being washed downstream, they are less visible to samplers; and 2) only eight years for the 

Suiattle and five years for the Upper Sauk had a sufficient number of samples to use. The age 

structure for other years was extrapolated from the average brood year age composition of the 

years that met the sample size criterion to reconstruct brood year and calendar year escapements 

by age. The age structure is then adjusted to minimize the difference between both the estimated 

calendar year escapements and the observed calendar year escapements, and the estimated brood 

year escapements and the observed brood year escapements for each year for which data are not 

available. Scale samples collected from areas immediately adjacent to the hatchery were 

excluded because the presence of hatchery fish was assumed to be substantial. Both yearling and 

fingerling age data were used in order to represent the full range of life histories present in the 

basin. 

Hatchery Effectiveness/Hatchery Contribution to Natural Spawning 

The coded-wire tag indicator stock program is the only hatchery production of Skagit spring 

chinook in the Skagit basin. Straying of hatchery fish onto the spawning grounds from either 

inside or outside the basin has been negligible based on spawner survey information (WDF et al. 

1993, Skagit RER Workgroup 2003). Therefore, hatchery effectiveness is not considered an issue 

in the derivation of spawner-recruit parameters for the Skagit spring chinook populations. 

Spawner-recruit Models 

The data were fitted using three different models for the spawner recruit relationship: the Ricker 

(Ricker 1954, as referenced in Ricker 1975), Beverton-Holt (Beverton and Holt 1957, as 

referenced in Ricker 1975), and hockey stick (Barrowman and Meyers 2000). The simple forms 

of these models were augmented by the inclusion of environmental variables correlated with 

brood year survival. A wide variety of marine and freshwater covariates were evaluated and the 

ones with the best correlations to estimated recruits/spawner were chosen for further analysis. 

For marine survival we tried several indices of survival based on chinook coded-wire tag groups 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

116 

from: several Canadian hatcheries in Georgia Strait; several Washington coastal hatcheries; North 

Puget Sound hatcheries only; South Puget Sound hatcheries only, an aggregate of groups from 

throughout Puget Sound; Hood Canal hatcheries only; and an aggregate of Puget Sound spring 

chinook hatcheries. We also evaluated the spawner-recruit function assuming marine survival 

does not influence the relationship. The other environmental correlate, associated with survival 

during the period of freshwater residency, was the maximum daily average October 1-February 

28 stream flow during the fall and winter of spawning and incubation from the 1) Sauk River 

USGS gauge near Sauk (gauge # 12189500), 2) the Whitechuck gauge (gauge # 12186000, 

which is actually on the Sauk just upstream from the Whitechuck), and 3) the Mount Vernon 

gauge (gauge # 12200500). For the Upper Sauk, we also evaluated the level of spring releases 

from the Marblemount Hatchery, and the peak instantaneous flow from October to September at 

the Sauk River gauge (# 12189500). During the time period that escapement and fishing rates 

data were available, we evaluated the spawner-recruit relationship for three time periods: 1981-

1997, 1984-97 and 1986-1997. The spawner-recruit relationship, after adjusting for 

environmental conditions, appeared relatively constant based on an analysis of the residuals. The 

results, detailed in Sands (2003), are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, with parameter estimates 

shown in Tables 5 and 6. A good fit was defined as one with probability of less than 5% for 

escapement and less than 20% for recruits of being a random fit. 

Equations for the three models are as follows: 

( )( ) bS Mc dF R aSe e − = [Ricker] 

( /[ ])( ) Mc dF R = S bS + a e [Beverton-Holt] 

( min[ , ])( ) Mc dF R = aS b e [hockey stick] 

In the above, M is the index of marine survival and F is the freshwater correlate. 

Table 12. Results of the spawner-recruit relationship fits for various marine and freshwater 

covariates for the Suiattle spring chinook population. For each run, the best S/R function fit is 

noted. 

Years Marine Survival Index Freshwater Discharge 

Model Fit 

(% esc, % recruit) 

1981-97 N. Puget Sound cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 0, 1 

Puget Sound cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 0, 0 

Puget Sound cycle Whitechuck max daily ave Same as Sauk 

Puget Sound cycle Mt. Vernon max daily ave Same as Sauk 

Georgia Strait cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 0, 2 

1984-97 N. Puget Sound cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 2, 4 

Puget Sound cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 0, 3 

Puget Sound cycle Whitechuck max daily ave Same as Sauk 

Puget Sound cycle Mt. Vernon max daily ave Same as Sauk 

Georgia Strait cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 

1986-97 N. Puget Sound cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 

Puget Sound cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 0, 25 

None Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 0, 11 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

117 

Table 13. Results of the spawner-recruit relationship fits for various marine and freshwater 

covariates for the Upper Sauk spring chinook population. For each run, the best S/R function fit 

is noted. 

Years Marine Survival Index Freshwater Discharge 

Model Fit 

(% esc, % recruit) 

1981- 97 Puget Sound cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 0,3 

 Puget Sound cycle Whitechuck max daily ave Same as Sauk 

 Puget Sound cycle Marblemount spring releases 0,2 

 Puget Sound cycle Instantaneous Sauk Peak Oct-Sep 0,1 

 N. Puget Sound cycle Instantaneous Sauk Peak Oct-Sep 0,1 

 Hood Canal ave. Instantaneous Sauk Peak Oct-Sep 0,15 

 Georgia Strait cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 0,7 

1985-97 Puget Sound cycle Whitechuck max daily ave 0,9 

1986-97 Puget Sound cycle Whitechuck max daily ave 1,16 

 Georgia Strait cycle Sauk max daily ave. Oct-Feb 3,21 

 Hood Canal ave. Instantaneous Sauk Peak Oct-Sep 2,47 

The model fits were evaluated based on the size of the predictive error (MSE), probability of the 

model being fit by random for escapement data and recruits, the ability of the model to estimate 

productivity at low abundance and the reasonableness of the model’s predicted performance at 

higher escapement levels, relative to our observations. As seen from Tables 12 and 13, most of 

the model runs met the criteria for a low probability of resulting from random fit. 

 

For the Suiattle population, the model with the lowest probability of a random fit was the model 

using the Puget Sound cycle for the marine index and the Sauk maximum daily average winter 

freshwater flow during 1981-97. However this model and several others did a poor job of 

estimating productivity at low abundance even though the probability of random fit was low. The 

model for the 1986-97 period assuming no influence from marine survival and using the Sauk 

maximum daily average winter freshwater flow had the best overall combination of a low 

predictive error, probability of random fit and estimate of productivity at low abundances 

compared with the other model runs (Figures 2 and 3, Tables 5a and 5b). In particular, the data 

points were well distributed along the spawner-recruit curve, both the predicted and observed data 

fit the curve defined by the spawner-recruit relationship well, and there was little difference 

among the three spawner-recruit functions (Figure 3). Finally, while both the 1981-97 and 1986-

97 relationships estimated capacity at about 800 spawners, the 1981-97 relationship implied 

considerable redd superimposition between 400 and 800 spawners which has not been observed 

in the field with escapements in this range. 

For the Upper Sauk population, there were two models with the lowest probability of a random 

fit: the peak Oct-Feb winter freshwater flow combined with 1) the North Puget Sound fall 

fingerling cycle marine index; and 2) the Puget Sound cycle marine index, during 1981-97. 

However, the data points for the models for the period 1981-97 using the Puget Sound marine 

index were better distributed along the spawner-recruit curve (Figures 4 and 5). There was little 

difference in the fit among the models using the Puget Sound cycle marine index or their 

estimates of the escapement at maximum sustained yield6

 (Tables 6a and 6b). The model using 

the Puget Sound cycle for the marine index and the Sauk maximum daily average winter flow for 

 

6

 The Beverton-Holt function did a poor job of describing productivity at low escapement regardless of the 

model. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

118 

the 1981-97 period was used as the representative model of this group for purposes of deriving 

the RER since it fit well and it matched the freshwater variable used for the Suiattle . 

Figure 4. Comparison of observed and predicted recruitment for the Suiattle spring population, 

brood years 1981-97 data, the Puget Sound cycle marine index and Sauk maximum daily average 

winter flows, under three different models of the spawner-recruit relationship. The 

corresponding spawner-recruit parameters are listed in Table 5a. 

Predicted Recruits for given spawners, marine survival and fw index

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

-100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

Observed Spawners

Recruits

Ric

BH

Hoc

Ric-ave

BH-ave

Hoc-ave

Replace

Est R

Figure 5. Comparison of observed and predicted recruitment for the Suiattle spring population, 

brood years1986-97 data, no marine index and Sauk maximum daily average winter flows, under 

three different models of the spawner-recruit relationship. The corresponding spawner-recruit 

parameters are listed in Table 5b 

Predicted Recruits for given spawners, marine survival and fw index

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

-100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

Observed Spawners

Recruits

Ric

BH

Hoc

Ric-ave

BH-ave

Hoc-ave

Replace

Est R
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

119 

Table 14a (left) and 14b (right). Results of spawner-recruit analysis for the Suiattle using 

different time periods and environmental covariates. 

Marine Index Puget Sound cycle none

Freshwater variable Sauk maximum daily ave. Oct-Feb Sauk maximum daily ave. Oct-Fe

 calendar years esc. compared 1986-1997 1991-1997

 brood years used 1981-1997 1986-1997

Parameter Estimates With Smallest S Ric Bev Hoc Ric Bev Hoc

a - productivity 27.8956 0.0000 13.1729 6.5805 0.1112 4.6642

b - Spawners 0.003293 0.000380 2,648 0.001351 0.000417 1,835 

c - Marine 0.8132 0.7634 0.7604 0.9800 0.9800 0.9800

d - Freshwater -0.000012 -0.000017 -0.000017 -0.000022 -0.000021 -0.000024

SSE 0.287 0.707 0.705 0.019 0.024 0.016

MSE (esc) 0.036 0.088 0.088 0.005 0.006 0.004

autocorrelation in error 0.090 0.018 0.027 -0.034 -0.147 0.040

R - esc 0.949 0.866 0.867 0.992 0.989 0.993

F(3,8) 24.122 8.035 8.063 118.032 93.600 138.566

PROBABLITIY 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MSE (recruits) 0.272 0.274 0.270 0.215 0.227 0.195

autocorrelation in error 0.028 -0.068 -0.059 -0.163 -0.127 -0.220

R - recruits 0.822 0.750 0.748 0.636 0.614 0.684

F(3,13) 9.014 5.579 5.506 3.060 2.728 3.959

PROBABLITIY 0.6% 2.3% 2.4% 15.6% 17.9% 11.3%

Ave.Pred. Error 1020 1218 1219 469 480 440

Ric Bev Hoc Ric Bev Hoc

slope at origin, intrinsic prod. 27.90 1000.00 13.17 6.58 9.00 4.66

average MS*FW factor 0.75 0.66 0.65 0.57 0.59 0.55

cv MS/FW 61/17 57/23 57/24 0/34 0/32 0/36

adjusted productivity at origin 20.79 657.36 8.61 3.78 5.31 2.58

replacement level 920 1,730 1,730 980 1,160 1,020 

capacity = spawners for max recruits 300 1,730 200 740 1,420 400 

max recruits 2,320 1,730 1,730 1,030 1,420 1,020 

MSY spawners 260 10 210 410 350 400 

MSY recruits 2,300 1,730 1,730 890 810 1,020 

MSY ER 0.89 0.99 0.88 0.54 0.57 0.61

ave ER last 3yrs 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.69
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

120 

Figure 6. Comparison of observed and predicted recruitment for the Upper Sauk spring 

population, brood years 1981-97 data, the North Puget Sound cycle marine index and peak 

instantaneous Oct-Sep flow at the Sauk gauge, under three different models of the spawnerrecruit relationship. 

.

Predicted Recruits for given spawners, marine survival and fw index

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Observed Spawners

Recruits

Ric

BH

Hoc

Ric-ave

BH-ave

Hoc-ave

Replace

Est R

Figure 7. Comparison of observed and predicted recruitment for the Upper Sauk spring 

population, brood years1981-97 data, the Puget Sound cycle marine index and peak instantaneous 

Oct-Sep flow at the Sauk gauge, under three different models of the spawner-recruit relationship. 

The corresponding spawner-recruit parameters are listed in Table 6a. 

Predicted Recruits for given spawners, marine survival and fw index

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Observed Spawners

Recruits

Ric

BH

Hoc

Ric-ave

BH-ave

Hoc-ave

Replace

Est R
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

121 

Table 15a (left) and 15b (right). Results of spawner-recruit analysis for the Upper Sauk using 

different freshwater environmental covariates.

marine index Puget Sound cycle Puget Sound cycle

freshwater index inst. peak Oct-Sep. winter flow Sauk maximum daily average winter flow (Oct-Feb)

 = calendar years esc. compared 1986-1997 1986-1997

 = brood years used 1981-1997 1981-1997

Ric Bev Hoc Ric Bev Hoc

a - productivity 24.5562 0.0035 20.7467 21.3694 0.0037 17.1128

b - Spawners 0.001721 0.000232 4,191 0.001745 0.000282 3,457 

c - Marine 1.2134 1.0926 1.0766 1.1330 1.0135 0.9991

d - Freshwater -0.000021 -0.000020 -0.000020 -0.000026 -0.000022 -0.000022

SSE 0.216 0.253 0.238 0.119 0.259 0.245

MSE (esc) 0.027 0.032 0.030 0.015 0.032 0.031

autocorrelation in error 0.736 -0.362 -0.276 0.481 -0.184 -0.166

R - esc 0.974 0.969 0.971 0.986 0.969 0.970

F(3,8) 48.666 41.413 44.111 90.778 40.732 42.923

PROBABLITIY 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MSE (recruits) 0.350 0.325 0.308 0.418 0.401 0.388

autocorrelation in error 0.147 0.429 0.375 0.163 0.410 0.372

R - recruits 0.763 0.808 0.812 0.693 0.721 0.723

F(3,13) 6.040 8.131 8.385 4.002 4.700 4.749

PROBABLITIY 1.9% 0.8% 0.7% 5.2% 3.6% 3.5%

Ave.Pred. Error 1919 1769 1752 2145 2094 2087

Ric Bev Hoc Ric Bev Hoc

slope at origin, intrinsic prod. 24.56 286.46 20.75 21.37 268.20 17.11

average MS*FW factor 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.59 0.61 0.61

cv MS/FW 87/36 79/35 78/35 82/33 74/30 73/30

adjusted productivity at origin 12.68 147.43 10.60 12.57 163.52 10.39

replacement level 2,200 1,480 2,140 1,450 2,160 2,100 

capacity = spawners for max recruits 2,220 580 200 570 2,160 200 

max recruits 2,220 2,710 2,140 2,650 2,160 2,100 

MSY spawners 180 480 220 460 150 220 

MSY recruits 2,040 2,670 2,140 2,590 1,990 2,100 

MSY ER 0.82 0.91 0.90 0.82 0.92 0.90

ave ER last 3yrs 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72

set survival 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.23

adj MSY sp 90 330 200 330 90 200 

adj MSY recruits 670 730 760 760 710 790 

adj MSY ER 0.87 0.55 0.74 0.57 0.87 0.75 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

122 

Critical Abundance Threshold 

The critical abundance threshold (CAT) represents a boundary below which uncertainties about 

population dynamics increase substantially. If sufficient stock-specific information is available, 

we can use the population dynamics relationship to define this point. Otherwise, we use 

alternative population-specific data, or general literature-based guidance. In this case, the CAT is 

170 and 130 for the Suiattle and Upper Sauk spring chinook populations, respectively, and 470 

for the spring MU, using the smallest previously observed escapement from which there was a 

greater than 1:1 return per spawner. Other escapements in this range have also generated returns 

per spawner of greater than one (Skagit RER Workgroup 2003). NOAA Fisheries has also 

provided some guidance on the range of critical thresholds in its document, Viable Salmonid 

Populations (McElhaney et al. 2000). The VSP guidance suggests that effective population sizes 

of less than 500 to 5,000 per generation, or 125 to 1,250 per annual escapement, are at increased 

risk. The CATs of 130 and 170 fall within the lower end of this range, reasonable for a small 

population (Upper Sauk: 1980-2002 range = 130-1,818, average = 459; Suiattle: 1980-2002 range 

= 167-1094, average =503). 

It is important to distinguish between the CAT used in this RER calculation, and the LAT used in 

this harvest management plan. Although the Suiattle and Upper Sauk modeled CET numbers are 

the same as their LATs (see Tables 1 and 3 of the harvest management plan), they don’t represent 

the same thing. The modeled CAT is an assumed point of instability; however, because the 

CAT’s used in the RER calculation are escapement levels from which the observed return per 

spawner was greater than 1:1, it is likely that these modeled CAT levels are in fact well above the 

true points of instability, a bias that will build conservatism into the calculated RER. The LAT, 

on the other hand, is a trigger point below which additional management actions are taken to 

prevent escapement from falling below the true CAT. The LATs that were used for the Skagit 

summer/fall populations and the spring management unit during the last 3 years were calculated 

as the preseason escapement forecasts for which there is a 5% probability that the post-season 

escapement number will be less than the point of instability (Hayman 2000a; Hayman 2000b). 

Interestingly, using the spawner-recruit parameters derived from this RER analysis, the LAT for 

Suiattle chinook was calculated as 170 (assuming a quasi-extinction threshold of 63), which is the 

same as the modeled CAT number that was derived using the 1:1 return rate as the criterion. The 

calculated LAT for Upper Sauk chinook would be 250, which is higher than the number 

calculated from the 1:1 return rate criterion; however, because of the greater variance about the 

Upper Sauk spawner-recruit relation, the estimated probability that an escapement of 130 would 

be below the point of instability was unrealistically high, given that we have observations that 

indicate that it in fact is not below this point. Thus, for Upper Sauk chinook, we set the LAT at 

the same value as the modeled CAT (130). Assuming that the Upper Sauk point of instability is 

72 (as calculated from the spawner-recruit parameters), and the past observed range of 

management error, the probability that a forecasted escapement of 130 would result in an 

observed escapement below the point of instability was only 0.2%. For the Skagit spring MU, the 

calculated LAT was 576 (Hayman 2000b), which is over 100 chinook higher than the CET 

assumed in this analysis (470). Because there is nothing in the LAT calculation that appears to 

contradict our observations (e.g., there is a very low probability that an escapement of 470, the 

lowest observed escapement with a return rate greater than 1:1, is below the point of instability), 

we retained 576 as the LAT in this harvest management plan. 

Rebuilding Escapement Threshold 

The RET represents a higher abundance level that would generally indicate recovery or a point 

beyond which ESA type protections are no longer required. Again, because we are isolating the 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

123 

effects of harvest, the RET in this context represents an escapement level consistent with 

estimates of the current productivity and capacity of the Upper Sauk and Suiattle spring chinook 

populations. The RET is the smallest escapement level such that the addition of one additional 

spawner would be expected to produce less than one additional future recruit under current 

conditions of productivity7

. This level is also known as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) 

escapement. The rebuilding threshold varies with the assumed freshwater covariate and also with 

the particular form of the spawner-recruit relationship. 

For the Suiattle, using the maximum daily flow in the Sauk River from October through 

February, we derived the RET for each spawner-recruit function. These values were: 410 – 

Ricker, 350 – Beverton-Holt, and 400 – hockey stick (Table 5a). Since all three models 

performed similarly (Table 2), we propose to use the average of these estimates as the RET. This 

average is 400 natural origin spawners (rounding to the nearest 100 spawners). 

For the Upper Sauk, using the maximum daily flow in the Sauk River from October through 

February and the Puget Sound cycle marine index, we derived the RET for each spawner-recruit 

function. These values were: 460 – Ricker and 220 – hockey stick, under the 1981-97 marine 

survival rates. However, in our VRAP runs (see next section) we assumed that marine survival in 

the near future would be more similar to the generally lower rates estimated for 1988-95, for 

which the RET values were: 330 – Ricker and 200 – hockey stick (Table 6b). For reasons 

explained in the next section, we discarded the hockey stick analysis and used the Ricker value, 

330, as the RET for Upper Sauk. The Beverton-Holt spawner-recruit function did a poor job of 

estimating productivity at low abundance and, therefore, was not used to estimate a RET. 

It is extremely important to recognize that the RET is not an escapement goal but rather a level 

that is expected to be exceeded most of the time (> 80%) under the RER. It is also the case that, 

should the productivity conditions for the population improve, the RET and the corresponding 

RER will increase under improved conditions. However, since we will not be able to detect these 

changes immediately, the RER under current conditions provides a conservative approach 

because it assumes conditions are poorer than may actually exist. Should conditions improve, the 

probability of exceeding the RET using the RER computed for current conditions will also 

increase over the probability computed under current conditions. Thus the RET serves as a step in 

the progression to recovery which will occur as the contributions from all sectors are realized. 

Rebuilding Exploitation Rate Derivation 

We projected the performance of the Suiattle and Upper Sauk spring population at target 

exploitation rates in the range of 0 to 0.80 at intervals of 0.02 using the fitted values of a, b, c, and 

d (see model equations above) for the Upper Sauk spawner-recruit models, and using the fitted 

values of a, b, and d for the 3 Suiattle models (which had no marine survival parameter; hence, no 

c value). As described above, for the Suiattle, we used the 1986-97 brood year model run using 

the Sauk monthly maximum average flow during the winter, and no marine survival parameter. 

For the Upper Sauk, we used the 1981-97 brood year model run using the Puget Sound marine 

cycle index and the Sauk maximum daily average flow during the winter. The freshwater 

environmental correlate (maximum daily average flow) was projected using the average and 

 

7

 An alternative definition of RET, i.e., the initial escapement level from which there is less than 1% 

probability that the unit will go extinct in 100 years, was used to set the RER for the Skagit summer/fall 

and spring management units during the last 3 years (Hayman 1999; Hayman 2000a; Puget Sound Indian 

Tribes and WDFW 2001; Puget Sound Indian Tribes and WDFW 2003). However, the programming 

necessary to use this definition for the Skagit spring populations has not been completed, so RETs that use 

this definition for the Skagit spring populations were not calculated. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

124 

variance observed for the 1981-1997 period. For the Upper Sauk, the marine survival 

environmental correlate (Puget Sound cycle) was projected using the average and variance 

observed for the 1988-95 period, a period of low marine survival. West coast salmon have been 

experiencing a period of low marine survival. Although there are preliminary indications that 

marine conditions are improving, it has not yet been confirmed for Puget Sound. The CETs were 

170 and 130 for the Suiattle and Upper Sauk, respectively, derived as described above. The RETs 

were the MSY escapement levels (also described above) adjusted for environmental conditions. 

When adjusted for projected environmental conditions the RETs for the Upper Sauk population 

were: 330 – Ricker and 200 – hockey stick. Since marine survival did not influence the spawnerrecruit relationship, no adjustment for environmental conditions to the RET was required for the 

Suiattle population. 

For each combination of spawner-recruit relationship and exploitation rate we ran 1000 25-year 

projections. Estimated probabilities of exceeding the RET were based on the number of 

simulations for which the average of the spawning escapements in years 21-25 exceeded the 

RET. Estimated probabilities of falling below the CET were based on the number of years (out of 

the total of 25,000 individual years projected for each target exploitation rate for a particular 

spawner-recruit relationship) that the spawning escapement fell below the CET. For each 

spawner-recruit relationship the sequence of Monte Carlo projection running through the target 

exploitation rate range from 0 to 0.80 started with the same random number seed so that the 

results for the different spawner-recruit models would be comparable. 

Detailed results of these projections are in Tables 18 to 21, and summarized results are in Tables 

16 and 17. For the Suiattle, the indicated target exploitation rates are 0.48 – Ricker, 0.52 – 

Beverton-Holt, and 0.51 – hockey stick. Since all three models performed similarly, we propose 

to use the average of these values as the target rebuilding exploitation rate. This average is 0.50, 

rounding down to the nearest whole percentage exploitation rate. 

For the Upper Sauk, the target exploitation rates that meet the RER criteria are 0.46 – Ricker and 

0.62 – hockey stick. A comparison of the habitat in the areas used by the three Skagit spring 

populations indicated the productivities of the three Skagit spring populations should be similar 

based on habitat characteristics and land use (B. Hayman, memo to Skagit RER workgroup, 

7/15/03). In addition, a VRAP analysis of the Skagit spring management unit (all three spring 

populations combined) indicated an RER of 0.47 (Tables 18 - 21; N. Sands memo to Skagit RER 

workgroup, Summary of Skagit springs results, 7/15/03). Since the Ricker target exploitation rate 

of 0.46 was more similar to the RER for the Suiattle (0.50) and to the Skagit management unit, it 

was chosen as the RER for the Upper Sauk spring chinook population. 

To make the RER compatible with the fishery model used in fishery planning (the FRAM model), 

the RERs derived from data in the A&P tables were converted to a FRAM equivalent RER using 

a simple regression between the exploitation rate estimates from the A&P table and post season 

exploitation rate estimates derived from FRAM. Using this conversion, the FRAM RERs used 

for annual preseason fishery planning purposes were 0.41 and 0.38 for the Suiattle and Upper 

Sauk, respectively. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

125 

Table 16. Results of the VRAP projections of the Suiattle chinook stock under current conditions 

showing the indicated target exploitation rate for each form of the spawner-recruit relationship. 

 Target #fish %runs %yrs %runs 1st LastYrs 

Model ER Mort. extinct <critical end>rebuilding Year Ave. 

Ricker 0.48 577 0 0.3 82.3 474 578 

Beverton-Holt 0.52 601 0 0.7 80.9 451 500 

Hockey-Stick 0.51 635 0 0.4 81.0 460 552 

Table 17. Results of the VRAP projections of the Upper Sauk chinook stock under current 

conditions showing the indicated target exploitation rate for each form of the spawner-recruit 

relationship. 

 Target #fish %runs %yrs %runs 1st LastYrs 

Model ER Mort. extinct <critical end>rebuilding Year Ave. 

Ricker 0.46 516 0.2 0.5 80.5 620 505 

Hockey-Stick 0.62 646 0.9 3.7 85.0 432 327 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

126 

 Table 18. Summary of projections of the Suiattle spring chinook population at different target 

exploitation rates for three different forms of the spawner-recruit relationship. 

 

Pr (final esc > rebuilding threshold) 

% Pr (annual esc < critical threshold) %

Target ER B-H Ricker Hockey-St B-H Ricker Hockey-St 

0.00 100 99.7 100 0 0.1 0 

0.02 100 99.8 100 0 0.1 0 

0.04 100 99.9 100 0 0 0 

0.06 100 99.5 100 0 0 0 

0.08 100 99.8 100 0 0.1 0 

0.10 100 99.8 100 0 0 0 

0.12 100 99.9 100 0 0 0 

0.14 100 99.8 100 0 0 0 

0.16 100 99.8 100 0 0 0 

0.18 100 99.7 100 0 0 0 

0.20 100 99.8 100 0 0 0 

0.22 100 99.5 99.9 0 0.1 0 

0.24 100 99.7 100 0 0 0 

0.26 100 99.5 99.9 0 0 0 

0.28 100 99.6 99.9 0 0 0 

0.30 100 99 99.9 0 0.1 0 

0.32 100 98.7 99.3 0 0 0 

0.34 99.7 98.9 99 0 0 0 

0.36 99.7 97.4 99 0 0 0 

0.38 99.7 96.5 98.2 0 0 0 

0.40 99.6 95.8 96.5 0 0.1 0 

0.42 97.9 92.4 97.1 0.1 0.1 0 

0.44 96 87.6 96.1 0.1 0.1 0 

0.46 94.5 87.5 93.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 

0.48 91.8 82.3 90.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 

0.50 87.8 74.7 84.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 

0.52 80.9 66.7 78.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 

0.54 73.3 56 71 1.3 1.3 0.8 

0.56 65.7 46.8 57.5 1.9 1.7 2 

0.60 53.5 35.4 47.6 3.2 3.2 2.9 

0.62 38 23.3 34 5.6 5.6 5.4 

0.64 27.3 14.1 22.1 9.1 9.6 9.8 

0.66 16.6 5.8 10.9 13.6 15.3 16.8 

0.68 9.4 4.1 3.7 21 23.7 28.4 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

127 

Table 19. Summary of projections of the Upper Sauk spring chinook population at different 

target exploitation rates for three different forms of the spawner-recruit relationship.

 Pr(final esc > rebuilding threshold)% Pr(ann. Esc. < critical threshold) %

Target ER Ricker Hockey-St Ricker Hockey-St 

0.00 98.5 100.0 0.3 0.0 

0.02 99.2 100.0 0.3 0.0

0.04 97.8 100.0 0.3 0.0

0.06 97.5 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.08 99.3 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.10 98.3 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.12 98.7 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.14 98.1 100.0 0.3 0.0

0.16 98.8 100.0 0.1 0.0

0.18 97.5 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.20 97.5 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.22 96.9 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.24 96.9 100.0 0.1 0.0

0.26 96.2 100.0 0.1 0.0

0.28 96.1 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.30 96.0 100.0 0.1 0.0

0.32 94.7 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.34 95.0 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.36 93.3 100.0 0.2 0.0

0.38 92.2 100.0 0.3 0.0

0.40 92.4 99.7 0.2 0.0

0.42 88.9 99.9 0.3 0.0

0.44 86.1 99.8 0.3 0.0

0.46 80.5 99.7 0.5 0.0

0.48 76.7 99.4 0.7 0.0

0.50 74.2 99.0 0.7 0.0

0.52 69.4 97.6 1.1 0.0

0.54 62.9 96.5 1.6 0.1 

0.56 55.5 95.9 2.3 0 

0.58 48.9 95.4 3.4 0 

0.60 35.9 89.8 5.6 0.4 

0.62 27.8 85.0 8.1 0.9 

0.64 21.4 78.5 11.4 2.6 

0.66 12.0 65.4 16.9 6.5 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

128 

Table 20. Results of spawner-recruit analysis for the Skagit spring management unit using 

different freshwater environmental covariates.

 calendar years esc. compared 1989-1997

 brood years used 1984-1997

Parameter Estimates With Smallest SSE

Ric Bev Hoc

a - productivity 9.6393 0.0255 5.7893

b - Spawners 0.000759 0.000220 4,185 

c - Marine 0.6669 0.5731 0.5839

d - Freshwater -0.000009 -0.000009 -0.000008

SSE 0.126 0.108 0.107

MSE (esc) 0.025 0.022 0.021

autocorrelation in error -0.189 -0.060 0.036

R - esc 0.942 0.951 0.951

F(3,5) 13.108 15.642 15.776

PROBABLITIY 1% 1% 1%

MSE (recruits) 0.463 0.426 0.429

autocorrelation in error 0.372 0.428 0.332

R - recruits 0.746 0.764 0.765

F(3,10) 4.175 4.663 4.708

PROBABLITIY 8% 7% 6%

Ave.Pred. Error 2054 2026 1996

Ric Bev Hoc

slope at origin, intrinsic prod. 9.64 39.25 5.79

average MS*FW factor 0.87 0.85 0.87

cv MS/FW 48/15 42/15 43/14

adjusted productivity at origin 8.41 33.54 5.01

replacement level 3,780 2,810 3,620 

capacity = spawners for max recruits 3,880 1,320 720 

max recruits 3,880 4,080 3,620 

MSY spawners 540 990 720 

MSY recruits 3,200 3,930 3,610 

MSY ER 0.75 0.83 0.80

ave ER last 3yrs 0.73 0.73 0.73
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

129 

Table 21. Summary of projections of the Skagit spring chinook management unit at different 

target exploitation rates for the Ricker spawner-recruit relationship.

Target ER Pr(final esc > rebuilding threshold)% Pr(ann. Esc. < critical threshold) %

0.00 98.20 0.7 

0.02 98.00 0.5 

0.04 98.2 0.6 

0.06 97.90 0.5 

0.08 98.80 0.5 

0.10 97.70 0.5 

0.12 97.70 0.4 

0.14 98.00 0.4 

0.16 97.60 0.5 

0.18 98.00 0.4 

0.20 97.40 0.4 

0.22 96.90 0.4 

0.24 97.90 0.3 

0.26 97.40 0.3 

0.28 95.60 0.4 

0.30 96.10 0.4 

0.32 95.60 0.4 

0.34 95.00 0.3 

0.36 92.10 0.3 

0.38 92.70 0.4 

0.40 91.60 0.4 

0.42 88.50 0.4 

0.44 88.20 0.6 

0.46 83.60 0.6 

0.48 78.30 0.7 

0.50 76.20 1.0 

0.52 71.60 1.3 

0.54 66.20 1.8 

0.56 58.10 1.7 

0.60 51.90 2.5 

0.62 39.90 3.3 

0.64 36.30 5.3 

0.66 25.10 7.9 

0.68 15.70 12.2 

The ceiling exploitation rates defined in this plan, which are intended to maximize long-term 

harvestable numbers and prevent extinction for the Skagit spring and summer/fall management 

units separately, are consistent with a “no jeopardy” ruling. The jeopardy standards themselves 

were explicitly used to calculate those rates, and the calculated ceiling rates are comparable to the 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skagit 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

130 

rates on Skagit summer/fall chinook that were evaluated and approved in the Northern Fisheries 

Biological Opinion (NMFS 2000), which, depending on abundance, ranged from about 50 to 70 

percent. Additional conservatism, beyond that evaluated in the Northern BO, is also provided. 

Critical abundance threshold escapement levels, below which additional actions would be 

required, are established for both the spring and summer/fall chinook management units 

separately, and for each of the three summer/fall populations proposed in WDFW & WWTIT 

(1994). The intent of this Plan is to take actions that prevent extinction of individual populations, 

while maximizing long-term harvestable numbers and achieving ESA jeopardy standards for the 

two Skagit wild chinook management units 

During pre-season fishery planning, the impacts from a proposed fisheries management regime 

will be simulated, and escapement projected, based on the forecast abundance of all contributing 

chinook units (including those from British Columbia, the Washington coast, and the Columbia 

River, as well as those from Puget Sound). If the projected escapement of either management 

unit, or of any Skagit summer/fall or spring population falls below their low abundance threshold, 

further management actions will be triggered to reduce fishing mortality, as described in Chapter 

5 and Appendix C. The FRAM fisheries simulation model, which is currently in use, estimates 

escapement for the Skagit summer/fall management unit, but that management unit total may be 

resolved into component stocks in proportion to their forecasted total abundance. 

An analysis of how this regime would have functioned if it had been applied in previous years 

indicates that the exploitation rates would generally have been significantly lower than observed, 

and that the management response to critical status would have been triggered in two of the recent 

years (R. Hayman, Skagit System Cooperative pers comm.) 

Data gaps 

Priorities for filling data gaps to improve understanding of stock / recruit functions or population 

dynamics simulations necessary to testing and refining harvest management objectives include: 

• Consistent release of coded-wire tagged fingerling summer and fall chinook to enable 

direct assessment of harvest distribution, and estimation of harvest exploitation rates and 

marine survival rates;. 

• Estimates of natural-origin smolt abundance from spring chinook production areas. 

• Estimates of estuarine and early-marine survival for fingerling and yearling smolts. 

• Limiting factors on yearling chinook abundance 
Management Unit Status Profiles Stillaguamish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

131 

Stillaguamish River Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

Stillaguamish summer chinook 

Stillaguamish fall chinook 

Geographic description 

The Stillaguamish River management unit includes summer and fall stocks which are 

distinguished by differences in their spawning distribution, migration and spawning timing, and 

genetic characteristics. The summer stock, a composite of natural and hatchery-origin 

supplemental production, spawns in the North Fork, as far upstream as RM 34.4 but primarily 

between RM 14.3 and 30.0, and in the lower Boulder River and Squire Creek. Spawning also 

occurs in French, Deer, and Grant creeks, particularly when flows are high. The fall stock, which 

is not enhanced or supplemented by hatchery production, spawns throughout the South Fork and 

the mainstem of the Stillaguamish River (WDF et al. 1993), and in Jim Creek, Pilchuck Creek, 

and lower Canyon Creek. Despite the small overlap in spawning distribution, it is likely that the 

two stocks are genetically distinct. 

Allozmye analysis of the summer stock show it to be most closely related to spring and summer 

chinook stocks from North Puget Sound, and the the Skagit River summer stocks in particular. 

The fall stocks align most closely with South Sound MAL, which includes Green River falls and 

Snohomish River summer and falls. 

Life History Traits 

Summer run adult enter the river from May through August. Spawning begins in late August, 

peaks in mid-September, and continues past mid-October. Fall chinook enter the river much later 

– in August and September. The peak of spawning of the fall stock occurs in early to midOctober, about three weeks later than the peak for the summer stock. The age composition of 

mature Stillaguamish River summer chinook, based on scales collected from 1985 – 1991 was as 

follows: 4.9% age-2, 31.9% age-3, 54.7% age-4, and 8.5% age-6 (WDF 1993 cited in HGMP). 

Juvenile summer chinook produced in the Stillaguamish River primarily (95%) emigrate as subyearlings (WDF 1993 cited in HGMP). 

Status 

WDF et al. (1993) classified both the summer and fall stocks as depressed, due to chronically low 

escapement. Degraded spawning and rearing habitat currently limit the productivity of chinook 

in the Stillaguamish River system (PFMC 1997). After analyzing the trends in spawning 

escapement through 1996, the PSC Chinook Technical Committee concluded that the stock was 

not rebuilding toward its escapement objective (CTC 1999). 

Aggregate spawning escapement for Stillaguamish summer/fall chinook has averaged 1,341 

(geometric mean) over the period 1997 – 2001. From 1988 through 1995 escapement ranged 

from 700 to 950 (except 1991), and since 1995 has ranged from 1100 to over 1600. The 

geometric mean of escapement in the last five years (1998 - -2002) was 1429, which was higher 

than the mean of 1009 from the preceding five years (Myers et al. 1998). From 1985 – 1991 the 

average escapements of summer and fall chinook were 879 and 145, respectively (WDF et al. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Stillaguamish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

132 

1993). In the last five years (1998-2002) escapement to the South Fork ranged from 226 – 335), 

while escapement to the North Fork ranged from 845 to 1403 . Escapement to the North Fork has 

comprised an average of 81% of total escapement since 1997 (K. Rawson, Tulalip DNR, pers 

comm., February 10, 2003). 

Table 1. Spawning escapement of Stillaguamish summer/fall chinook, 1993-2002. 

The total annual abundance of Stillaguamish summer/fall chinook for the period 1979 – 1995, 

estimated as potential escapement (i.e. the number of chinook that would have escaped to spawn 

absent fishing mortality), ranged from 1,300 to 2,500 without showing a clear positive or negative 

trend (PSSSRG 1997). However, the productivity, as indexed by the trend in MSY exploitation 

rate, declined substantially through this period. 

The summer chinook supplementation program, which collects broodstock from the North Fork 

return, was initiated in 1986 as a Pacific salmon Treaty indicator stock program, and its current 

objective is to release 200,000 tagged fingerling smolts per year. Most releases are into the North 

Fork, via acclimation sites; relatively small numbers of smolts have been released into the South 

Fork. This supplementation program is considered essential to the recovery of the stock, so these 

fish are included in the listed ESU. The program contributes substantially to spawning 

escapement in the North Fork. 

Harvest distribution 

Recoveries of coded-wire tagged North Fork Stillaguamish summer chinook provide an accurate 

description of recent harvest distribution. Northern fisheries in Alaska and British Columbia 

account for 73 percent of total harvest mortality (Table 2). Washington ocean fisheries account 

for 4 percent. Washington sport fisheries account for 24 percent of total fisheries mortality. 

Table 2. The harvest distribution of Stillaguamish River summer chinook, expressed as an 

average proportion of annual adult equivalent harvest mortality for 1996 - 2000 (CTC03-1 in 

press)). Update with 2001??

Alaska B.C. WashingtonT

roll 

Puget Sound 

Net 

Washington 

sport 

26.7% 46.3% 0.5% 2.8% 23.8% 

Exploitation rate trends: 

Post-season FRAM runs, incorporating actual catch in all fisheries and actual abundance, indicate 

that total fishery-related, adult equivalent, exploitation rates for Stillaguamish chinook have fallen 

64 percent, from 1983 – 1987 to 1998 – 2000. 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

North Fork 583 667 599 993 930 1292 845 1403 1066 1253

South Fork 345 287 223 251 226 248 253 243 283 335

Total 928 954 822 1244 1156 1540 1098 1646 1349 1588
Management Unit Status Profiles Stillaguamish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

133 

Figure 1. Total adult equivalent fishery exploitation rate of Stillaguamish chinook from 1983 – 

2000, estimated by post-season FRAM runs. 

Management Objectives 

The management guidelines for Stillaguamish chinook include an exploitation rate objective and 

a critical escapement threshold. The exploitation rate objective is the maximum fraction of the 

production from any brood year that is allowed to be removed by all sources of fishery-related 

mortality, including direct take, incidental take, and non-landed mortality. The exploitation rate 

is expressed as an adult equivalent rate, in which the mortality of immature chinook is discounted 

relative to their potential survival to maturity. 

Analysis specific to Stillaguamish summer chinook was completed to develop the exploitation 

rate objective to reflect, to the extent possible, the current productivity of the stock. Brood year 

recruitment (i.e., number of recruits per spawner) was estimated, for brood years 1986 through 

1993, by reconstructing the total abundance of natural origin chinook that were harvested or 

otherwise killed by fisheries, or escaped to spawn. The resulting brood year recruitment rates 

were partitioned into freshwater and marine survival rates. The future abundance (i.e. catch and 

escapement) of the stock was simulated for 25 years, using a simple population dynamics model, 

under total fishery exploitation rates that ranged from 5 percent to 60 percent. In the model, 

production from each year’s escapement was subjected to randomly selected levels of freshwater 

and marine survival, and randomly selected levels of management error. Each model run (i.e. for 

each level of exploitation rate) was replicated one thousand times, and the set of projected 

population abundances analyzed to determine the probability of achieving the management 

objectives. The simulation for Stillaguamish summer chinook, across a range of exploitation 

rates (Table 3), indicated that total exploitation rates below 0.35 met the recovery criteria. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Stillaguamish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

134 

Table 3. Summary of results of 1,000 runs of the simulation model at each exploitation rate. 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Probability of 

Falling below 

critical 

Probability 

of 

recovery 

Median 

Escapement 

ratio 

Median 

Escapement 

0.00 1% 96% 2.75 3,597 

0.05 1% 96% 2.81 3,377 

0.10 1% 96% 2.76 3,165 

0.15 2% 95% 2.66 2,964 

0.20 2% 95% 2.56 2,758 

0.25 3% 93% 2.57 2,418 

0.30 4% 92% 2.48 2,210 

0.35 6% 92% 2.46 1,920 

0.40 7% 91% 2.29 1,686 

0.45 11% 87% 2.14 1,444 

0.50 17% 80% 1.92 1,180 

0.60 41% 52% 1.04 648 

0.70 73% 12% 0.27 259 

0.80 94% 0% 0.02 55 

The fishery management objectives for the 2000 management year was to realize an exploitation 

rate that, if imposed consistently over a future time interval 

• would not increase the probability that the stock abundance would fall below the critical 

escapement threshold, after 25 years, by more than five percentage points higher than 

were no fishing mortality to occur; and 

• would result in at least an 80 percent of greater probability of the stock recovering (i.e. 

escapement exceeding the current level) after 25 years. 

Stock recovery, for this analysis, was defined as the average spawning escapement for the final 

three years in the simulation period exceeding the average for the first three years in the 

simulation period (Rawson 2000). 

 

At the present time, there is very little information concerning the productivity of the 

Stillaguamish fall stock other than the fact that the average abundance of this stock has been 

approximately 50% of the Stillaguamish summer stock based on relative escapement. 

Incorporating this lower estimate of abundance, and assuming the same productivity (i.e. 

recruitment rates), the simulation model predicted that exploitation rates below 35% met the first 

management objective. The probability of rebuilding at this exploitation rate was 96%. This 

analysis indicates that a target exploitation rate of 0.35 would also be appropriate for the 

Stillaguamish fall stock. 

The Washington co-managers have set an exploitation rate guideline of 0.25, as estimated by the 

FRAM simulation model, for the Stillaguamish chinook management unit. According to the 

simulation model this level of exploitation results in a 4 percent risk of the stocks falling below 

the critical escapement threshold of 500, and affords a 92 percent probability of recovery (i.e., 

that spawning escapement will exceed the current average level). 
Management Unit Status Profiles Stillaguamish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

135 

The low abundance threshold for North Fork Stillaguamish chinook is 500 natural-origin 

spawners. Reconstruction of the total brood abundance of adult Stillaguamish chinook suggests 

that escapements of 500 (+/- 50) can result in recruitment rates ranging from two to five adults 

per spawner (Rawson 2000). The genetic integrity of the stock may be at risk and depensatory 

mortality factors may affect the stock when annual escapement falls below this threshold to 200 

(NMFS BO 2000). The critical threshold for South Fork Stillaguamish chinook is undetermined 

pending further analysis of data. The low abundance threshold for the Stillaguamish management 

unit is based on the 1996-2002 average fraction of the natural escapement for the years 1996-

2002 that was in the North Fork. This average was .813 (range: .770 - .852). Thus a management 

unit escapement of 500/.813 = 615 would, on average, include 500 North Fork fish. The range of 

management unit escapement thresholds computed this way is 586 to 649. Based on this, we 

have selected a low abundance threshold of 650 for the Stillaguamishmanagement unit. 

Whenever spawning escapement is projected to be below this level, fisheries will be managed to 

either achieve the critical exploitation rate ceiling , or exceed the low abundance threshold . 

Data gaps 

Priorities for filling data gaps to improve understanding of stock / recruit functions or population 

dynamics simulations necessary to testing and refining harvest management objectives include: 

• Spawning escapement estimates that include variance for summer and fall stocks 

• Estimates of natural-origin smolt production (freshwater survival to the estuary) 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

136 

Snohomish River Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

The stock structure of summer/fall chinook in the Snohomish basin is based on the report of the 

Puget Sound TRT (2001) suggesting that there are two populations of summer/fall chinook in the 

Snohomish basin. The comanagers have reviewed this report along with additional information, 

and have tentatively concluded that the former four-stock structure of Snohomish chinook should 

be revised to conform to the TRT’s population structure. 

Summer/fall chinook management unit 

Skykomish 

Snoqualmie 

Geographic description 

Skykomish chinook spawn in the mainstem of the Skykomish River, and its tributaries including 

the Wallace and Sultan Rivers, in Bridal Veil Creek, the South Fork of the Skykomish between 

RM 49.6 and RM 51.1 and above Sunset Falls (fish have been transported around the falls since 

1958), and the North Fork up to Bear Creek Falls (RM 13.1). Relative to spawning distribution 

in the 1950’s, a much larger proportion of summer chinook currently spawn higher in the 

drainage, between Sultan and the forks of the Skykomish (Snohomish Basin Salmonid Recovery 

Technical Committee (SBSRTC) 1999). There is some indication that spawning in the North Fork 

has declined over the last twenty years (Snohomish Basin Salmonid Recovery Technical 

Committee (SBSRTC) 1999). Fish spawning in Snohomish mainstem and the Pilchuck River are 

currently considered to be part of the Skykomish stock pending further collection of genetic stock 

identification data. 

Snoqualmie chinook spawn in the Snoqualmie River and its tributaries, including the Tolt River, 

Raging River, and Tokul Creek. 

There is some uncertainty whether a spring chinook stock once existed in the Snohomish system. 

Suitable habitat may still exist in the upper North Fork, above Bear Creek Falls. 

Life History Traits 

Summer chinook enter freshwater from May through July, and spawn, primarily, in September, 

while fall chinook spawn from late September through October. However, fall chinook spawning 

in the Snoqualmie River continues through November. The peak of spawning in Bridal Veil creek 

is in the second week of October (i.e. slightly later than the peak for fish spawning in the 

mainstem of the Skykomish. Natural spawning in the Wallace River occurs throughout 

September and October (Washington (State). Dept. of Fisheries. et al. 1993). 

The age composition of returning Snoqualmie River fall chinook showed a relatively strong age-5 

component (28 percent), relative to other Puget Sound fall stocks. Age-3 and age-4 fish 

comprised 20 and 46 percent, respectively, of returns in 1993 – 1994 (Myers et al. 1998). 

Most Snohomish summer and fall chinook smolts emigrate as subyearlings, but, based on scale 

data, an annually variable, but relatively large, proportion of smolts are yearlings. Of the summer 

chinook smolts sampled in 1993 and 1994, 33 percent were yearlings (Myers et al. 1998). Based 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

137 

on scale data, 25 to 30 percent of returning fall chinook also showed a stream-type life history 

(Snohomish Basin Salmonid Recovery Technical Committee (SBSRTC) 1999). No other 

summer or fall chinook stocks in Puget Sound produces this high a proportion of yearling smolts. 

Rearing habitat to support yearling smolt life history is vitally important to the recovery of these 

stocks. 

Management Unit / Stock Status 

Total natural spawning escapement of Snohomish summer/fall stocks has ranged between 2,700 

and 8,200 since 1990, and has exceeded the 1968-1979 average of 5,237 only four times since 

1980: in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002 (Table 1). However, due in part to reduced exploitation rate, 

escapement has rebounded from the levels observed in the early 1990s. 

Table 1. Natural spawning escapement of Snohomish summer/fall chinook salmon, 1990-2002. 

Total estimates of natural spawning escapement were provided by WDFW using the escapement 

estimation method described by Smith and Castle (Smith and Castle 1994). Estimates of the 

natural origin fraction of the natural escapement are based on recoveries of thermally marked 

otoliths (Rawson et al. 2001) 

Year Snoqualmie Skykomish Total Nat. Origin 

1990 1277 2932 4209 

1991 628 2192 2820 

1992 706 2002 2708 

1993 2366 1653 4019 

1994 728 2898 3626 

1995 385 2791 3176 

1996 1032 3819 4851 

1997 1937 2355 4292 3525 

1998 1892 4412 6304 2856 

1999 1344 3455 4799 2436 

2000 1427 4665 6092 3024 

2001 3589 4575 8164 6336 

2002 2895 4325 7220 

average 1443 3146 4791 

average % 31.4% 68.6% 

A portion of the natural spawning fish are the survivors of releases from the Wallace River and 

Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip) facilities. Since 1997 it has been possible to estimate the natural 

origin portion of the natural escapement because all chinook production at the Bernie Kai-Kai 

Gobin and Wallace River hatcheries has been thermally mass-marked and there has been 

comprehensive sampling of natural spawning areas for otoliths (Rawson et al. 2001). In most 

years the natural origin component of the natural escapement is significantly smaller than the total 

natural escapement estimate, although in 2001 the natural origin portion alone of the natural 

escapement was higher than the total natural escapement in any prior year since at least 1980 

(Table 1 and state/tribal chinook escapement database). 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

138 

Harvest distribution and exploitation rate trends: 

Assessment of exploitation rate trends for Snohomish summer/fall chinook is difficult because 

there has been no coded-wire tagged indicator stock representing the management unit. Postseason runs of the FRAM model show a clearly declining trend in annual fishing year 

exploitation rate over the past two decades (Table 2). These validation runs use the same 

projection model used in preseason planning, but use post-season estimates of spawning 

escapement and fishery harvest and non-catch mortality instead of preseason abundance and 

fishing level predictions. Thus, these runs adjust for observed abundances and fishing levels, but 

they assume the stock composition of fisheries is the same as the base period stock composition 

used in the FRAM model. 

Table 2. Adult equivalent (AEQ) exploitation rates (ER) by fishing year for the Snohomish 

summer/fall chinook management unit from post-season runs of the FRAM model for 1983-2000 

(April 2003 revision of FRAM validation runs, personal communication, Andy Rankis, NWIFC, 

and Larrie LaVoy, WDFW) and from pre-season FRAM model predictions for 1999-20038

. The 

ceiling exploitation rate column is the maximum allowable annual AEQ exploitation rate from the 

management plan that was in effect for the year9

. 

 AEQ ER 

Fishing Year Postseason Preseason Ceiling ER 

1983 73% 

1984 64% 

1985 55% 

1986 60% 

1987 48% 

1988 66% 

1989 52% 

1990 49% 

1991 52% 

1992 61% 

1993 62% 

1994 50% 

1995 65% 

1996 44% 

1997 29% 

1998 25% 

1999 31% 31% 38% 

2000 26% 20% 35% 

2001 21% 32% 

2002 18% 32% 

2003 19% 24% 

 

8

 FRAM runs 99NP, 00NP, 01NP, 02NP, and 03NP. 

9

 These are documented in the annual Stillaguamish/Snohomish regional status reports available from 

Tulalip Fisheries, 7615 Totem Beach Rd., Marysville, WA 98271. Management objectives that were in 

effect for years before 1999 are also documented in regional status reports for those years. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

139 

Table 3. Brood year exploitation rates reported in the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team's 

Abundance and Productivity tables for the Skykomish and Snoqualmie chinook populations. 

Brood Year Skykomish Snoqualmie 

1980 86% 86% 

1981 88% 87% 

1982 84% 77% 

1983 68% 67% 

1984 82% 83% 

1985 75% 74% 

1986 76% 74% 

1987 70% 69% 

1988 76% 78% 

1989 74% 75% 

1990 67% 59% 

1991 54% 39% 

1992 56% 61% 

1993 61% 64% 

1994 54% 54% 

1995 46% 38% 

1996 51% 44% 

1997 46% 43% 

1998 48% 46% 

Management Objectives 

Management objectives for Snohomish summer/fall chinook include an upper limit on total 

exploitation rate, to insure that harvest does not impede the recovery of the component stocks, 

and a low abundance threshold (LAT) for spawning escapement to trigger reduced fishing effort 

under low returns to maintain the viability of the stocks. Fisheries will be managed to achieve a 

total adult equivalent exploitation rate, associated with all salmon fisheries, not to exceed 24 

percent. These impacts include all mortalities related to fisheries, including direct take, incidental 

take, release mortality, and drop-off mortality. 

Lacking direct information on the extent to which the current fisheries regime may 

disproportionately harvest any single stock, the spawning escapement of each stock will be 

carefully monitored for indications of differential harvest impact. Average escapement during the 

period of 1965 – 1976 will be the benchmark for this monitoring (Snohomish Basin Salmonid 

Recovery Technical Committee (SBSRTC) 1999). 

The Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan mandates that fisheries will be managed to achieve 

maximum sustainable harvest (MSH) for all primary10 natural management units. The recovery 

exploitation rate is likely to be lower than the rate associated with MSH under current conditions 

of productivity, as in the case where recovery involves increasing the current level of 

productivity. The conservatism implied by the recovery exploitation rate imbues caution against 

the potential size and age selectivity of fisheries, and the effects of that selectivity on reproductive 

potential, and potential uncertainty and error in management. 

 

10 A primary management unit is one for which fisheries are directly management to achieve a particular 

escapement goal or exploitation rate. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

140 

LOW ABUNDANCE THRESHOLD FOR MANAGEMENT 

A low abundance threshold of 2,800 spawners (natural origin, naturally spawning fish) for the 

Snohomish management unit is established (see estimation procedure below) as a reference for 

pre-season harvest planning. If escapement is projected to fall below this threshold under a 

proposed fishing regime, extraordinary measures will be adopted to minimize harvest mortality. 

Directed harvest of Snohomish natural origin chinook stocks, (net and sport fisheries in the 

Snohomish terminal area or in the river) has already been eliminated. Further constraint, thus, 

depends on measures that reduce incidental take. 

The low abundance threshold for the management unit was derived from critical escapement 

thresholds for each of the Snoqualmie, and Skykomish populations in a two-step process. Critical 

escapement thresholds are levels that we don’t want to go below under any circumstances. For 

each population, the critical escapement threshold was determined and then expanded to an 

adjusted level for management use according to the following formula:

 Eman,p = Ecrit,p / [(R/S)low,p* (1-RERmu)] [1] 

Where Eman,p is the lower management threshold for population p; 

 Ecrit,p is the critical threshold for population p; 

 R/Slow,p is the average of recruits/spawner for population p under low 

 survival conditions; and 

 RERmu is the RER established for the management unit 

The following describes the Eman,p for the Snoqualmie and Skykomish stocks within the 

Snohomish management unit. The following analysis is based on estimates of natural spawning 

escapement to the Snohomish system, by population, for the most recent twelve years (Table 1) . 

Maximum Exploitation Rate Guideline 

INTRODUCTION 

The rebuilding exploitation rate (RER) is the highest allowable (“ceiling”) exploitation rate for a 

population under recovery given current habitat conditions , which define the current productivity 

and capacity of the population. This rate is designed to meet the objective that, compared to a 

hypothetical situation of zero harvest impact, the impact of harvest under this Plan will not 

significantly impede the opportunity for the population to grow towards the recovery goal. Since 

recovery will require changes to harvest, hatchery, and habitat management and since this Plan 

only addresses harvest management, we cannot directly evaluate the likelihood of this plan’s 

achieving its objective. Therefore, we evaluate the RER based on Monte Carlo projections of the 

near-term future performance of the population under current productivity conditions, in other 

words, assuming that hatchery and habitat management remain as they are now and that survival 

from environmental effects remain as they are now. 

We choose the RER such that the population is unlikely to fall below a critical threshhold11 (CT) 

and likely to grow to or above a rebuilding escapement threshold (RET). The CT is chosen as the 

smallest previously-observed escapement from which there was a greater than 1:1 return per 

 

11 Note that, there are other provisions of this plan that call for further reduction of the exploitation rate 

ceiling should the abundance be observed or expected to be near the lower threshold. This will provide 

additional protection against falling below the lower threshold that is not considered in this section, which 

address only the conditions under which the RER would apply. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

141 

spawner, while the RET is chosen as the smallest escapement level such that the addition of one 

additional spawner would be expected to produce less than one additional future recruit under 

current conditions of productivity. This level is also known as the maximum sustainable harvest 

(MSH) escapement. It is extremely important to recognize, though, that under this Plan the RET 

is not an escapement goal but rather a level that is expected to be exceeded most of the time. It is 

also the case that, when the productivity conditions for the population improve due to recovery 

actions, the RET will usually increase (MSH escapement does not increase in the Hockey stick 

model if productivity and capacity increase together as in eq. 5) and the probability of exceeding 

the RET using the RER computed for current conditions will also increase over the probability 

computed under current conditions. Thus the RET serves as a proxy for the true goal of the plan, 

which can only be evaluated once we have information on likely future conditions of habitat that 

will result from recovery actions, and hatchery as well as harvest management. 

It also follows from the above, given that the likely chance of achieving the RET is greater than 

50%, that the actual harvest from the population under this Plan will be less than the maximum 

sustainable harvest, the amount less being dependent on the likelihood (%) of achieving the RET. 

All sources of fishing-related mortality are included in the assessment of harvest, and nearly 

100% of the fishing-related mortality will be due to non-retention or incidental mortality; only a 

very small fraction is due to directed fishing on Snohomish populations. 

There are two phases to the process of determining an RER for a population. The first, or model 

fitting phase, involves using recent data from the target population itself, or a representative 

indicator population, to fit a spawner-recruit relationship representing the performance of the 

population under current conditions. Population performance is modeled as 

R = f(S,e ),

where S is the number of fish spawning in a single return year, R is the number of adult 

equivalent recruits12, and e is a vector of environmental, density-independent correlates of annual 

survival. The purpose of this phase is to be able to predict the recruits from spawners and 

environmental covariates into the future. What is important here is to simulate a pattern of 

returns into the future, not predict returns for specific years. 

Several data sources are necessary for this analysis: a time series of natural spawning escapement, 

a time series of total recruitment (obtained from run reconstruction based on harvest and 

escapement data), age distributions for both of these, and time series for the environmental 

correlates of survival. In addition, one must assume a functional form for f , the spawner-recruit 

relationship; in our case three different forms were examined. Given the data, one can 

numerically estimate the parameters of the assumed spawner-recruit relationship to complete the 

model fitting phase. 

The second, or projection phase, of the analysis involves using the fitted model in a Monte Carlo 

simulation to predict the probability distribution of the near-term future performance of the 

population assuming that current conditions of productivity continue. Besides the fitted values of 

the parameters of the spawner-recruit relationships, one needs estimates of the probability 

distributions of the variables driving the population dynamics, including the process error 

(including first order autocorrelation) of the spawner-recruit relationship itself and each of the 

environmental correlates. Also, since fishing-related mortality is modeled in the projection 

 

12 Equivalently, this could be termed “potential spawners” because it represents the number of fish that 

would return to spawn absent harvest-related mortality. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

142 

phase, one must estimate the distribution of the deviation of actual fishing-related mortality from 

the intended ceiling. This is termed “management error” and its distribution, as well as the others 

are estimated from available recent data. 

We used the viability and risk assessment procedure (VRAP, N J Sands, in prep.) for the 

projection phase. For each trial RER value, the population is repeatedly projected for 25 years. 

From the simulation results we computed the fraction of years in all runs where the escapement is 

less than the LAT and the fraction of runs for which the final year’s escapement (average of last 3 

years) is greater than the UAT. Trial RERs for which the first fraction is less than 5% and the 

second fraction is greater than 80% are considered acceptable for use as ceiling exploitation rates 

for management under this plan. 

MODEL FITTING PHASE 

General 

The model used to estimate the spawner recruit parameters uses fishing rate and maturation rate 

estimates along with the spawning estimates to determine the time series of total recruitment 

needed. 

Preterminal Fishery Rates 

Fishery rates were based on an aggregate of Puget Sound summer/fall chinook hatchery indicator 

stock populations (Stillaguamish, Green, Grovers, George Adams, Nisqually, Samish). Although 

a new indicator stock tagging program has been implemented to represent Skykomish wild 

chinook, there is currently no coded-wire-tag (CWT) recovery data available that is directly 

representative of the Snohomish populations and no direct measure of fishery exploitation on the 

wild populations. We evaluated two options for estimating fishery rates on the Snohomish 

populations: 1) an aggregate of Puget Sound summer/fall chinook hatchery coded-wire-tag 

(CWT) indicator stocks using the Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical Committee 

(CTC) exploitation rate indicator stock analysis (CTC 1999 for method, Dell Simmons pers. 

Comm. for most recent data); and 2) estimates from the CTC chinook model (CTC 1999). 

Option 1 relies on CWT recoveries from individual years to reconstruct the fishery rates for that 

year, but is dependent on a consistently high rate of catch and escapement sampling to make 

precise estimates. After further evaluation, we determined that catch and escapement sampling 

for most of the populations within the aggregate meet or exceed their target sampling rates in 

most years. Snohomish populations may not have the same distribution as the populations within 

the aggregate. Puget Sound summer/fall chinook populations show some similarity in the general 

trend over time of exploitation in preterminal fisheries. Although it is logical to assume that 

Snohomish summer/fall populations follow a similar trend with respect to the change over time in 

the rate of preterminal exploitation, concern remains that the aggregate Puget Sound indicator 

stocks may not accurately reflect the true exploitation rates of Snohomish populations. Also, the 

indicator stocks that comprise the aggregate are not likely to represent harvest patterns of yearling 

outmigrant or “stream type” (Healy 1991). Scale pattern analysis of Snohomish Chinook shows 

that a significant portion of the return is stream type from both fingerling and yearling 

populations. 

Under Option 2, the CTC model uses CWT recoveries from the Stillaguamish indicator stock 

during the 1979-1982 base period to estimate fishery exploitation on the Snohomish population in 

subsequent years so estimates are less subject to year-year variability in sampling rates. The CTC 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

143 

model appears to best reflect the pattern of reduced overall exploitation they expected to see in 

the early 1990s in response to more restrictive fishing regimes. Again, it is possible that the 

distribution and exploitation of the Stillaguamish and Snohomish populations are different. 

We chose Option 1 because we determined that, for the purposes of deriving an RER, year 

specific fishery rates would be better than estimates derived from a base period based on a limited 

number of Stillaguamish CWT recoveries. Option 1, by using an aggregate set of populations, 

maximizes the use of the available data and smoothes differences in any one year associated with 

a particular population. Also, we were able to address most of the concerns we had with Option 

1. In addition, Therefore, the aggregate was used as a surrogate to represent the Snohomish 

populations in preterminal fisheries. Fishery rates were derived from the CTC CWT exploitation 

rate analysis for each population in the aggregate and averaged across all populations for each 

year for which data were available. 

 

The average CTC CWT exploitation rate analysis for fall indicator stocks by age was used for 

brood year 1979 to 1994, ages 2-4 for brood year 1995 and ages 2-3 for brood year 1996. The 

1995 age 5+ fishery rate was based on an average of the 1993-94 rates. The 1996 ages 4-5+ were 

based on an average of the 1994-1995 rates because the current CTC CWT exploitation rate 

analysis is not complete for these ages for these brood years. However, available data for ages 2 

and 3 indicate fishery rates were similar in 1994-1996. Fishery rates will continue to be updated 

as data become available. 

Terminal Fishery Rates 

Terminal area fisheries include mature chinook harvested in net fisheries throughout Puget Sound 

and in recreational fisheries in the Snohomish River system and Area 8D. The in-river 

recreational fishery harvest is partitioned into natural and hatchery-produced components based 

on the relative magnitudes of the escapement to natural areas and to the Wallace River Hatchery. 

The stock composition of the Area 8D recreational and net harvest is estimated using results of 

recoveries of thermally-marked otoliths from Tulalip hatchery. The otolith recoveries are used to 

estimate the Tulalip hatchery contribution to this fishery for the brood years from 1997 on 

(Rawson et al. 2001), which is subtracted from the total catch. The remaining catch is partitioned 

into components based upon the relative run strengths of the Stillaguamish and Snohomish 

chinook returns to their rivers. In particular, the Snohomish natural fraction is estimated as the 

Snohomish natural escapement plus the Snohmish natural portion of the in-river recreational 

harvest divided by the sum of the escapements to the Stillaguamish and Snohomish Rivers and 

the in-river harvests of chinook in those rivers. For years before 1997 the procedure is the same, 

except that the proportional contribution of Tulalip hatchery fish to Area 8D is assumed to be the 

average of the values measured for 1997-2001. 

The stock composition of the Area 8A net harvest is estimated using the relative proportions of all 

the Stillaguamish/Snohomish stocks passing through Area 8A. Only chinook harvested during 

the so-called “adult accounting period” of July1 through September 30 are included in this 

analysis. Other chinook harvested in Area 8A are part of the preterminal fishing rate. In 

particular, the Snohomish natural fraction is the sum of the Snohomish natural escapement, the 

Snohomish natural fraction of the in-river harvest, and the Snohomish natural fraction of the 8D 

harvest, divided by the sum of the total escapement and harvest in both rivers plus the Area 8D 

harvest and escapement to Tulalip hatchery. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

144 

To the three harvest components computed above (in-river, 8D, and 8A) the harvest of mature 

Snohomish natural chinook in Puget Sound net fisheries outside of Area 8A must be added. This 

computation was completed using coded-wire tag recoveries by Jim Scott and Dell Simmons of 

the CTC. The terminal, or mature fishery, fishing rate is then the sum of the harvest in the four 

components divided by the numerator plus the Snohomish natural escapement. 

Maturation Rates 

We also considered two options for the maturation rates (the fraction of each cohort that leaves 

the ocean to return to spawn during the year): 1) maturation rates derived from age data collected 

from scales and otoliths from the spawning grounds combined with the age-specific fishing rates 

described above; 2) estimates derived from the CTC model for the Snohomish model population. 

In general, fish matured at older ages under option 1 than option 2, and no fish matured as two 

year olds. We decided to use option 1 because it is a more direct measure of the age structure of 

the spawners and relies on age specific data for the populations. 

However, we identified two potential concerns that should be taken into account when using the 

data: 1) age 2 fish are generally underrepresented in spawning ground samples for several 

reasons: e.g., carcasses decay faster, the smaller body size makes them more susceptible to being 

washed downstream, they are less visible to samplers; and 2) only one year, 1989, had a sufficient 

number of samples to use. The age structure for other years was extrapolated from 1989 by using 

the 1989 age composition to reconstruct brood year and calendar year escapements by age. The 

age structure is then adjusted to minimize the difference between the estimated calendar year 

escapements and the observed calendar year escapements for each year for which data are not 

available. 

Hatchery Effectiveness

No adjustments were made for the relative fecundity of naturally-spawning hatchery-produced 

fish as compared with natural-origin fish, since there is no available data for the effectiveness of 

hatchery spawners in the wild when compared with their natural origin counterparts for Puget 

Sound chinook. For the RER analysis, we assumed all spawners were equally fecund regardless 

of their origin. This is a conservative assumption since it would tend to underestimate 

productivity (assuming hatchery fish are less effective) and, therefore, the resulting RER, 

minimizing the possibility of adopting a harvest objective that was too high (Table 4.) 

Table 4. Intrinsic Productivity (MSY Exploitation Rate) by Production Function for the 

Skykomish chinook population. 

Hatchery Effectiveness Ricker Beverton-Holt Hockey Stick 

Not Effective 7.58 (49%) 14.14 (65%) 8.07 (77%) 

Half as Effective 6.26 (52%) 8.34 (65%) 4.55 (63%) 

Equal Effectiveness 5.49 (47%) 6.51 (53%) 3.66 (51%) 

Spawner-recruit Models 

The data were fitted using three different models for the spawner recruit relationship: the Ricker 

(Ricker 1975), Beverton-Holt (Ricker 1975), and hockey stick (Barrowman and Myers 2000). 

The simple forms of these models were augmented by the inclusion of environmental variables 

correlated with brood year survival. For marine survival we used an index based on the common 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

145 

signal from a several chinook coded-wire tag groups released from Puget Sound hatcheries (J 

Scott, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication). We tried two 

indices: one (PS6) used tag groups from throughout Puget Sound; the other (NPS2) used coded 

wire tags from North Puget Sound hatcheries only. The other environmental correlate, associated 

with survival during the period of freshwater residency, was the September-March peak daily 

mean stream flow during the fall and winter of spawning and incubation. 

Equations for the three models are as follows: 

( )( ) bS Mc dF R aSe e − = [Ricker] 

( /[ ])( ) Mc dF R = S bS + a e [Beverton-Holt] 

( min[ , ])( ) Mc dF R = aS b e [hockey stick] 

In the above, a is the density independent parameter, b is the density dependent parameter, c is the 

parameter for marine survival, d is the parameter for the freshwater covariate, M is the index of 

marine survival, and F is the freshwater correlate, peak Sep-Mar mean daily flow in this case. 

Data used for the Skykomish Population 

The Skykomish RER was based on analyses of the 1979-1996 brood years. Uncertainty about 

accuracy of escapement data and completeness of catch data precluded use of data before 1979. 

The 1996 brood year was the last year for which data were available to conduct a complete cohort 

reconstruction. There was no evidence of depensation or of a time trend in the data after 

adjustment for environmental variables. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

146 

Results 

Figure 1. Comparison of observed and predicted recruitment numbers for the Skykomish chinook 

population, brood years 1979 – 1996, under three different models of the spawner-recruit 

relationship (see text for further details). 

The results of model fitting for various combinations of environmental correlates are summarized 

in Table 7 and graphed in Figure 1. We used the parameters from the fits using the NPS2 marine 

survival index and using both the marine and freshwater environmental correlates (upper right 

corner of Table 7). 

PROJECTION PHASE 

We projected the performance of the Skykomish stock at exploitation rates in the range of 0 to .30 

at intervals of .01 using the fitted values of a, b, c, and d for the three spawner-recruit models. 

All projections were made assuming low marine survival using the average and variance of the 

marine survival indices observed for the most recent 10-year period. The freshwater 

environmental correlate (peak winter flow) was projected using the average and variance 

observed for the entire period used in the model fitting phase. Projections were run for target 

exploitation rates varying from 0 to .50, in increments of .01. The lower abundance threshold 

(LAT) was 1,745, derived as described above. The upper abundance threshold was the MSH 

escapement level (also described above). This biological reference point varies with the assumed 

marine survival and also with the particular form of the spawner-recruit relationship. We used 

the average marine survival index for the low marine survival period to obtain the RET for each 

spawner-recruit function. These values were: 3,500 – Ricker, 3,600 – Beverton-Holt, and 3,600 – 

hockey stick. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Natural Spawners (natural + hatchery origin)

Recruits (natural origin only)

Ric BH Hoc Ric-ave BH-ave Hoc-ave Replace Observed
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

147 

For each combination of spawner-recruit relationship and exploitation rate we ran 1000 25-year 

projections. Estimated probabilities of exceeding the RET were based on the number of 

simulations for which the final spawning escapement exceeded the RET. Estimated probabilities 

of falling below the LAT were based on the number of years (out of the total of 25,000 individual 

years projected for each combination) that the spawning escapement fell below the LAT. For 

each spawner-recruit relationship the sequence of Monte Carlo projection running through the 

exploitation rate range from 0 to .30 started with the same random number seed so that the results 

for the different spawner-recruit models would be comparable. 

Detailed results of these projections are in Table 8, and summarized results are in Table 5. 

Indicated target exploitation rates are 0.25 – Ricker, 0.27 – Beverton-Holt, and 0.22 – hockey 

stick. Since there is no basis to choose one of these models over the other, we propose to use the 

average of these values as the target exploitation rate. This average is 0.24, rounding down to the 

nearest whole percentage exploitation rate. 

Table 5. Results of the VRAP projections of the Skykomish chinook stock under current 

conditions showing the indicated target exploitation rate for each form of the spawner-recruit 

relationship. 

 #fish % runs % yrs % runs 1st LastYrs 

Model TgtER Mort. extnct <LEL end>UEL Year Ave. 

Ricker 0.25 1671 0 4.0 80.0 2123 5711 

Bev-Holt 0.27 1889 0 4.5 80.3 2084 6149 

H-Stick 0.22 1427 0 3.0 81.3 2172 5747 

MANAGEMENT UNIT REBUILDING EXPLOITATION RATE AND LOWER 

ESCAPEMENT THRESHHOLDS 

The management unit maximum exploitation rate was set at 0.24, which is the average of the 

maximum allowable rates computed for the Skykomish stock using the three different spawnerrecruit relationships. This is assumed to provide the appropriate protection to both populations. 

It was not possible to obtain a fit of the Snoqualmie data to any of the spawner-recruit models, 

with or without the use of environmental correlates. It is believed that this is due to the fact that 

some of the escapement estimates for the Snoqualmie are unreliable, and biased low, due to poor 

visibility in some years. 

The lower abundance threshold for management was set starting with critical escapement levels, 

expands these per population management thresholds, and expands again to a management unit 

threshold based on the average contribution of each population to the management unit’s 

escapement. 

The second step in deriving the management unit lower threshold was to expand each stock’s 

lower management threshold by dividing the percentage of the total escapement that the stock is 

expected to comprise. 

We can then compute the total system escapement required such that we expect each stock to 

achieve its lower escapement management threshold by dividing the percentage of the total 

escapement the stock is expected to comprise. The expected percentages of each stock came 

from the recent 12-year escapement breakout by stock (Table 1). Averaging the ratios of the two 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

148 

stocks’ estimated NOR escapements over the twelve years gives an average Snoqualmie fraction 

of 37.7% of the total. 

Table 6. Derivation of the lower management threshold for each Snohomish chinook population 

and the management unit escapement necessary to achieve this level for each population. 

 Snoqualmie Skykomish 

Critical level 400 942 

Low R/S 1.01 0.71 

Exp. rate .24 .24 

Low threshold 521 1745 

Implied MU LT 1,381 2,802 

The maximum of the management unit lower thresholds required to achieve the lower thresholds 

for the two stocks is 2,800 (Table 6), which was chosen as the management unit lower threshold 

for management planning purposes. Because this is so much higher than the indicated 

management threshold for protection of Snoqualmie escapement, this Plan is providing extra 

protection to the Snoqualmie stock pending acquisition of better escapement data.

INTERPRETATION OF FRAM MODEL FOR PRESEASON PLANNING 

Currently the comanagers use the Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM) for preseason 

planning of total fishery impacts (Table 2). Because a different set of exploitation rates (Table 3) 

was used in the model fitting phase for Snohomish Chinook, it is important to assess whether 

preseason exploitation rates from FRAM are directly comparable with the RER derived in the 

projection phase described above. 

The exploitation rates in Tables 2 and 3 cannot be directly compared for a number of reasons. 

First, the A&P rates (Table 3) are brood year rates, while the FRAM rates (Table 2) are calendar 

or fishing year rates. FRAM is based on applying current year abundances and fishery 

exploitation levels to average fishery-specific exploitation rates observed form coded-wire tag 

recoveries in a base period (Larrie Lavoy, WDFW, personal communication). In contrast the 

preterminal rates in the A&P tables use current year coded-wire tag recoveries from indicator 

groups. 

Second, FRAM more accurately represents Snohomish Chinook by modeling both the fingerling 

outmigrant or “ocean type” and yearling outmigrant or “stream type” (Healy 1991) components 

of the Snohomish run. Comparison of coded-wire tag recoveries from hatchery groups released 

as age-0 fingerlings as compared with groups released as age-1 yearlings consistently shows 

differences in patterns of fishery exploitation. FRAM utilizes CWT recovery information from 

Wallace River (Skykomish) yearling production releases as well as fingerling CWT data to 

accurately reflect Snohomish Chinook distributions (Larrie LaVoy, WDFW, personal 

communication). Because yearling recovery data are not incorporated into the A&P tables, these 

rates may not be an accurate reflection of the true rates for Snohomish Chinook. 

 

Finally, the two models use different set of indicator coded-wire tag groups to represent the 

Snohomish management unit. This is more difficulty for the Snohomish than for other 

management units because there is no local indicator coded-wire tag stock available for 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

149 

Snohomish ocean type Chinook, although a program of double-index tagging at Wallace River 

hatchery began in 2000 with hopes of developing an appropriate indicator group. 

In summary, information available at this time indicates that there is some management risk to 

using FRAM as we implement annual fishing plans with the intention of achieving our Plan 

objectives. However, given the uncertainties in estimates associated with estimates of 

exploitation rates in both the A&P tables and with FRAM, it is not clear that one is more accurate 

in representing true Snohomish Chinook exploitation rates. Therefore, some additional, 

precaution is called for in using FRAM to assess whether a given package of proposed fisheries 

will result in an exploitation rate below the RER guideline of 0.24 for the Snohomish. Therefore, 

the comanagers will initially use a guideline of 0.21 for the Snohomish instead of the 0.24 derived 

in the projection phase of this analysis. This guideline was the highest preseason projected 

exploitation rate for Snohomish since the 2000 application of the comanagers’ plan (Table 2). 

The range of preseason exploitation rates primarily reflects variation in abundance of other 

chinook stocks and changes in the pattern or level of fisheries outside the comanagers’ 

jurisdiction. Given the procedures in place for annual implementation of the plan, particularly 

with respect to our intention of not increasing fisheries and our record of managing fisheries to 

levels that are below exploitation rate ceilings, our expectation is for preseason Snohomish 

Chinook exploitation rates less than 0.21. Since observed spawning escapements have been 

increasing during this period (Table 1), consistently above the comanagers’ former goal of 5,250 

(Ames and Phinney 1977), and generally the largest observed since the beginning of the database 

in 1965, we feel that recent management has met this plan’s objective of reducing fishery impacts 

so that the population can recover if other factors improve. 

In addition, as part of our commitment to evaluate performance of the Plan and modify it as 

necessary to ensure objectives are achieved, the comanagers intend to l review in detail the 

implications of the differences between the A&P and FRAM exploitation rates. This may result 

in the need to recompute RER estimates, compute a quantitative adjustment for FRAM 

projections. 

Data gaps 

Priorities for filling data gaps to improve understanding of stock / recruit functions, harvest 

exploitation rate, and marine survival: 

• Annual implementation of a double-index coded-wire tagging program using fingerling 

summer chinook from Wallace River Hatchery to enable direct assessment of harvest 

distribution, and estimation of harvest exploitation rates and marine survival rates. 

(Initiated beginning with the 2000 brood year). 

• Estimates of natural-origin smolt abundance from chinook production areas. (Outmigrant 

trapping began in the Skykomish in 2000 in the Snoqualmie in 2001). 

• Estimates of estuarine and early-marine survival for fingerling and yearling smolts. 

• Quantification of the contribution of hatchery-origin adults to natural spawning for each 

stock. (Research is underway. Estimates of hatchery contribution to natural spawning 

populations is available for the 1997 through 2001 return years.) 
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

150 

Table 7. Results of model fits for different combinations of environmental correlates. 

 PS(6) for marine, FW NPS(2) for marine, FW 

Ric Bev Hoc Ric Bev Hoc 

a - productivity 4.1658 0.2400 4.1658 5.1234 0.1782 3.6572

b - Spawners 0.000000 0.000000 42,216 0.000124 0.000035 13,092 

c – Marine 0.8330 0.8330 0.8330 0.6418 0.6394 0.6313

d - Freshwater -0.000011 -0.000011 -0.000011 -0.000014 -0.000014 -0.000014

SSE 2.414 2.414 2.414 0.343 0.345 0.347

MSE (esc) 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.038 0.038 0.039

autocorrelation in error 0.199 0.199 0.199 -0.366 -0.358 -0.449

R 0.680 0.680 0.680 0.895 0.891 0.891

F 2.579 2.579 2.579 12.096 11.569 11.568

PROBABLITIY 0.1184 0.1184 0.1184 0.0016 0.0019 0.0019

MSE (reruits) 0.564 0.564 0.564 0.276 0.278 0.255

autocorrelation in error -0.390 -0.390 -0.390 -0.133 -0.126 -0.147

Ave.Pred. Error 7237 7237 7237 3994 4092 3999

 

 No Freshwater, PS(6) No Freshwater, NPS(2) 

Ric Bev Hoc Ric Bev Hoc 

a - productivity 2.8789 0.3474 2.8789 4.6677 0.0761 3.9737

b - Spawners 0.000000 0.000000 42,216 0.000254 0.000132 6,238 

c – Marine 0.8398 0.8398 0.8398 0.6986 0.7042 0.7341

d - Freshwater 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

SSE 2.897 2.897 2.897 1.056 1.057 1.065

MSE (esc) 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.106 0.106 0.106

autocorrelation in error 0.203 0.203 0.203 0.175 0.141 0.116

R 0.617 0.617 0.617 0.862 0.855 0.877

F 3.066 3.066 3.066 14.505 13.605 16.739

PROBABLITIY 0.0915 0.0915 0.0915 0.0011 0.0014 0.0006

MSE (reruits) 0.447 0.447 0.447 0.298 0.304 0.316

autocorrelation in error -0.372 -0.372 -0.372 -0.071 -0.088 -0.069

Ave.Pred. Error 7773 7773 7773 4310 4437 4089

 

 No Marine No Marine or Freshwater 

Ric Bev Hoc Ric Bev Hoc 

a - productivity 3.7071 0.2697 3.7071 2.7118 0.3688 2.7118

b - Spawners 0.000000 0.000000 19,851 0.000000 0.000000 66,517 

c – Marine 1.0062 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000

d - Freshwater -0.000010 -0.000010 -0.000010 -0.000001 -0.000001 -0.000001

SSE 3.463 3.463 3.463 3.758 3.758 3.758

MSE (esc) 0.346 0.346 0.346 0.342 0.342 0.342

autocorrelation in error 0.086 0.086 0.086 -0.017 -0.017 -0.017

R 0.435 0.435 0.435 0.299 0.299 0.299

F 1.164 1.164 1.164 1.076 1.076 1.076

PROBABLITIY 0.3512 0.3512 0.3512 0.3219 0.3219 0.3219

MSE (reruits) 0.768 0.768 0.768 0.789 0.789 0.789

autocorrelation in error -0.324 -0.324 -0.324 -0.369 -0.369 -0.369

Ave.Pred. Error 7838 7838 7838 7938 7938 7938
Management Unit Status Profiles Snohomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

151 

Table 8. Summary of projections of the Skykomish population at different target exploitation 

rates for three different forms of the spawner-recruit relationship.

 Pr(final esc > UAT) % Pr(ann. Esc. < LAT) % 

Target ER B-H Ricker Hockey-St B-H Ricker Hockey-St 

0.00 99.20 96.60 96.30 0.30 0.50 0.50 

0.01 99.40 97.80 96.50 0.40 0.70 0.60 

0.02 99.00 96.40 95.80 0.50 0.70 0.60 

0.03 98.70 95.80 95.60 0.40 0.60 0.50 

0.04 98.10 95.60 94.70 0.40 0.70 0.60 

0.05 98.40 96.40 95.80 0.50 0.70 0.70 

0.06 97.80 95.10 94.30 0.60 0.90 0.80 

0.07 97.40 94.70 93.20 0.60 0.90 0.80 

0.08 97.80 94.90 94.00 0.60 0.90 0.80 

0.09 97.50 94.80 93.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 

0.10 97.40 94.20 92.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 

0.11 96.90 94.10 92.20 0.90 1.20 1.10 

0.12 95.70 92.10 90.50 0.80 1.20 1.20 

0.13 96.50 93.40 90.70 1.20 1.60 1.60 

0.14 96.00 92.10 90.30 1.10 1.40 1.40 

0.15 95.60 90.40 89.30 1.20 1.50 1.60 

0.16 93.60 90.90 88.20 1.60 2.00 2.00 

0.17 93.70 89.80 87.00 1.50 1.80 2.00 

0.18 91.40 87.90 84.60 1.60 1.90 2.10 

0.19 91.10 87.70 83.80 2.10 2.50 2.80 

0.20 91.00 86.90 83.90 1.90 2.30 2.60 

0.21 91.00 87.90 84.40 2.10 2.40 2.80 

0.22 90.70 87.30 82.50 2.30 2.70 3.00 

0.23 86.40 82.70 78.70 2.80 3.20 3.70 

0.24 86.40 82.30 77.10 3.40 3.70 4.40 

0.25 84.30 80.00 75.30 3.50 4.00 4.80 

0.26 85.80 82.40 76.90 3.30 3.90 4.70 

0.27 80.30 77.10 71.50 4.50 4.90 6.10 

0.28 77.90 73.90 68.70 4.50 5.00 6.30 

0.29 78.40 73.90 65.80 5.10 5.60 7.20 

0.30 75.20 72.00 65.60 5.20 5.60 7.50 
Management Unit Status Profiles Lake Washington 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

152 

Lake Washington Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

Cedar River Fall 

North Lake Washington Tributaries Fall 

 

Geographic distribution 

Fall chinook are produced in three basins in the Lake Washington watershed, the Cedar River, at 

the south end of Lake Washington; Big Bear Creek and its tributary Cottage Creek (the “Northern 

Tributaries” which are tributaries of the Sammamish Slough), and Issaquah Creek, the principle 

inlet at the south end of Lake Sammamish. Historically, chinook also spawned in other smaller 

tributaries to Lake Washington (e.g. – May and Kelsey creeks) and the Sammamish Slough, (e.g. 

Little Bear, Swamp, and North creeks). Recent field studies indicate sporadic use of these 

streams. 

About ten miles of Bear Creek, and three miles of Cottage Creek, are accessible to chinook. 

Recent surveys have located concentrated spawning between RM 4.25 and 8.75 in Bear Creek 

and the entire three miles of Cottage Lake Creek. Approximately 75% of the total chinook 

escapement in Bear/Cottage is in Cottage Lake Creek. Spawning in Issaquah Creek occurs 

predominately in reaches between RM 1 and the Issaquah hatchery (Ames et al. 1975). Chinook 

surplus to hatchery needs are often passed upstream of the rack and spawn in Issaquah Creek. 

In the Cedar River, access above RM 21 has been blocked by the Landsburg diversion dam since 

its construction in 1901. Access to an additional 15 miles of habitat above Landsburg became 

available in 2003 with the completion of fish passage facilities. There is very little chinook 

spawning in the Cedar River downstream of RM 5.0. 

Hatchery contribution 

Hatchery production currently exists at Issaquah Creek (chinook and coho), the University of 

Washington (chinook and coho), and the Cedar River (sockeye). Due to present and historic 

enhancement efforts, adults that return to Issaquah Creek are presumed to be predominately of 

hatchery origin. Outplants were made to most of the tributaries to the Lake Washington basin 

from the Issaquah and Green River hatcheries, during the period of record (1952 on). Many of 

these plants continued through the early 1990s. The one exception is the Cedar River where the 

last plants were in 1964. 

Genetic information 

Allozyme analysis of samples collected from Cedar River chinook suggest that this stock is 

genetically distinct, but closely related to that in the Green River (Marshall, 1995b). Genetic 

samples from chinook in Bear/Cottage Creek are similar to those from Issaquah Creek. Green 

River hatchery fish were outplanted into the Cedar River system from 1952 to 1964. Until 1916 

the Cedar River drained into the Green River, so a close relationship is not surprising. Sampling 

and genetic analysis of returns to the North Lake Washington tributaries and other independent 

tributaries is in progress, and preliminary analysis suggests that chinook in Bear/Cottage Creek 

have similar genetics to chinook returning to Issaquah Creek. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Lake Washington 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

153 

Life History Traits 

Juvenile trapping in the Cedar River has shown that the outmigration is bimodal with most of the 

fish entering the lake prior to April as fry. A smaller percentage of these fish rear in the river to 

smolt size and outmigrate between May and July. On the average, 75% of the outmigrants are 

fry. These fry rear along the lakeshore, growing quickly and leave the lake as zero-age smolts. 

The smolts that migrate out of the river are thought to reach the Locks about the same time as the 

fry, although some fish are still migrating out of the river in late July. The migration through the 

Locks begins in mid-May and continues until at least September. Recent PIT tagging of Cedar 

River chinook suggests that the Cedar River fish migrate out later in the season than hatchery 

chinook. The Cedar River chinook fry that rear along the lakeshore are unique in that most, if not 

all, of the chinook stocks that use a lake for rearing are age one or two smolts. The Lake 

Washington stocks also have a protracted smolt outmigration, with a large percentage of the run 

outmigrating after July 1. 

Adult chinook enter the Lake Washington basin from late May through September, and enter 

drainages from mid-August through early November. Spawning is usually complete by midNovember. 

Status 

Annual monitoring of the return through Ballard Locks has, since 1994, provided in-season 

assessment of the total abundance of chinook. Escapement surveys are conducted annually on 

index reaches in the Cedar River (RM 0 – 21.4), Bear Creek (RM 1.3 – 8.8) and Cottage Lake 

Creek (RM 0 – 2.3), and some of the smaller tributaries to Lake Washington. An additional mile 

of upper Cottage Lake Creek, above the index reach (i.e. up to RM 3.3), is also routinely 

surveyed. Hatchery rack counts occur at Issaquah Creek Hatchery and the University of 

Washington facility. Since 2003, returns of mass marked hatchery releases from Issaquah Creek 

Hatchery have enabled assessment of natural- and hatchery-origin chinook at the Ballard Locks 

and in natural spawning escapement. 

For Cedar River, the geometric mean escapement (i.e. live fish counts in the index reach) from 

1993 – 1997 was 319; for 1998 - 2002 the mean was 327. For the North Lake Tributaries, the 

1993 – 1997 mean escapement to index reach (i.e. live count) was 110; for 1998 – 2002 the mean 

increased to 330 (Table 1). 

Table 1. Escapement estimates for of Lake Washington fall chinook, 1993-2002 (MIT et al. 

2003), based on live fish counts in the index reaches of the Cedar River (RM 0 – 21.4), and the 

North Lake Tributaries (RM 1.3 – 8.8 in Bear Creek, and RM 0 – 2.3 in Cottage Lake Creek). 

 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Cedar River 156 452 681 303 227 432 241 120 810 369 

N. Lake Tribs 89 436 249 33 67 265 537 228 458 268 

Additional, and more extensive survey coverage and redd counts, conducted since 1999, have 

improved our understanding of the distribution and abundance of natural spawning for the two 

Lake Washington populations (Table 2). 
Management Unit Status Profiles Lake Washington 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

154 

Table 2. Redd count-based estimates of escapement to the Cedar River index reach, and live-fish 

estimates of escapement to upper Cottage Creek (RM 2.3 – 3.3), 1999 – 2002. 

 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Cedar River – Redd counts 

 - Expanded by 2.5 fish / redd 

180 

450 

 53 

133 

395 

988 

266 

665 

 

Upper Cottage Creek – live counts 195 104 231 92 

Redd count-based estimates for the Cedar River index reach suggest that escapement has 

substantially exceeded the standard live-count estimates. The supplemental surveys of upper 

Cottage Lake Creek indicate that approximately 30% of natural spawning in the Bear Creek 

system has occurred above, and in addition to, that in the index reach. The additional abundance 

identified in Table 2, when added to the index counts, still does not fully account for escapement 

to the Cedar River and North Lake tributaries. 

Harvest distribution 

The harvest distribution of Lake Washington chinook has not been directly assessed because 

representative coded-wire tagged hatchery releases are only available for a few brood years from 

the Issaquah Hatchery in the late 1980s, and the University of Washington hatchery in the late 

90s. However, because of their similar life history and genetic heritage, tagged fingerling 

releases from Central Puget Sound facilities (Soos Creek hatchery on the Green River, and 

Grovers Creek Hatchery on the Kitsap Peninsula) facilities provide the best available 

representation of pre-terminal harvest distribution (see Green River profile). 

Terminal harvest of Lake Washington chinook has been minimized since 1994 by regulatory 

measures that have eliminated directed harvest and reduced incidental impacts in Shilshole Bay, 

the Ship Canal, and in Lake Washington. Commercial and recreational fisheries directed at 

sockeye and coho salmon have been specifically shaped to minimize impacts on chinook. 

Recreational fishing regulations focus effort on Issaquah Hatchery returns. 

Exploitation rate trends

Based on post-season FRAM runs, average total annual exploitation rates on the aggregate of 

natural and hatchery-produced Lake Washington chinook have fallen 66 percent from levels in 

the 1980s to 1996 – 2000. 

Figure 1. Total annual, adult equivalent, fisheries exploitation rate of Lake Washington chinook, 

estimated by post-season FRAM runs for management years 1983 – 2000. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Lake Washington 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

155 

Management Objectives 

The upper management threshold (escapement goal) for the Lake Washington unit is 1,200 (i.e. 

live count) in the Cedar River index reach. This goal was derived as the average escapement 

observed from 1965 – 1969, and represents the best available estimate of habitat capacity (Hage 

et al. 1994). However, current habitat conditions constrain productivity and have prevented 

achievement of the goal in recent years (Table 1). 

The current management objective for the Lake Washington unit is to constrain the exploitation 

rate, in pre-terminal southern U.S. fisheries, to a level less than or equal to 15%. This objective 

was derived from highly constrained regimes planned for the 1998 – 2000 management years. 

Directed terminal fisheries have been closed for ten years, and pre-terminal exploitation rates 

have been declining. Terminal area fisheries have been reduced to the Minimum Fisheries 

Regime to conserve Lake Washington chinook, even though forecast abundance has exceed the 

low abundance threshold. This fishing regime has stabilized escapement. 

Management objectives are not currently specified for the North Lake Washington tributaries 

population. Estimated escapement to the Bear Creek / Cottage Creek index areas averaged 350 

during the period from 1983 – 1992 (Hage et al. 1994), and the co-managers previously adopted 

this as an interim escapement goal. The aforementioned management objectives, for the Cedar 

River population, provide adequate protection for the North Lake population, as demonstrated by 

stable escapement levels observed in the last ten years (Tables 1 and 2). The long-term objective 

for Lake Washington chinook is to increase productivity to the point that the natural escapement 

goal is regularly met or exceeded. 

Anticipating that productivity and abundance will remain low during the term of this plan, the comanagers will continue to implement the recent management actions which constrain impacts on 

Lake Washington natural chinook to very low incidental levels. These harvest measures ensure 

that harvest impacts are consistent with recovery of listed stocks. The co-managers will continue 

to refine their harvest management for Lake Washington natural chinook by shaping terminal 

fisheries for sockeye and coho to minimize incidental impact on chinook. 

The low abundance threshold of 200 for the Cedar River population was set substantially above 

the historically low escapement from which the stock recovered (e.g. the 1993 escapement of 

156). If pre-season fishery simulation modeling indicates that escapement will fall below 200, 

conservation measures will be implemented to further reduce the pre-terminal SUS exploitation 

rate to a level no greater than 12%, and terminal fisheries will also be shaped to reduce impacts 

on Lake Washington chinook, while maintaining fishing opportunity on harvestable sockeye and 

coho salmon (see Appendix C). 

These objectives are intended to maintain the diversity of the naturally reproducing populations 

that comprise the management unit. Diversity is expressed in various aspects of life history, 

including the age composition of mature fish, migration timing, and spawning and rearing 

distribution. Harvest constraint has been exerted, over the last ten years, to maintain stable 

spawning escapements to the Cedar River and the North Lake tributaries, but is not capable, by 

itself, of improving their status. If habitat protection and restoration measures succeed in 

alleviating the primary constraints on productivity in these systems, harvest management will 

respond by ensuring that spawning escapement is sufficient to optimize production, so that 

abundance will rebuild. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Lake Washington 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

156 

Data gaps 

The highest priority will be placed on collecting the data needed to quantify the productivity of 

Lake Washington stocks. Until the fundamental aspects of productivity are defined it will be 

difficult to assess the success of recovery actions, whether they entail improvement in habitat 

productivity or production supplementation. 

Table 3. Data gaps related to harvest management, and projects required to address those data 

needs. 

Data gap Research needed 

Estimates of total spawning escapement for 

each stock. 

Mark/recapture study, repeated for a minimum 

of three years; or an alternate approach to 

expanding index reach counts to total 

escapement. First done in FY2000 

Estimates of natural smolt production in 

Issaquah Creek. 

Fry/smolt trapping in Issaquah Creek to 

supplement ongoing trapping in the Northern 

Tributaries and the Cedar River. 

Quantification of fry and smolt survival in 

Lake Washington and the Ship Canal. 

Smolt trapping at the locks to quantify 

mortality as smolts transit the lake and the 

locks. Trapping at the locks has proven to be 

very difficult. 

Quantification of freshwater predation on 

smolts 

Continuation of the Lake Washington Studies 

Project to further quantify fish, bird and 

lamprey predation. Fish predation research has 

been completed and is being written up. Bird 

predation work has not been started 

Comprehensive estimates of incidental fishing 

mortality. 

Creel surveys of recreational fisheries that 

target other species. The approach should be 

research oriented. 

Estimates of bias in ladder counts at Ballard 

Locks, relative to spawning ground surveys. 

Tagging and tracking of adult chinook from the 

locks and the ladder to estimate repeat passage. 

Started in 1998, research is complete and is 

awaiting write-up. 

Estimate of spawning and production above 

Landsburg Dam 

Spawner surveys to account for fish passed 

above the dam, fry/smolt trapping at or near the 

dam to independently assess upper basin 

productivity and survival. 

Estimates of hatchery stray rates for Cedar 

and North Lake Tributaries 

All ages are ad-clipped beginning in 2004. 

Enumerate ad-clipped fish during spawner 

surveys; sample for and collect CWTs. 

Assess pre-spawning mortality Quantify pre-spawning mortality related to 

environmental variables like water temperature.
Management Unit Status Profiles Lake Washington 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

157 

Related Data Questions 

Is chinook survival from emergent fry to adult (smolt?) correlated with early life history strategy? 

(i.e. – what are the relative survival rates of fry outmigrants compared to smolt outmigrants in the 

Cedar River). Is survival different in the upper basin than it is in the lower basin? 

Is scour of chinook redds related to the magnitude of peak flow events in the Cedar River, and the 

position of redds in the stream channel? 

What is the relationship between flow at Landsburg and the availability of water at the Locks for 

operating the smolt slides? 

 
Management Unit Status Profiles Green 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

158 

Green River Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

Green River Fall Chinook 

Geographic description of spawner distribution 

Fall chinook are produced in the mainstem Green River and in two major tributaries - Soos 

Creek and Newaukum Creek. Adults that spawn in Soos Creek are presumed to be 

predominantly of hatchery origin. However, recent investigations into straying raise questions 

regarding this, and other assumptions related to run reconstruction. (See stock status, below). 

Newaukum Creek spawners appear to be closely related to the spawners in the mainstem. 

Spawning in the mainstem Green River occurs from RM 26.7 up to RM 61. Spawning access 

higher in the drainage is blocked by the City of Tacoma’s diversion dam, and at RM 64 by 

Howard Hanson Dam. Spawning occurs in the lower 10 miles of Newaukum Creek. Adults 

returning to the hatchery at RM 0.7 of Soos Creek may also spawn naturally and adults surplus to 

program needs at the Soos Cr. Hatchery are often passed upstream. 

Life History Traits 

Fall chinook begin entering the Green River in July, and spawn from mid-September through 

October. Ocean-type freshwater life history typifies summer/fall stocks from South Puget Sound, 

with 99 percent of the smolts outmigrating in their first year (WDFW 1995 cited in Myers et al 

1998). A long-term average of the age composition of adults returning to the Green River 

indicates the predominance of age-4 fish (62 percent), with age-3 and age-5 fish comprising 26 

percent and 11 percent, respectively (WDF et al 1993, WDFW 1995 cited in Myers et al 1998). 

Status 

The SASSI review (WDF et al 1993) classified Green River chinook as healthy, because 

spawning escapement had consistently met the objective since 1978. Spawning escapement has 

increased recently, with the mean of the 1997–2002 escapement (9077) exceeding that for the 

preceding five-year period (4799). Total escapement fell below the nominal goal of 5,800 in 

1992 – 1994, which triggered an assessment of factors contributing to the escapement shortfall by 

the PFMC (PSSSRB 1997). However, escapement has exceeded the goal in each subsequent 

year. 

Table 1. Spawning escapement of Green River Fall Chinook, 1992-2002. 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

5,267 2,476 4,078 7,939 6,026 9,967 7,300 9,100 6170 7975 13950 

It is known that returns from hatchery production contribute substantially to natural spawning in 

the Green River and tributaries. Viability of the naturally spawning stock, absent the hatchery 

contribution, is uncertain because hatchery returns may be masking poor natural productivity 

(Myers et al 1998). Analysis of coded wire tags recovered from the spawning grounds and the inriver fishery has yielded highly variable results. Collection of data from Chinook mass-marked 
Management Unit Status Profiles Green 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

159 

since 2000 began in 2003 and is expected to provide better estimates of straying and contribution 

as analysis is completed. 

The nominal escapement goal is based on approximate estimates of escapement in the 1970’s, 

and may not reflect the productivity constraints associated with current degraded habitat, but will 

be used to guide fisheries management until natural capacity is better quantified. Escapement 

estimation methods are under review. Surveys have been expanded in recent years to calibrate 

assumptions regarding the relationship between index area counts and total escapement and the 

third year of a mark/recapture method, also for the purpose of calibration of escapement 

estimates, was just completed. 

Hatchery facilities currently operate on Soos Creek, Keta Creek and Icy Creek. Broodstock has 

always been collected from local returns, so the hatchery stock presumably retains its native 

genetic character. Allozyme analysis has shown no detectable difference between hatcheryreared and naturally spawning adults (Marshall et al 1995). 

Harvest distribution and exploitation rate trends: 

Post-season FRAM runs, incorporating actual catch and stock abundance indicate that annual 

exploitation rates for Green River chinook have declined 45 percent from levels in the 1980s to 

1996 – 2000 (Figure 1). As noted above, recent years’ spawning escapement has consistently 

exceeded the goal. 

Figure 1. Total annual, adult equivalent, fishery exploitation rates for Green River chinook for 

management years 1983 – 2000, estimated by post-season FRAM runs. 

Coded-wire tagged fingerling releases from the Green River (and Grovers Creek) describe 

harvest distribution in recent years. Fisheries in British Columbia and Alaska account for 32 

percent of total fishing mortality. Washington recreational and Puget Sound net fisheries account 

for 38 percent and 24 percent of total mortality, respectively (Table 3). 

Table 3. The harvest distribution of Green River chinook, expressed as a proportion of total 

annual, adult equivalent exploitation. (CTC 2003). 

Alaska B.C. Washington 

Troll 

Puget Sound 

net 

Washington 

sport 

1997 – 2001 2.1% 30.1% 9.4% 23.7% 37.7% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Green 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

160 

Management Objectives 

The co-managers manage fisheries to meet or exceed the spawning escapement goal of 5,800 

Green River chinook. This goal has been met or exceeded in 10 of the last 13 years. The comanagers expect that the goal will continue to be met or exceeded as a result of this management 

approach. The co-managers expect to further refine their management plan for Green River 

chinook in response to on-going ESA recovery planning, to ensure harvest impacts are consistent 

with recovery of listed stocks and emerging policies for hatchery management. When the 

escapement is expected to be less than 5,800, the co-managers will discuss what additional 

actions, beyond those identified below, may be appropriate to bring the escapement above the 

5,800 level. 

Management objectives for Green River chinook include an exploitation rate objective for preterminal Southern U. S. fisheries and a procedure to manage terminal-area fisheries that is based 

on an inseason abundance triggers to assure that the escapement goal will be achieved. This 

management regime assures that harvest of Green River chinook will not impede recovery of the 

ESU. 

Washington preterminal fisheries impacts on Green River chinook are managed at or below a 15 

percent ‘SUS’ exploitation rate, as estimated by the FRAM model. Pre-terminal fisheries include 

the coastal troll and recreational fisheries managed under the Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council, and commercial net and recreational fisheries in Puget Sound outside of Elliott Bay. 

Due to more restrictive pre-terminal fisheries in recent years, a greater proportion of allowable 

harvest has been available in the terminal fishery in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish (lower Green) 

River, where tribal net fisheries and recreational fisheries are managed on the basis of terminal 

abundance triggers. 

Terminal area abundance is estimated annually utilizing a test fishery conducted since 1989. 

Using this data, two thresholds (triggers) have been set below which planned directed fisheries 

would not proceed. A value below 100 chinook for the test fishery would cause cancellation of 

subsequent commercial and sport fisheries. A value below 1000 chinook for the first commercial 

opening would cause cancellation of any further chinook-directed fishing. These values 

corresponded with a total run of about 15,000 chinook. 

Management thresholds were met in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Terminal area chinook-directed 

treaty net and sport fisheries were implemented as scheduled. Natural escapement for 2000, 2001 

and 2002 are provided in Table 1. The preliminary estimate for 2003 escapement is more than 

7000 spawners. 

 

A critical-abundance threshold of 1,800 natural spawners is established for the Green River 

management unit on the basis of the lowest observed escapement resulting in a higher escapement 

four years later. If natural escapement is projected to fall below this threshold during pre-season 

planning, then additional management measures will be implemented in accordance with 

procedures established in Appendix C, to minimize fishery-related mortalities. 

Data gaps 

Several aspects of the productivity of Green River chinook are potentially affected by hatcheryorigin fish spawning naturally. The abundance, timing, spawning distribution, and age structure 

of natural-origin chinook may be masked by the presence of hatchery-origin fish. The viability of 
Management Unit Status Profiles Green 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

161 

the natural origin population cannot be accurately assessed without determining the effects of 

hatchery straying, so the need for this information will prioritize research. Below are descriptions 

of the data needs and how they are being addressed. 

Data need Related project 

Quantification of the proportion of natural 

escapement that is comprised of hatchery 

strays. 

Completion of a CWT data set for refinement 

of current CWT-based estimates. (work in 

progress) 

Mass marking of hatchery production. (Brood 

years 1999-2002 marked 

Re-evaluation of escapement estimation 

methodology 

Expanded surveys to calibrate expansion of 

index area data to total. (begun in 1998 – work 

continues.) 

Mark/recapture study to independently 

calibrate total escapement estimate in 

association with expanded survey effort. (done 

in 2000-2002, report in progress) 

Estimation of the number of Chinook fry and 

smolts that emigrate annually from the 

mainstem Green and Newaukum Creek. 

Trap placement in the mainstem Green 1999-

2002) 

Estimation of differential survival of natural 

and hatchery origin Chinook in-situ in the 

Green. 

A literature review of methodologies that may 

have utility for an in-situ experiment should be 

done. 

Estimation of estuarine hooking mortality if 

selective fisheries are proposed for Elliott Bay. 

A literature review and preliminary study 

design should be done. 
Management Unit Status Profiles White 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

162 

White River Spring Chinook Management Unit Profile 

Component stocks 

White River Spring Chinook 

Geographic description 

White River Spring Chinook are trapped at the Puget Sound Energy diversion dam in Buckley 

and transported into the upper watershed, above Mud Mountain Dam, where they spawn 

primarily in the West Fork White River, Clearwater River, Greenwater River, and Huckleberry 

Creek. They also spawn in the lower mainstem White, below the diversion dam at RM 23.4 

where river conditions preclude estimates of spawner abundance. 

The White River population is the only spring stock still present in southern Puget Sound, is 

geographically isolated from summer/fall stocks, and genetically distinct from all other chinook 

stocks in Puget Sound. The White River Hatchery program, and the Minter Hupp Complex 

supplement production. The stock has, in past years, been maintained as captive brood at the 

Hupp Springs and Peale Pass net pen facilities. The supplementation program is considered 

essential to recovery, so hatchery production is included in the listed ESU. 

Life History Traits 

Spring chinook enter the Puyallup River from May through mid-September, and spawn from midSeptember through October. All adipose-bearing fish arriving at the Buckley trap without 

detectable CWT’s are passed upstream. CWT fish are transferred to the White River Hatchery 

and confirmed as White River Spring Chinook by genetic testing before they are incorporated 

into the broodstock supplementation program. 

 

Fry emerge from the gravel in late winter and early spring. In contrast to other spring stocks in 

Puget Sound, White River chinook smolts emigrate primarily (80 percent) as subyearlings 

(SSSCTC 1996), after a short rearing period of three to eight weeks. Adults mature primarily at 

age-3 or age-4. 

Status 

Escapement of White River chinook exceeded 5,000 in the early 1940’s, but the construction of 

hydroelectric and flood control dams, and degradation of the spawning and rearing habitat, 

reduced abundance to critical levels in the 1970’s. Escapement was less than 100 through the 

1980s and fell below 10 in 1984 and 1986. A supplementation program has been operating since 

1971, and it has succeeded in raising escapement to levels between 300 and 600 in recent years 

(Table 1). The geometric mean of escapement in 1992 – 1996 was 477, and for the three more 

recent years, 413. 

Table 1. Spawning escapement of White River spring chinook, 1993-2002. 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Upper River 409 392 605 630 400 316 553 1523 2002 803

Broodstock 1444 2033 1982 924 822 454 429 740 814

Total 1853 2425 2587 1554 1222 770 982 2263 2816
Management Unit Status Profiles White 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

163 

The upper river figure represents untagged fish captured at the Buckley trap and transported to 

upstream spawning grounds (ACOE data cited in HGMP). Broodstock includes collections at 

Minter Creek, South Sound Net Pens, and the White River Hatchery, and excludes jacks through 

1995 (WDFW et al. 1996 cited in HGMP). Broodstock values from 1996 on represent collection 

at White River Hatchery only. 

The status of White River spring chinook has been considered critical. Returns in recent years 

have improved, but evaluation of natural-origin versus hatchery-origin returns is not complete. 

Degraded spawning and rearing habitat, and the migration blockage imposed by dams, currently 

imposes severe constraints on natural productivity. The contribution of natural-origin adults to 

spawning escapement has not been quantified, but there is evidence to suggest that the stock is 

not currently viable in the absence of supplementation. The supplementation program succeeded 

in raising escapement above the critically low levels seen in the 1970’s and 1980s, and it may 

continue to protect the viability of the stock, but natural production will not recover until the 

habitat constraints are addressed. 

 

Harvest distribution and exploitation rate trends 

Based on recoveries of coded-wire tagged yearling released from White River and Hupp Springs 

hatcheries during calendar years 1996 – 2000, 90 percent of the total harvest mortality of White 

River springs has taken place in Puget Sound recreational fisheries. An average of five percent of 

total mortality occurred in British Columbia fisheries. 

Table 2. The recent average distribution of annual harvest mortality for yearling White River 

spring chinook, expressed as a proportion of total annual adult equivalent exploitation rates (CTC 

2003) 

Increasingly conservative management of Washington fisheries has resulted in a declining trend 

in total exploitation rate over the last six years, as estimated by post-season FRAM runs that 

incorporate actual catch and stock abundance (Figure 1). The average rate for management years 

1998 – 2000 was 61 percent lower than the average for management years 1983 – 1987. . The 

fisheries simulation model (FRAM) has been modified to incorporate only White River fingerling 

tag codes, which show a slightly different harvest distribution than yearlings that comprise the 

PSC Indicator Stock. 

 Management Objectives 

Fisheries in Washington will be managed to achieve a total exploitation rate, including fisheries 

in British Columbia, no greater than 20 percent. This exploitation rate ceiling, which is three 

points higher than the ceiling in the 2001 Harvest Management Plan, reflects changes in codedwire tag and historical catch data incorporated in the most recent calibration of FRAM (L. 

LaVoy, WDFW, memorandum to co-manager technical staff, February 12, 2002). Achievement 

of this rate requires continued constraint of Puget Sound net and recreational fisheries, and allows 

minimal tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries in the river. Tag recovery and escapement 

data are insufficient, at present, to support direct assessment of the productivity of the stock. 

Alaska B.C. Wa troll PS net Wa sport

1996 - 00 0.0% 5.4% 0.8% 3.9% 90.0%
Management Unit Status Profiles White 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

164 

Figure 1. Total annual, adult equivalent fisheries exploitation rate for White River Spring 

Chinook for management years 1983 – 2000, estimated by post-season FRAM runs. 

The current management objective constrains fishing mortality and, in recent years, has provided 

spawning escapement well in excess of the critical threshold of 200. Escapement below this level 

is believed to present significant risk to genetic diversity and exposure to depensatory mortality 

factors, particularly when considering the low productivity of naturally spawning fish. 

If preseason fishery simulation modeling suggests that escapement will not exceed the low 

abundance threshold, further conservation measures will be implemented in fisheries that catch 

White River chinook, so as to reduce their total exploitation rate to a level that is defined by 

modeling the fishing regime described in Appendix C. A conservative approach is warranted in 

managing this stock, and projected escapement near the critical threshold, or failure to achieve 

broodstock collection objectives, will be considered grounds to re-institute the captive brood 

program. 

Data gaps

• Description of spawning distribution in the upper White River system. 

• Quantification of hatchery- and natural-origin adults on the spawning grounds. 

• Estimation of natural smolt production. 

• Estimation of pre-spawning mortality of adults that are trapped and transported above 

Mud Mountain dam. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Puyallup 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

165 

Puyallup River Fall Chinook Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

Puyallup River fall chinook 

South Prairie Creek fall chinook 

Geographic description 

Fall chinook spawn primarily in South Prairie Creek (a tributary of the Carbon River) up to RM 

15, the Puyallup mainstem up to Electron Dam at RM 41.7 , the lower Carbon River up to RM 

8.5, Voights’s Creek, Fennel Creek, Canyon Falls Creek, Clarks Creek, Clear Creek and 

Kapowsin Creek, and, possibly, the lower White River. Surplus Voights Creek Hatchery adult 

chinook are currently released to spawn naturally above the Electron diversion and juvenile 

chinook produced at the Puyallup Voights Creek Hatchery are outplanted to acclimation ponds in 

the upper Puyallup River, above the diversion dam. Construction of a fishway at Electron Dam is 

expected to re-establish adult access to the upper river, however, downstream juvenile passage is 

still deficient in the near future. 

Life History Traits 

Hatchery programs have introduced non-native stocks, primarily of Green River origin, into the 

Puyallup system, so it is not clear that naturally spawning chinook bear the native genetic legacy. 

A remnant native stock may persist in South Prairie Creek, though genetic testing to date has not 

been conclusive in that respect. 

Freshwater entry into the Puyallup River begins in late July, and spawning occurs from midSeptember through mid-November. Based on scale samples collected in 1992-93, returning 

adults were primarily (76 percent) age-4, and age-3 and age-5 fish made up 16 and 6 percent of 

the sample (WDF et al. 1993 cited in Myers et al. 1998). South Prairie Creek age samples taken 

between 1992 and 2002 provides a mean age composition, based on brood contribution of the 

1991-1997 broods, of 1.0% age-2, 19.1% age-3, 67.3% age-4, 12.3% age-5 and 0.3% age-6 fish 

(WDFW, unpublished data). Juveniles exhibit ocean-type life history, primarily, with estimated 

97 percent of smolts emigrating as subyearlings (WDF et al. 1993 cited in Myers et al. 1998). 

Status 

Between 1994 and 2001, escapement to the South Prairie Creek sub-basin has ranged from 667 to 

1430 fish, averaging 1048. The turbid nature of the Puyallup and Carbon rivers, due to its their 

glacial origin, makes enumeration of spawners or redds difficult in the mainstem, so the accuracy 

of the system-wide estimates is uncertain. 

 

The former nominal escapement goal, that was intended principally to assure adequate 

broodstock to hatchery programs, was 3,250, including natural spawning and escapement to the 

hatcheries. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Puyallup 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

166 

Harvest distribution and exploitation rate trends: 

The harvest distribution of Puyallup fall chinook has not been assessed, because a local indicator 

stock has not been consistently coded-wire tagged. Distribution in pre-terminal fisheries is likely 

similar to that of the South Sound fingerling indicator stock, which is composed of tagged 

releases from the Green River (Soos Creek) and Grovers Creek. This distribution is shown, 

above, in the Green River profile. 

Post-season FRAM runs, which incorporate actual catch in all fisheries and actual abundance of 

all chinook stocks, indicate the total, annual, adult-equivalent exploitation rate for Puyallup fall 

chinook declined sharply from 1995 – 1998, and that rates have since increased as improved 

survival has enabled increased harvest, while still achieving the escapement objectives. 

Management Objectives 

Since the existence of an indigenous fall chinook stock in the Puyallup system is uncertain, and 

current natural production is substantially augmented by hatchery-origin fish, the harvest 

management objectives will reflect the need to adequately seed natural spawning areas until the 

productive capacity of habitat is quantified, and the existence of an indigenous stock is resolved. 

Until recently fisheries were managed to supply adequate broodstock to the hatchery programs. 

The harvest management objective for Puyallup fall chinook is to not exceed a total exploitation 

rate of 50 percent, to assure that a viable, natural-spawning population is perpetuated. Preseason fisheries planning, to not exceed this ceiling rate, has been shown to result in spawning 

escapement of more than 500 to the South Prairie Creek - Wilkeson Creek complex. . Though 

escapement estimation methods have evolved recently to better quantify total fall chinook 

escapement to the entire Puyallup system, as previous described, water clarity in South Prairie 

Creek still affords the most reliable index.. Achieving escapement to South Prairie / Wilkeson of 

at least 500, according to the most recent surveys, indicates that the entire system is seeded 

adequately to assure viable natural production. Based on more comprehensive spawning 

surveys, including monitoring of recolonization of the basin above Electron Dam, the comanagers expect, in the near future, to develop a system escapement goal for fall chinook. 

Pre-terminal and terminal fisheries in Puget Sound were constrained in 1999 and 2000 to achieve 

this objective. The productive capacity of habitat in South Prairie Creek, or in the Puyallup 

mainstem and tributaries is not quantified, so a system-wide escapement goal has not been 

established. By reducing the total exploitation rate, relative to those levels in the early- to mid1990s, this harvest regime will is intended to provide stable or increasing levels of natural 

escapement. Achieving higher natural escapement, under the new management objective, will 

experimentally probe the productivity of natural spawners in the system. 

A low abundance threshold of 500 spawners, for the entire system, is established for the Puyallup 

fall management unit. If escapement is projected to fall below this threshold, fisheries-related 

mortality will be reduced to a level defined by the fisheries regime described in Appendix C. The 

threshold is set above the point of stock instability, to prevent escapement from falling to that 

level which incurs substantial risk to genetic integrity, or expose the stocks to depensatory 

mortality factors. 

Should the forecast, terminal-area abundance of Puyallup chinook fall below the low abundance 

threshold, and the forecast be confirmed by the evaluation fishery in the river (see below), 

extraordinary conservation measures would be implemented to limit harvest mortality and 
Management Unit Status Profiles Puyallup 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

167 

provide for natural spawning escapement. Directed chinook fishing (i.e., during the fall chinook 

management period) would be reduced to no more than one day per week for tribal fishers to 

meet their ceremonial and subsistence needs. Recreational fisheries would be limited to mark 

selective fisheries in the Carbon River. With concomitant reductions in preterminal fishing 

mortality, the total SUS exploitation rate would be expected to be approximately 25%. 

Data gaps 

• Improve spawning escapement estimates for the Puyallup River and/or validate the use of 

South Prairie Creek and Wilkeson Creek counts as an index for the system. 

• Estimate the contribution of hatchery- and natural-origin adults to natural spawning , by 

mass-marking hatchery production. Brood year 1999 hatchery production was 100% marked. 

• Develop a spawner – recruit function for natural-origin, naturally spawning chinook to 

validate the recovery exploitation rate objective. This task is dependent on completion of the 

two preceding tasks. 

• Conduct an evaluation fishery, during the early weeks of the fall chinook management period, 

in the Puyallup mainstem, to collect catch and catch-per-effort data that may, in future, 

become the basis for in-season assessment of stock abundance. Statistical models relating 

catch or CPUE to abundance will, in addition to several other sources of information 

regarding migration timing and progress of the river fishery, inform the fishery managers 

regarding possible changes in the fishery schedule, should these indicators suggest that 

abundance differs significantly from the pre-season forecast. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Nisqually 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

168 

Nisqually River Chinook Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

Nisqually fall 

Geographic description 

Adult chinook ascend the mainstem of the Nisqually River to river mile 40, where further access 

is blocked by the La Grande and Alder dams, facilities that were constructed for hydroelectric 

power generation by the City of Tacoma’s public utility. It is unlikely that chinook utilized higher 

reaches in the system, prior to the dams’ construction. Below La Grande dam the river flows to 

the northwest across a broad and flat valley floor, characterized by mixed coniferous and 

deciduous forest and cleared agricultural land. Between river miles 5.5 and 11 the river runs 

through the Nisqually Indian Reservation, and between river miles 11 and 19 through largely 

undeveloped Fort Lewis military reservation. At river mile 26, a portion of the flow is diverted 

into the Yelm Power Canal, which carries the water 14 miles downstream to a powerhouse, where 

the flow returns to the mainstem at river mile 12. A fish ladder provides passage over the 

diversion. Both Tacoma’s and Centralia’s FERC license requires minimum flows in the mainstem 

Nisqually. 

Fall chinook spawn in the mainstem above river mile 3, in numerous side channels, as well as in 

the lower reaches of Yelm Creek, Ohop Creek, the Mashel River and several smaller tributaries. 

Production is augmented by production at the Kalama Creek and Clear Creek hatcheries, which 

are operated by the Nisqually Tribe. 

Life History Traits 

Adult fall chinook enter the Nisqually River system from July through September, and spawning 

activity continues through November. After emerging from the gravel, juveniles typically spend 

two to six months in freshwater before beginning their seaward migration. Residence time in their 

natal streams may be quite short, as the fry usually move downstream into higher order tributaries 

or the mainstem to rear. Extended freshwater rearing for a year or more, that typifies some Puget 

Sound summer/fall chinook stocks, has not been observed in the Nisqually system. 

Returning adults mature primarily at age-3 and age-4, comprising 45 and 31 percent, respectively 

(WDF et al. 1993, WDFW 1995 cited in Myers et al. 1998). 

Stock Status 

It is generally agreed that native spring and fall chinook stocks have been extirpated from the 

Nisqually River system, primarily as a result of blocked passage at the Centralia diversion, dewatering of mainstem spawning areas by hydroelectric operations, a toxic copper ore spill 

associated with a railroad trestle failure, and other freshwater and marine habitat degradation 

(Barr, 1999). Studies are underway to determine whether any genetic evidence suggests 

persistence of the native stock. Initial results indicate that the existing naturally-spawning and 

hatchery stocks are identical, and were derived from hatchery production that utilized, 

principally, Puyallup River and Green River fall chinook. Like other stocks in South Puget 

Sound, in which current production is based on naturalized and supplemented returns from a 

hatchery program, the Nisqually has been managed to achieve escapement sufficient to provide 

broodstock to the enhancement program. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Nisqually 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

169 

Natural escapement has met the escapement goal of 1,100 since 1999. The escapement intent 

shifted and the goal was increased to 1,100 for the 2000 management year (see below). Recent 

natural spawning escapement has ranged from 340 to 1,700 (Table 2), and hatchery returns have 

ranged from 1370 to 13,481, in the period between 1993 and 2002. Escapement surveys are 

difficult in the mainstem river because of the turbidity caused by glacial flour. 

Table 1. The abundance of fall chinook returning to the Nisqually River system. 

Harvest distribution and exploitation rate trend: 

The harvest distribution of Nisqually chinook has been described by analysis of coded-wire 

tagged fingerling chinook released from Clear Creek and Kalama Creek hatcheries. In recent 

years 15 percent of the total harvest mortality has occurred in British Columbia and Alaska, 

primarily in Georgia Strait. Washington troll fisheries have accounted for 14 percent of total 

fishery mortality. Recreational (ocean and Puget Sound) and net fisheries in Puget Sound , have 

accounted for 43 and 39 percent of total mortality, respectively. 

Table 2. The recent average harvest distribution of Nisqually River fall chinook, expressed as the 

proportion of annual, adult equivalent fisheries exploitation rate (CTC 2003) 

.

 Alaska B.C. Washington 

Troll 

Puget Sound 

net 

Washington 

sport 

1997 – 2001 0.5% 14.2% 3.5% 38.7% 43.1% 

The total annual exploitation rate for Nisqually chinook has declined slightly since 1993, as 

described by post-season FRAM runs (Figure 1). FRAM rates are assumed to accurately index 

the recent trend in exploitation rate, but may not accurately quantify annual exploitation rates, 

because of the lack of CWT data in the model base period, 

Year Hatchery Natural Total

1993 4024 1370 1655 3025

1994 6183 2104 1730 3834

1995 7171 3623 817 4440

1996 5365 2701 606 3307

1997 4309 3251 340 3591

1998 7990 4067 834 4901

1999 14614 13481 1399 14880

2000 6836 4923 1253 6176

2001 14098 7612 1079 8691

2002 11687 10794 1532 12326

 River Net 

Catch

 Escapement 
Management Unit Status Profiles Nisqually 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

170 

Figure 1. Total annual, adult equivalent fisheries exploitation rate of Nisqually fall chinook, from 

1983 – 2000, estimated by post-season FRAM runs. 

Management Objectives 

Because the Nisqually management unit is not a unique, native stock, the need to 

optimize natural production from natural-origin spawners will be balanced with the fishery 

enhancement objectives of the hatchery programs. In this sense, the Nisqually 

unit is similar to other South Puget Sound and Hood Canal natural units where production 

comprises non-native, introduced chinook stocks, and where natural productivity is severely 

constrained by habitat degradation. For these units, management intent is distinct from other 

Puget Sound management units in which production comprises, primarily, native, naturallyspawning stocks. 

Analysis of habitat capacity, using the Ecosystems Diagnosis and Treatment methodology 

(NCRT 2001), enabled derivation of a Beverton-Holt spawner – recruit function that expresses 

the production potential for a sequence of life stage segments in the mainstem river and major 

tributaries under currently existing habitat conditions (Moussali and Hilborn 1986). Solution of 

this production function by standard methods (Hilborn and Walters 1992) estimated that optimum 

productivity (MSY) under current habitat conditions is achieved by escapement of 1100. 

A rebuilding exploitation rate has not been developed for the Nisqually chinook stock. 

Further analysis, enabled by better quantification of natural escapement, and assessment of the 

contribution of natural-origin adults to that escapement, mayl allow development of a rebuilding 

exploitation rate harvest objective based on natural productivity. 

The terminal fisheries are managed based on an inseason runsize estimated by the relationship of 

total runsize and catch success for the tribal commercial net fishery. This method for updating the 

runsize in-season will initially be applied with information through the third week of August. 

Subsequent updates will be conducted as catch data continues to accumulate. To enable the 

fishery to be managed for the 1,100 escapement goal, managers will translate the total runsize to 

an expected escapement by making an assumption of the proportion of the total run that will 

spawn naturally. When the in-season update indicates that the escapement goal (1,100) will not be 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Nisqually 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

171 

achieved, terminal area fisheries will be constrained by agreement between the co- managers with 

the objective of increasing spawner abundance to a level at or above the escapement goal. 

If forecasted abundance declines very dramatically from the levels observed in recent years, and 

the in-season assessment confirms the forecast, the comanagers will implement extraordinary 

conservation measures for the terminal commercial and recreational fisheries to insure the 

viability of the population. Such measures may include reduced fishing schedules prior to and 

after the update at the end of August, and closure of chinook-directed fishing in September, after 

the update. The subsequent coho fishery may be shaped to reduce incidental chinook mortality, 

but opportunity to catch the entire harvestable surplus of coho will be maintained. In any case, 

limited chinook harvest will occur as necessary to meet the ceremonial and subsistence needs of 

tribal members. 

Data gaps 

• Improve total natural escapement estimates, including age-specific estimates of both 

natural and hatchery-origin recruits and develop stock-recruit analysis. 

• Test the accuracy of the in-season assessment of extreme terminal abundance, and 

improve the in-season update model as new data allows. 

• Quantify the current natural productivity of the system.
Management Unit Status Profiles Skokomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

172 

Skokomish River Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

Skokomish summer/fall 

Geographic description 

Spawning takes place in the mainstem Skokomish River up to the confluence with the South and 

North forks, in the South Fork of the Skokomish River, primarily below RM 5.0, and in the North 

Fork up to RM 17, where Cushman Dam blocks higher access. Most spawning in the North Fork 

occurs below RM 13, because flow fluctuation associated with operations of the hydroelectric 

facility limit access and spawning success higher in the system (WDF et al. 1993). 

On the North Fork Skokomish, two hydroelectric dams block passage to the upper watershed. 

However, a small, self-sustaining population of landlocked chinook salmon is present in Lake 

Cushman, upstream of the dams. Adults spawn upstream of the lake in the North Fork 

Skokomish River from river mile 28.2 to 29.9 during November. 

Life History Traits 

Genetic characterization of the Skokomish chinook stocks has, to date, been limited to 

comparison of adults and juveniles collected from the Skokomish River with adults from other 

Hood Canal and Puget Sound populations. Genetic collections were made during 1998 and 1999 

in the Skokomish River and there appeared to be no significant genetic differentiation between 

natural spawners and the local hatchery population. It appears that Hood Canal area populations 

may have formed a group differentiated from south Puget Sound populations, possibly indicating 

that some level of adaptation may be occurring following the cessation of transfers from south 

Sound hatcheries (Anne Marshall, WDFW memo dated May 31, 2000). Current adult returns are 

a composite of natural- and hatchery-origin fish. During 1998 and 1999, known hatchery-origin 

fish comprised from 13% to 41% of the samples collected on the natural spawning grounds. 

Genetic analysis of samples collected from Lake Cushman was inconclusive as to stock origin, 

and the adults sampled exhibited low genetic variability. (Marshall, 1995a). 

Summer/fall chinook enter the Skokomish River starting in late July with the majority of the run 

entering from mid-August to mid-September. Chinook in the Skokomish River spawn from midSeptember through October with peak spawning during mid-October. Adults mature primarily at 

age-3 (33%) and age-4 (43%); the incidence of age 2 fish (jacks) is highly variable. In 1999, 

based on a sample of 143 fish, the age composition of naturally-spawning chinook in the 

Skokomish River system was estimated to be 2.8% age 2, 58.0% age 3, 38.5% age 4, and 0.7% 

age 5 fish (Thom H. Johnson, WDFW memo dated November 8, 2000). In 2000 and 2001, the 

age composition of naturally spawning chinook was 16.1% and 1.2% age 2, 11.3% and 58.3% 

age 3, 71.0% and 36.9% age 4, and 1.6% and 3.6% age 5, respectively (Thom H. Johnson, pers. 

Comm.. 12/3/02). Consistent with most other summer/fall populations in Puget Sound, naturally 

produced smolts emigrate primarily during their first year; 2 percent of the smolts may migrate as 

yearlings (Williams et al. 1975 cited in Myers et al. 1998). In the Skokomish River, most 

naturally-produced chinook juveniles emigrate during the spring and early summer of their first 

year of life as fingerlings (Lestelle and Weller 1994). 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skokomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

173 

Status 

The SASSI classified Hood Canal summer/fall chinook as a single stock of mixed origin (both 

native and non-native) with composite production (sustained by wild and artificial production) 

(WDFW et al. 1992). The combination of recent low abundances (in all tributaries except the 

Skokomish River) and widespread use of hatchery stocks (often originating from sources outside 

Hood Canal) led to the conclusion in SASSI that there were no remaining genetically unique, 

indigenous populations of chinook in Hood Canal. However, a sampling effort is currently under 

way (led by WDFW in cooperation with NMFS and Treaty Tribes) to collect genetic information 

from chinook juveniles and adults in the tributaries of Hood Canal. This investigation is intended 

to provide further information on the genetic source and status of existing chinook populations. 

The existence of historical, indigenous populations, that have not been significantly impacted by 

past management practices and that have remained distinct and sustainable is at least 

questionable. The genetic sampling effort referenced above is intended to help resolve remaining 

uncertainty about the existence of any historical, indigenous populations. In the interim, 

management measures have been formulated to provide reasonable protection for naturally 

spawning chinook and adequate flexibility for future change. 

Historically, the Skokomish River supported the largest natural chinook production of any stream 

in Hood Canal. However, habitat degradation has severely reduced the productive capacity of the 

mainstem and South Fork portions of the system. As previously noted, the North Fork has been 

blocked by two hydroelectric dams. Hatchery chinook production has been developed at 

Washington State’s George Adams and McKernan hatcheries to augment harvest opportunities 

and to provide partial mitigation for reduced natural production in the Skokomish system, 

primarily caused by the North Fork dams. The Skokomish Tribe, whose reservation is located 

near the mouth of the river, has a reserved treaty right to harvest chinook salmon. 

Over the period from 1998 – 2002, natural spawning escapement ranged from 926 to 1,913, 

exceeding the nominal goal of 1,650 twice (Table 1) 

Table 1. Total spawning escapement of Skokomish River fall chinook, 1993 - 2002. 

 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Hatchery 612 495 5196 3100 1885 5584 8227 4033 8816 8828 

Natural 960 657 1398 995 452 1177 1692 926 1913 1,479 

Total 1572 1152 6594 4095 2337 6761 9919 4959 10729 10307 

 Harvest distribution and exploitation rate trends: 

The harvest distribution of Skokomish chinook is best described by recovery of coded-wire 

tagged fingerlings released from George Adams Hatchery. The average for calendar years 1996 

– 2000 indicates that 33 percent of harvest mortality was associated with Canadian and Alaskan 

fisheries, 13 percent with Washington ocean troll fisheries, 48 percent in recreational fisheries, 

and 10 percent with net fisheries in Puget Sound. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skokomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

174 

Table 2. Average harvest distribution of Skokomish River summer/fall chinook, for management 

years 1997 – 2001, as percent of total adult equivalent fishery mortality (CTC2003). 

Years Alaska B.C. Washington 

troll 

Puget Sound 

net 

Washington 

sport 

1997-2001 2.4% 30.9% 8.9% 10.2% 47.7% 

The total annual (i.e., management year) exploitation rate, computed by post-season FRAM runs, 

declined substantially between 1991 and 1998 (Figure 1). The subsequent increase in 

exploitation rate reflects increased abundance, due in part to improved marine survival, which has 

allowed higher harvest while still meeting escapement objectives. 

Figure 1. Total fishery-related, spawner equivalent exploitation rates of Skokomish River 

summer/fall chinook for management years 1983 – 1998, estimated by post-season FRAM runs. 

Management Objectives 

The immediate and short-term objective for Skokomish River is to manage chinook salmon as a 

composite population (including naturally and artificially produced chinook). The composite 

population will be managed, in part, to achieve a suitable level of natural escapement; and to 

continue hatchery mitigation of the effects of habitat loss; and to provide to the Skokomish Tribe 

partial mitigation for its lost treaty fishing opportunity. Habitat recovery and protection measures 

will be sought to improve natural production. Over time, alternative management strategies will 

be explored that may lead to improved sustainable natural production, and reduced reliance on 

mitigative hatchery support for the Skokomish stock and fisheries. 

The nominal escapement goal for the Skokomish River is 3,650. It is the sum of spawner 

requirements for 1,650 in-stream spawners (HCSMP; 1985) and 2,000 spawners required for the 

maintenance of on-station hatchery production (see 1996 Production Evaluation MOU, PNPTCWDFW-USFWS; 2002 Framework Plan, WDFW-PNPTT). Recent composite escapements have 

been substantially above the 3,650 fish level, averaging 6,941 for the 1997 – 2001 period, and 

exceeding the 3,650 goal in four of the last five years. In the same period, natural escapement has 

averaged 1,332, and exceeded 1,650 twice. Escapements to the hatchery have averaged 5,709 

fish and have exceeded the 2,000 fish goal in four of the last five years. (Table 1). 

The escapement goal of 3,650, along with its component requirements for natural and hatchery 

spawners, (WDF Tech. Rept. 29, 1977; PSSMP, 1985; HCSMP, 1985; HCSMP Prod MOU, 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Skokomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

175 

1996) is intended to maintain full hatchery mitigation and meet current estimates of MSY 

escapement to natural spawning areas, under current habitat conditions. 

A low abundance threshold escapement of 1,300, represents the aggregate of 800 natural 

spawners and 500 adults returning to the hatchery rack. At these levels, the hatchery escapement 

component represents the minimum requirement to maintain production. The natural escapement 

component threshold is set at approximately 50% of the current MSY estimate and represents a 

level necessary to ensure in-system diversity and spatial distribution (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

National Standard for Overfishing Review Threshold). In the 1997 – 2001 period, the critical 

threshold was exceeded in all years for this management unit. Component critical thresholds in 

these years were exceeded in all years for hatchery escapement, and in four of the last five years 

for natural escapement. 

During the recovery period, pre-terminal fisheries in southern U.S. areas (SUS), will be managed 

to ensure a ceiling rate of exploitation of 15%, or less, as estimated by the FRAM model (est. of 

1997-1999 SUS preseason impacts). Pre-terminal fisheries include the coastal troll and 

recreational fisheries managed under the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and commercial 

and recreational fisheries in Puget Sound, outside Hood Canal. Terminal fisheries are managed to 

achieve the escapement goal of 3,650. If the recruit abundance is insufficient for the goal to be 

met, OR regardless of the total escapement, the naturally spawning component of this population 

is expected to fall below 1,200 spawners, OR the hatchery component is expected to result in less 

than 1,000 spawners, additional terminal fishery management measures will be taken, with the 

objective of meeting or exceeding these spawner levels. The following management measures 

have been taken in recent years for this purpose, and will be considered in 2003: 

• Commercial and recreational fisheries in northern Hood Canal areas (WDFW Areas 12 

and 12B) will be reduced or eliminated in the months of July through September. 

• Commercial and recreational fisheries in southern Hood Canal areas (WDFW Areas 12C 

and 12D) will be “shaped” to direct the majority of the fishing effort to the Hoodsport 

Hatchery zone, thus greatly reducing impacts to the Skokomish Management Unit. In 

2000, approximately 90% of the total commercial harvest in Area 12C was directed at, 

and taken, in that zone. 

• In the Skokomish River, Treaty Indian commercial fisheries will be limited in August and 

September, to areas upstream of the Skokomish delta milling area (upstream of the SR 

106 crossing), and downstream of the U.S. 101 crossing. 

• In the Skokomish River, recreational salmon fisheries will be limited, through September, 

to areas upstream of the mouth and downstream of the U.S. 101 crossing. 

If, despite the implementation of the above measures, the projected escapement is expected to be 

less than 1,300 total spawners, OR regardless of the total escapement, the naturally spawning 

component of this population is expected to fall below the critical threshold of 800 spawners, OR 

the hatchery component is expected to result in less than 500 spawners, pre-terminal SUS 

fisheries will be constrained to minimize mortality, in accordance with conservation measures 

described in Appendix C, or more restrictive measures that have been evaluated and agreed-to by 

the co-managers for the year in question. In Hood Canal terminal areas, additional management 

measures will be taken, with the objective of meeting or exceeding these critical spawner levels. 

All of the measures shall initially be based on preseason forecasted abundance and escapement 

projections and may be adjusted during the season, following any inseason reassessment of the 

terminal abundance. As of 2002, the Co-managers have investigated the feasibility of developing 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skokomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

176 

a sufficiently accurate method to derive in-season estimates of abundance, using available 

commercial and/or recreational, as well as hatchery and/or natural escapement data. However, no 

approach was found that would result in better estimates when compared to preseason forecasts. 

This management regime recognizes the need to optimize natural production in the Skokomish 

River. However, production potential is currently severely constrained by reduced habitat 

capacity and quality in the South Fork, and by the influence of the hydroelectric and re-regulation 

dams on the North Fork. The current productive capacity of habitat has not been quantified in 

terms of the number of adults required to fully seed the available spawning area or optimize smolt 

yield. 

Principles that underlie the current management intent for Skokomish River chinook include: 

Full recovery of natural productivity in the Skokomish River cannot occur under the current 

hydroelectric operating regime and degraded habitat status; 

The management regime will provide adequate seeding of existing habitat and insure the 

maintenance of in-system diversity and spatial distribution by assuring that (if available) at 

least 800, and up to 1,650 (the currently estimated level of MSY), natural spawners reach the 

spawning grounds; 

Natural production is dependent on the mitigative hatchery program to partly support natural 

escapement; 

Hatchery- and natural-origin spawners appear to be genetically similar, and have 

demonstrated their capacity to adapt to the Skokomish River environment. 

Access to harvest opportunity on returning adults produced by the enhancement program at 

George Adams Hatchery is mandated as partial mitigation for the effects of operation of the 

City of Tacoma’s hydroelectric facility. 

The recovery objective for the ESU, which includes conservation and rebuilding of natural 

production that is representative of the geographic and genetic diversity that characterizes the 

ESU, is served, in part, by assuring that natural production of locally-adapted populations is 

recovered in the mid-Hood Canal streams (Duckabush River, Dosewallips River, and Hamma 

Hamma River) where habitat quality does not constrain to the extent that it does in the 

Skokomish River. 

Management objectives for the Skokomish River management unit will evolve in response to 

improved understanding of natural productivity, and success in restoring the productive potential 

of habitat in the system. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Skokomish 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

177 

Data gaps 

• Continue to improve escapement estimates for the South and North Forks of the 

Skokomish River. 

• Develop means to assess the contribution of Skokomish hatchery and natural origin 

adults to the fishery and to hatchery and natural escapements. 

• Quantify the current natural productivity (in terms of recruits per spawners) and natural 

capacity (in terms of adults and juvenile migrants) of the system. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Mid Hood Canal 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

178 

Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Sub-populations 

Hamma Hamma River summer/fall 

Dosewallips River summer/fall 

Duckabush River summer/fall 

Geographic description 

Chinook spawn in the Hamma Hamma River mainstem up to RM 2.5, where a barrier falls 

prevents higher access. Spawning can occur also in John Creek when flow permits access. A 

series of falls and cascades, which may be passable in some years, block access to the upper 

Duckabush River at RM 7, and to the upper Dosewallips River at RM 14. Spawning may also 

occur in Rocky Brook Creek, a tributary to the Dosewallips. Most tributaries to these three rivers 

are inaccessible, high gradient streams, so the mainstem provides nearly the entire production 

potential. 

Life History Traits 

Genetic characterization of the mid-Hood Canal Management Unit (MU) has, to date, been 

limited to comparison of adults returning to the Hamma Hamma River in 1999 with other Hood 

Canal and Puget Sound populations. These studies, although not conclusive, suggest that returns 

to the Hamma Hamma River are not genetically distinct from the Skokomish River returns, or 

recent George Adams and Hoodsport hatchery broodstock (A. Marshall, WDFW unpublished 

data). The reasons for this similarity are unclear, but straying of chinook that originate from 

streams further south in Hood Canal, and hatchery stocking, could be contributing causes. 

Status 

The Mid-Hood Canal MU is comprised of chinook local sub-populations in the Dosewallips, 

Duckabush and Hamma Hamma watersheds. These sub-populations are at low abundance (Table 

1). Current chinook spawner surveys are typically limited to the lower reaches of each stream. In 

the Hamma Hamma River, the majority of the chinook spawning habitat is currently being 

surveyed. In the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers, however, the areas surveyed are transit areas 

and do not include all spawning areas. Upper reaches of the Dosewallips and Duckabush have 

been more routinely surveyed since 1998, but few chinook adults or redds have been observed. 

Prior to 1986 no reliable estimates are available because all escapement estimates for these rivers 

were made by extrapolation from the Skokomish River. 

Table 1. Natural spawning escapement of Mid-Hood Canal fall chinook salmon, 1993-2002. 

River 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

HammaHamma 28 78 25 11 172 557 381 248 32 

Duckabush 17 9 2 13 57 151 28 29 20 

Dosewallips 67 297 76 na 58 54 29 45 43 

Total 142 384 103 na 

na 

287 762 438 322 95 

In 1992, SASSI classified Hood Canal summer/fall chinook as a single stock of mixed origin 

(both native and non-native) with composite production (sustained by wild and artificial 
Management Unit Status Profiles Mid Hood Canal 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

179 

production) (WDFW et al. 1992). The combination of recent low abundances (in all tributaries 

except the Skokomish River) and widespread use of hatchery stocks (often originating from 

sources outside Hood Canal) led to the conclusion in SASSI that there were no remaining 

genetically unique, indigenous populations of chinook in Hood Canal. A study is currently 

underway to characterize the genetic profile of chinook juveniles and adults in the mid-Hood 

Canal MU. 

In 2002, when SASSI was updated to SaSI, mid-Hood Canal chinook were classified as a single 

stock, comprised of chinook salmon which currently spawn in the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush 

and Dosewallips watersheds (WDFW et al. 2002). In 2002, the stock status was rated as 

“Critical” in SaSI, primarily because of chronically low spawning escapements whose average 

escapement abundance, over the 1991 – 2002 period, failed to meet the established low 

escapement threshold of 400. 

Harvest distribution and exploitation rate trends: 

The harvest distribution of mid-Hood Canal chinook, and recent fishery exploitation rates, cannot 

be directly assessed because none of the component sub-populations have been coded-wire 

tagged. However, it is reasonable to assume, given their similar life history, that tagged 

fingerling chinook released from the George Adams Hatchery, on the Skokomish River, follow a 

similar migratory pathway and experience mortality in a similar set of pre-terminal fisheries in 

British Columbia and Washington. A summary of recent analyses of the Skokomish River data 

are shown in that profile. 

Management of the terminal area fisheries in Hood Canal enables some separation of harvest 

between Skokomish/ Hoodsport and the mid-Hood Canal natural MU. With only Hoodsport and 

Skokomish tags available to model terminal impacts, the selective intent of the terminal regime 

will be estimated based on the freshwater entry period for mid-Canal rivers, and the distribution 

of historical net catch among the sub-areas of Hood Canal. 

It is reasonable to conclude that mid-Hood Canal sub-populations experienced a decline similar to 

that of Skokomish River chinook, but their total exploitation rate has been lower, because the 

terminal area fishery, which can harvest a significant proportion of Skokomish chinook, has been 

restricted to the southern end of Hood Canal since the early 1990s. 

Management Objectives 

The management objective for the mid-Hood Canal MU is to maintain and restore sustainable, 

locally adapted, natural-origin chinook sub-populations. Management efforts will initially focus 

on increasing the abundance in the MU and its local, natural sub-populations. Fisheries are being 

restricted to accommodate the escapement objectives. 

The existence of historical, indigenous populations that have remained distinct and sustainable is 

at least questionable and while additional genetic sampling may help resolve any remaining 

uncertainty, the Co-managers’ intent is to support their ongoing local diversity adaptation. 

During the recovery period, fisheries in southern U.S. areas (SUS), will be managed to achieve a 

preterminal (PT) AEQ rate of exploitation of less than15%, as estimated by the FRAM model 

(see Section IV). This exploitation rate is the same as that for the remainder of the Hood Canal 

management units because no means exist to separately assess the exploitation of the mid-Hood 

Canal unit, and there is no indication that its exploitation pattern is different between Hood Canal 
Management Unit Status Profiles Mid Hood Canal 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

180 

MUs. In this case, preterminal fisheries include the coastal troll and recreational fisheries 

managed under the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the marine commercial and 

recreational fisheries in Puget Sound. The extreme terminal areas for this management unit 

include the freshwater areas in each river. 

The migratory pathway and harvest distribution of mid-Hood Canal chinook is presumed to be 

similar to that of the Skokomish River indicator stock, although that stock’s return continues past 

the mid-Canal area and reaches the Skokomish River, farther south. The FRAM simulation model 

suggests that the terminal (Area 12C) and extreme-terminal (in-river) fisheries may harvest up to 

25% of the Skokomish terminal run. However, terminal-area fisheries at the far southern end of 

Hood Canal, near the mouth of or in the Skokomish River, are not believed to harvest significant 

numbers of adults returning to the mid-Hood Canal rivers of origin. Time and area restrictions 

are believed to be effective in relieving harvest pressure on the mid-Hood Canal sub-populations. 

When the escapement goal of 750 spawners (established as interim MSY in Hood Canal Salmon 

Management Plan (HCSMP)) is not expected to be met, recreational and commercial fisheries 

will be adjusted to the extent necessary to exert a PT SUS AEQ exploitation rate of less than 

15%, or meet the escapement target, whichever occurs first. These measures shall also include 

the closure of all extreme terminal (freshwater) fisheries that are likely to impact adult spawners 

of these sub-populations. These measures will be considered in order to ensure that the PT SUS 

AEQ exploitation rate will not exceed 15%. 

A low abundance threshold of 400 chinook spawners has been established for the mid-Hood 

Canal MU, which is approximately 50% of the current MSY goal for the mid-Hood Canal subpopulations, in the HCSMP (1985). If escapement is projected to fall below this threshold, 

further conservation measures will be implemented in pre-terminal and terminal fisheries to 

reduce mortality and ensure that the projected PT SUS AEQ exploitation rate does not exceed 

12.0%. The best available information indicates that escapement has been below the low 

abundance threshold in three out of the last five years. The co-managers recognize the need to 

provide across-the-board conservation measures in this circumstance, and to avoid an undue 

burden of conservation falling on the terminal fisheries. 

Unless genetic studies conclude that distinct populations persist in individual mid-Hood Canal 

streams, the primary focus of management will be to ensure that sufficient spawners escape to 

these systems to maintain self-sustaining sub-populations. These sub-populations will contribute 

geographic diversity to the ESU by their adaptation to the unique environmental conditions found 

in these drainages of the east slope of the Olympic Mountains. 

Data gaps 

• Continue to improve escapement estimates 

• Test the accuracy of the pre-season forecasts 

• Develop means to assess the origin composition of adults in the escapement 

• For each sub-population, and the MU, reassess spawner requirements and quantify the 

current productivity (in terms of recruits per spawner) and capacity (in terms of adults 

and juvenile migrants). 
Management Unit Status Profiles Dungeness 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

181 

Dungeness Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

Dungeness River chinook 

Distribution and Life History Characteristics 

Chinook spawn in the Dungeness River up to RM 18.9, where falls, just above the mouth of Gold 

Creek, block further access. Spawning distribution , in recent years, has been weighted toward the 

lower half of the accessible reach with approximately two-thirds of the redds located downstream 

of RM 10.8. Chinook also spawn in the Graywolf River up to RM 5.1.

The entry timing of mature chinook into the Dungeness River is not described precisely, because 

of chronically low returns of adults. It may occur from spring through September. Adult weir 

operations in 1997 and 2001 indicate that most of the adult chinook return has entered the river 

by early August. Spawning occurs from August through mid-October (WDF et al. 1993). At the 

current low level of abundance, no distinct spring or summer populations are distinguishable in 

the return. Chinook typically spawn two weeks earlier in the upper mainstem than in the lower 

mainstem (WDF et al. 1993). Ocean- and stream-type life histories have been observed among 

juvenile chinook in the system, with extended freshwater rearing more typical of the earlier-timed 

segment (Ames et al. 1975). Hirschi and Reed (1998) found that a significant number of chinook 

juveniles overwinter in the Dungeness River. 

Smolts from the Dungeness River exhibit primarily an ocean-type life history, with age-0 

emigrants comprising 95 to 98 percent of the total (WDF et al. 1993, Smith and Sele 1995, and 

WDFW 1995 cited in Myers et al. 1998). Adults mature primarily at age four (63%), with age 3 

and age 5 adults comprising 10% and 25%, of the annual returns, respectively (PNPTC 1995 and 

WDFW 1995 cited in Myers et al. 1998). 

Stock Status 

The SASSI report (WDF et al. 1993) classified the Dungeness spring/summer as critical due to a 

chronically low spawning escapement to levels, such that the viability of the stock was in doubt 

and the risk of extinction was considered to be high. Dungeness chinook continued to be 

classified as critical in the SaSI report (WDFW 2003) because of continuing chronically low 

spawning escapements. 

The nominal escapement goal for the Dungeness River is 925 spawners, based on historical 

escapements observed in the 1970’s and estimated production capacity re-assessed in the 1990s 

(Smith and Sele 1994). This goal has not been achieved in the past 17 years. The mean spawning 

escapement level, since 1998, has been 298 (Table 1). It should be noted however that the 

increase in escapements, observed in recent years, is partly due to a captive brood 

supplementation program. 
Management Unit Status Profiles Dungeness 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

182 

Table 1. Spawning escapement of Dungeness River chinook 1986 - 2002. 

Return Year Escapement

1986 238

1987 100

1988 335

1989 88

1990 310

1991 163

1992 153

1993 43

1994 65

1995 163

1996 183

1997 50

1998 110

1999 75

2000 218 

2001 453 

2002 633 

1998 – 2002 Mean: 298 

Chinook production in the Dungeness River is constrained, primarily, by degraded spawning and 

rearing habitat in the lower mainstem. Significant channel modification has contributed to 

substrate instability in spawning areas, and has reduced and isolated side channel rearing areas. 

Water withdrawals for irrigation during the migration and spawning season have also limited 

access to suitable spawning areas. 

The co-managers, in cooperation with federal agencies and private-sector conservation groups, 

have implemented a captive brood stock program to rehabilitate chinook runs in the Dungeness 

River. The primary goal of this program is to increase the number of fish spawning naturally in 

the river, while maintaining the genetic characteristics of the existing stock. The first returns of 

age-4 adults, from the brood year 1996 release of 1.8 million fingerlings, occurred in 2000. 

Uncertainty over the survival of these fingerlings has led managers to project abundance 

conservatively, (i.e., discount the potential return from supplementation). 

In addition to the broodstock program, the local watershed council (Dungeness River 

Management Team) and a work group of state, tribal, county and federal biologists have been 

working on several habitat restoration efforts. Based on the 1997 report, “Recommended 

Restoration Projects for the Dungeness River” by the Dungeness River Restoration Work Group, 

local cooperators have installed several engineered log jams, and acquired small riparian refugia 

properties. Other projects including larger scale riparian land acquisition, dike setback, bridge 

lengthening and setback, as well as estuary restoration are in the planning, analysis and proposal 

phases.

Management Objectives 

The management objective for Dungeness chinook is to stabilize escapement and recruitment, as 

well as to restore the natural-origin recruit population basis through supplementation and fishery 

restrictions. Pre-terminal incidental harvest is constrained to a ceiling AEQ exploitation rate of 
Management Unit Status Profiles Dungeness 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

183 

10.0% in the southern U.S. Directed terminal commercial and recreational harvests have not 

occurred in recent years, and incidental harvest in fisheries directed at coho and pink salmon have 

been regulated to limit chinook mortality . 

Direct quantification of the productivity of Dungeness chinook will require either the 

accumulation of sufficient coded-wire tag recoveries to reconstruct cohort abundance, or an 

alternate method of measuring freshwater (egg-to-smolt) and marine survival. Releases from the 

supplementation program are represented by coded-wire tagged groups, adipose fin marked 

groups, otolith marked groups and blank wire tag groups. Recoveries of these tags, otoliths, and 

marks will enable cohort reconstruction. However, given the degraded condition of spawning and 

rearing habitat in the lower mainstem, it must be assumed that current natural productivity is 

critically low. The captive brood supplementation program will be suspended, following 

production from the 2003 brood year. 

The lack of stock specific historical tag information has necessitated the interim use of a 

neighboring representative stock in fishery simulation modeling of Dungeness chinook salmon. 

Tagged Elwha Hatchery fingerlings are used by the FRAM to estimate the harvest distribution 

and exploitation rates for all Strait of Juan de Fuca chinook management units. (See Elwha 

Profile, below). Also, for units with very low abundance, such as the Dungeness, the FRAM 

model’s accuracy may be limited. However, the co-managers will continue to develop and adopt 

conservation measures that protect critical management units, while realizing the constraints on 

quantifying their effects in the simulation model. 

Lacking sufficient direct assessment of the productivity of Dungeness chinook, it may be 

appropriate to examine what is known about other Puget Sound management units with similar 

life history and similar status. The status of Nooksack River early chinook, in particular the 

South Fork Nooksack management unit, is also classified as critical, due to chronically low 

spawning escapement. Degraded habitat is known to constrain freshwater survival in the 

Nooksack system, as it does in the Dungeness. The recovery exploitation rate of the Nooksack 

units has been estimated to be 20 percent (NMFS 2000). The harvest objective for Dungeness 

(i.e., to maintain exploitation in southern U.S. fisheries below 10 percent), implies a total 

exploitation rate of 20 percent or less, given that approximately half of the harvest of Dungeness 

chinook may occur in southern fisheries. 

The critical escapement threshold for the Dungeness River is 500 natural spawners, which is 

approximately 50% of the escapement goal. Whenever natural spawning escapement for this 

stock is projected to be below this threshold, SUS fisheries will be managed to further reduce 

incidental mortality. Until the supplementation program is successful in rebuilding returns to 

levels sufficient to provide escapement levels above this threshold, harvest will be constrained, to 

SUS incidental AEQ impacts of less than 6.0%. 

Data gaps 

• Describe freshwater entry timing 

• Continue to collect scale or otolith samples to describe the age composition of the 

terminal run. 

• Describe the fishery contribution and estimate fishery-specific exploitation rates from 

CWT recoveries. 

• Estimate marine survival. 

• Estimate annual smolt production per spawner (i.e. , freshwater survival) 
Management Unit Status Profiles Elwha 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

184 

Elwha River Management Unit Status Profile 

Component Stocks 

Elwha River chinook 

Geographic Distribution and Life History Characteristics 

Summer chinook spawn naturally in the portions of the lower 4.9 miles of the Elwha River, below 

the lower Elwha dam, though most of the suitable spawning habitat is below the City of Port 

Angeles’ water diversion dam at RM 3.4. Their productive capacity is very low, because of 

extremely restricted suitable habitat. Their productivity is also very low due to severely altered 

and degraded spawning and rearing habitat, and high water temperatures during the adult entry 

and spawning season, which contribute to pre-spawning mortality (see Table 2, below). 

Entry into the Elwha River begins in early June and continues through early September. 

Spawning begins in late August, and peaks in late September and early October (WDF et al. 

1993). Elwha chinook mature primarily at age 4 (57%), with age 3 and age 5 fish comprising 

13% and 29%, of annual returns, respectively (WDF et al. 1993, WDFW 1995, PNPTC 1995 

cited in Myers et al. 1998). 

Naturally produced smolts emigrate primarily as subyearlings. Roni (1992) reported that 45 to 

83% of Elwha River smolts emigrated as yearlings, and 17 to 55 percent as subyearlings, but this 

study did not differentiate naturally produced smolts from hatchery releases of yearlings. The 

Elwha Channel facility no longer releases yearling smolts. 

Status 

Elwha River chinook were designated as “healthy” in the SASSI document (WDF et al. 1993), 

which considered productivity in the context of the currently available habitat for natural 

production. However, in the past decade, the total spawner goal of 2,900 was not met in any year 

(see Table 1). Therefore, in the SaSI report (WDFW 2003), the Elwha Management Unit was 

classified as depressed, because of the negative escapement trend and chronically low levels of 

spawning escapement. The stock is a composite of natural and hatchery production. In the 

Elwha River, chinook production is limited by two hydroelectric dams which block access to 

upstream spawning and rearing habitat. Recovery of the stock is dependent on removal of the two 

dams, and restoration of access to high quality habitat in the upper Elwha basin and certain 

tributaries. Chinook produced by the hatchery mitigation program in the Elwha system are 

considered essential to the recovery, and are included in the listed ESU. 

The comanagers have concluded that recovery of the Elwha stock is not possible unless the dams 

are removed and access to pristine, productive habitat, which lies largely within Olympic 

National Park, is restored. 

The nominal spawning escapement goal of 2,900 for Elwha River chinook has not been achieved, 

even in the absence of in-river fishery impacts, in the past 10 years. The average number of 

spawners over the last five years has been 2,079, which is somewhat higher than the average of 

the preceding five years (1993-1997), which was 1,611.. 

 
Management Unit Status Profiles Elwha 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

185 

Table 1. Total spawning escapement of Elwha River chinook, 1993 – 2002. 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

1,562 1,216 1,150 1,608 2,517 2,358 1,602 1,851 2,208 2,376 

Pre-spawning mortality has been a significant factor affecting natural and hatchery production in 

the Elwha system. High water temperature during the period of freshwater entry and spawning is 

exacerbated by impoundment of the river behind the two upstream dams. It contributes directly 

to prespawning mortality, and in some years, promotes the infestation of adult chinook by 

Dermocystidium. Pre-spawning mortality has ranged up to 68% of the extreme terminal 

abundance (Table 2), largely due to parasitic infestation. 

Table 2. Prespawning mortality of Elwha River chinook. 

Return 

Year 

Hatchery 

Voluntary 

Escapement 

In-River 

Gross 

Escapement 

GaffSeine 

Removals 

Hatchery 

Prespawn 

Mortality 

In-River 

Prespawn 

Mortality 

Total 

Prespawn 

Mortality 

1986 1,285 1,842 505 376 482 27.4% 

1987 1,283 4,610 1,138 432 1,830 38.4% 

1988 2,089 5,784 506 428 50 6.1% 

1989 1,135 4,352 905 148 412 10.2% 

1990 586 2,594 886 160 64 7.0% 

1991 970 2,499 857 108 N/A 3.1% 

1992 97 3,762 672 26 2,611 68.3% 

1993 165 1,404 771 7 0 0.5% 

1994 365 1,181 749 61 269 21.3% 

1995 145 1,667 518 37 625 36.5% 

1996 214 1,661 1,177 147 120 14.2% 

1997 318 2,209 624 3 7 0.4% 

1998 138 2,271 1,551 51 0 2.1% 

1999 113 1,512 609 23 0 1.4% 

2000 177 1,736 1,021 62 0 3.2% 

2001 195 2,051 1,396 38 0 1.7% 

2002 473 1,943 1,080 40 0 1.7% 

Harvest Distribution and Exploitation Rate Trend 

Based on recoveries in 1993 – 1997 of tagged fingerlings released from the local hatchery, Elwha 

River chinook are a far-north migrating stock, as evidenced by 16% and 59% of total mortality 

occurring in Alaskan and British Columbian fisheries, respectively (Table 3). Net fisheries in 

Puget Sound account for only 1% of total fishing mortality, and Washington troll and sport 

fisheries account for 11%, and 22%, respectively. 

Table 3. The average distribution of adult equivalent annual fishing mortality 

for Elwha River chinook, estimated from post-season FRAM runs (CTC 2003) 

 Years Alaska B.C. Wash. 

Troll 

Puget Sound 

Net 

Washington 

sport 

1993 – 97 16.2% 58.8% 1.9% 0.8% 22.3% 
Management Unit Status Profiles Elwha 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

186 

Post-season FRAM simulations indicate that the total exploitation rate of Elwha River chinook 

has exhibited a declining trend since 1988 (Figure 1). These post-season FRAM estimates 

represent the aggregate of JDF units, but are believed to correctly represent the trend in ER for 

the Elwha unit. The 1998 – 2000 mean exploitation is 51% lower than the average from the 1983 

– 1987 period. 

Figure 1. Total adult-equivalent exploitation rate for Elwha River chinook, estimated by postseason FRAM runs. 

Management Objectives 

Fisheries in Washington waters, including those under jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council, when the escapement goal is not projected to be met, will be managed so 

as not to exceed a “Southern U.S.” incidental AEQ exploitation rate of 10.0% on Elwha chinook. 

Harvest at this level will assist recovery by providing adequate escapement returns to the river to 

perpetuate natural spawning in the limited habitat available, and provide broodstock for the 

supplementation program. It represents a significant decline in harvest pressure from southern 

U.S. fisheries. The SUS exploitation rate on the Strait of Juan de Fuca management unit 

aggregate averaged 33% for return years 1990 – 1996. Actual SUS AEQ exploitation rates for 

more recent years have not been calculated, however they were projected to be 7%, 5.0%, 5.2%, 

4.8% and 4.7% respectively, in the final pre-season FRAM simulation models for management 

years 1999 through 2003. 

The low abundance threshold for the Elwha River is 1,000 spawners, which represents a 

composite of 500 natural and 500 hatchery spawners. Whenever spawning escapement for this 

stock is projected to be below these levels, SUS fisheries will be managed to further reduce 

incidental AEQ mortality to less than 6.0%. 

Data Gaps 

• Estimates of total and natural smolt production from the Elwha River. 

• Estimates of the age composition and description of life history of smolts. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Elwha 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

187 

Status Profile for the Western Strait of Juan de Fuca Management Unit 

Component Stocks

Hoko River fall chinook 

Geographic description 

Fall chinook spawn primarily in the mainstem of the Hoko River, from above intertidal zone to 

RM 22, but primarily between RM 3.5 (the confluence of the Little Hoko River) to the falls at 

RM 10. Chinook may ascend the falls and spawn in the upper mainstem up to RM 22, and the 

lower reaches of larger tributaries such as Bear Creek (RM 0 to 1.2) and Cub Creek (RM 0 – 0.8), 

Ellis Creek (0 – 1.0), the mainstem (RM 0 – 2.5) and North Fork (RM 0 – 0.37), of Herman 

Creek, and Brown Creek(0 – 0.8). Chinook also spawn in the lower 2.9 miles of the Little Hoko 

River. Historically, chinook have also spawned in other Western Strait streams, including the 

Pysht, Clallam, and Sekiu rivers. Recent surveys of the Sekiu counted 52 and 12 chinook in 1998 

and 1999, respectively. Their origin is unknown, but they are assumed to be strays from the 

Hoko system. 

Currently, chinook from the Hoko Hatchery are being outplanted into the upper Hoko mainstem 

and tributaries of the upper and lower portions of the watershed, to seed high quality habitat, 

which has not been utilized consistently for spawning or rearing. Re-introduction to the Sekiu 

River, and other western Strait streams that once supported chinook, is also being planned. 

Life History Traits 

Based on scales collected from natural spawners and broodstock from 1988 – 1999, returning 

Hoko River adults are predominately age 5 (49%) and age 4 (31%) , with age 3 and age 6 adults 

comprising 8% and 10%, respectively, of the mean annual return (MFM 2000. The available data 

suggest that most smolts produced in the Hoko system emigrate as subyearlings (Williams et al. 

cited in Myer et al. 1998). 

Status

The established escapement goal for Hoko River chinook is 850 natural spawners. This goal, first 

presented in 1978 in WDF Technical Report 29, is based on early estimates of freshwater habitat 

capacity. The total escapement goal is 1,050, which includes 200 brood stock for the 

supplementation and reintroduction program. For the Hoko chinook stock as a whole, the 

combined spawning escapement (natural plus hatchery) has averaged 1,243 spawners in the past 

five years. Total returns to the river (terminal run size shown above) have exceeded 850 chinook 

in 8 of the last 15 years). 

Numbers of natural chinook spawners have significantly increased since the inception of the 

supplementation program in 1982, from counts of less than 200, before hatchery supplementation 

was initiated, to exceeding the natural escapement goal of 850 in three out of the last six years 

(the 1997 to 2002 average is 1,052 natural spawners). While natural-origin recruits and the recent 

and overall escapements have shown increasing trends in abundance since the early 1980s, the 

proportion of natural-origin spawners relative to the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners has 

declined in recent years. Nearly half the Hoko River natural spawners in most years may be 

attributed to the supplementation program (MFM 2000). Despite the recent escapements that 
Management Unit Status Profiles Elwha 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

188 

have exceeded the goal of 850 natural spawners,, this goal has only been achieved in four of the 

last 15 years (1988 to 2002; Table 1). 

Table 1. Natural spawning escapement of chinook and hatchery broodstock removals from the 

Hoko River, 1988 – 2002. 

Return Year Natural Spawners Hatchery 

Brood Stock Total Escapement 

1988 686 90 776

1989 775 67 842 

1990 378 115 493 

1991 894 112 1,006 

1992 642 98 740 

1993 775 119 894 

1994 332 96 428 

1995 750 155 905 

1996 1,228 37 1,265 

1997 765 126 891 

1998 1,618 104 1,722 

1999 1,497 191 1,688 

2000 612 119 731 

2001 768 178 946 

2002 443 237 680

1997 – 02 Avg 1,052 191 1,243 

Goal: 850 200 1,050 

Although the escapement goals set in Technical Report 29 have been commonly accepted over 

the past two decades, it is not certain that the spawner level of 850 is the optimum chinook 

escapement level for the Hoko River. Further analysis of habitat suitability and usage should be 

conducted to determine whether spawning or rearing habitat limits chinook production in the 

Hoko. Additional years of cohort reconstruction may also shed light on the stock-recruitment 

relationship for Hoko chinook, which may lead to revision in the escapement goal. 

Harvest Distribution and Exploitation Rate Trends

The migration pathway, and harvest distribution, of Hoko River chinook has been described from 

recoveries of coded-wire tagged fish released from the Hoko Hatchery. The tag data suggest that 

Hoko chinook are harvested primarily by coastal fisheries in Southeast Alaska and British 

Columbia (Table 2). 

Table 2. Harvest distribution of Hoko River chinook expressed as a proportion of total, annual, 

adult equivalent exploitation (CTC2003) 

Years Alaska B.C. Wash. 

Troll 

Puget Sound 

Net 

Washington 

sport 

1997 - 2001 70.8% 26.5% 1.3% 0.1% 1.2% 
Management Unit Status Profiles Elwha 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

189 

Figure 1. Trend in total, adult equivalent, fisheries mortality for Juan de Fuca River chinook 

management units, estimated by post-season FRAM runs. 

Post-season FRAM estimates indicate that the average annual exploitation rates for Juan de Fuca 

chinook units has declined 51 percent, from 1983-1987 to 1996-2000. These data are believed to 

correctly represent the trend for the Hoko River unit. 

Although Hoko chinook were harvested at rates that should be reasonable for most Puget Sound 

chinook, even this exploitation rate was higher than would allow for replacement of spawners. 

This low productivity of Hoko chinook is very likely related to degraded freshwater habitat, 

including recurrent flooding and erosion, with poor marine survival. Almost the entire watershed 

(98%) has been clearcut, and 60% of the watershed is currently in a clearcut state (i.e., clearcuts 

<20 years old). There are 350 miles of roads in the 72 square mile watershed (M.Haggerty, 

Makah Fisheries Management, personal communication, 2000.) 

Management Objectives

Management guidelines include a recovery exploitation rate objective for the Western Strait of 

Juan de Fuca management unit and a critical escapement threshold. The recovery exploitation 

rate objective is a maximum of ten percent in southern U.S. fisheries. It represents a lower 

exploitation rate than these stocks have experienced on average, and a rate that is achievable (and 

has been achieved in recent years), through conservative fishery management (Table 2). Recent 

years have shown that the nominal escapement goal can be achieved, with favorable marine 

survival, under this management regime. 

The critical escapement threshold for the Hoko River is 500 natural spawners. Whenever natural 

spawning escapement for this stock is projected to be below this level, the harvest management 

plan will call for fisheries to be managed to achieve a lower rate than the interim 10% ceiling 

SUS exploitation rate. 

Data gaps 

• Reconstruct abundance of more recent brood years from CWT data 

• Derive a spawner/recruit relationship for Hoko chinook 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Management Unit Status Profiles Elwha 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

190 
Appendix B Non-landed Mortality 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

191 

Appendix B. Non-landed Mortality 
Appendix B Non-landed Mortality 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

192 
Appendix B Non-landed Mortality 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

193 

The fishery simulation model (FRAM) used by the co-managers for pre-season management 

planning and post-season assessment allows specification of non-landed mortality rates for 

different fisheries strata and gear types, in order to estimate total fisheries-related mortality for all 

component stocks. Non-landed mortality comprises a significant proportion of total fisheries 

mortality. This document summarizes the non-landed mortality rates that are currently specified 

by the FRAM chinook model (Table 1), and discusses the sources of these rates 

When sub-legal fish (i.e. those less than the minimum allowable size) or species for which 

retention is disallowed are caught, a proportion (i.e. the releases mortality rate) subsequently die. 

This occurs frequently in commercial troll and recreational hook-and-line fisheries, for which 

regulations specify a minimum size limit, and may specify, for certain period, non-retention of 

chinook or coho. Non-retention of chinook may also be specified for certain net fisheries, where 

the fisherman tends the gear constantly (gillnets), or the gear design (seines) allows live capture 

and release of non-target species. 

Drop-off or drop-out mortality is defined as that which occurs when fish are hooked or entangled 

by the gear, but they escape before being landed. The rate is applied to the number of landed fish. 

Table 1 - Chinook Incidental Mortality Rates Assumed for FRAM Model Fisheries in 

Washington.

Fishery Release 

Mortality 

Drop-off, Dropout, and other 

Ocean Recreational 14% 5% 

Ocean Troll – barbless hooks 

 Barbed hooks 

26% 

30% 

5% 

5% 

Puget Sound Recreational > 22” 10% 

< 22” 20% 

5% 

5% 

Gillnet 

 Skagit Bay 52.4% 

2% terminal; 

3% preterminal 

Purse Seine 45% immature 

33% mature 

0% 

Beach Seine 

 Skagit Bay pink fishery 50% 

Reef Net None Assessed 0% 

Ocean troll and recreational fisheries 

Sources of Incidental Mortality 

Incidental mortalities in troll fisheries are related to the duration of retention and non-retention 

periods, size limit regulations, and gear type. Size limits have been used extensively for these 

fisheries and have changed only a few times since 1979. Recreational and troll fisheries have 

been allowed to retain fish larger than 24” since the mid- 1980s. Troll fishing techniques differ, 

depending on whether the target species is chinook of coho. When coho are targeted, encounters 

with chinook have been reduced, but not eliminated, by species-specific gear, location, and 

fishing technique. Other management measures to reduce incidental chinook catch, such as 

landing limits, ratio fisheries, or chinook non-retention fisheries are seldom utilized. Marine 

mammal predation, ‘sorting’, and other sources of mortality associated with hook and line gear 
Appendix B Non-landed Mortality 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

194 

are not accounted in FRAM. ‘Sorting’ refers to release of legal fish in order to retain a larger fish 

later. 

Estimates of Incidental Mortality 

The effects of size limits on incidental mortality are modeled by a growth function to estimate 

what proportion of stock are of legal size at each time step. Encounter rates are calculated by the 

FRAM, using growth functions specific to each contributing stock to determine the proportion of 

legal and sub-legal fish, in each age class, present in each time step. Assuming that all ages are 

equally vulnerable to fishing, the fishery-specific exploitation rate is then applied to estimate 

legal and sub-legal encounters. Incidental mortality is then estimated by applying mortality rate 

appropriate to the fishery and gear type. FRAM also allows direct input of encounter rates if they 

are estimated from direct sampling of fisheries. With funding from the CTC, the Makah Tribe has 

monitored chinook encounter rates in troll fisheries in Washington Catch Areas 1 – 4 for 1998 - 

2001. These data have been incorporated into pre-season fisheries modeling. 

Release mortality associated with non-retention periods are calculated as ratios of non-retention 

days to normal retention days within the model base period. Drop-off mortality for hook-and-line 

fisheries is distinguished from landed catch by FRAM (i.e. may be reported separately). The 

current drop-off mortality rate is five percent. This value was derived from a negotiation process 

and is generally thought to include marine mammal interactions and illegal catch. 

Historical estimates of incidental chinook mortality in troll and recreational fisheries, that are 

provided in the attached spreadsheets, were made by FRAM in ‘validation’ runs that 

reconstructed fisheries mortality, post-season, from known catch and stock abundance for the 

years 1983 – 1996. They are annual estimates, including impacts during the October – April time 

step that precedes the May – September period when most fishing occurs. These estimates 

express incidental mortality in the same terms as landed catch; they are not adjusted for adult 

equivalence. They provide a historical perspective on incidental mortality during the 1983-1985 

base period, and under the more constrained fishing regimes of 1991 – 1996. 

Measures to Reduce Incidental Mortalities 

Incidental mortality has been reduced by requiring the use of barbless hooks in troll and 

recreational fisheries. During periods of chinook-directed fishing, trollers have been required to 

use large plugs to reduced interactions with sub-legal fish and coho. Time and area considerations 

are weighed in the structuring of ratio and non-retention fisheries to minimize incidental mortality 

to the extent possible. 

Reduction of Incidental Mortality 

Further reduction of incidental mortality in chinook fisheries will primarily be accomplished by 

measures designed to reduce encounters through time and area restrictions. The status of chinook 

stocks in Washington State may require reduction of exploitation rates. Future studies may show 

reductions in release mortality for different hook types and sizes for troll and recreational 

fisheries. 
Appendix B Non-landed Mortality 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

195 

Net Fisheries 

Sources of Incidental Mortality 

Drift and set gillnet fisheries are conducted in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay on the Washington 

coast, throughout Puget Sound, and in freshwater. However, net fisheries directed at chinook 

currently occur only in a few areas where harvestable, hatchery-origin chinook may be targeted. 

These areas include Bellingham Bay and the Nooksack River, Tulalip Bay, Elliot Bay and the 

Green River, the Puyallup River, Nisqually River, southern Hood Canal and the Skokomish 

River, and other discrete areas in southern Puget Sound. Incidental mortality occurs in these 

fisheries as a result of net drop-out and marine mammal predation. Gillnet fisheries retain all fish 

because the mortality of released fish is believed to be high. Harbor seals and sea lions cause 

significant incidental mortality in many pre-terminal and terminal gillnet fisheries in Puget 

Sound, but this source is not accounted in current fishery models or planning. 

Purse seine fisheries are conducted in Georgia Strait / Rosario Strait, Southern Puget Sound, and 

Hood Canal, and are primarily directed at sockeye, pink, coho, and chum salmon. The only seine 

fishery directed at chinook occurs in Bellingham / Samish Bay. 

Incidental mortality, in the context of this discussion, results from injury or stress during capture, 

or from handling the fish in order to release them. Mortality may be immediate or may occur 

after some delay from injury or disease. 

Non-Indian reef net fisheries that target sockeye and, in some years, coho salmon are conducted 

in Puget Sound catch areas 7 and 7A. In recent years they have been required to release all 

chinook salmon, but no associated incidental mortality has been accounted in fishery planning. 

Reef net hauls catch relatively few fish, and the gear and handling cause relatively minor injuries 

(e.g. stress, scale loss), so incidental mortality is thought to be very low. 

Marine mammal interactions incur significant incidental mortality in many Puget Sound gillnet 

fisheries, but they have not been generally quantified. A limited number of area-specific studies 

provide some quantification (PNPTC 1986; 1988?) 

Estimates of Incidental Mortality 

Drop-out mortality for gillnet fisheries are accounted by FRAM as 3% of landed pre-terminal 

gillnet catch and 2% of terminal landed gillnet catch. Many factors affect the drop out rate, 

including mesh dimension, net material and hanging design, sea state, and the frequency of 

picking. Drop-out rates were derived by technical consensus among state and tribal biologists, 

because of lack of data from direct sampling. Gillnets fished in the traditional manner are 

assumed to have a release mortality of a hundred percent. Incidental mortality due to marine 

mammal predation is highly variable, but is thought to be substantial in many areas in Puget 

Sound. There has been no systematic sampling of these fisheries that might enable accurate 

quantification, though anecdotal evidence abounds, and there have been several efforts to 

document the incidence of scars on spawning chinook. 

When chinook are released following capture in purse seine fisheries, immediate and delayed 

mortality is significantly lower for large chinook than for smaller chinook (Ruggerone and June 

1996). Incidental mortality is accounted in the FRAM model as 45% for immature fish (i.e. those 

caught in fall coho and chum fisheries), and 33% for mature fish caught in sockeye and pink 

fisheries. Pre-season projections of encounters for any given fishery are based on historic catch, 

and differential mortality calculated for large and small fish and reported as part of landed 
Appendix B Non-landed Mortality 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

196 

mortality. Since FRAM aggregates the incidental mortality associated with all types of net gear 

for a given fishery, the expected distribution of catch among different gear types underlies the 

estimate. ‘Drop-out’ mortality is not accounted for purse seine, roundhaul seine, or beach seine 

fisheries. 

Estimates of mortality in net fisheries, that were included in the previous transmittal to the CTC, 

were based on a study conducted by WDFW in 1976-1985 (Shepard 1987). Observed encounters 

per set were expanded to estimate mortality in chinook directed fisheries and encounters per 

landing in other fisheries. These estimates were previously reported to PSC, but vary widely 

from FRAM estimates due to differences in methodology. We suggest that FRAM estimates 

provide the most useful comparison between the base period and more recent year; these are 

provided in attached spreadsheets. 

Estimates of gillnet drop-out mortality from the FRAM validation set, for 1979 – 1985, and 1991 

- 1996, are reported for marine net fisheries in North and South Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de 

Fuca, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay. Mortality, during these intervals, in freshwater net 

fisheries is reported as 2% of the landed catch in each river. River fisheries in this report include 

the Nooksack, Skagit, Snohomish, Lake Washington (including the Ship Canal), Green, 

Nisqually, and Skokomish rivers in Puget Sound, and the Sooes, Quileute, Queets, and Quinault 

rivers on the Washington coast. 

Release mortality from purse seine fisheries is hard to tease out of FRAM validation runs. It is 

calculated by spreadsheet outside of FRAM and input as part of the landed catch. For a given 

FRAM net fishery, release mortality is dependent on the relative volume of purse seine, beach 

seine, and gillnet catch; no additional release mortality is assigned to beach seine and gillnet 

catch. 

Measures to Reduce Incidental Mortality 

Incidental chinook mortality has been reduced in gillnet fisheries by time and area restrictions 

that restrict effort during the chinook migration period, which has been specifically defined for all 

Puget Sound fishing areas. When migration periods for other salmon species overlap, (e.g. for 

pink or coho salmon), fisheries directed at those species are shortened to reduce chinook 

encounters. 

Commercial net fishers may reduce marine mammal interactions by using ‘seal bombs’ or may 

obtain permits to shoot harbor seals and sea lions in some cases. 

Since 1973, non-Indian fishery regulations have required that purse seines incorporate a strip of 

larger mesh at the top of the bunt to allow immature chinook to escape. In 1996, the minimum gill 

net mesh size for chum fisheries was increased to 6-1/4 from 5-3/4 inch mesh, in order to reduce 

the incidental catch of immature chinook. In 1997 all purse seine fisheries required release of all 

chinook. Gillnet fisheries were allowed to retain chinook because release mortality is assumed to 

be 100%. In 1998 shoreline closures in Rosario Strait (Area 7) were adopted, designed to reduce 

impacts on chinook salmon while still providing opportunities during sockeye and pink-directed 

fisheries. In 1999 purse seines were required to use brailers or hand dip nets to remove salmon 

from seine nets during sockeye and pink salmon fisheries in 7/7A to reduce by-catch mortality (R. 

Bernard, WDFW, pers comm. October 19, 2000). 
Appendix B Non-landed Mortality 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

197 

Future Reduction of Incidental Mortality 

Further reduction in the incidental mortality of chinook in net fisheries will involve coordinated 

study and development of more selective gear, more effective release techniques, mitigation of 

marine mammal interactions, and, perhaps, reductions in fishing opportunity. 

A study, funded under NMFS’ Saltonstall-Kennedy program, is currently being conducted by 

WDFW to evaluate tangle nets as an alternative to conventional gillnet gear. Tangle nets are 

constructed of smaller-mesh, loosely hung, monofilament that catches salmon by the teeth or jaw, 

rather than behind the opercle and gills. Previous studies in British Columbia suggested that nontarget species could be released from this gear with low associated mortality. Fishing power with 

respect to target species, and survival of non-target salmon species caught and released from 

tangle nets, are being analyzed at two sites in Puget Sound. It may be possible to improve the 

survival of chinook caught in purse seines with careful handling or by allowing fish to recover in 

a tank prior to their release. 

In certain circumstances fishing opportunity, where species other than chinook are the target, may 

be further constrained, or planned to achieve a specific level of incidental mortality. These 

measures require accurate in-season monitoring to assess when the threshold of landed chinook 

catch has been achieved. 
Appendix B Non-landed Mortality 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

198 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

199 

Appendix C. Minimum Fisheries Regime 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

200 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

201 

Non-Treaty Ocean Troll and Recreational Fisheries:. 

• Chinook and coho quotas and seasons adopted by the PFMC. 

• Exploitation rates on critical Puget Sound Chinook management units will not exceed 

the range projected to occur for management years 2000 – 2003 (see Chapter 5). 

Treaty Ocean Troll Fishery:

• Chinook and coho quotas and seasons adopted by the PFMC. 

• Exploitation rates on critical Puget Sound Chinook management units will not exceed the 

range projected to occur for management years 2000 – 2003 (see Chapter 5). 

Strait of Juan De Fuca Treaty Troll Fisheries:

• Open June 15 through April 15. 

• Use barbless hooks only. 

Strait of Juan De Fuca Treaty Net Fisheries:

• Setnet fishery for Chinook open June 16 to August 15. 1000-foot closures around river 

mouths. 

• Gillnet fisheries for sockeye, pink, and chum managed according to PST Annex. 

• Gillnet fisheries for coho from the end of the Fraser Panel management period, to the 

start of fall chum fisheries (approximately Oct. 10). 

• Closed mid-November through mid-June. 

Strait of Juan De Fuca Non-treaty Net Fisheries:

• Closed year-around. 

Area 5/6 Recreational Fishery:

• May 1-June 30 closed. 

• July 1 – Sept 30 Chinook mark selective fishery not to exceed two months, and not to 

exceed 3500 landed catch in 2004. In subsequent years, this may be extended by 

agreement of the co-managers, else, Chinook non-retention. 

• October closed 

• 1-Chinook bag limit in November. 

• December 1 - February 15 closed 

• 1-fish bag limit February 16-April 10 

• April 11-30 closed 

Strait of Juan De Fuca Terminal Treaty Net Fisheries:

• Hoko, Pysht, and Freshwater Bays closed May 1 – October 15. 

• Elwha River closed April 1 through mid-September, except for minimal ceremonial 

harvests. 

• Dungeness Bay (6D) closed March 1 through mid-September; Chinook non-retention 

mid-September – October 10. 

• Dungeness River closed March 1 through September 30. Chinook non retention when 

open, except for minimal ceremonial harvests. 

• Miscellaneous JDF streams closed March 1 through November 30. 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

202 

Strait of Juan De Fuca River Recreational Fishery:

• June 1 – Sept 30 Elwha River closed to all fishing from river mouth to WDFW channel. 

At all other times and places, Chinook non-retention. 

• Dungeness closed to salmon 12/1 through 10/15. 

• Dungeness Chinook non-retention 10/16 through 11/30. 

• Close other streams. 

Area 6/7/7A Treaty and Non-treaty Net Fisheries:

• Sockeye, pink, and chum fisheries managed according to PST Annex. 

• Net fisheries closed from mid-November through mid-June. 

• Area 6A Closed. 

• Non-treaty purse seine and reef net fisheries Chinook non-retention. 

• Non-treaty gillnet fishery Chinook ceiling of 700. 

• Non-treaty closure within 1500 feet of Fidalgo Island between Deception Pass and 

Shannon Pt; and within 1500 feet of Lopez and Decatur Islands between Pt Colville and 

James Island. 

Area 7 Recreational Fishery: 

• May 1-June 30 closed. 

• 7/1-7/31 1 fish limit, Rosario Strait and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca 

• closed; Bellingham Bay closed. 

• 8/1-9/30 1 fish limit, Southern Rosario Strait and Eastern Strait Juan de 

• Fuca closed Bellingham Bay closed. 

• 8/1-8/15, Samish Bay closed. 

• Chinook non-retention 10/1-10/31 

• 11/1-11/30 1 fish limit. 

• December-February 15 closed 

• 1-fish bag limit February 16-April 10 

• April 11-30 closed 

Nooksack/Samish Terminal Area Fisheries: 

• Bellingham Bay (7B) and Samish Bay (7C) closed to commercial fishing from April 15 

through July 31. 

• Area 7B/7C hatchery fall Chinook fishery opens August 1. 

• Pink fishery opens August 1. 

• Ceremonial fishery in late May limited to 10 natural-origin Chinook. 

• Subsistence fishery limited 20 natural-origin Chinook between July 1-4. 

• Ceremonial and subsistence harvest to be taken in the lower river, and between the 

confluence of the South Fork and the confluence of the Middle Fork. 

• Nooksack River commercial fishery for hatchery fall Chinook opens August 1 in the lower 

river section; and staggered openings in up-river sections will occur over 4 successive 

weekly periods. (see Appendix A). 

• Bellingham Bay recreational fishery closed in July. 

• Samish Bay recreational fishery closed August 1-15. 

• Chinook non-retention in Nooksack River recreational fisheries. 

• 2-Chinook bag limit after October 1 in Nooksack River. 

• 2-fish bag limit from July 1 to December 31 in Samish River. 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

203 

Skagit Terminal Area Net Fisheries:

• Skagit Bay and lower Skagit River closed to commercial net fishing from mid-February 

to August 22 in pink years, and until week 37 (~September 10) in non-pink years. 

• Upper Skagit River closed to commercial net fishing from mid-March to August 22 in 

pink years, and until week 42 (~October 10) in non-pink years, unless there is an opening 

for Baker sockeye in July. 

• Upper Skagit and Sauk-Suiattle fisheries on Baker sockeye require 51⁄2 " 

• maximum mesh, and Chinook non-retention. 

• Half of the Upper Skagit and Sauk-Suiattle share of Baker sockeye will be taken at the 

Baker Trap, rather than in river fisheries. 

• No Chinook update fishery or directed commercial Chinook fishery. 

• Treaty pink update fishery limited to 2 days/week during weeks 35 and 36, and Nontreaty update limited to 1 day/week, gillnets only. 

• Pink fishery gillnet openings in the Skagit River limited to a maximum of 3 days/week, 

regardless of pink numbers. Beach seines may be used on other days, with Chinook nonretention. 

• Up to 40% of the Upper Skagit share of pink salmon will be taken in Skagit Bay. 

• Release Chinook from beach seines in Skagit Bay. 

• Chinook non-retention required in pink fisheries in the upper river. 

• Tribal coho openings delayed until Week 39 in the Bay and lower river, and until Week 

42 in the upper river. 

• Chinook test fisheries limited to 1 boat, 6 hrs/week. 

Skagit River Recreational Fisheries:

• Chinook non-retention. 

Area 8A and 8D Net Fisheries:

• Area 8A Treaty fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho, pink, chum, 

and steelhead. 

• Effort in the Treaty pink fishery will be adjusted in-season to maintain Chinook impacts at or 

below those modeled during the pink management period. 

 Area 8D Treaty Chinook fisheries limited to C & S beginning in May, 

and to 3 days/wk during the Chinook management period. 

• Non-treaty pink fishery limited to 1 day/week for each gear. 

• Non-treaty purse seine fishery Chinook non-retention. 

• Area 8D non-treaty Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

Stillaguamish River Net Fisheries:

• Treaty net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at pink, chum, and 

steelhead. 

• Treaty pink fishery schedule limited to maintain Chinook impacts at or below the 

modeled rate. 

Stillaguamish River Recreational Fisheries:

• Chinook non-retention. 

• Use barbless hooks from September 1 to December 31. 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

204 

Snohomish River Fisheries:

• Net fisheries closed. 

• Chinook non-retention in river recreational fisheries. 

Area 8-1 Recreational Fisheries:

• 5/1-8/31 closed. 

• Chinook non-retention 9/1-10/31. 

• 11/1-11/30 1 fish limit. 

• 12/1-2/15 closed. 

• 1-fish bag limit February 16 – April 10. 

• 4/11-4/30 closed. 

Area 8-2 Recreational Fisheries: 

• 5/1-7/31 closed. 

• Chinook non-retention 8/1-10/31. 

• 11/1-11/30 1 fish limit. 

• 12/1-2/15 closed. 

• 1-fish bag limit February 16 – April 10. 

• 4/11-4/30 closed.

• 1-Chinook bag limit in Tulalip Bay in August and September. 

• Tulalip Bay openings limited to 12:01 AM Friday to 11:59 AM Monday each week. 

Area 9 Net Fisheries:

• Net fisheries limited to research purposes. 

Area 9 Recreational Fisheries: 

• 5/1-7/31 closed. 

• Chinook non-retention 8/1-10/31. 

• 11/1-11/30 1 fish limit. 

• 12/1-2/15 closed. 

• 1-fish bag limit February 16 – April 10. 

• 4/11-4/30 closed. 

Area 10 Net Fisheries:

• Closed from mid-November through June and August. 

• Sockeye net fishery during first three weeks of July when ISU indicates harvestable 

surplus of Lake Washington stock. 

• Net fisheries for coho and chum salmon will be determined based on in-season 

abundance estimates of those species. Limited test fisheries will begin the 2nd week of 

September. Commercial fisheries schedules will be based on effort and abundance 

estimates. Marine waters east of line from West Point to Meadow Point shall remain 

closed during the month of September for Chinook protection. Chinook live release 

regulations will be in effect 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

205 

Lake Washington Terminal Area Fisheries:

• Chinook run size update from lock count to re-evaluate forecasted status. 

• No Chinook directed commercial fishery in the Ship Canal or Lake Washington. 

• Net fishery impacts incidental to fisheries directed at sockeye and coho. Sockeye and coho 

fisheries dependant on lock count ISU. Incidental Chinook impact minimized by time, area 

and live Chinook-release restrictions. Sockeye fisheries scheduled as early as possible. Coho 

fishery delayed until September 15th when 95.2% of the Chinook run has cleared the locks. 

• Possible directed Chinook fishery in Lake Sammamish for Issaquah Hatchery surplus. 

• Cedar River and Issaquah Creek closed to recreational fishing. 

• Chinook non-retention in Sammamish River, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Portage Bay, 

and Ship Canal recreational fisheries 

Area 10A Treaty Net Fisheries:

• Chinook gillnet test fishery 12 hours/week, 3 weeks, beginning mid-July to re-evaluate 

forecasted status. 

• No Chinook directed commercial fishery. 

• Net fishery impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho. Coho opening delayed until 

September 15th. 

Duwamish/Green River Fisheries:

• Commercial Chinook fishery dependant on Area 10A test fishery results. 

• No Chinook directed commercial fishery. 

• Net fishery impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho. Coho opening delayed until 

September 15th and restricted to waters below the 16th Ave Bridge. Coho opening above the 

16th Ave Bridge to the turning basin delayed until September 22nd. Coho opening above the 

turning basin up to the Hwy 99 Bridge delayed until September 29th. 

• Chinook non-retention in river recreational fisheries 

Area 10E Treaty Net Fisheries:

• Closed from mid November until last week of July. 

• Chinook net fishery 5 day/wk last week of July through September 15. 

• Chinook impacts incidental to net fisheries directed at coho and chum, from midSeptember through November 

.Area 10 Recreational Fisheries:

• 5/1-6/30 closed. 

• Chinook non-retention 7/1-10/31. 

• 11/1-11/30 1 fish limit. 

• 12/1-2/15 closed. 

• 1-fish bag limit February 16 – April 10. 

• 4/11-4/30 closed. 

Area 11 Net Fisheries:

• Closed from end of November to beginning of September. 

• No Chinook-directed fishery 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

• Non-treaty purse seine fishery Chinook non-retention. 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

206 

Area 11A Net Fisheries:

• Closed from beginning of November to end of August. 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho. 

Puyallup River System Fisheries:

• Net fisheries closed from beginning of February to beginning of August. 

• Limit gill net test fishery for Chinook to 1 day a week, scheduled from mid-July 

 through August 15. 

• Chinook net fisheries limited to 1 day/week, August 15 – September 10 (delayed to 

protect White River spring Chinook. 

• Muckleshoot on-reservation fisheries on White River limited to hook and line C & S 

fishing for seniors, with a limit of 25 Chinook. 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

• 2-Chinook bag limit in river sport fisheries. 

• Chinook non-retention before August 1 in Puyallup River sport fishery. 

• Chinook non-retention before September 1 in Carbon River sport fishery. 

• Chinook non-retention in White River. 

Area 11 Recreational Fisheries:

• 5/1-5/30 closed. 

• 1-fish limit June 1 – November 30. 

• 12/1-2/15 closed. 

• 1-fish limit February 16 – April 10. 

• 4/11-4/30 closed.

Fox Island/Ketron Island Net Fisheries:

• Closed from end of October to August 1. 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

Sequalitchew Net Fisheries:

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho. 

Carr Inlet Net Fisheries:

• Closed from beginning of October through August 1. 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

Chambers Bay Net Fisheries:

• Closed from end of mid-October to August 1. 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

Area 13D Net Fisheries:

• Closed from mid-September to August 1. 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

Henderson Inlet (Area 13E) Net Fisheries:

• Closed year-around. 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

207 

Budd Inlet Net Fisheries:

• Closed from mid-September to July 15. 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

Areas 13G-K Net Fisheries:

• Closed Mid-September to August 1. 

• Net fishery Chinook impacts incidental to fisheries directed at coho and chum. 

Nisqually River and McAllister Creek Fisheries:

• Chinook fishery late-July through September, up to three days per week dependent on inseason abundance assessment (see Appendix A). 

• Coho fishery October through mid-November. 

• Late chum fishery mid-December – mid-January. 

• Nisqually River recreational closed February 1 through May 31. 

• McAllister Creek recreational closed December 1 through May 31. 

• Chinook non-retention in June recreational fishery. 

• 2-Chinook bag limit. 

Area 13 Recreational Fisheries:

• 1-fish bag limit May 1-November 30. 

• 12/1-2/15 closed. 

• 1-fish bag limit February 16 – April 10. 

• 4/11-4/30 closed.

Hood Canal (12, 12B, 12C, 12D) Treaty Net Fisheries: (also see: Skokomish and Mid-Hood 

Canal Management Unit profiles in Appendix A):

• Chinook directed treaty fishery limited to Areas 12C and 12H. 

• Coho directed fisheries in Areas 12 and 12B delayed to Sept. 24; in Area 12C, to Oct. 1. 

Beach seines release Chinook through Oct. 15. 

• 1,000 foot closures around river mouths, when rivers are closed to fishing. 

• Net fisheries closed from mid December to mid July 

Area 9A Treaty Net Fisheries:

• Closed from end of January to mid-August (dependent upon pink fishery). 

• Beach seines release Chinook through Oct. 15. 

Area 12A Treaty Net Fisheries:

• Closed from mid-December to mid-August. 

• During coho and chum fisheries, beach seines release Chinook through Oct. 15. 

Hood Canal Freshwater Treaty Net Fisheries:

• Dosewallips, Duckabush, and Hamma Hamma rivers closed. 

• Skokomish River Chinook fishery August 1 – September 30, limited to two to five days 

per week. 

• Skokomish River closed March – July 31(also see: Skokomish MU profile in Appendix 

A). 
Appendix C Minimum Fisheries Regime 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

208 

Area 12 Recreational Fishery:

• 5/1-6/30 closed. 

• Chinook non-retention 7/1-10/15. 

• 10/16-12/31 1-fish limit. 

• 1/1-2/15 closed. 

• 1-fish bag limit February 16 – April 10. 

• 4/11-4/30 closed. 

Hood Canal Freshwater Recreational Fisheries:

• Closed March 1 to May 31. 

• Chinook non-retention from June 1 to February 29 in all rivers. 

• Dosewallips, Duckabush, and Hamma Hamma closed in September and October. 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

209 

Appendix D. Role of Salmon in Nutrient Enrichment of Fluvial 

Systems 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

210 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

211 

INTRODUCTION 

Continued declines in abundance of Pacific salmon ( Oncorhynchus spp.) populations have 

focused increased attention on factors limiting their survival. While the decline in abundance of 

Pacific salmon stocks (National Research Council 1996) has been attributed to may factors, just 

recently have researchers focused their attention on the nutrient re-cycling role of returning adult 

salmon in maintaining productive freshwater ecosystems. Given that Pacific salmon accumulate 

the significant majority of their body mass while in the marine environment (Groot and Margolis 

1991), returning runs of adult salmon potentially represent a substantial source of marine-derived 

nutrients (MDN) for freshwater and riparian communities (Larkin and Slaney 1996; Gresh et al. 

2000; Murota 2002; Schoonmaker et al. 2002). Research has shown that the addition of nutrients 

to freshwater systems can influence community structure and increase stream productivity at 

several trophic levels (Kline et al. 1990; Piorkowski 1995; Quamme and Slaney 2002). Benefits 

include increased growth and density of juvenile salmonid populations (Johnston et al. 1990; 

Bradford et al. 2000; Ward and Slaney 2002). Gresh et al. (2000) estimate that the current 

contribution of MDN from adult Pacific salmon to rivers in the Pacific Northwest is as low as 6-

7% of historic levels and that the resulting ‘nutrient deficit’ could be exacerbating continued 

declines in salmon abundance or impeding recovery. 

The concept of a ‘nutrient deficit’ has several implications for current fisheries management, 

harvest strategies and recovery of depressed salmon stocks. It is asserted that current harvest 

management strategies for salmon stocks fail to consider the importance of MDN for maintaining 

properly functioning ecosystems and self-sustaining salmon populations (Micheal 1998; 

Cederholm et al. 2000; Gresh et al. 2000; Bilby et al. 2001). More directly, current escapement 

goals for salmon runs may be perpetuating a negative feedback loop in salmon population 

dynamics (Larkin and Slaney 1996, 1997). Ideally, research might quantify the nutrient input, 

and escapement density, necessary to optimize ecosystem function, viable salmon runs, and 

harvest. However, nutrient dynamics in aquatic systems are often complex (Northcote 1988; 

Polis et al. 1997; Bisson and Bilby 1998; Murphy 1998; Naiman et al. 2000) and depend on 

numerous site-specific factors including the species of salmon, spawning density and location, 

stream discharge regimes, stream habitat complexity, basin geology, light, temperature and 

community structure. Researchers are just beginning to recognize and understand these 

complexities in relation to salmon and MDN. In this paper I will review the current state of 

knowledge on the relationship between Pacific salmon, MDN and stream ecosystem function in 

the context of determining ‘ecologically based’ salmon escapement goals. 

NUTRIENT PATHWAYS 

Adult salmon contain proteins, fats and other biochemicals comprised of marine- origin carbon, 

nitrogen and phosphorous (Mathisen et al. 1988). Returning adult salmon act as vectors in 

delivering nutrients of marine origin to terrestrial ecosystems through excretion (O’Keefe and 

Edwards 2002), gametes and carcasses (Mathisen et al. 1988). In general, stream biota 

incorporate salmon-derived nutrients through three primary pathways: 1) trophic transfer 

following uptake of inorganic nutrients by primary producers; 2) streambed microfaunal uptake 

of dissolved organic matter released by salmon carcasses; and 3) direct consumption of salmon 

carcasses, eggs and fry (Cederholm et al. 1999). Additionally, high flow events and scavenging 

by birds and mammals (Cederholm et al. 1989, 2000; Ben-David et al. 1998) can deliver salmonderived nutrients to riparian and upland communities (Garten 1993; Wilson and Halupka 1995; 

Helfield and Naiman 2001; Hocking and Reimchen 2002; Reimchen et al. 2002). 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

212 

STABLE ISOTOPE AND PROTEIN STUDIES 

Applied relatively recently to the issue of salmon and MDN, stable isotope analysis has allowed 

researchers to quantitatively identify nutrient sources and further understand nutrient pathways in 

freshwater systems. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous are typically considered principal 

nutrients that limit ecosystem productivity (Gregory et al. 1987; Peterson and Fry 1987; Murphy 

1998). While phosphorous has only one stable isotope, limiting our ability to distinguish the 

origin of phosphorous, carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) have two stable isotopes. The isotopic 

properties of carbon and nitrogen provide natural tracers for determining differences in stable 

isotope abundance in trophic food webs. Stable isotope ratios are typically expressed as δ13C and 

δ15N values and represent the level of enrichment or depletion of the heavier isotope C or N 

relative to a standard (Peterson and Fry 1987). Spawning salmon contain higher proportions of 

the heavy isotopes carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N, Mathisen et al. 1988; Piorkowski 1995; 

Bilby et al. 1998). Nitrogen is especially applicable in salmon-derived nutrient studies due to the 

dichotomous nature in N sources between Pacific salmon (oceanic N) and terrestrial and 

freshwater systems (atmospheric N2, Peterson and Fry 1987; Kline et al. 1997). 

Kline et al. (1990) developed an isotope-mixing model to investigate the incorporation of MDN 

in Sashin Creek, southeastern Alaska. The isotope-mixing model allows for determination of 

percent contribution of marine nitrogen across trophic levels. The study design compared isotope 

ratios between a lower reach, accessed primarily by pink salmon (approximately 30,000 adults 

annually), and an upper control reach isolated from anadromous fish. Isotope values indicate that 

standing crop of periphyton in the anadromous section was dependent on marine N, with levels 

greater than 90% immediately after spawning and near 50% at other times of the year. The 

sustained marine N signal in periphyton further indicated nutrient retention. Stonefly nymphs and 

caddis fly larvae also showed high levels of enrichment in April possibly due to overwintering 

retention and trophic transfer through periphyton and decomposers (e.g. fungi). The isotope 

model suggested that turbellarians were incorporating marine N through direct consumption of 

salmon eggs. In rainbow trout, high levels of δ15N were found with increasing isotope values as 

the size of trout increased. Using a dual isotope method, Kline et al. (1990) concluded that trout 

from the enriched section were likely incorporating a portion of marine N from autochthonous 

production (dependent on primary producer uptake of remineralized nutrients) as well as direct 

feeding on salmon carcasses and eggs. Researchers surmise that MDN have a trophic-wide effect 

in the anadromous section of Sashin Creek. They also note that the use of fertilizers to alleviate 

nutrient loss in streams may not adequately substitute for salmon carcasses and eggs that are 

directly fed upon by consumers and decomposers, a point further developed in this review. 

Since the Kline et al. (1990) study, numerous investigators have used stable isotope methods to 

distinguish MDN pathways in lotic systems (Bilby et al. 1996, 1998, 2001; Helfield and Naiman 

2001; Piorkowski 1995; Winter et al. 2000). These studies show similar results indicating 

incorporation of MDN in food webs with anadromous runs of salmon. However, results do not 

universally indicate the degree of importance or pathways of MDN across different lotic systems. 

In an in-depth ecosystem study on five creeks in southcentral Alaska, Piorkowski (1995) used 

stable isotopes to distinguish marine N in stream food webs. The five study creeks are used by 

multiple species of anadromous salmon of which Piorkowski (1995) found different isotopic 

composition between adult salmon species with chinook salmon being significantly more 

enriched in δ15N (due to increased ocean residence time) as compared to pink, coho and chum 

salmon. Isotope samples were collected from organisms at several trophic levels. Samples from 

sites with adult salmon returns indicated that the diets of grayling, rainbow trout, and coho 

salmon fry were predominately comprised of salmon tissue and eggs. Also, examination of 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

213 

stream macroinvertebrates revealed increased taxa richness and diversity in anadromous stream 

sections compared with non-anadromous sections. Despite this, results failed to detect a 

significant marine N signal between control and treatment sites in samples of riparian vegetation, 

algae, and stream macroinvertebrates (grazers) and implies that marine N was not significantly 

incorporated through pathways of primary production. Piorkowksi (1995) notes that results 

markedly differ from the Sashin Creek study (Kline et al. 1990) and are likely due to two 

important considerations: 1) Sashin Creek received a much larger run of salmon utilizing a 

smaller stream area; and 2) total dissolved nitrogen content in Sashin Creek was likely much 

lower given intense precipitation (nutrient flushing), causing the system to be more dependent on 

seasonal pulses of salmon-derived nutrients. 

Many headwater streams in the Pacific Northwest exhibit low levels of primary and secondary 

productivity (Gregory et al. 1987; Bilby and Bisson 1992), and are systems typically preferred by 

adult coho salmon for spawning (Sandercock 1991). Bilby et al. (1996) compared isotope ratios 

in four tributaries of the Snoqualmie River, Washington, to determine the influence of coho 

salmon carcasses on food webs of headwater streams. Overall, the study suggests that even 

modest inputs of MDN can influence small streams. δ15N and δ13C values were similar between 

anadromous and non-anadromous streams prior to coho salmon spawning; during and shortly 

after spawning, elevated δ15N values were found in stream biota (epilithic organic matter and 

stream invertebrates) and riparian foliage. Juvenile coho salmon more than doubled their weight 

following the appearance of spawning adults. Using an isotope model assuming no direct 

consumption on salmon carcasses and eggs (resulting in a conservative estimate without trophic 

fractionation), juvenile coho salmon were enriched approximately 30% with marine N. As well, 

researchers found rapid uptake of MDN through chemical sorption by streambed gravel. 

Chemical uptake of dissolved organic matter by streambed substrate was similar in both light and 

dark controlled experiments. Bilby et al. (1996) stress the importance of chemical sorption for 

initial nutrient uptake in headwater streams where primary production is limited during winter 

due to cold temperatures, low light levels, and frequent scouring by high flow events. 

Carcass tissue and eggs appear to be an important food source for juvenile fish during winter 

periods and may play a critical role when other food items are less available. In four streams in 

southwestern Washington, Bilby et al. (1998) observed significant increases in density, weight 

and condition factor of juvenile steelhead and coho salmon following addition of hatchery 

spawned coho carcasses (with some eggs remaining). In enriched stream sections, 60-96% of 

stomach contents of juvenile steelhead and coho salmon were comprised of carcass flesh and eggs 

(with eggs being the preferred food item) while carcass material was present. Also, diet content 

of juvenile coho salmon had five times the amount of invertebrate biomass as compared to nonenriched areas. While significant increases in density and condition factor of juvenile coho 

salmon and steelhead were observed in carcass enriched areas, fish were not marked to confirm 

site fidelity throughout the study period. Even so, increased fish size and condition factor has 

implications for higher survival for both juvenile coho salmon (Bell 2001; Brakensiek 2002; 

Hartman and Scrivener 1990; Quinn and Peterson 1996; Holtby 1988) and steelhead (Ward and 

Slaney 1988) and subsequent returns of adults (Hager and Noble 1976; Bilton et al. 1982). 

Findings by Wipli et al. (in review) further corroborate conclusions by Bilby et al. (1998) on the 

importance of salmon carcasses and eggs for juvenile coho salmon. In experimental and natural 

streams in Southeast Alaska, Wipfli et al. (in review) found strong positive correlations between 

salmon carcass loading rates and growth of juvenile coho salmon, cutthroat trout and Dolly 

Varden char. Over a 60 day experiment, juvenile coho salmon gained over 60% of fish body 

mass in study reaches with the highest carcass loading rates (4 carcasses / m2

). Similarly, 

cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char exhibited growth rates over five times higher in carcass 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

214 

rich areas as compared to control areas. Nutritional status of juvenile coho salmon was evidenced 

by concentrations of triacylglyceride (TAG) and ratios of marine-based to terrestrial-based fatty 

acids in juvenile samples; both percent TAG and fatty acid ratios increased with increasing 

density of carcasses. TAG concentrations in juvenile fish correspond to storage of marinederived long-chain n-3 fatty acids and indicates direct benefits of salmon carcasses to growth and 

nutritional status of stream salmonids. 

BOTTOM-UP EFFECTS OF NUTRIENT ENHANCEMENT 

Studies reviewed thus far indicate that stream delivery of MDN and biogenic material from 

returning adult salmon provide an immediate food resource for fish and can influence lotic food 

webs. Addition of nutrients can certainly have a bottom-up effect in freshwater systems, boosting 

primary production and ultimately benefiting fish populations (Johnston et al. 1990; Bradford et 

al. 2000; Ward et al. 2002; Wilson et al. 2002). This management concept has seen successful 

application in lake enrichment programs in Alaska and British Columbia where returning runs of 

sockeye salmon have increased as a result of manual application of nutrients. The extensive 

knowledge and management success in sockeye rearing lakes is due, in part, to the relative 

simplicity of these systems in food web and nutrient dynamics, as compared to fluvial systems 

(Kline et al. 1997; Kyle et al. 1997). Sockeye salmon rearing lakes have generally been identified 

as oligotrophic systems, primarily limited by phosphorous. Ratio additions of nitrogen and 

phosphorous have successfully elevated lake rearing capacities for juvenile sockeye salmon 

through increased zooplankton production (Hyatt and Stockner 1985; Kyle et al. 1997; Bradford 

et al. 2000). British Columbia has carried this management tool further and begun fertilizing 

large river systems in efforts to boost declining steelhead and coho salmon populations. Results 

so far show overall stimulation of system productivity with increased density and growth of 

juvenile coho salmon and steelhead as well as earlier age at outmigration of steelhead (Johnston 

et al. 1990; McCubbing and Ward 2000; Ward and Slaney 2002). Whether manual fertilization 

of large river systems can recover coho salmon and steelhead runs remains to be seen. While 

certainly a management and research tool, it is questionable if manual nutrient supplementation 

programs can adequately replace ecosystem function of spawning adult salmon. 

Examples of manual supplementation studies are raised to illustrate issues of trophic capacity in 

relation to fish production. Productivity can be defined as the capacity of a system to produce a 

product of interest (Bisson and Bilby 1998). A nutrient limited system can mean food limited in 

the interest of fish production (Chapman 1966; Dill et al. 1981; Johnston et al. 1990). While 

adult salmon carcasses and eggs provide a direct food resource for fish populations, salmonderived nutrients can potentially influence fish production through autotrophic and heterotrophic 

pathways as well (see Vannote et al. 1980, Bilby and Bisson 1992). Wipfli et al. (1998) 

conducted highly replicated tests of adding salmon carcasses in experimental and natural stream 

channels in Alaska to assess responses in primary production. Biofilm production (a food source 

for aquatic invertebrates) increased approximately 15 times in the carcass enriched section (with 

an approximate return run size of 75,000 pink salmon) compared to the upstream control section. 

Further, total macroinvertebrate densities increased up to 8 and 25 times in artificial and 

anadromous stream sections, respectively, as compared to control sections. Similar results were 

found in a follow-up study by Wipfli et al. (1999), and also suggest a threshold level of response 

in biofilm production (over a two-month study period) in relation to carcass loading rates (up to 

1.45 kg, the lowest carcass loading rate in artificial channels). Both studies (Wipfli et al. 1998, 

1999) show trophic responses to MDN and suggest potential growth benefits to fish through 

increased availability of fish food organisms (see also Perrin et al. 1987, Johnston et al. 1990, 

Perrin and Richardson 1997, Quamme and Slaney 2002). Wipfli et al. (1999) caution however, 

that the capacity for stream systems to retain marine nutrients and the long-term effects of 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

215 

‘excessive’ carcass loadings for stream productivity have yet to be sufficiently addressed by 

researchers (O’Keefe and Edwards 2002). 

STREAM RETENTION OF SALMON CARCASSES 

Stream incorporation of marine-derived nutrients necessitates that salmon carcasses are retained 

for a sufficient period of time. Cederholm and Peterson (1985) investigated winter retention of 

coho salmon carcasses in several small streams on the Olympic Peninsula in western Washington. 

They initially released 180 carcasses throughout nine streams with varying abundance of large 

woody debris. One week following releases, 78 (43%) of the study carcasses were identified of 

which 80% were within 200 m of initial placement. Carcass retention was positively correlated 

with increases in large woody debris. The researchers speculated that carcass retention could be 

even higher in unlogged streams where large woody debris loading was higher as compared to 

their study streams. 

In a similar follow-up study on carcass retention in Olympic Peninsula streams, Cederholm et al. 

(1989) released 945 tagged coho salmon carcasses, of which 174 were implanted with radio 

transmitters to more definitively determine the fate of mobilized carcasses. Few study carcasses 

were flushed beyond 600 m with a median travel distance of 49.5 m from initial placement. 

Again, large woody debris was influential in retaining salmon carcasses with the majority of 

carcasses found in pools. Cederholm et al. (1989) also assessed retention during high flows by 

depositing 25 radio-tagged carcasses at the beginning of a flood event (estimated discharge 6.20 

m3

/s). Following the flood event, 21 of the 25 radio-tagged fish were located within 600 m of 

initial placement, with a median travel distance of 66 m. Ten of the radio-tagged carcasses were 

found on stream banks well above low flow levels. In a different study, Glock et al. (1980) 

investigated retention of chum salmon carcasses on a much larger system, the Skagit River in 

Washington. Although carcasses drifted as far as 39 km within the first five days, the majority of 

carcasses (20%) were located within 1.5 km of initial placement. Habitat, discharge, amount of 

large-woody debris, and species of salmon appear to be important factors in considering retention 

of salmon carcasses in fluvial systems. 

The study by Cederholm et al. (1989) also revealed significant predation by mammals and birds 

on salmon carcasses. Approximately 22 taxa of mammals and birds were documented consumers 

of salmon carcasses. Surveys identified 374 partially eaten study carcasses removed from stream 

channels with 88% of these carcasses located within 15 m of the stream bank. Cederholm et al. 

(2000) provide a more extensive review of wildlife-salmon relationships that documents over 138 

species having a ‘strong’ positive life-history relationship to Pacific salmon. This and other 

research suggests the ecological relationships between salmon and wildlife (Wilson and Halupka 

1995; Ben-David et al. 1998; Wilson et al. 1998). Further, wildlife species appear to play a 

significant role in the removal of salmon carcasses from lotic systems where nutrient benefits 

may be more realized in riparian and upland communities (Cederholm et al. 2000; Garten 1993; 

Helfield and Naiman 2001; Reimchen et al. 2002). 

IMPLICATIONS FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 

Although research to date provides evidence of the role of salmon-derived nutrients in ecosystem 

function, this complex relationship is poorly understood. Further understanding of the ecosystem 

context of returning adult salmon and MDN will require both the synthesis of several scientific 

disciplines and human values. Given the high cultural and economic value of salmon, and the 

public mandate to recover natural salmon populations, fisheries managers must insure that harvest 

practices do not impede recovery. Research on salmon and MDN frequently implies that current 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

216 

harvest management strategies exacerbate the risk of further decline in salmon populations, due to 

removal of salmon and nutrients bound for terrestrial systems. However, the science of 

quantifying salmon escapement goals necessary to properly functioning ecosystems is still in 

infancy. 

Nonetheless, research is beginning to focus on quantifying nutrient input levels necessary to 

improve juvenile salmon survival. Bilby et al. (2001) used stable isotope levels from juvenile 

coho salmon collected throughout western Washington to test for a marine N threshold level in 

juvenile fish. Representative of 26 stream reaches from 12 different watersheds, juvenile coho 

salmon samples were collected in late February and early March over a seven-year period. 

Juvenile samples were only collected in known areas where no other anadromous fish spawn. 

Cutthroat trout were collected above anadromous barriers in the same systems that juvenile coho 

salmon samples were collected. Isotope values from cutthroat trout represented δ15N background 

levels used to establish site-specific ratio index measures of marine N enrichment in relation to 

δ15N values from juvenile coho salmon. Also, tissue samples were collected from hatchery 

returns of adult coho salmon throughout the region to relate δ15N values from cutthroat trout and 

juvenile coho. Adult returns of coho salmon to each creek were determined using spawner count 

and stream habitat data; average weights from adult hatchery returns were used to estimate 

biomass (wet-weight kg / m2

) of spawners in each study creek. 

Bilby et al. (2001) found that δ15N values were consistently higher, by study site, for juvenile 

coho salmon as compared to cutthroat trout. However, isotope values revealed considerable 

variation between study streams for both cutthroat trout (ranging from 4.5%o to 8.5%o, the per 

mil deviation of 15N/14N from air N2, Peterson and Fry 1987; Kline et al. 1990) and juvenile coho 

salmon (5.8%o to 11.7%o). Cutthroat δ15N values suggest other sources of marine N, or possibly 

nutrient fractionation (Peterson and Fry 1987; Kline et al. 1990). Variation in isotope values 

reveals the need to establish basin-specific background isotope levels when using isotope 

methods. 

Using the relationship between estimated carcass abundance and 15N index values of enrichment 

in juvenile coho salmon, Bilby et al. (2001) found that enrichment levels increased with 

increasing carcass abundance. The relationship also revealed a point of diminishing enrichment 

of marine N in juvenile coho salmon above carcass abundance levels of 0.10 kg/m2

; in locations 

where carcass abundance was less than 0.10 kg/m2, enrichment index values averaged 0.19±

0.11(one standard error) as compared to 0.48± 0.13 in areas with carcass abundance above 0.10 

kg/m2

. Carcass abundance of 0.10 kg/m2 approximately equals 120 fish/km2, above which marine 

N in juvenile coho salmon rapidly approached a ‘saturation level’. Based on previous findings 

(Bilby et al. 1996, 1998), researchers in this study assumed that juvenile coho salmon were 

primarily incorporating marine N through direct consumption of salmon carcasses and eggs. 

Given this premise, the saturation level found in coho salmon parr could be interpreted as the 

maximum level of dietary enrichment for this trophic interaction. Based upon spawner 

escapement data and research findings, Bilby et al. (2001) conclude that the majority of coho 

salmon spawning streams in western Washington are well below capacity for incorporating more 

marine-derived nutrients. 

From both a research and management perspective, there are numerous limitations to applying 

results from Bilby et al. (2001) as a standard for salmon escapement goals (many of which the 

researchers acknowledge). First, study sites were purposely chosen to only include areas with 

spawning coho salmon and no other returns of anadromous salmonid species. This implies that 

results may only be applicable in such areas and questions if marine nutrient dynamics would be 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

217 

similar in systems with returning runs of multiple salmon species. The temporal distribution of 

spawning by numerous species of salmon can mean prolonged input of marine nutrients, which 

may be more effectively incorporated within a system (due to nutrient flushing) at a lower 

density of spawners for a given species. Second, juvenile coho salmon alone are probably not an 

appropriate indicator for determining whether productivity in a system is nutrient limited 

(Simberloff 1998). The marine N signal found in juvenile coho salmon has been primarily 

attributed to direct consumption of salmon carcasses and eggs. If this is indeed the primary 

mechanism for nutrient uptake then isotope values from juvenile coho salmon are less revealing 

of other pathways for incorporation and trophic distribution of MDN within a system. Third, 

uncertainty remains as to whether increasing the input of salmon-derived nutrients to fluvial 

systems will subsequently result in higher returns of adult salmon. Results from the Bilby et al. 

(2001) study would suggest this due to higher δ15N index values in juvenile coho salmon from 

systems with higher carcass densities. The effects of hatchery-origin salmon, that spawn 

naturally, must also be considered. 

Gaps remain in our understanding of nutrient dynamics in fluvial systems. While it appears that 

salmon-derived nutrients can benefit sockeye salmon, cutthroat trout and coho salmon 

populations, at this time there are no research publications that directly establish the relationship 

between MDN and chinook salmon. ‘Ocean-type’ juvenile chinook, which comprise most of the 

production in Puget Sound, generally spend between three to nine months in freshwater before 

outmigrating (Healey 1991), a much shorter period than coho and steelhead (Montgomery et al. 

1996; Healey 1991). Degraded spawning habitat and winter flow conditions, with direct 

influence on egg survival and emergence, may be more critical to chinook production than inputs 

of MDN. Upon outmigrating from the freshwater environment, juvenile chinook salmon may 

reside in estuarine environments for extended periods of time where conditions are critical for 

early growth and survival (Simenstad 1997; Simenstad et al. 1985). 

Numerous questions arise in considering the potential role of MDN for ocean-type chinook 

salmon populations. Whether newly emerged chinook salmon fry actively feed on salmon 

carcasses and eggs has not been established and further questions if carcasses are retained for a 

sufficient period of time, especially in large river systems with peak winter flow events. The 

immediate benefits of MDN for chinook salmon fry is most likely limited given the relatively 

short time juveniles reside in freshwater. However, the River Continuum Concept (Vannote et al. 

1980) suggests that upstream inputs of MDN affect downstream communities. This concept 

questions nutrient dynamics and source-sink effects within a river basin. 

Ultimately, the benefits of MDN for juvenile chinook salmon may be more fully realized in 

estuaries (Simenstad 1997). That said, in some instances the eutrophication of estuaries 

associated with agricultural and urban development may be negatively affecting fish habitat and 

survival (Bricker et al. 1999). Currently, little is known about the effects of salmon and MDN on 

estuaries. 

At a watershed scale, the connectivity of nutrient cycles and the pathways involved needs further 

investigation. Such considerations question the relative importance and actual contribution of 

MDN from different species of spawning salmon. In many river systems throughout the Pacific 

Northwest, returns of chum and pink salmon comprise the majority of spawner biomass. These 

species typically spawn in the lower portion of stream and river systems. This implies that chum 

and pink salmon contribute substantial inputs of MDN to environments used by ocean-type 

juvenile chinook salmon. Whether survival of juvenile chinook salmon is limited by nutrient 

deficiencies needs to be evaluated in a multi-species context. Furthermore, the relative 
Appendix D Nutrient Enrichment 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

218 

contribution by adult returns of different salmon species to both ecosystem function and salmon 

populations with unique life-history strategies needs to be more fully recognized. 

In considering the importance of MDN to ecosystem function and sustaining salmon populations, 

the large returns of adult salmon runs recently experienced throughout the Pacific Northwest 

dictates that an experiment is now in-progress. The current scenario provides unique research 

opportunities to assess if marine nutrient inputs are limiting salmon populations. This will 

necessitate that isotope methods are further developed and tested (see Kline 2002) to properly 

reveal MDN in food-web dynamics. Assessment of watershed nutrient levels will be necessary to 

determine regional variation. Identification of bottlenecks in survival to salmon populations will 

require careful monitoring of population dynamics across fish life-stages. Long-term studies on a 

larger spatial scale need to be initiated before we can properly understand the contributions of 

salmon and MDN to ecosystem function. The multiple values associated with salmon 

necessitates that this understanding be further developed and integrated between numerous 

disciplines before ecosystem based escapement goals for Pacific salmon can be a realized and 

effective management approach. 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

219 

Appendix E. Escapement Estimation 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

220 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

221 

Introduction 

Accurate estimates of chinook spawning escapement are essential to management of Puget Sound 

chinook stocks. They represent the most immediate post-season monitoring of stock abundance 

and are essential to subsequent forecasting and reconstruction of cohort strength. Total 

escapement is also an invaluable measure for survival and productivity measurements, which is 

important in developing escapement goals and recovery objectives. With the availability of other 

relevant data, abundance reconstruction enables the estimation of cohort survival (returns per 

spawner), which, in turn, is the basis for setting harvest exploitation rate objectives. It is 

appropriate, therefore, to scrutinize the survey and computation methods utilized to estimate 

escapement with respect to the accuracy and precision of the resulting estimates. 

The listing of the Puget Sound chinook has created further determination to improve escapement 

estimates. However, it is important to realize that accurate and precise estimates of escapement 

come at a cost. Given the limits on staff and funding, along with logistic limitations, a careful 

triage is required to determine where existing deficiencies should be addressed. The comanagers’ chinook harvest management plan includes a mandate to insure effective monitoring of 

the productive status of Puget Sound chinook stocks. 

There has not been a formal Puget Sound-wide review of escapement estimation methods since 

Smith and Castle (1994). However, a summary of escapement methods is documented each year, 

concurrently with preseason forecasts. A critical assessment of escapements has been a major 

task of the Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) of the Pacific Salmon Commission, especially 

those populations used as indicator stocks. Concerns about Puget Sound estimates has focused on 

the following issues: 

1) accuracy and precision of estimates of total or partial escapement (including the testing of 

inherent assumptions); 

2) Natural Management Units lacking estimates of total escapement; 

3) currency of escapement goals: females or PED, vs total; 

4) straying – contribution of hatchery-origin adults; 

5) accounting of natural returns to hatchery rack; 

6) age composition of escapement. 

This document summarizes current methods for estimating escapement and describes recent work 

intended to validate or improve escapement estimates. 

Current Methods 

Spawner surveys, with the intent of estimating abundance, are conducted in all waters where 

naturally sustainable populations exists (category 1 and 2 watersheds). In addition, some 

category 3 watersheds are also surveyed. There are two basic types of surveys—census and index. 

Census surveys are conducted where all fish (carcasses or redds) can be counted. This implies 

that all redds and/or fish are visible and all spawning areas can be viewed so that there is no 

expansion of the estimate to account for unsurveyed areas. In the case of a redd census, all redds 

must be visible and all spawning areas must be viewed. In some areas, a marked redd census is 

used, where redds are marked, usually with a colored stone, to avoid recounting the redd during 

subsequent surveys. 

Weirs can also provide opportunity to census returning fish. However, weirs are generally 

associated with the collection of hatchery brood stock and not natural spawning populations. In 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

222 

cases where excess fish are passed upstream, fish can be counted directly. Other situations 

include Baker Dam, which has a trap-and-haul facility to pass fish over the dam, as does the Mud 

Mountain Dam (Buckley Trap) on the White River. On the Snohomish system, chinook are 

trapped and hauled over Sunset Falls. Although counting sites such as these may provide 

accurate estimates of fish passing a single point, estimates may not necessarily reflect of 

spawning success. 

With watershed that are too large to survey their entire length, and/or all potential spawning sites, 

index areas are used to estimate total spawner abundance. These are selected (non-random) sites 

where chinook are likely to concentrate. Although index areas may represent only a portion of 

the watershed, they usually incorporate a significant component of the spawning population. 

Index areas can be used to estimate either fish (carcasses or live fish) and/or redds. Surveys are 

conducted periodically throughout the spawning period, and include such information as location, 

time, date, water conditions, number of redds, live and dead counts, along with collecting scales 

for age data. Counts are conduct on foot or by floating the index areas. In the case of redd 

counts, aerial surveys are often used either exclusively or in conjunction with ground surveys. 

Once the counts are completed and data assimilated, the actual estimates are usually calculated 

using peak counts, cumulative counts or area-under-the-curve (AUC). Peak count estimates are 

simply the highest number of observations made within a specific time period, such as one day. 

Once that number is identified it is expanded to account for such factors as non-surveyed areas, 

fish per redds, visibility, etc. Cumulative counts involve enumerating observed fish and/or redds 

over a period of time, usually the spawning period, and summing the observations. This usually 

requires some sort of marking program to prevent recounting. A more sophisticated variation of 

this is AUC which accounts for the entire duration of fish presence, using specific observation 

dates that are compared to the total spawning duration. This produces a curve of the counts that 

has typically been constructed for either redds or fish. This method has been widely used by 

many previous management biologists for various northeast Pacific salmon (Ames and Phinney 

1977, Bue et al. 1998, Hilborn et al. 1999, Hill 1997, Liao 1994, Smith and Castle 1994). In the 

case of redds, the left side of the curve, the last date before the first redd is formed defines the 

beginning of the curve (i.e. the last date with zero redds). Ground observation and interpolation 

may be needed to specify this date. Straight lines are typically used to connect each subsequent 

count of visible redds, although some researchers have attempted curvilinear fits (Ames 1984). 

On the right side of the curve, the first date where the count is judged to be zero (known or 

interpolated from ground observation) forms the end of the curve. The area-under-the-curve 

(AUC) is the sum of the areas between each subsequent count, beginning and ending with the 

zero count dates, a method known as trapezoidal approximation (Hahn 1998, Hahn et al. 2001, 

Hilborn et al. 1999, Hill 1997). Each segment AUC is simply the sum of the two adjacent counts 

divided by two then multiplied by the number of days between the count dates plus one (i.e. 

simply subtract the earlier date from the later date). The total AUC is the sum of the segment 

AUCs. For redds, the primary variables are redd-life (the duration of redd visibility) and fish per 

female (since it is the female that builds the redd). 

Nearly all escapement estimates of Puget Sound chinook are translated into total escapement for 

the watershed. The systems where escapement estimates reflect only the index areas are North 

Lake Washington tributaries and Skokomish River. Within the Lake Washington system, counts 

at the Ballard Locks estimate annual returns, but do not account for fall-back or pre-spawning 

mortality. Ballard counts also cannot be used to estimate escapement to individual watersheds. 

Skokomish mainstem counts are used to provide relative comparisons with two tributaries 

(Hunter and Vance creeks), which are generally not surveyed. 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

223 

Improving current methods 

There are four basic ways that may potentially improve escapement estimates: 1) expand indices 

(area of surveys), 2) conduct more frequent surveys, 3) re-establish base years by calibrating 

expansion factors or total estimates by comparing it with alternate methods, or by 4) testing basic 

assumptions such as expansion factors, spawner density, redd life, fish per female, adults per 

redd, etc. 

Parameters such as confidence intervals and standard deviations have generally not been applied 

with any significance to escapement estimates. Exceptions include some of the work funded 

through the Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) of the Pacific Salmon Commission, such as 

those conducted on the Stillaguamish, Snohomish and Green rivers. Attention has focused on 

gaining more confidence of some basic assumptions, such as redd life and fish per redd. In many 

large river systems in Puget Sound chinook escapement is assessed by making repeated counts of 

redds, plotting these counts against time, then calculating the total number of redds from the area 

under the curve. Each redd has been assumed to represent one female and 1.5 males in 

calculating escapement. Whether made by aerial, boat, or foot survey, redd counts are subject to 

errors associated with visibility, insufficient survey frequency, observer error, false redds, 

superimposition, and the inability of distinguishing chinook redds from pink salmon redds. 

Assumptions regarding redd life and sex composition have been based on a few supporting, 

mostly old, studies, with the standard assumption for redd life as 21 days (Ames and Phinney 

1997 and Orrell 1976 and 1977). Because the cumulative effects of these sources of error have 

not been quantified, the accuracy and precision of the resulting estimates is unknown. 

A recent study (Hahn et al. 2001) examined redd estimators, as applied to chinook escapement to 

the Skagit and Stillaguamish rivers, and reached the following conclusions: 

• The accuracy and precision of redd census ranged from very good (C.V. 10 – 15%) to 

uncertain, depending on conditions in each stream or river. Aerial surveys (particularly 

helicopter) were accurate in some streams, and varied from foot or boat surveys in others. 

More frequent aerial surveys were believed necessary to accurately define the spawning 

curve in some systems. 

• The secondary assumption that females build only one redd was generally supported by 

field observations, though the potential for multiple redds per female or false redds exists 

in certain streams. 

• Estimates of sex composition based on carcass counts or gillnet test fisheries engender 

significant, but unquantified bias. Thus the assumption that 1.5 males per female was not 

validated. Males and small chinook are undersampled by carcass surveys and gillnet 

samples. 

• Intensive foot surveys to mark and monitor redds found that redd life varied significantly 

from 21 days in some systems. 

• Covariance between the area under the curve and redd density is presumed, but should be 

quantified. 

• Mark / recapture methods for estimating escapement and its variance, such as have been 

employed in the North Fork Stillaguamish River and Green River in recent years, are 

affected by several factors that bias their result. The resulting estimates (Conrad 1993, 

1994, 1995, 1996, 1997; Nason 1999) were substantially lower than concurrent redd 

count-based estimates, and were probably affected by unequal probability of capture, 

non-random mixing and loss of marked carcasses from the study reach. However, recent 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

224 

studies on the Green River show mark and release estimates to be higher than the 

standard redd and carcass estimates (Hahn et al. 2000). 

Redd census techniques employed successfully in large river systems are usually supplemented 

by carcass counts and/or redd surveys in tributaries where aerial census may be impossible. 

Estimates of total escapement for a given stock may therefore be composed of several techniques. 

Details for each management unit are summarized within each watershed section. 

CTC funded studies have specifically been devoted to improving estimates. On the Skagit 

attempts have been made to compare the existing escapement estimates with a live markrecapture estimate. The primary objective of the study was to estimate the drainage-wide 

escapement of chinook salmon returning to the Skagit basin and to evaluate the fishwheel and 

beach seine sites in the lower Skagit River for capturing adult chinook salmon. The study was 

conducted for two years (2000 and 2001), and it was determined that these two methods alone 

would not capture enough fish to generate a reliable mark-recapture estimate of escapement 

(Smith et al, 2002). For 2002, the primary objective remains as a mark-recapture study. 

However, the planned method of capture included tangle nets and angling. In addition, radiotelemetry was also planned to investigate the distribution and behavior of chinook after capture 

and release. 

Another mark-recapture study has also been underway on the Green River for three years (2000, 

2001 and 2002). Adults are captured with a beach seine and released, with subsequent recapture 

within the spawning areas. This study has proved more successful than the Skagit study in that 

the number of marks and recaptures has been high enough to provide credible estimates. Studies 

have also been conducted on the Stillaguamish and Snohomish river systems. Final reports for all 

years should be forthcoming shortly 

Oregon has used similar methods in assessing their coastal fall chinook populations. Standard 

index areas have been chosen based on survey history as well as being a valid representative of 

spawning escapement. which is indexed as the peak count of live and dead fish observed in a 

given survey area. Because standard survey sites were not chosen from a randomized sampling 

design, spawner density estimates obtained from these sites are used only to provide relative 

abundance (Jacobs 2001). 

However, for coho Oregon uses a different approach. A review of the Oregon Coast Naturals 

(OCN) spawning survey program by Oregon State University Department of Statistics led to the 

initiation of the OCN escapement methodology study in 1990. This study involved the 

development and experimental implementation of a stratified random sampling (SRS) approach, 

which consists of randomly selecting spawning survey sites from geographical strata and 

estimating spawner abundance from visual counts in these survey sites (ibid). This approach 

follows EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), which is similar to 

that of the National Park monitoring. The basis of this program is to avoid bias through random 

selection of sampling units and to use a sampling design that estimates population attributes that 

can produce reliable, absolute values of population abundance. 

Some discussion has been initiated regarding its use for Washington chinook. However, there are 

several major disadvantages in implementing this sort of method. Among the most critical would 

be that present index areas would no longer be used, thus making past data unusable for 

comparison purposes. Because chinook spawn in specific areas, a large number of sampling sites 

would be required to provide adequate observations, and there would likely be many samples 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

225 

with no observations. The cost of identifying new sites and their subsequent monitoring would be 

more expensive and require additional staff to carry out than with current methods. 

In general, assumptions regarding uniform spawning density have not been tested. This 

assumption applies not only to waters outside index areas but also to different times. Chinook will 

spawn in different areas in different years, depending upon changing environmental conditions, 

run size, human factors, etc., and the use of a single constant, or expansion factor, may not 

provide accurate estimates or be comparable from year to year. Survey conditions can also 

change, making it more or less difficult in observing fish and redds. In problem areas, estimates 

can be improved by expanding index areas. However, it should be noted that, in terms of 

recovery assessment, annual trends are as important as the escapement numbers, and changing 

survey procedures may result in estimates that are not comparable to previous surveys. In such 

cases, the importance of accurate estimates versus precise trend information must be weighed. 

One remedy is to incorporate supplemental areas, which are spawning sites that are not included 

as index areas. Another method is to survey the entire watershed where chinook spawn. This is 

only feasible in smaller rivers where access is available throughout the entire length of the 

watershed or, in larger rivers, by using aerial-redd surveys where conditions allow complete view 

of the river substrate. 

In summary, escapement estimates can be improved, but it is unlikely that there are new methods 

that will replace the current ones. Actual improvement of any population estimate will likely 

have unique requirements specific to the watershed. Some watersheds, for example, are 

inherently difficult to survey regardless of available resources. However, before a decision is 

made to invest resources to further improve an estimate, it is importance to weigh the needed 

information and the status of the stock against the potential benefits and costs.. 

Refining escapement goals 

Fixed escapement goals have been used as the performance standard for harvest management. 

However, they were merely averages of escapements for various years during the 1960s and 70s 

(Ames et al. 1977) and did not necessarily reflect habitat productivity nor maximum sustain 

yield, upon which harvest goals were based. Because of the need to closely monitor the 

performance of the annual harvest regime, harvest management plans now calls for developing 

exploitation rate objectives for as many management units as possible, based on current and 

potential productivity. Basically this requires estimating the productivity (stock:recruit) function 

for the populations and implies that harvest rates can be associated with an escapement range for 

a given watershed. 

Nevertheless, the question of escapement objectives remains under consideration within at least 

three forums. The Technical Recovery Team, which is coordinated through NMFS, has defined a 

number of parameters necessary for recovery. Among them is abundance of natural-origin 

recruits, which is expected to include both ESU and specific watershed criteria. The Ecosystem 

Diagnosis Treatment (EDT) process has also developed an initial review of some Puget Sound 

watersheds and identified escapement ranges based on properly functioning conditions (Molbrand 

2000, Anonymous 2002). Finally the Chinook Technical Committee has been involved with a 

review of escapement goals throughout Washington (Hahn et al. 2001). All of the above review 

sources have started releasing results, and it is expected that additional information will be 

forthcoming. It is expected that escapement objectives will change as new information, such as 

habitat productivity, stray rates and other hatchery/wild interactions, become available. 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

226 

The need to estimate escapement accurately is not lessened under this exploitation rate 

management system since escapement abundance remains a primary measure of stock health. If 

the harvest regime operates as planned, and abundance is close to what is forecasted, the 

escapement should also conform to pre-season expectations. The co-managers are committed to 

assessing the performance of the harvest regime annually, and modifying fishery regulations as 

necessary to assure that exploitation rate objectives are met. Over the longer term, regular 

assessment of stock productivity, for which accurate assessment of survival and productivity is 

essential, will also modify the harvest objectives to insure that recovery will not be hindered. 

Straying 

Estimating the contribution of first-generation, hatchery-origin adults to natural spawning is 

essential to understanding the natural productivity of any chinook population. Natural 

productivity (i.e. survival) can only be estimated by distinguishing hatchery and natural-origin 

components of harvest and escapement. In most Puget Sound systems, hatchery production is 

directed towards harvest augmentation, whereas only a few programs are directed at recovery. 

The concern is that hatchery fish may intermingle and interbreed with natural-origin chinook, 

resulting in direct interactions, such as competition for food and space and/or indirect interactions 

such as reduced fitness due to genetic modifications. Various studies with salmonids species 

have reported potential genetic and behavioral hazards to natural production caused by the 

interactions with hatchery fish. (Ames et al. 1984; Fleming and Gross 1995; Pearson and 

Hopley 1999; Reisenbichler 19??; Chilcote 2002). 

Hatchery-origin adults are usually distinguished by some identifying mark, either externally, such 

as a fin clip (which may signify that the fish also carries a coded-wire tag), or internally, such as 

an otolith mark. Double index tagging (DIT) programs, which are intended to estimate mortality 

in selective fisheries of unmarked fish, involve coded-wire tagging two equal-size groups of 

hatchery releases, only one of which is externally marked by an adipose clip. 

Estimation of stray rates is made more certain if hatchery production is mass-marked, which 

allows spent adults or carcasses to be quickly examined. Where DIT programs exist, unmarked 

fish will pass through an electronic tag detector to recover CWTed fish. Studies in the Green 

River suggest that carcass sampling provides superior estimates of the contribution of hatchery 

fish to natural spawning as compared to sampling extreme terminal (freshwater) catch. In the 

case of otoliths marks, otoliths are dissected from a sample of unmarked carcasses to establish the 

presence of this mark group. Otolith marking has been used successfully to estimate the stray 

rates of Tulalip Hatchery fall chinook into adjacent watersheds (Rawson et al. 2001). 

In the case of recovery programs, it is not desirable to mark hatchery fish since they are liable to 

be harvested during selective fisheries. However, an internal or external mark (other than an 

adipose clip) would still allow the ability to identify hatchery returns in the escapement. This has 

been the case for Nooksack and White River spring chinook as well as for Dungeness River 

chinook. Selective fishing for chinook has not yet been widely implemented by the Washington 

co-managers, but mass marking programs have been initiated not just in anticipation of future 

selective recreational fisheries, but as a way to better determine hatchery/wild interactions and 

stray rates. In turn this will help address the productivity characteristics of the watershed. 

Age and sex composition 

Estimating spawning escapement and cohort reconstruction require information on the age and 

sex composition of the return. Escapement estimates, as discussed above, rest on assumptions 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

227 

about the number of redds that each female builds, and pre-spawning mortality. Reconstruction of 

the cohorts comprising brood year abundance requires estimates of the age composition of annual 

returns. The age and sex of returning adult chinook may be determined by sampling terminal or 

extreme terminal (i.e. freshwater) fisheries, carcasses of spawned-out fish, or fish returning to 

hatcheries. 

Terminal fisheries, carcass surveys, hatchery rack collections are all used to obtain samples. 

However, each of these sampling methods may engender bias into the result. Gillnet gear that is 

designed to target chinook is often selective of larger fish, and may not catch jack males. The 

catchability of each size class of chinook may also vary under different conditions of flow and 

turbidity in the river. Terminal fishing occurring in the bays adjacent to the river mouth can be 

equally selective, and may intercept significant numbers of fish destined to other systems. Hahn 

et al. (2001) concluded that larger sample sizes from terminal fisheries would improve estimates. 

Recreational catch may also be selective, but it may be logistically difficult to obtain large 

enough sample sizes. In addition, recreational fisheries may not operate across the entire 

migration period nor target within terminal areas. 

Carcass sampling tends to undersample small fish and males, but studies differ in their 

conclusions in this regard (Conrad 1996; various studies cited in Hahn et al. 2001). The 

magnitude of true bias is usually unknown, because carcass retrieval can only be compared with 

other, possibly biased, samples, such as those from fisheries or hatchery racks. The fieldwork 

involved is labor and time intensive, and frequently complicated by high flow, turbidity, and 

debris. ‘Carcass life’ (i.e. the time window available to sampling) is often affected by predators 

removing carcasses before they can be sampled, and by fish moving or being swept out of the 

sampling area. Carcass weirs have not been employed in Puget Sound streams. 

Hatchery racks allow sampling throughout the entire migration period, allowing scales or other 

samples can be collected at frequent intervals. However, hatchery returns may not be 

representative of wild populations, particularly where non-indigenous stocks have been used. For 

many wild stocks there is no associated hatchery program, precluding rack and brood stock 

sampling. These include the South Fork Nooksack springs, Skagit falls (though broodstock 

collection for a PSC Indicator Stock has begun), Lake Washington / Cedar, and Mid-Hood Canal 

rivers. 

In general, sampling should: 

• encompass the entire migration period. 

• be representative of single stocks or populations; 

• Be designed to achieve unbiased and statistically significant results 

• be random but represent the population. 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

228 

Methods currently used for each management unit 

Smith and Castle (1994) documented escapement estimate methods within Puget Sound and the 

Straits of Juan de Fuca. In general, these methods continue to apply. However, for most 

watersheds, there are on-going efforts to maintain and improve spawner estimates. The following 

reflects the current methods as of 2002. 

Hoko: (Ground surveys, redd census) 

The Makah Tribe and WDFW conduct surveys using cumulative redd counts for the mainstem 

and tributaries found between river miles 1.5 to 21.7, which represents the entire range where 

chinook spawn in the Hoko basin. Redd counts are multiplied by 2.5 adults/redd. There are ten 

mainstem reaches plus 13 reaches within tributaries, which include the Little Hoko River, a 

tributary to the lower mainstem, and Browne’s, Herman, N.F. Herman, Ellis, Bear and Cub 

Creeks, which are tributaries to the upper mainstem. The Makah Tribe also surveys the mainstem 

and other independent tributaries in the Sekiu basin, including Carpenter, S. Fork Carpenter, and 

Sunnybrook Creeks, and unnamed tributaries (WRIA 19.0215, 19.0216, and 19.0218). The 

escapement estimates for these two rivers are based on total natural escapement for the Hoko 

basin, plus broodstock capture, and total escapement in the Sekiu basin. 

Elwha: (Ground surveys, redd census using AUC) 

Spawning chinook are limited to the lower 4.8 river miles below the dam. The preferred method 

of estimating adult escapement, in the mainstem, is plotting visible redds versus date and 

calculating the area under the curve, resulting in redd-days, which are divided by the 21-day redd 

life. The resulting redd total is added to the number of redds counted by the Lower Elwha Tribe 

in the 1 mile, Hunt’s Road side channel index. The total redd count is then multiplied by 2.5 

adults/redd. 

Dungeness: (Ground surveys, redd index counts) 

Since 1986, cumulative redd count surveys have been conducted from RM 0 to 18.7 in the 

mainstem Dungeness and from RM 0 to 5.0 in the Gray Wolf mainstem. Counts are multiplied 

by 2.5 adults/redd. A captive brood program has been underway in this system since 1992, with 

the first releases from this production effort occurring in 1995. The various families and year 

classes are uniquely marked with cwt and otoliths. Hence surveys also sample for these items. 

Nooksack, North Fork: (Ground surveys, carcass index counts) 

The primary difficulty is the turbid conditions that usually exist in the north fork, making redd 

counts impossible. Estimates are cumulative carcass counts in established index areas in the 

north and middle forks. Total estimate is scaled to a single year when carcass and redd counts 

were visible throughout the duration of the spawning period. With the return of otoliths marked 

fish, their sampling has become routine. Recent changes to production goal at Kendall Hatchery 

has led to the elimination of the summer/fall release program and reduction in the release of 

native, spring stock. Past escapement estimates have been complicated by spawn timing overlap 

of native and introduced stocks. 

Nooksack, South Fork: (Aerial and ground surveys, redd census) 

There are at least three groups of chinook that can be identified as spawning in the South Fork: 1) 

South Fork natives, identified by DNA and lack of other distinguishing marks, 2) North Fork 

natives as strays from the Kendall Creek hatchery restoration program (otolith marks, CWT) or 

natural strays (DNA) and 3) Green River /Soos Creek chinook as strays originating from hatchery 

programs past and present (DNA, adipose clips and CWTs). A total chinook estimate is derived 

from redd surveys conducted on foot by teams of two, done weekly from the middle of August 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

229 

until the first week in November in all sections of the river and in 2.6 miles of tributary streams. 

Redds are counted, and expanded by a factor of 2.5 chinook per redd (i.e. 1 female and 1.5 males 

per redd) to obtain a total estimate. Because of high flows late in the survey season, the 

confidence in the total estimate deteriorates. Native chinook are estimated from the numbers of 

redds detected prior to September 29. An initial estimate of the North Fork native chinook is 

calculated from the proportions of carcasses which can be identified by otolith mark, or CWT and 

fin clip as coming from the recovery program. This estimate is subtracted from the total early 

native chinook estimate to provide an estimate of the South Fork native chinook spawning 

population. 

Samish: (Ground surveys, redd/carcass census) 

This system is considered a Category 3 watershed, which, historically, did not possess as 

sustainable chinook population. However, large numbers of summer/fall chinook (introduced) 

fish are released from Samish Hatchery each year. As a result, natural spawning does occur in 

the river below the hatchery. In addition, fish surplus to hatchery needs are released above the 

hatchery. This stock is managed for harvest augmentation and is managed only for achieving 

hatchery brood needs. Estimates are made using peak visible redd counts, multiplied by 0.95 to 

estimate true redds and then by 2.5 fish per redd. If river conditions are not conducive for redd 

counts; carcass counts are made on weekly basis. Fish spawning above the hatchery are counted 

as they are passed upstream over the rack. 

Skagit: (Mainstem-aerial surveys, redd index counts; tributaries-ground surveys, redd 

census and index counts) 

The entire Skagit and known spawning areas in the Sauk and Cascade rivers have been surveyed 

by helicopter on either a weekly (odd years) or biweekly (even years) basis. During odd years, 

surveys are concentrated within the first half of the run with a straight line connecting the peak to 

the end of redd visibility. This is due to the large numbers of pink salmon spawning in the same 

location as chinook salmon. Earlier chinook spawners are located in the upper Sauk, Suiattle and 

Cascade rivers. Later spawners typically spawn in the mainstem Skagit, associated tributaries 

and the Sauk River. 

For the earlier-timed chinook, data from 1994 to present is not comparable to previous 

escapement estimates. This is due to a new escapement methodology, using expanded 

cumulative redd counts, which is thought to represent the total spawner population better than the 

pre-1994 method using peak live plus dead counts. (Rebecca Bernard, Skagit System Co-op, 

personal communication). 

Studied funded through the Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) has provided initial 

assessments of the validity of the current escapement estimates. Work conducted in 1998 and 

1999 showed that the 21-day redd life was a valid assumption for Skagit chinook (Hahn et al. 

1998) But work still remains in testing the 2.5 fish per redd. To accomplish this, and to establish 

as base year for future estimates, the basic plan was to proceed with a mark and recapture study, 

using a fish wheel to capture adult chinook. This fish wheel was used for two years without 

success (too few fish were captured). In 2002 attempts were be made to use a combination of 

collection methods including tangle nets, angling and radio-telemetry (CTC January 8, 2002). 

Lower Skagit Mainstem fall: Data are total escapement estimates based on redd counts from the 

mainstem Skagit between the town of Sedro Woolley and the mouth of the Sauk River and in 

Finney and Day creeks. Three fixed wing aerial surveys are conducted from RM 15.6 to RM 

67.1. There is a turbidity problem downstream of the Sauk, which questions the assumption of 

old surveys of 100% visibility. AUC estimates for three reaches using Sept 15 as start date on 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

230 

lower reach and Sept 1 for upper two reaches. End dates are December 1 for lower and middle 

reach and Nov 15 for upper reach. The old method used Sept 1 - Dec 1 for all reaches. Tributary 

census is conducted in Finney, Johnson, Jackson creeks. 

Upper Skagit Mainstem/Tributaries :This stock was formerly known as Upper Skagit 

Mainstem/Tribs summer chinook. In the 2002 SaSI revision, the run-timing designation 

(“summer”) has been dropped from most Puget Sound chinook stock names because timing 

designations have been applied inconsistently to Puget Sound chinook stocks. Total escapement 

estimates are based on redd counts from the mouth of the Sauk River to Newhalem, the lower 

Cascade River (RM 0.0 to 6.5) and in Illabot, Diobsud, Bacon, Falls and Goodell creeks. Surveys 

include three helicopter flights of upper mainstem, plus two helicopter flights and three ground 

surveys on the lower Cascade (RM 0.0 – 0.9), using Aug 15 to Nov 1 as AUC period (previous 

assumption has been Nov 8). 

Lower Sauk (fall): Total escapement estimates are based on redd counts from the mouth of the 

Sauk upstream to the town of Darrington (RM 0.0 to 21.1). Aerial counts below mouth of Suiattle 

are not conducted due to turbidity. This sediment concentration is believed to inhibit spawning 

downstream, and past estimates assumed 22% of redds occur below RM 13.2. However, a 

simulation based on 1996 flights suggested that the majority of fish spawn below RM 13.2. 

Three flights are made above confluence (RM 13.2 – 21.1 Darrington Br.), with foot surveys of 

Dan Creek slough, which is now part of the mainstem. The estimate is a redd census above RM 

13.2 plus assumed number downstream plus tributary counts times 2.5 fish per female. 

Upper Sauk spring: Total escapement estimate is based on redd counts from the town of 

Darrington up to the forks (RM 21.2 to 39.7), in the North Fork Sauk from the mouth upstream to 

the falls and in the South Fork Sauk from the mouth to about RM 2.5. A new escapement 

methodology was developed beginning in 1994, using expanded cumulative redd counts, which 

are thought to represent the total spawner population better than peak live-plus-dead counts. 

(Rebecca Bernard, Skagit System Co-op, personal communication). The new estimates are not 

comparable to the estimates in the 1992 SASSI. 

Surveys include five helicopter surveys and six ground surveys to monitor redds and count 

carcasses. Foot ‘census’ is thought to underestimate numbers due to width and depth of some 

reaches, and the fact that foot counts consistently yield lower numbers than aerial counts. Aerialbased AUC determined endpoints of Aug 15 and Nov 1. Redd life arbitrarily assumed to be mean 

of values derived from foot survey (22.9 days) and back-calculation from aerial AUC (37.5 days) 

= 30.2 days. Total escapement is based on 2.5 fish per redd. Other samples have show different 

female to male ratios such as the lower river test fishery (1.65) and carcass surveys (1.42). 

Suiattle: Total escapement estimates are based on redd counts in Big, Tenas, Straight, Circle, 

Buck, Lime, Downey, Sulphur, Milk creeks. As mentioned above, new escapement methodology 

was developed beginning in 1994. Prior to 1994 four index areas (Big, Tenas, Buck, Sulphur) 

were used, averaging peak live-plud-dead count/mile from these areas. Since 1994 cumulative 

redd counts have been used. Index areas now include Big, Buck (excluded summer strays – early 

Oct), Circle, Downey, Lime, Milk, Straight, Sulphur and Tenas creeks along with Whitechuck 

River. The estimate assumed no redds in the turbid portion of the mainstem. Of all systems in 

this study, Siuattle thought to have highest potential for multiple redds per female. However, the 

present estimate remains based on 1 female per redd, or 2.5 fish per redd. 

Upper Cascade springs: Total escapement estimate for this stock is based on redd counts from 

the mainstem Cascade River above RM 7.8, the lower reaches of the north and south forks of the 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

231 

Cascade, and in Marble, Found, Kindy, and Sonny Boy creeks. As with the other early stock,

new escapement methodology was developed beginning in 1992. Data for the estimates 

originated from five surveys conducted on foot and two helicopter flights (RM 7.8 – 18.6). 

Redds are multiplied by 2.5 fish per redd. 

Stillaguamish: (Ground and aerial surveys, redd census using AUC (NF) and peak counts 

(SF)) 

Smith and Castle 1994 mentioned that the Stillaguamish escapement estimate used the same 

method as Skagit (aerial survey calibrated by foot surveys of index reaches). One to three flights 

have been used, with assumed starting dates for redd visibility. Redd counts were summed at 21-

day intervals to get cumulative total redds times 2.5 fish per redd. Studies began in 1998 to 

improve the accuracy and precision spawning estimates by testing redd life and the number of 

female per redd. Aerial surveys were increased as well as the foot surveys, and both were 

compared throughout the sampling period. 

North Fork Stillaguamish summer: Escapement estimates are made using cumulative redd 

counts within the mainstem and North Fork derived by graphing visible redds versus survey 

date.Although there were some discrepancies between redd count on the foot versus floot 

surveys, Hahn (2001) concluded that the estimates of chinook redds and of female spawners were 

precise and accurate. Seventy-five percent of the redds were censused with surveys every three to 

five days; water remained low and clear during this time with little canopy overhang, and good 

estimates of redd life were made (20-day). 

South Fork Stillaguamish fall Escapement estimates are based on peak redd counts multiplied 

by 2.5 fish/redd. Tributaries surveyed include Boulder, Squire and Jim creeks. Assumption 

include: zero redds below the confluence of the North and South forks, 2.5 fish per redd and 21-

day redd life. Hahn et al. (2001) stated precision and accuracy of the fall chinook estimate was 

uncertain. The primary problem in the AUC method was due to the inability to measure redd life. 

Low redd density and poor visibility at times also attribute to this uncertainty. 

Snohomish River: (Aerial and ground surveys, redd census using AUC; direct census for 

Sunset Falls, index on Sultan) 

Skykomish This stock now includes Snohomish summer, Wallace Summer and Bridal Vail 

Creek fall chinook stocks as well as a portion of the Snohomish fall chinook stock. Spawning 

occurs throughout the mainstem Skykomish and Snohomish rivers, Wallace River, Bridal Vail 

Creek Sultan River, Elwell Creek and in the North and South Fork Skykomish including fish 

passed above Sunset Falls. Natural spawning also occurs in the Wallace River, but many of these 

spawners originate from the Wallace River Hatchery, located at the confluence of May Creek and 

Wallace River. Escapement estimates are derived using cumulative redd curves from aerial 

surveys in index area RM 20.5-49.6 on Skykomish mainstem and South Fork to Sunset Falls. 

Calculation uses 21-day intervals. Additional surveys are conducted on Wallace River using 

cumulative redd counts times 2.5 fish/redd and .95 (true redds). Estimate is based on mid-Sept 

visible redds / total escapement ratio in prior year. Added to this is the number of fish trucked 

above Sunset Falls. 

Snoqualmie: The Snoqualmie stock is composed of Snohomish fall chinook, which spawn in the 

Snoqualmie River and its tributaries, including Tolt and Raging rivers and Tokul Creek. 

Spawning also takes place in Pilchuck and Sultan rivers. Spawn timing occurs from midSeptember through October. Snoqualmie escapement is based on aerial survey of 10.1 miles of 

index out of 39.6 miles of river below Snoqualmie Falls, and calculated using area under the 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

232 

curve. Redd days are divided by 21-day redd life times 0.95 and 2.5 fish per redd. No expansion 

factor is used. 

Both sets of estimates are intended to be total estimates although there are some small tributaries 

that are not surveyed nor included in the final estimate. However, it is considered to be less than 

five percent of the surveyed areas. 

Cedar River: (Ground surveys, live counts using AUC) 

Cedar River escapement is estimated using live counts, plotting counts versus survey dates and 

calculating the area under the curve. Counts are obtained from float surveys throughout the river 

length below the dam. Redds have been enumerated since 1999, and at some point redd counts 

may be used to produce escapement estimates. 

North Tributaries: (Ground surveys, live counts in index areas using AUC): 

Spawning ground index areas have been established in Bear and Cottage creeks. Since 1998 

other portions of the Bear Creek watershed are also surveyed annually, but are not part of the 

index areas used for estimates. There is no expansion to unsurveyed areas in other north 

tributaries. Escapement for Bear and Cottage creeks is based on live counts and area under the 

curve methodology. The index areas are: Bear Ck--RM 1.3 to 8.8, Cottage Lake Ck.-- RM 0-2.3. 

Issaquah Creek: (Ground surveys, carcass and live fish counts using AUC): 

This watershed is not believed to have historically supported a sustainable population of chinook 

and is classified as a Category 3 system. Returns to Issaquah Creek are believed to be entirely 

the result of hatchery production. Many more fish return beyond brood stock needs and the 

surplus is allowed to spawn naturally. Escapement estimates on Issaquah Creek are calculated as 

the sum of the individual carcass counts plus the live count from the last survey. For the East 

Fork, the estimate is based on live counts and area under the curve methodology.

Green River: (Aerial and ground surveys, redd index counts) 

There are a considerable number of hatchery fish released from this watershed each year, and, as 

a result, the proportion of hatchery strays among natural spawners is high. Based upon CWT 

recoveries from carcasses sampled on the spawning grounds, the estimated annual proportion of 

hatchery strays averages about 60 percent, and ranges from about 25 to over 90 percent of the 

total natural spawners. 

The standard method used to estimate the annual natural spawning escapement in the system 

employs the use of a single 1.6 mile index reach (River Mile 41.4 to 43.0) where individual redds 

are counted and marked weekly by raft to obtain a season cumulative redd count. Concurrent 

weekly aerial counts of visible redds are made in all reaches (including the index reach) from RM 

29.7 to 47.0. At the end of the spawning season, the highest (peak) weekly aerial count of visible 

redds in the index reach is compared to the cumulative total of redds in the index reach, and an 

adjustment factor is derived. The peak weekly aerial count from non-index reaches is adjusted by 

this factor, and an estimate of cumulative redds is obtained for the reaches surveyed only by air. 

This estimate, when combined with the cumulative redds in the index, yields the total estimated 

redds for the surveyed portion of the mainstem Green. 

An expansion factor of 2.6 is then applied to the surveyed mainstem redds to estimate the total 

redds for the entire system, including tributaries. This expansion factor was derived by Ames and 

Phinney (1977) after comparing their estimates of escapement in the surveyed reaches in 1976 

and 1977 to estimates of total escapement in the system obtained from independent mark-
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

233 

recapture studies conducted by the Muckleshoot Tribe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

those years. Total system redds are multiplied by 2.5 fish/redd to convert system redds to the 

escapement estimate of individual chinook. 

Beginning in 1999, funding originating from the Pacific Salmon Commission has been directed at 

improving spawning estimates on the Green River. Objectives have included estimating 

population size using live mark and recapture, developing new redd index expansion, comparing 

area under the curve method, testing chinook redd visibility, estimating number and proportion of 

hatchery-origin chinook and age composition. This work continues through 2002. 

Puyallup (fall): Ground surveys, cumulative redd counts (even years), AUC (odd years) 

With the large hatchery releases into Puyallup River, it is likely that some unquantified 

proportion of natural spawning fish are hatchery origin. Thus the extent of natural sustainability 

is unknown. Puyallup basin hatchery chinook production is currently 100% adipose marked, 

which will help determine natural production levels and stock status. 

Annual spawning ground surveys are reliable in the South Prairie Creek system (considered to be 

the most productive portion of the watershed) and in the mainstem tributaries, where fish and 

redds are observable. In other spawning areas (Puyallup mainstem and the Carbon River), glacial 

flour reduces visibility and prevents credible observation in most years. Historically, estimates 

were based on the 1975 and 1976 tagging studies, which used South Prairie Creek index peak live 

count multiplied by a factor of 37 to estimate total escapement. However, there has been a lack 

of confidence in this method, and beginning in 1999 estimates were calculated using a different 

method. This involved using South Prairie Creek cumulative redd counts during even years, 

while odd years would be based on area under the curve (AUC) using live counts. This 

difference was needed to adjust for the presence of pink salmon during odd years. Redd based 

estimates can also be calculated for the following Puyallup River tributaries: Fennel, Canyon, 

Kapowsin and Clarks creeks. In 2000, the tributary escapement ratio was applied to the 

mainstem Puyallup to estimate Year 2000 spawners. For the Carbon, in 1999 water conditions 

were conducive for good redd counts within some river reaches. Reaches with incomplete data 

were expanded using South Prairie Creek spawn timing-curve. In 2000, river conditions did not 

allow counts, and an indirect estimate of relative returns between 1999 and 2000 were used. 

Although this method is considered an improvement over the old method, escapement estimates 

previous to 1999 are not comparable to recent year estimates. . 

White River Spring Chinook: (Trap census over dam, no estimate below dam) 

Although there has been a significant increase in the number of chinook returning to the White 

River, it is largely due to the successful hatchery program. There is no evidence that the 

population has re-established itself naturally or achieved self-sustainability. Improvements have 

been made in the upper watershed related to habitat and fish passage, but those actions have not 

been necessarily credited with the increased abundance levels. There is also concern that the 

increased numbers of chinook are, at least partially, attributable to a fall stock that has become 

more predominate. Recent year spawning information shows that the fall run of chinook has 

increased in abundance. However there has been no estimate of total escapement. Those fish 

passed over the dam are counted, but fish spawning below the dam are not surveyed. However, 

chinook are enumerated in Boise Creek and the lower White River below Buckley Trap. 

Nisqually: (Ground surveys, fish and redd index, peak counts) 

Given that a large number of hatchery fish are released into this watershed, it is believed that a 

significant proportion of natural spawners are hatchery strays, but no direct information is 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

234 

available to verify this. This system is difficult to survey since it is glacial fed. Abundance 

estimates are fair at best; stock origin information is poor. 

Since 2000, all hatchery chinook have been marked, making it possible to determine the 

hatchery/wild composition of natural chinook spawners in the future. Spawning surveys are 

conducted on Nisqually mainstem from RM 21.8 to 26.2 and on Mashel from RM 0 to 3.2 to 

obtain peak redd count on the Nisqually and peak fish count of the Mashel. An expansion factor 

of 2.5 is used for the Nisqually relative to the Mashel, followed by a 6.82 expansion for both 

systems. Ohop Creek (RM 4.6-6.3) has also been surveyed for cumulative redd counts and 

carcass sampling the last two years (2001 and 2002). 

Skokomish: (Ground counts, fish and cumulative redd counts in index areas) 

 As described in the current co-managers’ Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management 

Plan, the immediate and short-term objective is to manage Skokomish River chinook salmon as a 

composite population, comprised of naturally and artificially produced chinook. Hence, natural 

production is dependent on the chinook hatchery program to partly support natural production. 

Based on the sampling of adult chinook carcasses on the natural spawning grounds, chinook 

released from the George Adams Hatchery on Purdy Creek or from Endicott Ponds on the lower 

Skokomish River stray in substantial numbers onto Skokomish system natural spawning areas. 

Hatchery chinook releases are not currently mass-marked, but they are now double-index tag 

groups. In addition, genetic (allozyme) analysis results to date suggest that there is no significant 

genetic differentiation between Skokomish natural spawners and George Adams hatchery 

chinook (A. Marshall, WDFW memo dated May 31, 2000). 

Chinook spawning takes place in the mainstem Skokomish River up to the confluence with the 

South and North Forks at RM 9, in the South Fork (primarily up to RM 5.5), and in the North 

Fork from RM 9 to 17 (where Cushman Dam blocks further access). Natural escapement 

estimates are based on counts of chinook redds in index areas in the mainstem Skokomish (RM 

2.2 to 9.0), North Fork (R.M. 9.0 to 12.7), and South Fork (R.M. 0 to 2.2). In addition, 

escapement estimates are made for tributaries including Purdy Creek, Vance Creek, and Hunter 

Creek. 

Since 1991, live and dead adults, along with visible redds were counted in Skokomish River 

index areas using foot and raft surveys (Smith and Castle 1994). Surveys were done every 10 to 

14 days from late August through October. In one index area of the Skokomish (RM 8 to 9), new 

redds were flagged and visible redds were counted each survey, cumulative redds for the season 

was determined, and escapement for this index was estimated as cumulative redds times 2.5 

adults/redd. For each remaining section, the peak count of visible redds in a section was 

multiplied by the ratio in the RM 8 to 9 index of cumulative redds :: number of visible redds at 

peak which was then multiplied by 2.5 adults/redd to estimate escapement for a section. 

Since 1991, escapements to Hunter Creek and Vance Creek were estimated using the 

spawners/mile for RM 0.8 to 2.2 in the South Fork and the available habitat in each creek (i.e., 

1.7 miles for Hunter Creek and 0.5 miles for Vance Creek). Escapements to Purdy Creek were 

based on the counts of live chinook downstream of George Adams Hatchery (Smith and Castle 

1994). 

To improve escapement estimates, (1) surveys were scheduled every 7 to 10 days beginning in 

1998, (2) new redds and visible redds were counted each survey in more sections of the mainstem 

Skokomish (RM 5.3 to 6.3, 6.3 to 8, and 8 to 9) and South Fork (RM 0 to 2.2) beginning in 2000, 

(3) a helicopter flight was made most seasons during peak spawning to count redds and adult 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

235 

chinook in the South Fork upstream of RM 2.2, and (4) foot surveys were made in Hunter and 

Vance creeks to spot check chinook abundance and better determine escapement there. 

Coded-wire tag (CWT) data and age and sex composition data have been routinely collected for 

chinook returning to George Adams Hatchery. More intensive sampling has been done since 

1998 on the natural spawning grounds; however, more frequent sampling would improve sample 

sizes. The mass marking of chinook released from the hatcheries would improve the ability to 

determine both the level of straying by hatchery chinook and natural chinook productivity in the 

Skokomish River system. 

Mid-Hood Canal: (Ground surveys, live peak fish counts in index areas) 

The Mid Hood Canal management unit is comprised of chinook populations of the Hamma 

Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosewallips watersheds. All of these populations are at low 

abundance. As described in Smith and Castle (1994), chinook escapement for the Hamma 

Hamma, Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers was estimated as (peak count of live fish in each 

stream) x (escapement for Skokomish RM 8-9 index / peak live count for Skokomish RM 8-9 

index) x (available habitat / surveyed habitat in each stream). This method was used since few 

chinook adults or redds were counted and chinook spawner surveys were limited to the lower 

reaches of each stream. 

In the Hamma Hamma River, most of the chinook spawning area is currently being surveyed. A 

cooperative supplementation program was initiated in 1995 to rebuild chinook abundance. Since 

1998, abundance has increased and escapement was estimated from counts of live chinook using 

the area-under-the curve (AUC) method. 

In the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers, the reaches surveyed are spawning and transit areas, 

but do not include all spawning areas. Upper reaches have been occasionally surveyed in the 

Dosewallips and Duckabush since 1998, but few adults have been observed. It has been possible 

to count chinook redds in the upper Dosewallips and Duckabush river reaches (especially in years 

without pink salmon). However, counts of live chinook are conducted on in the lower reaches 

since chinook redds cannot be identified due to concurrent spawning of summer chum salmon. 

Current escapement estimates are derived from counts of live chinook adults and chinook redds. 

It has been assumed that many of the naturally-spawning chinook in the Hamma Hamma, 

Duckabush, and Dosewallips rivers have, in recent years, been due to straying of hatchery 

spawners as well as adult returns from hatchery fry released into these rivers. However, sampling 

for CWTs and age information indicate that few hatchery adults have been recovered. The mass 

marking of chinook released from the hatcheries would improve the ability to determine both the 

level of straying by hatchery chinook and natural chinook productivity in these rivers. In 

addition, a smolt trap was installed on the Hamma Hamma River in 2002 with one objective 

being to assess natural chinook productivity. 

Priorities for Improving Escapement Estimation 

To identify priorities for improving escapement estimates, recovery goals and objectives must be 

clearly stated. The basic template should refer to the ESU as a whole rather than individual 

stocks. Since recovery can represent any number of different outcomes, the process must be 

iterative and based on the outcomes of strategies that may be experimental. However, regardless 

of the specific results, the basic guidelines of a healthy ESU can be stated. 
Appendix E Escapement Estimation 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

236 

Populations have been classified according to the historical presence of chinook and the present 

status of native (indigenous) stocks. Category 1 watersheds are those that possess indigenous 

stocks; Category 2 are those that once possessed sustainable indigenous chinook populations but 

they have either been lost or no longer sustainable; Category 3 watersheds are those that 

historically never possessed sustainable populations of chinook. 

Category 1 watersheds would be of high priority, as would those in Category 2. Within the first 

category, highest priority would go to those stocks that are at critical abundance levels and where 

escapement estimates are considered unreliable (imprecise and inaccurate). Perhaps the single 

stock that best fits this would be the South Fork Nooksack stock. Another concern would be 

White River spring chinook. Both of these populations have been recently infiltrated with other 

stocks, which is causing some concern regarding genetic integrity in the direction of recovery. 

Cedar River chinook is another population that needs close scrutiny. Although the escapement 

greatly improved in 2001, previous years returns were in dramatic decline, with the 2000 estimate 

of 120 adults. For other systems like the Skagit, Stillaguamish and Snohomish, as mentioned, 

additional studies have been underway to test some of the major assumptions, and it is believed 

that this will improve accuracy and precision of current methods. In the Green River , a mark and 

recapture estimation method has provided significantly different results than the traditional 

method. Analysis of the differing escapement estimates for 2001 and 2002 will help determine 

the method used in future An important component on the Green is determining stray rates. 

Since all hatchery fish are now been marked before release, the estimation natural-origin recruits 

and habitat productivity will improve. 

As important as accurate escapement estimates is the need to identify hatchery stray from naturalorigin recruits. This is especially true for Category 2 watersheds where past management 

direction has focused on hatchery production at the expense of natural sustainability. For 

Nisqually and Puyallup chinook, marking of hatchery fish and subsequent evaluation of natural 

production must be maintained as an important objective. One difficulty common to both of 

these systems is inability to survey mainstem spawning reaches because of glacial turbidity. 

Experimental application of the “change in ratio” method, which estimates total natural 

escapement and the proportion of natural-orogin adults, began in 2001 

Past management for Skokomish River has also been hatchery-oriented, and to date there has 

been no attempt to determine stray rates and natural productivity. It would also be useful to test 

the assumptions for Vance and Hunter creeks, which are estimated indirectly. A production study 

on the Hamma Hamma is currently underway that involves intensive spawner surveys as well as 

smolt out-migration 
Appendix F Selective Effects of Fishing 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

237 

Appendix F. Selective Effects of Fishing
Appendix F Selective Effects of Fishing 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

238 
Appendix F Selective Effects of Fishing 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

239 

Introduction 

The direct juvenescence or ‘fishing-down’ effect (shift toward younger ages and smaller fish) that 

must result from size-selective fishery harvest has been recognized for nearly 100 years (see 

Ricker's (1975, p. 260) discussion of Baranov's 1918 paper). But it seems only very recently that 

the possible genetic impacts of selective fisheries on fish populations have generated widespread 

concern among fishery scientists and ecologists. For example, Conover and Munch (2002) 

published a highly visible article noting that "current models and management plans for 

sustainable yield ignore the Darwinian consequences of selective harvest." In a similar vein, in 

the leading European quantitative fisheries journal, Law (2000) noted that "Fisheries managers 

should be alert to the evolutionary changes caused by fishing, because such changes are likely to 

be hard to reverse ...." Although this general concern may appear to be very recent, astute 

fisheries scientists have long speculated concerning the possible genetic impacts of selective 

fisheries on chinook salmon populations. Indeed, nearly 100 years ago Rutter (1904) expressed 

concern that gillnet fisheries in California's Sacramento River, selective for larger and older 

chinook salmon, might generate long-term selection toward age two male jacks and small adults 

due to selection against survival and reproduction of larger and older adults. More recently, but 

still a full thirty years before the recent Conover and Munch paper, Ricker (1980, 1981) published 

extremely provocative reports concerning the possibility that size-selective fisheries on chinook 

salmon might, in the long-term, result in age composition of chinook salmon populations that 

would be composed almost exclusively by age 2 male jacks and age 3 adult females. Thus, it is 

accurate to state that the potential long-term consequences of selective fisheries on chinook 

salmon have been recognized for almost 100 years. Yet, it is also accurate to state that fishery 

management plans have not yet attempted to address these potential long-term consequences. In 

part this is because much of the evidence for selective effects of fishing (e.g., change in the size 

or age composition of catch or spawners) is circumstantial, and is strongly influenced by other 

factors such as marine productivity. 

Selective Fisheries 

It is important to define more explicitly and carefully a number of terms and concepts. In 

particular, it is critical to define carefully just what one means by "selective fishing", to 

distinguish among the kinds of selective fishing to which chinook salmon populations may be 

exposed, and finally to distinguish between the rather immediate and direct fishing-down 

consequences of selective fishing and the potential long-term genetic consequences of selective 

fishing. 

Generally, a fishery is characterized as selective whenever different components of a population 

of fish are exploited at different rates in recreational or commercial fisheries. Traditionally, most 

fisheries have been sex-selective (e.g., only males may be harvested in the commercial fishery for 

Dungeness crabs, Cancer magister) and/or size-selective (e.g., groundfish fisheries in which 

regulated codend mesh size theoretically allows small fish to escape whereas large fish are 

trapped in the codend; or the minimum size limit for male Dungeness crabs). In fisheries for 

chinook salmon, there are no sex-selective fisheries of which we are aware, but most fisheries are 

size-selective. For example, ocean commercial and recreational fisheries typically have minimum 

size limits, thereby generating greater exploitation rates on larger and older fish than on younger 

and smaller fish. Terminal gillnet fisheries typically select for fish that are within an intermediate 

size range that usually dominates runs. Often, such terminal gillnet selection is almost "ageselective" fishing. For example, in California's Klamath River the Native American gillnet fishery 

uses a mesh size that deliberately targets age 4 fish; most age 3 and younger fish pass through 

nets whereas many age 5 fish are too large to be caught by gill nets. 
Appendix F Selective Effects of Fishing 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

240 

The above examples of selective fisheries apply within individuals populations of fish. Other 

types of selective fisheries operate in the peculiar context of ocean and freshwater fisheries for 

salmon. First, in both ocean and terminal fisheries, salmon managers must grapple with the socalled "mixed stock" harvest problem (see, e.g., Bevan 1987). In the ocean, a large number of 

salmon stocks originating from different river basins may be vulnerable to fishing at similar times 

and locations and may therefore suffer similar ocean exploitation rates. Optimal harvest policies 

would instead call for application of stock-specific exploitation rates that depend on the 

underlying stock productivity which, of course, must vary among salmon stocks. For a variety of 

reasons, the time, location or physical attributes of fish that may be caught in ocean fisheries may 

be deliberately structured so as to be stock-selective. For example, ocean fisheries off California 

and Oregon are structured so that the overall ocean exploitation rate on Klamath River fall 

chinook is quite low (to allow for terminal harvest in recreational and Indian fisheries), whereas 

ocean exploitation rates for chinook salmon originating from the Sacramento River (with no 

Indian terminal fisheries) are much higher. Mixed-stock fisheries are often constrained so that the 

exploitation rate appropriate to commingled weak stocks is not exceeded. 

 Similar, but often unintentional, stock-selective fisheries may take place in freshwater as a 

consequence of regulations. For example, in a large river system with a large number of distinct 

chinook salmon stocks, each with its own distinct river entry pattern, open and closed periods for 

fisheries may result in differential exploitation rates being applied to different stocks. If harvest in 

not allowed until a substantial number of fish have escaped to spawn, then it seems inevitable that 

exploitation rates are lower for those stocks that enter earlier as compared to those stocks that 

enter when fisheries are open. The most extreme examples of stock-selective fisheries for chinook 

salmon are those that call for the release of all fish with adipose fins present clips, whereas a 

certain number of fish (specified by bag or possession limits) may be retained so long as adipose 

fins are not present. These policies are deliberately designed to produce, at least in theory, greater 

exploitation rates for hatchery fish (often marked) than for wild fish (typically unmarked). 

Finally, ocean fisheries may also be species-selective as, for example, results when coho salmon 

must be released if caught whereas chinook salmon may be retained. 

The "fishing-down" process and long-term genetic selection 

The "theory of a fishery", as first advanced by Baranov (1918; see Ricker 1978), recognized 

fishing-down as an inevitable consequence of size-selective fishing when only fish above a 

certain minimum size limit were legal targets of exploitation. The direct cumulative effect of 

removing larger and older fish is to shift the age structure of a fish population toward younger 

and smaller fish. Although these historical results were obtained for typical iteroparous (repeat 

spawning) teleost fish, similar results obtain for a semelparous (single spawning) chinook salmon 

population subjected to a size-selective ocean fishery (Hankin and Healey 1986). In classical 

fisheries population models, growth rates of fish are fixed and independent of population density, 

and fishing down-effects are therefore predictable and reversible. The extent to which genotypes 

of a populations are changed by selective fishing must be related to the harvest rates imposed by 

these fisheries and their duration. If selective fishing were eliminated, then one would expect the 

age and size structure of a population to return to exactly the state that existed prior to 

introduction of size-selective fishing. (Possible to make a general statement that selective effect is 

dependent on the harvest or exploitation rate, so that reducing the rate would reduce the effect? ) 

Concerns regarding the potential genetic impact of fishing have arisen in part because minimum 

size limits theoretically result in differential exploitation rates being applied to fast-growing as 

opposed to slow-growing fish. If growth rates of fish were genetically inherited and if realized 
Appendix F Selective Effects of Fishing 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

241 

size at age were highly correlated with genetically inherited growth rates, then the greater 

mortality on fast-growing fish and resulting dominance of slow-growing fish among spawners 

would, over the long-term, result in selection for slow-growing fish.. If such fishery-induced 

genetic changes took place, then a population would not return to its original state if fishing were 

eliminated entirely. Instead, if fishing were relaxed or eliminated slow-growing fish could 

become the norm. Exactly this kind of selective fishery result was documented, under a controlled 

laboratory setting, in Menidia menidia by Conover and Munch (2002). These laboratory results 

may or may not be relevant to "real" fish populations and fisheries, however. 

Long-term genetic changes due to selective fisheries 

Size-Selective Fisheries. 

In ocean fisheries for chinook salmon, minimum commercial size limits typically mean that only 

a fraction of the age 3 adults from a given stock are vulnerable to commercial capture. If those 

age 3 fish that are above the legal size limit were genetically programmed "fast-growing" fish, 

then one might imagine that selective fisheries would be generating long-term selection for 

reduced growth rates, as described above. 

Possible fishery-induced selection for reduced growth rates would, however, be complicated by 

several factors in chinook salmon fisheries. First, the actual size that a salmon reaches at a 

particular age may not be highly correlated with a genetically determined "growth rate" for 

several reasons. The realized size of a fish at a given age must reflect unknown interactions 

between inherent growth rate, variability in supply and quality of food, and variability in 

environment (especially variability in water temperature). Actual size at age may not, in general, 

be highly correlated with some underlying "growth rate" 

Second, long-term genetic selection due to size-selective ocean fisheries may be stronger for 

(reduced) age at maturity than for growth rate. As shown by Hankin et al. (1993) and others, age 

at maturity is an inherited trait in chinook salmon. Generally, older aged parents will produce 

progeny that mature at older ages, whereas younger aged parents will produce progeny that 

mature at younger ages. This kind of effect is especially pronounced for age 2 males (jacks). If 

jacks are used as parents, there will be a strong tendency for male progeny to also mature as 

jacks. Therefore, if younger aged salmon spawned randomly on the spawning grounds, then sizeselective fisheries for chinook might select for earlier age at maturity. 

Third, for chinook salmon (see Hankin 1993 and references therein) there is substantial evidence 

that age at maturity depend in part on size at age. For a fixed age, say age 2, fish that are smaller 

are less likely to mature at that age than are fish that are larger. Through this interaction between 

size at age and maturity, size-selective fisheries, through removal of fish that are larger at age, 

might instead select for fish that mature at later ages!. 

Finally, spawning behavior of chinook salmon may to some extent alleviate the kind of long-term 

genetic shift toward younger age at maturity that might be expected to result from size-selective 

fisheries. Baxter (1991) found that larger and older chinook salmon, especially males, enjoyed 

greater reproductive success on spawning grounds that younger and smaller males. Thus, even if 

size-selective fisheries generated substantial shifts toward younger aged spawners, this kind of 

size-dependent mating success might at least partially buffer against such fishery-induced shifts 

to younger ages. 
Appendix F Selective Effects of Fishing 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

242 

Ricker (1976) and Henry (1972) calculated the loss in potential yield that results from sizeselective ocean fishery capture of immature and maturing chinook salmon as compared to 

terminal fishery capture of mature fish only. Calculated losses range from 30-50% of total yield. 

In two important reports, Ricker (1980, 1981) examined changes in average size of chinook 

salmon (and other Pacific salmon species) and presented a number of plausible hypotheses that 

might explain the apparent decline in average size of harvested chinook salmon. Included among 

these hypotheses was the possibility that size-selective fisheries had selected for long-term 

genetic changes in age at maturity. Hankin and Healey (1986) presented analysis of an agestructured Ricker stock-recruitment model and, among other things, attempted to calculate the 

maximum possible changes in mean age of spawning populations that could be explained as a 

direct consequence of fishing-down effects. They contrasted these calculated values with 

observed changes in mean ages in some populations. Hard (in press) used age-structured 

quantitative genetics models to assess the possible long-term genetic effects of size-selective 

fishing on chinook salmon populations 

Stock-Selective Fisheries. 

There seems little doubt that certain stock-selective fisheries must have long-term genetic effects 

on chinook salmon populations. Suppose, for example, that a terminal fishery were regulated by 

allowing harvest to take place only after a certain number of fish were estimated to have escaped 

to spawn. In that case, the fishery-related mortality rate would be much less for fish (or stock 

type) in the early part of the run than for fish (or stock type) in the late part of the run. Because 

run timing (stock type) is known to be an inherited trait, such fishery harvest policy should, in the 

long-term, unintentionally select for early-returning fish (or for a particular stock type). (See 

Nicholas and Hankin 1988 for examples of this phenomenon in a hatchery setting.) 

Lawson and Sampson (1986) examined the potential impacts of stock-selective ocean fisheries on 

non-catch mortalities of species (e.g., coho vs chinook) or stock types (e.g., hatchery vs wild) that 

may not be landed in stock-selective fisheries. Such prohibited species or stock types would be 

captured but then released. Ricker (1958) presented modeling results showing that total yields in 

mixed stock ocean fisheries were considerably less than those that could be achieved if stocks 

could be managed and harvested separately. (This same theme was later noted by Hilborn (1985). 

Evidence for Inheritance of Traits 

Donaldson and Menasveta (1961) provide evidence that growth rate, survival rate, disease 

resistance and temperature tolerance are all traits which are subject to deliberate artificial 

selection in a hatchery setting. Ricker (1972) provides an extensive review of older studies that 

provide evidence that age at maturity and other traits are inherited trait, but also presents 

information on environmental influences on these same traits. By contrasting the rates of 

production of jacks in two chinook salmon stocks reared in a hatchery environment under 

controlled conditions, Hard et al. (1985) provide evidence that the tendency to produce age 2 

male jacks is an inherited trait. Hankin et al. (1993) summarize evidence that age at maturity (all 

ages) is an inherited trait based on age-specific mating experiments carried out at Oregon's Elk 

River Hatchery. These analyses attempt to account for the fishery-induced biases that might 

result from differential mortality on older-maturing as compared to younger-maturing fish. Both 

Hankin (1993) and Hard et al. (1985) provide evidence that jacking rate does not depend on 

growth rate alone, but size nevertheless has an important effect (Hankin 1993, Silverstein et al. 

1998), with faster-growing fish (at age) generally maturing earlier. If growth rates are sufficiently 

enhanced in hatchery environments, then mature yearling chinook can apparently be produced 

(Clark and Blackbird 1994). Heath et al. (1994a) carried out known matings designed to assess 

inheritance of jacking rate with male parents that were jacks or non-jacks. They found a 
Appendix F Selective Effects of Fishing 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

243 

significant sire age effect, but did not find that jacking was related to growth rate. Heath et al. 

(1994b) used DNA probes to show that allele distributions differed between maturing and 

immature chinook salmon of the same age and stock. Heath et al. (1999) presented experimental 

evidence for a maternal effect (via female egg size) on offspring size during early life (first 

several months, but thereafter no effect could be detected. 

Behavior and Life History 

Numerous papers have stressed the possible importance of large size in naturally spawning 

populations of chinook salmon. Baxter (1991) observed spawning behavior of fall chinook 

salmon in northern California and found that larger-sized males enjoyed much greater spawning 

success than smaller-sized males. Females exhibited behaviors suggesting their preference for 

mates that exceeded their size. Berejikian et al. (2000) found that there was a greater amount of 

time between successive nests for females paired with small males than with large males and 

suggested that this behavior might be an important means of achieving mate choice (i.e., finding a 

preferred larger-sized male. Healey and Heard (1984) examined variation in fecundity of chinook 

salmon among many chinook populations. Using life history models, they found that age-specific 

increases in fecundity would not "justify" the old ages at which many chinook salmon spawn. 

Presumably, there are some additional important benefits of large size and late age at maturation. 

Egg size of chinook salmon varies across populations and within populations. Within a given 

population, egg sizes are generally larger for larger and older fish than for smaller and younger 

fish. Silver stein and Hershberger (1992) found that females with larger egg sizes were more 

likely to produce progeny that matured precociously. Healey (2001) reported that stream type 

chinook salmon, that typically spend more than a full year in freshwater prior to ocean entry, have 

smaller eggs and generally make a smaller reproductive investment than do ocean type chinook 

salmon, that typically enter saltwater during their first year of life. 

Detecting Selective Effects of Fishing 

Ricker (1980, 1981), previously mentioned, presented evidence for declines in average size and 

age of Pacific salmon, including chinook salmon, and listed a number of possible explanations for 

these declines. More recently, Bigler et al. (1996) found a decreasing average body size in 45 of 

47 salmon populations in the Northern Pacific. They found that body size was inversely related to 

population abundance and speculated that enhancement programs during the 1980s and 1990s 

have increased population sizes but reduced growth rates due to competition for food in the 

ocean. Clearly, these kinds of causes could result in the same kinds of reductions in size at age as 

might be caused by long-term genetic selection against fast-growing fish. 

There is substantial cause for concern regarding long-term genetic effects of both stock-selective 

and size-selective fishing on chinook salmon stocks. Of these two kinds of selective fisheries, the 

effects of stock-selective fisheries seem most clear and most easily minimized. If terminal 

fisheries consistently result in substantial removal of specific temporal components of a stock's 

spawning run, then it seems inevitable that there will be strong selection against perpetuation of 

these temporal components. This kind of effect would seem avoidable by regulating open and 

closed terminal fishing periods so that continuous fishing periods are always short (say, no more 

than 3 days duration), and so that the duration of fishing periods is always short compared to the 

duration of closed periods. Terminal net fisheries in Puget Sound are scheduled in this manner – 

pulsed openings scheduled over the duration of the run. 
Appendix F Selective Effects of Fishing 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

244 

It seems clear that size-selective ocean fishing on immature chinook salmon can shift the age 

distribution of adult spawners toward smaller and younger fish. A long-term genetic shift to 

younger aged spawners would result (1) If chinook salmon mated randomly, without regard to 

age, on spawning grounds, and (2) if age at maturity were independent of growth rate. However, 

(3) larger and older male chinook salmon (and possibly females) generally have greater mating 

success than smaller and younger male chinook salmon (and possibly females); (4) fast-growing 

chinook salmon tend to mature at younger ages than slow-growing chinook salmon, but are 

selected against in size-selective ocean fisheries; and (5) size at age may have only a weak 

correlation with some inherent genetically inherited "growth rate". Together, items (3)-(5) may 

reverse or ameliorate the kinds of long-term genetic effects that one might expect if items (1) and 

(2) were valid. Most of these potential long-term genetic effects again seem avoidable. If ocean 

fishing for chinook salmon were prohibited by regulation (see Ricker 1976 for one example 

calculation of the improved yield that could result!), and if all sizes and ages of chinook salmon 

were equally vulnerable to terminal fisheries (e.g., by fishing gill nets of variable mesh sizes in 

Indian fisheries), then it would seem unlikely to expect any long-term genetic changes in age at 

maturity of chinook salmon stocks. 

The absence of explicit consideration of possible long-term genetic impacts of selective fishing in 

management plans for chinook salmon stocks probably reflects the ambiguity and complexity of 

potential impacts for this species. No chinook salmon stocks have yet been reduced to the 

extreme scenario (only jacks and age 3 females) sketched by Ricker (1980, 1981), but it is also 

certainly true that one would be hard-pressed to find a stock of chinook salmon for which one 

might claim that the largest fish seen today are as large as those seen 100 years ago. Of course, 

given classical fishing-down effect that results from ocean fisheries, one would not expect to see 

these large fish even if there were no long-term genetic changes in age or size at maturity. 
 

 

APPENDIX B 

Puget Sound Chinook 

Population Information 

Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of 

Puget Sound Chinook Populations, Their Distribution, Associated Hatchery Programs 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

APPENDIX B − ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE BIOLOGICAL AND HABITAT 

CHARACTERISTICS OF PUGET SOUND CHINOOK POPULATIONS, 

THEIR DISTRIBUTION, ASSOCIATED HATCHERY PROGRAMS 

This technical appendix presents additional data referenced in Section 3, Affected Environment. Tables 

B-1 through B-3 provide more detailed descriptions of chinook salmon populations, and their riparian 

habitats, including age composition, stock origin, spawning and juvenile migration timing, spawning 

location, and barriers to migration. Table B-4 presents detailed information on hatchery production of 

chinook salmon in Puget Sound basins. 

Table B-5 is adapted from the Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM), the basis for estimates 

of fishery exploitation on chinook salmon populations. 

FRAM predicts point estimates for fishery impacts by stock, for specific time periods and age classes. 

The model simulates chinook salmon fisheries over the course of one year. Fishery harvest rates and 

stock exploitation rates are predicted using “base period” coded-wire tag recovery data on chinook 

harvest by fishery. Chinook FRAM currently includes 32 stocks, representing Puget Sound, Columbia 

River, Oregon and Canadian chinook salmon. The model includes fisheries operating in southeast 

Alaska, Canada, Puget Sound, and off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Only Puget 

Sound chinook salmon stocks are presented in the summary table in this appendix. 

Table B-6 summarizes data used to show the distribution of fishery mortality on Puget Sound chinook 

salmon populations. As discussed in Section 3, these impacts are estimated from recoveries of codedwire tagged indicator stocks that are released from numerous locations throughout Puget Sound. 
Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of Puget Sound Chinook Populations, Their Distribution, Associa

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 2 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Appendix Table B-1a. Key life history traits of chinook salmon in the northern Puget Sound area of the affected environme

RMP 

Management 

Unit 

Population 

Recover

y 

Categor

y 

Race Origin 

Productio

n 

Type 

Juvenile 

Migration 

Age of 

Smolts 

(% age 0 

or 1) 

Age @ Spawning 

(% return of given age) 

 1 2 3 4 5 

Nooksack Early NF Nooksack 1 Sp N C ≥90 ≤10 <1 4 75 20 

SF Nooksack 1 Sp N W ≤69 ≥31 1 10 61 28 

 10 73 2 Upper Sauk 1 Sp N W May-June 55 45 Suiattle Spr 1 Sp N W May -June 18-53 47-82 1 8 43 47 

Skagit Spring 

Upper Cascade 

1 Sp N W May- June 

Lower Sauk 1 Su N W Upper Skagit MS / Tribs. 

1 Su N W 

Skagit Summer / Fall 

Lower Skagit MS / Tribs. 

1 Fa N W 

Stillaguamish 1 Su N C Mar-June 97 3 4 30 59 7 Stillaguamish 1 Fa Unk. W Snohomish 1 1 Su-Fa N W Apr-July Wallace R. 2 2 Su - 

Fa 

M C 

Stillaguamish Summer / Fall Snohomish Summer / Fall 

Bridal Veil Cr. 1 1 Fa N W Apr-July 

Abbreviations: Population NF = North Fork SF = South Fork Recovery Category 1= Genetically unique indigenous populatio

population no longer present but natural production possible. 3. No historically self-sustaining natural population Race Sp = Spring Origin N = Natural C = Composite of Hatchery and Natural. Production Type W = Wild C = Composite of Hatchery and Wild Depressed H = Healthy U = Unknown 

Sources: Stock Origin: Washington Department of Fisheries, 1993. Smolt Migration:, Appendix A Myers et al. 1998. Age at Smol

al.; Age at Maturation, Appendix B Myers et al. 1998; Fresh Water Entry: Table 1 Myers et al. 1998.; Spawn Timing: Table 1 MLocation / Description: Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003; Washington Departmen

Spawners have been transported above Sunset Falls, a natural barrier, since 1958. 
Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of Puget Sound Chinook Populations, Their Distribution, Associa

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 3 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Appendix Table B-2a. Factors limiting natural chinook production in Puget Sound watersheds. 

Basin / Stock Group Status Habitat Factors Affecting Stock Status 

 Dams 

(River Mile Location / 

Miles Habitat Lost) 

Riparian Habitat Flow / Water 

Temp 

Estuary Ha

Nooksack  NF Nooksack Early Critical 1 1  SF Nooksack Early Critical 1, 2 1 Skagit RM 97 / Unknown  Upper Skagit Summer Healthy 1, 2 2  Lower Skagit Fall Depressed 2 2  Lower Sauk Summer Depressed 1 2  Upper Sauk Spring Healthy 1 2  Suiattle Spring Depressed 1 2  Upper Cascade Spring Unknown 2  Stillaguamish  Stillaguamish Summer Depressed 1, 2 2  Stillaguamish Fall Depressed 1, 2 2 Snohomish  Snohomish Summer Depressed Sultan River RM 17 / 20 1, 2 1  Wallace Summer / Fall Healthy 1  Snohomish Fall Depressed 1, 2 1  Bridal Veil Creek Fall Unknown 1, 2 1 

Notes Sources 

Dams: Location of Dam (Rivermile) / estimated miles of lost spawning habitat. S.P. Cramer and Associates 1999. Riparian Habitat: Riparian habitat affected by: Logging and associated road building including loss of large woody debris, siltation, and erosion 2. Diking and channel modification 3. Other land development practices and agriculture. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999. Puget Sound InDepartment of Fish and Wildlife 2003. Washington Departm

Flow / Water Temperature: 1. Loss of habitat from water diversions, dewatering of spawning redds; 2. Elevated stream temperatures from low flows due to diversion or runoff modification. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999. Puget Sound InDepartment of Fish and Wildlife 2003. Washington Departm

Estuary Habitat: Habitat loss or degradation due to: 1. port or industrial development 2. Agriculture, forestry, or urbanization. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999. Puget Sound InDepartment of Fish and Wildlife 2003. Washington DepartmCramer and Associates 1999. 

Hatchery Influence: 1. Production hatchery using out-of-basin stock; 2. Production hatchery using within-basin stock; 3. Supplementation hatchery or indicator stock program; 4. Supplementation hatchery essential for recovery. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999. Puget Sound InDepartment of Fish and Wildlife 2003. Washington Departm
Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of Puget Sound Chinook Populations, Their Distribution, Associa

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 4 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Appendix Table B-2b. Factors limiting natural chinook production in Puget Sound watersheds. 

Basin / Stock Group Status Habitat Factors Affecting Stock Status 

 Dams 

(River Mile Location / 

Miles Habitat Lost) 

Riparian Habitat Flow / Water 

Temp 

Estuary Ha

Puyallup  White Spring Critical RM 23.4 1, 2, 3 1 1  White Summer / Fall Unknown 1, 2, 3 1 1  Puyallup Summer /  Fall 

Unknown RM 41.7 / 10 1 

Nisqually  Nisqually Summer /  Fall 

Healthy RM 26 / 

RM 43 / 30 

 1 

South Sound  South Sound Tributaries  Summer / Fall 

Healthy 1 

Hood Canal  Hood Canal  Summer / Fall 

Healthy 1,2,3 

 Skokomish River RM 21 / 13 1 1 Juan de Fuca Strait  Dungeness Spring /  Summer 

Critical 1,2,3 1,2 

 Elwha / Morse Creek  Summer / Fall 

Healthy RM 4.9 and 13.4 / 35 main 

and 35 tributaries 

1 2 

Notes Sources 

Dams: Location of Dam (Rivermile) / estimated miles of lost spawning habitat. S.P. Cramer and Associates. 1999 Riparian Habitat: Riparian habitat affected by: Logging and associated road building including loss of large woody debris, siltation, and erosion 2. Diking and channel modification 3. Other land development practices and agriculture. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999. Puget Sound InDepartment of Fish and Wildlife 2003. Washington Departm

Flow / Water Temperature: 1. Loss of habitat from water diversions, dewatering of spawning redds; 2. Elevated stream temperatures from low flows due to diversion or runoff modification. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999. Puget Sound InDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Washington Departm

Estuary Habitat: Habitat loss or degradation due to: 1. port or industrial development 2. Agriculture, forestry, or urbanization. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999. Puget Sound InDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Washington DepartmCramer and Associates 1999. 

Hatchery Influence: 1. Production hatchery using out-of-basin stock; 2. Production hatchery using within-basin stock; 3. Supplementation hatchery or indicator stock program; 4. Supplementation hatchery essential for recovery. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999. Puget Sound InDepartment of Fish and Wildlife 2003. Washington Departm
Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of Puget Sound Chinook Populations, Their Distribution, Associa

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 5 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Appendix Table B-3a. Hydrological and spawning area profiles of chinook spawning basins in northern Puget Sound. 

Watershed  Tributary Area ( mi2) Avg. Elev. (ft.) Chinook Spawning Tributaries Spawning Miles Used Upstream 

 Barrier 

Nooksack 795 2208 90.6  NF Nooksack Boulder, Canyon, Cornell, Deadhorse, Glacier, Kendall, 

Maple and Racehorse Creek 

49.8 Nooksack Fa

 SF Nooksack Hutchinson and Skookum Creek 40.8  MF Nooksack 7.0 Bellingham Wa

Diversion 

Skagit  Lower Skagit 447 1128 Bacon, Carpenter, Day, Diobsud, Finney, Goodell, Illabot, 

Jackman, Jones, Mannser, Morgan, Nookachamps Creek; Baker River, McLeod Slough 

53.4 Lower Baker 

Upper Baker 

 Sauk 741 3726 Suiattle, N.F. Sauk, South Fork Sauk, Whitechuck River; 

Clear and Dan Creek 

97.8 

 Suiattle 346 Big, Buck, Downey, Lime, Milk, Straight, Sulphur, and 

Tenas Creek 

42.7 

 Upper Skagit 1630 1 4002 Goodell, and Illabot Creek; Cascade River 51.4 Gorge Stillaguamish 704 1792 132.8  NF Stillaguamish 284 40.3  SF Stillaguamish 255 Canyon and Jim Creek 46.2 Snohomish 278 518  Skykomish 853 2769 Sultan and Wallace R., Proctor, Deer, Elwell and Woods 

Cr. 159.6 

Sultan R. Wa

Diversion 

 NF Skykomish 147 14.0  SF Skykomish 362 Foss, Miller and Beckler River; Money and Bridal Veil Cr. 44.0 Sunset Falls  Snoqualmie 693 2136 Raging and Tolt River; Tokul Creek Snoqualmie F Tolt R. S. F

Sources: Area and Elevation; USGS data from University of Montana Environment Statistics Group, Hydrological Research Pro

Tributaries and Use; S.P. Cramer and Associates, 1999. Washington Department of Fisheries, 1993; Migration Barriers; S.P. CraMyers et al. 1998. 
Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of Puget Sound Chinook Populations, Their Distribution, Associa

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 6 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Appendix Table B-3b. Hydrological and spawning area profiles of chinook spawning basins in southern Puget Sound, H

Juan de Fuca. 

Watershed 

Tributary Area ( mi2) Avg. Elev. (ft.) Chinook Spawning Tributaries Spawning Miles Used Upstream 

 Barrier 

Lake Washington 619 898 

Issaquah Creek and Northern Tributaries 116.6 Ballard Lock

 Cedar River 188 

 22.6 Landsburg Dive

Duwamish / Green 487 1671 Soos, Crisp, May and Newaukum Creek 110.8 Tacoma Water DivPuyallup 996 2892 Clark, Fennel and Kapowsin Creek 146.8 Electron Divers Carbon South Prairie and Voight Creek 31.5  White Clearwater, Greenwater and West Fork White River; Boise 

and Blueberry Creek 72.3 Buckley Divers Mud Mounta

Nisqually 726 1778 Mashel River; Ohop and Yelm Creek 87.5 Yelm Diversio

 La Grande 

S. Sound Tribs  Deschutes 168 829 44.5 Skokomish 248 1896 51.5 Cushman No NF Skokomish 29.0  SF Skokomish 10.5 Hood Canal 957 2333 Anderson, Big Beef, Eagle, Fulton, Lilliwaup, Misson, 

Stavis, and Tarboo Cr.; Big Quilcene, Dewatto, Dosewalips, Duckabush, Hamma Hamma, Little Quilcene, Tahuya and Union River 44.7 

Strait of Juan de Fuca  Dungeness / Elwha 1270 2674 Canyon Creek; Graywolf River 31.0  Dungeness 198  Elwha 321 9.9 Elwha 

 Glines Canyo

Sources: Area and Elevation: USGS data from University of Montana Environment Statistics Group, Hydrological Research Pro

Tributaries and Use: S.P. Cramer and Associates, 1999. Washington Department of Fisheries, 1993; Migration Barriers: S.P. Cra

Myers et al. 1998. 
Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of Puget Sound Chinook Populations, Their Distribution, Associa

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 7 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Appendix Table B-4. Releases of juvenile hatchery chinook in Puget Sound 1991−2000 (thousands of fish). 

 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

S. Puget Sound Tribs Fall 19,441 18,964 15,832 7,643 16,917 15,675 15,054 18,217  Spring - - - 339 337 341 343 339 Duwamish Fall 12,149 5,302 6,067 4,424 7,915 5,886 6,403 4,786 Nooksack Fall 5,990 9,030 5,889 7,156 7,221 6,353 4,284 2,166  Spring 355 181 887 1,391 741 189 841 1,488 Hood Canal Fall 1,779 2,213 1,257 863 1,862 3,768 5,265 3,959  Spring 422 249 269 334 149 154 114 - Nisqually Fall 2,902 1,742 1,063 1,796 2,957 2,847 4,239 3,605 Other Puget Sound Fall 3,491 2,041 2,357 1,995 1,935 2,717 3,507 2,576  Spring - - - - 35 37 30 41  Summer - - - - - - - - Lake Washington Fall 4,357 2,910 2,186 2,031 2,401 2,394 2,073 2,930 Elwha Fall 2,622 3,967 632 1,955 2,443 2,579 2,375 2,176 Puyallup Fall 3,275 2,008 2,829 2,207 3,059 2,757 1,899 1,978 Snohomish Fall 915 430 294 709 1,468 1,361 1,376 -  Spring - - - - - - 102 355  Summer 212 305 618 1,004 281 1,196 1,390 1,450 Skagit Fall 1,145 786 1,839 - - - 100 -  Spring 419 285 642 1,043 503 484 380 388  Summer 305 986 583 417 192 138 23 202 Strait of Georgia Fall 555 412 420 1,379 1,375 965 1,005 2,105 White R. Spring 451 1,115 1,027 789 728 836 867 1,107 Dungeness Spring - - - - - 18 1,776 2,050 Skokomish Fall 198 1,713 294 - - 348 96 312 W. Strait Fall 194 223 191 235 326 319 83 240 Stillaguamish Summer - 202 100 235 344 35 218 95 Grand Total 61,178 55,063 45,275 37,943 53,190 51,397 53,845 52,565 

Source: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Regional Mark Information Service Database, December, 2002. 
Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of Puget Sound Chinook Populations, Their Distribution, Associa

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 8 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Appendix Table B-5. Summary of chinook exploitation rates from Fishery Regulation Assessment Model Runs (2002 Val

Skagit Stillaguamish Snohomish Nooksack Skagit White Nooksack Hood Canal JDF Tribs Lake Gree

S/F Nat \1 S/F S/F Nat \1 Early \2 Spr Nat Spr \3 S/F S/F S/F Washington Rive

1983 78% 73% 73% 49% 75% 59% 91% 81% 80% 82% 86% 1984 71% 61% 63% 43% 63% 41% 89% 69% 57% 76% 57% 1985 65% 46% 55% 43% 58% 33% 85% 70% 68% 79% 75% 1986 59% 62% 60% 43% 56% 44% 89% 82% 88% 69% 58% 1987 60% 47% 47% 42% 62% 35% 88% 84% 71% 79% 53% 1988 58% 57% 66% 50% 59% 35% 90% 75% 71% 87% 63% 1989 71% 47% 52% 37% 75% 36% 79% 77% 85% 77% 61% 1990 50% 47% 49% 32% 50% 33% 74% 71% 75% 69% 71% 1991 53% 38% 52% 36% 66% 48% 81% 70% 58% 82% 65% 1992 63% 42% 61% 34% 57% 32% 73% 79% 57% 81% 75% 1993 65% 28% 61% 30% 46% 24% 67% 63% 70% 61% 74% 1994 57% 29% 49% 28% 51% 49% 80% 69% 62% 38% 68% 1995 60% 43% 64% 24% 47% 34% 71% 37% 39% 31% 37% 1996 30% 34% 42% 18% 45% 33% 54% 33% 41% 28% 42% 1997 37% 31% 29% 22% 42% 22% 63% 40% 32% 29% 31% 1998 23% 15% 24% 15% 28% 19% 84% 16% 46% 15% 30% 1999 33% 20% 31% 17% 21% 28% 51% 48% 18% 20% 29% 2000 24% 27% 26% 17% 31% 19% 64% 51% 34% 42% 51% 

1 Only the portion of Skagit and Snohomish fingerling and yearling stocks representing wild chinook are presented in this table.

2 "Nooksack Early" stock comprises an aggregation of North Fork and South Fork Early ("Spring" or "Native") stocks.3 "White River Spring" stock is represented by fingerlings originating from the White River.Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Total Adult Equivalent Mortality: All Fisheries
Appendix B − Additional Information on the Biological and Habitat Characteristics of Puget Sound Chinook 

Populations, Their Distribution, Associated Hatchery Programs 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest B - 9 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix Table B-6. Percent of harvest mortality occuring on Puget Sound chinook indicator stocks 

by fishing area. 

Stock Fishing Area 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Hood Canal Fall Alaska 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 2.3% 0.7%

(George Adams Hatchery) Canada 30.7% 25.1% 54.3% 22.3% 41.0% 51.5% 25.5% 6.7% 26.5% 61.4%

U.S. Troll 10.0% 21.7% 9.4% 0.0% 1.4% 14.1% 8.0% 5.0% 12.0% 5.9%

U.S. Net 36.5% 8.9% 5.2% 44.4% 7.6% 0.0% 2.1% 5.5% 30.0% 0.0%

U.S. Sport 22.7% 44.3% 31.1% 33.2% 50.0% 34.4% 64.4% 77.6% 29.1% 32.0%

Nisqually Fall Alaska 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

Canada 21.7% 23.4% 34.6% 13.9% 19.6% 9.2% 12.8% 6.3% 10.3% 29.6%

U.S. Troll 20.1% 9.7% 4.7% 0.9% 3.8% 2.4% 1.3% 1.4% 5.4% 2.0%

U.S. Net 24.3% 26.1% 30.2% 26.3% 39.9% 52.6% 29.8% 51.9% 48.5% 40.5%

U.S. Sport 33.9% 40.8% 30.5% 59.0% 36.7% 35.4% 55.0% 40.1% 35.3% 27.5%

Nooksack Spring Alaska 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3%

Canada 75.6% 73.8% 66.7% 79.5% 62.9% 77.4% 48.3% 79.6% 74.2% 87.0%

U.S. Troll 3.5% 1.9% 1.4% 0.4% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 0.0%

U.S. Net 11.1% 0.7% 9.3% 11.4% 7.7% 0.0% 6.4% 1.8% 9.0% 0.0%

U.S. Sport 9.8% 18.7% 22.6% 7.6% 29.4% 20.8% 45.2% 18.5% 9.0% 8.7%

Samish Fall Alaska 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 1.6% 5.1% 5.4% 0.0%

Canada 43.3% 38.7% 58.8% 45.3% 27.5% 18.4% 25.9% 22.4% 37.2% 91.4%

U.S. Troll 12.5% 12.8% 5.1% 2.8% 4.8% 2.5% 1.7% 1.2% 2.5% 1.2%

U.S. Net 28.5% 18.2% 19.2% 45.7% 35.1% 43.1% 52.7% 63.3% 49.1% 7.4%

U.S. Sport 15.7% 30.3% 16.8% 5.6% 32.3% 35.9% 18.2% 7.9% 5.9% 0.0%

Skagit Spring Alaska 0.4% 1.5% 2.3% 1.6%

Canada 51.7% 48.0% 49.2% 62.0%

U.S. Troll 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

U.S. Net 2.6% 5.3% 3.4% 2.5%

U.S. Sport 45.3% 45.2% 44.4% 33.9%

Sosuthern Puget Sound Fall Alaska 0.7% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 1.6% 5.3% 2.1% 1.3%

Canada 29.7% 33.0% 40.6% 36.9% 30.7% 23.5% 33.5% 16.8% 27.0% 43.0%

U.S. Troll 16.4% 11.0% 7.9% 1.3% 4.2% 8.9% 5.3% 4.2% 11.6% 0.8%

U.S. Net 33.8% 25.6% 20.2% 29.2% 16.1% 17.3% 8.7% 29.4% 31.9% 23.8%

U.S. Sport 19.5% 29.4% 30.8% 32.6% 48.5% 49.7% 50.9% 44.3% 27.4% 31.0%

Stillaguamish Fall Alaska 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 4.1% 2.0% 20.4% 48.5% 7.4% 30.6%

Canada 41.1% 35.3% 54.9% 66.6% 52.8% 50.0% 41.0% 32.4% 73.1% 60.7%

U.S. Troll 15.3% 6.3% 8.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7%

U.S. Net 17.3% 12.4% 2.0% 6.3% 3.5% 0.4% 3.4% 7.0% 1.4% 2.2%

U.S. Sport 25.8% 46.0% 34.4% 19.3% 38.1% 47.6% 35.2% 12.1% 18.0% 3.8%

White River Spring Alaska 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Canada 3.5% 12.8% 2.8% 4.9% 1.4% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 7.3% 16.6%

U.S. Troll 6.6% 4.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0%

U.S. Net 15.6% 11.0% 6.7% 2.8% 2.1% 0.6% 6.6% 3.8% 0.0% 8.4%

U.S. Sport 74.3% 72.2% 84.5% 92.3% 96.5% 97.2% 93.4% 92.3% 92.7% 75.0%

Source: Pacific Salmon Commission 2002.

Catch Year

 

 

APPENDIX C 

Technical Methods - 

Derivation of Chinook Management 

Objectives and Fishery Impact 

Modeling Methods 

Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 1 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Appendix C1.

2 Basis for Puget Sound chinook salmon escapement goals used in determining the harvestable

3 abundance for Alternative 2. Several of these goals were also used as standards to evaluate the

4 predicted effects of the alternatives when they represented the best information available about the

5 habitat capacity and productivity of the watershed in which the chinook salmon population spawns.

6 Nooksack early

7 The management unit escapement goal of 4,000 early chinook salmon implies a goal of 2,000 natural8 origin early chinook salmon spawners in each of the South Fork and North Fork Nooksack Rivers. The

9 goal is not based on current habitat capacity, or the current productivity of either population. This

10 interim goal was established in the 2001 Harvest Management Plan (WWIT and WDFW 2001).

11 Skagit Summer-fall and spring  Escapement goals are defined as the level, within the framework of

12 the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan, most likely to maximize long-term harvest.

13 Escapement goals were derived analytically, based on recent productivity parameters derived by the

14 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) method (Mobrand Biometrics 1999), assuming current

15 habitat conditions. The population simulation model and methodological assumptions are described in

16 detail in Appendix A to the HMP, Skagit River Management Unit Profile. (Note: The HMP is

17 Appendix A to the DEIS.) The summer-fall chinook salmon escapement goal is 14,500; i.e. 8,434 for

18 the upper Skagit summer population, 1,926 for the lower Sauk summer population, and 4,140 for the

19 lower Skagit fall population. The spring chinook salmon escapement goal is 2,000, comprised of 986

20 for the upper Sauk, 440 for the Cascade, and 574 for the Suiattle populations. These goals are

21 considerably higher than the MSY escapement levels calculated from spawner recruit parameters,

22 without consideration of management error or environmental variation.

23 Stillaguamish – The escapement goal for the North Fork Stillaguamish (600) is an estimate of

24 optimum (Maximum Sustained Yield) escapement, derived from fitting a Ricker recruitment function

25 to recent spawner – recruit data. Cohort reconstruction of brood-year recruitment was calculated from

26 coded-wire tag recoveries. The goal for the South Fork Stillaguamish (300) resulted from habitat-based

27 analysis (EDT method – Mobrand Biometrics 1999; and Mobrand 2000) of the performance of various

28 life history trajectories in the watershed given current habitat conditions. The output represents the

29 average performance of the population under the given conditions, and there is no adjustment for

30 random fluctuations or for improvements or degradation of habitat conditions. Additionally, average
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 2 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 marine survival conditions for 19891995 were assumed in this analysis (personal communication with

2 Kit Rawson, Tulalip Department of Natural Resources, Senior Fishery Management Biologist,

3 December 6, 2002). A Beverton-Holt recruitment function was fit to habitat-based productivity

4 estimates, allowing a determination of escapement at Maximum Sustained Yield.

5 Snohomish – The Snohomish system escapement goal of 4,600 is a composite of population goals for

6 the Skykomish (3,600) and Snoqualmie (1,000) systems. These goals were derived by the Ecosystem

7 Diagnosis and Treatment method, described above for the Stillaguamish analysis. The Skykomish goal

8 was verified using coded-wire-tag (CWT)-based cohort reconstruction, and spawner-recruit analysis.

9 See the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan, Appendix A, Snohomish River Management

10 Unit Profile, for a detailed description of the derivation of these goals.

11 Lake Washington

12 The Lake Washington management unit escapement goal of 1,550 comprises goals for the Cedar River

13 and Bear Creek of 1,200 and 350, respectively. The Cedar River escapement goal should be considered

14 a conservative estimate. The goal is based on historical escapement estimates where an attempt is made

15 to survey the entire known spawning area. However, in some years, chinook salmon adults spawn in

16 tributaries to the Cedar River that are not usually part of the major spawning area. In addition, some

17 fish are missed by the surveyors as they raft the river (personal communication with Steve Foley,

18 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Biologist, February 18, 2004). The Bear Creek

19 escapement goal is based on spawner counts in index reaches that have not been expanded to include

20 chinook spawners in other known spawning areas of the river. They are based on historical counts in

21 these areas, specifically the 1965–1969 average for the Cedar River, and the 1983–1992 average for

22 Bear Creek. These interim goals were stated in a technical memorandum to WDFW and tribal

23 managers (P. Hage, R. Hatch, and C. Smith. March 28, 1994. Interim escapement goals for Lake

24 Washington chinook salmon). This goal was used to assess predicted impacts to escapement among the

25 alternatives.

26 Green-Duwamish

27 The escapement goal of 5,800 for the Green – Duwamish River is based on survey of the index reach

28 from RM 29.6 to 47.6 (17.4 stream miles). Accurate escapement estimates from this reach were

29 expanded to the total system according to the distribution of total escapement determined from tagging
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 3 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 studies. Corrected total escapements for the 12-year period from 1965 to 1976 averaged 5,740, so the

2 system escapement goal was set at 5,800 (Washington Department of Fisheries Technical Report 29).

3 White

4 The interim escapement goal for the White River is for 1,000 adult chinook salmon to be captured at

5 the Buckley Trap and transported above Mud Mountain Dam. These fish then migrate to natural

6 spawning areas in the upper watershed. This goal was established by the inter-agency White River

7 Recovery Team (WDFW et al. 1996. Recovery Plan for White River Spring chinook salmon). It is

8 based on an analysis of habitat capacity (Warren 1994) in three tributaries to the upper mainstem, in

9 which the majority of natural spawning now occurs. This goal was used to assess predicted impacts to

10 escapement among the alternatives.

11 Puyallup

12 The current intent of fisheries management, for Puyallup fall chinook salmon, is to achieve escapement

13 of at least 500 into the South Prairie/Wilkeson Creek tributary system. While the relationship between

14 escapement to South Prairie and the entire Puyallup River system is not yet exactly quantified, the best

15 available information suggests this level of escapement to South Prairie Creek represents an index of

16 adequate seeding of the entire system. Uncertainty persists regarding system capacity due to the

17 difficulty in enumerating adult chinook salmon in the mainstem, and the unknown potential of recently

18 re-colonized habitat upstream of Electron Dam. For the purposes of catch modeling done for NEPA

19 review, a system escapement goal was established at 1,200. This estimate is based on analysis of

20 productivity under current habitat constraints, using the EDT method, which indicated that Maximum

21 Sustained Yield (MSY) escapement is approximately 600, assuming a 50 percent hatchery contribution

22 to natural spawning yields the escapement goal for the system.

23 Nisqually

24 Based on EDT habitat analysis, fitting a Beverton-Holt function to existing data on current habitat

25 potential, Maximum Sustained Yield escapement, under current conditions, was estimated to be 1,100

26 (NCRT 2001, Chapter 5, p. 46, and Appendix 4 Section 3.2).

27 Skokomish and Mid- Hood Canal

28 Current natural escapement goals for the Skokomish River, and the three Mid-Canal rivers

29 (Dosewallips, Duckabush, and Hamma Hamma) are 1,650 and 750, respectively. These goals are based
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 4 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 on the historical average escapement from 1965–1976 (WDFW 1977 Technical Report 29). The current

2 capacity of habitat in these systems has not been quantified. Spawning habitat in the South Fork

3 Skokomish is severely degraded and subject to annual flood or high flow. Hydroelectric facility

4 operations constrain spawning success in the North Fork Skokomish.

5 Dungeness

6 The Dungeness River escapement goal of 925 is based on accessible spawning habitat (i.e., 17.7 miles

7 in the mainstem, 8.0 miles in the Gray Wolf River), historical redd density (12 redds per mile), and

8 spawner distribution (three adults per redd) (C. Smith and B. Sele. July 12, 1994. Memorandum:

9 Dungeness River escapement goal). This goal was used to assess predicted impacts to escapement

10 among the alternatives.

11 Elwha

12 The escapement goal for the Elwha River (2,900) is a composite of 2,400 adults required for

13 broodstock by the hatchery programs, and 500 natural spawners. The natural component is based on the

14 capacity of habitat that currently exists in the 4.9 river miles below Elwha Dam.

15 Hoko

16 The Hoko River escapement goal of 1,050 comprises the broodstock requirement for the Hoko

17 Hatchery supplementation program of 200 (100 pairs), and 850 natural spawners to adequately seed

18 natural spawning habitat in the mainstem and tributaries (Washington Department of Fisheries

19 Technical Report 29).
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 5 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Appendix C2.

2 Basis for National Marine Fisheries Service Critical and Viable Escapement Thresholds, and

3 Rebuilding Exploitation Rates used to assess the effects on abundance and recovery of Puget

4 Sound chinook salmon populations.

5 The method used to determine critical and viable escapement thresholds and Rebuilding Exploitation

Rates was developed with three objectives in mindi 6 . This method is described in more detail by NMFS

7 in a document titled Viable Risk Assessment Procedure (McElhaney et al. 1999). First, NMFS sought

8 to evaluate the proposed fisheries using biologically-based measures of the total exploitation rate that

9 occurred across the full range of the species. Second, NMFS sought to use an approach that was

10 consistent with the concepts developed by NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center for the purpose

11 of defining the conservation status of populations and ESUs; i.e.,Viable Salmonid Populations

12 (McElhaney et al. 1999). Finally, NMFS sought to develop an approach for defining target exploitation

13 rates that could be related directly to the regulatory definition of jeopardy. The product of this approach

14 is a set of Rebuilding Exploitation Rates for representative stocks within each Evolutionarily

15 Significant Unit. Rebuilding Exploitation Rates were developed for a limited set of Puget Sound

16 chinook salmon populations. The proposed fisheries were then evaluated, in part, by comparing the

17 Rebuilding Exploitation Rates to exploitation rates anticipated as a result of the proposed fishery

18 regime, recognizing that the jeopardy determination must be made with respect to the overall ESU.

19 More qualitative considerations were used to extrapolate where necessary from the available

20 Rebuilding Exploitation Rate analyses.

21 There are four steps involved with determining population-specific Rebuilding Exploitation Rates: 1)

22 identify populations, 2) set critical and viable threshold abundance levels, 3) estimate population

23 productivity as indicated by a spawner-recruit relationship, and 4) identify an appropriate Rebuilding

24 Exploitation Rate through simulation.

25 As described in Subsection 3.3, Fish  Affected Environment, the population structure used for the

26 Puget Sound chinook salmon Evoluntionarily Significant Unit is that defined by the Puget Sound and

27 Olympic Peninsula Technical Recovery Team (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 2003).

 

i

 This method was first used to assess the impacts from implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (NMFS

1999) and has been used by NMFS to evaluate harvest actions impacting the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU

since that time (NMFS 2000 [PFMC BO], NMFS 2001 [4(d) Rule]).
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 6 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 The Viable Salmonid Populations document (McElhaney et al. 1999) develops the idea of threshold

2 abundance levels as one of several indicators of population status (others being productivity, spatial

3 structure, and diversity). The thresholds described include a critical threshold and a viable population

4 abundance level. The critical threshold generally represents a boundary below which uncertainties

5 about population dynamics increase and therefore extinction risk increases substantially. The viable

6 population threshold is a higher abundance level that would generally indicate recovery or a point

7 beyond which ESA-type protections are no longer required, with the caveat that abundance is not the

8 only relevant or necessary indicator of recovery.

9 The Viable Salmonid Populations document provides several rules of thumb that are intended to serve

10 as guidelines for setting population-specific thresholds (McElhaney et al. 1999). Unfortunately, these

11 guidelines continue to evolve as part of the ongoing development process. Population-specific targets

12 will be identified in the final recovery plan for the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU. However,

13 because the thresholds were needed to set the Rebuilding Exploitation Rates, NMFS considered the

14 existing rules of thumb, and other relevant guidance, to make preliminary threshold determinations for

15 Puget Sound chinook salmon populations.

16 The critical threshold was developed from a consideration of genetic, demographic, and spatial risk

17 factors for each population. Genetic risks to small populations include the loss of genetic variation,

18 inbreeding depression, and the accumulation of deleterious mutations. The risk posed to a population

19 by genetic factors is often expressed relative to the effective population size, or the size of an idealized

20 population that would produce the same level of inbreeding or genetic drift that is seen in an observed

21 population. Guidance from the existing Viable Salmonid Populations document suggests that effective

22 population sizes of less than 500 to 5,000 per generation are at increased risk. The population size

23 range per generation was converted to an annual spawner abundance range of 125 to 1,250 by dividing

24 by four, which is the approximate generation length. An escapement level of 200 fish was selected

25 from this range to represent a critical threshold for genetic risk factors (Method 1), since most of the

26 populations that were subject to the Rebuilding Exploitation Rate analysis were relatively small. For

27 example, the interim escapement objectives for the Nooksack River stocks are 2,000 fish each. Critical

28 escapement threshold values much larger than 200 would be out of context for the populations of

29 concern.

30 The Biological Requirements Work Group (BRWG 1994) took genetic considerations and other factors

31 into account in their effort to provide guidance with respect to a lower population threshold for Snake
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 7 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 River spring/summer chinook salmon. They recommended annual escapements of 150 and 300, for

2 small and large populations, which represented levels below which survival becomes increasingly

3 uncertain due to various risk factors and a lack of information regarding population responses at low

4 spawning levels. This provides independent support for the use of 200 (which is within the range of

5 150 to 300) as a critical threshold.

6 Factors associated with demographic risks include environmental variability and depensation.

7 Depensation  a decline in the productivity of a population (e.g., smolts per spawner) as the abundance

8 declines  can result from the uncertainty of finding a mate in a sparse population and/or increased

9 predation rates at low abundance. Demographic risks were assessed using a Ricker stock-recruit model

10 (Method 2). Peterman (1977 and 1987) provided a rationale for depensation and suggested relating the

11 escapement level at which depensation occurs to the size of the population in the absence of fishing

12 (equilibrium escapement level). NMFS set this measure of the critical threshold equal to 5 percent of

13 the equilibrium escapement level. In cases where there were no data in the lower range of escapements,

14 a third method (Method 3) was used. In these cases, the lowest escapement with a positive adult return

15 was used.

16 Each of the measures of the preliminary critical threshold was considered in the context of the types

17 and quality of data available, the characteristics of the watershed, and the biology of the population

18 (Table C2-1). For “large populations,” NMFS typically selected a critical threshold based on Method 2

19 to assure a sufficient density of spawners, or Method 3 where there were no escapements in the lower

20 range to define the lower limb of the stock-recruit relationship. Method 1 was used for small

21 populations or populations for which NMFS was unable to estimate the equilibrium population size or

22 analysis is not complete at this time.

23 Similar methods were used to establish the viable population threshold. In this case, the criteria were

24 1,250 spawners (genetics, derived from the Viable Salmonid Population guideline range of 5,000 to

25 16,700 divided by the average generation length of approximately 4 years) (Method 1); the level of

26 escapement required to achieve the maximum sustainable yield (demographics) under current

27 environmental conditions (Method 2); or other information related to the productivity and capacity of

28 the watershed (Method 3). Again, the decision concerning which method to use was based on a

29 consideration of the context of the types and quality of data available, the characteristics of the

30 watershed, and the biology of the population (Table C2-1).
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 8 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 The third step in the process of identifying population-specific Rebuilding Exploitation Rates is to

2 estimate the stock-recruit parameters. Estimates of the stock-recruit parameters for each population

3 were required for both establishing the escapement threshold levels (Method 2), and for the simulations

4 of population dynamics. Several different stock-recruit relationships were examined: Ricker, Beverton5 Holt and the Hockey Stick. The three functions differ primarily in the response of population

6 abundance at higher escapement levels. The Ricker function assumes that at some level of spawners,

7 productivity begins to decline as escapement increases; i.e., at higher escapement levels, competition

8 for natural resources (such as spawning or rearing space and food) results in fewer progeny produced

9 for each additional spawner. The Beverton-Holt function assumes that at some level of escapement,

10 productivity continues to increase with increasing escapement, but only gradually. The Hockey-Stick

11 function assumes that at some level of escapement, productivity levels off, neither increasing nor

12 decreasing. Below this level of escapement, the relationship is density-independent; i.e., the number of

13 progeny produced is independent of the number of spawners. Where data were sufficient to conduct

14 spawner-recruit analyses, hatchery-origin spawners were included in the estimate of parent escapement

15 since they contributed to the progeny produced, but were removed from the escapement of adults

16 produced from that brood year in order to assess the natural productivity of the parental spawners.
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 9 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Figure C2-1. Spawner-recruit response for each spawner-recruit function evaluated in development of

2 escapement thresholds and Rebuilding Exploitation Rates.

Escapement

Progeny

Ricker

Escapement

Progeny

Beverton-Holt

Escapement

Progeny

Hockey-Stick

3

4 The final step in determining Rebuilding Exploitation Rates is to use a simulation model to iteratively

5 solve for an exploitation rate that meets specific criteria related to both survival and recovery given the

6 specified thresholds and estimated spawner/recruit parameters. The consultation regulations define

7 "jeopardize the continued existence" to mean:

8 "... to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce

9 appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by

10 reducing appreciably the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species" (50 CFR section

11 402.2).
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 10 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 The simulation then uses a quantified level of risk associated with this definition - "... reduce

2 appreciably the likelihood of survival and recovery ..." and the population specific threshold levels to

3 identify an exploitation rate that meets the following criteria:

4 1) Did the percentage of escapements less than the critical threshold value increase by less than 5

5 percentage points relative to the baseline?

6 and, either

7 2a) Does the escapement at the end of the 25-year simulation exceed the viable threshold at least 80

8 percent of the time?

9 or

10 2b) Does the percentage of escapements less than the viable level at the end of the 25-year simulation

11 differ from the baseline by less than 10 percentage points?

12 For comparison purposes, these simulations were measures against simulations that assumed these

13 species were not harvested anywhere as the baseline (a zero exploitation rate). In addition, the

14 simulation model uses available information on management error, and errors in measurement of the

15 stock-recruit parameters used in the model to account for uncertainty in management precision and

16 parameter estimation.

17 The Rebuilding Exploitation Rate is then the level of exploitation rate that results in a low probability

18 that the proposed harvest action will endanger the survival of the population, and a relatively high

19 probability that the proposed harvest action will not impede recovery as defined in this context.

20 Recovery in this context means achieving the viable abundance threshold for a population, assuming

21 current habitat conditions. That is why they are called Rebuilding and not Recovery Exploitation Rates.

22 Recovery will require improvements in all primary sources of salmon mortality. A separate recovery

23 planning process is currently underway that will ultimately define recovery in terms of necessary

24 improvements in all four Hs (harvest, hatchery, habitat and hydropower), and in the context of the ESU

25 as a whole.

26 The Rebuilding Exploitation Rate is the highest exploitation rate that can meet Criterion 1 and

27 Criterion 2a or 2b. Once identified, proposed fisheries can be evaluated by considering the likelihood

28 that they will meet the Rebuilding Exploitation Rates. It is important to emphasize that the Rebuilding

29 Exploitation Rate analysis is made with respect to populations, while ESA determinations must be

30 made with respect to the anticipated impacts to the ESU. For example, failure to meet the Rebuilding
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 11 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Exploitation Rate standards for one population in a large ESU such as the Puget Sound chinook salmon

2 ESU does not necessarily indicate jeopardy to the ESU as a whole.

3 A final step was to convert the Rebuilding Exploitation Rates based on coded-wire tags (CWT) into

4 values that could be easily compared with output from the model used to assess the alternatives in this

5 Environmental Impact Statement: the Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM). This step was

6 necessary to compare the exploitation rates resulting from the fishery strategies under each alternative

7 to the Rebuilding Exploitation Rates used to assess progress toward recovery. This was done by

8 regressing validated FRAM exploitation rates from past years against the brood year CWT-based

9 exploitation rates from which the Rebuilding Exploitation Rates were derived. The regression

10 relationship was then applied to the Rebuilding Exploitation Rate CWT-based value, resulting in a

11 Rebuilding Exploitation Rate measured in FRAM terms.

12 The RERs, CETs and VETs used in the DEIS, both those used as objectives and those used as

13 standards for evaluation, were derived from several methods depending on the amount and quality of

14 available data (DEIS Appendices A and C). For those populations where these parameters are derived

15 from population-specific spawner-recruit relationships, the parameters will change as changing habitat

16 conditions, both in marine and freshwater environments, are reflected in the spawner-recruit

17 relationship. A spawner-recruit relationship describes the number of fish at a given life stage that is

18 produced from a specific level of adult escapement (Figures C2-1 and C2-2), taking into account the

19 amount of available habitat (capacity), and the quality of the habitat (productivity). As described

20 previously in this section, the viable thresholds are generally defined as the number of spawners that

21 corresponds with the point of maximum sustained yield; i.e., the largest number of fish produced per

22 spawning adult. The critical thresholds are defined as the number of spawners that corresponds with

23 five percent of the equilibrium escapement (the number of progeny is equal to the number of spawning

24 adults), or as the lowest adult escapement that more than replaces itself in the subsequent generation. It

25 is important to remember that the term “viable threshold” as used by NMFS in the context of this EIS is

26 based on consistency with current habitat conditions and should not be confused with what would

27 represent a recovered population.

28 The spawner-recruit relationship for a population may change, and thus the escapement level

29 corresponding to the viable threshold will increase or decrease as habitat quality and quantity increase

30 or decrease (Figure C2-2). The same may or may not be the case for the critical threshold, since it

31 defines a minimal escapement more influenced by genetic and demographic concerns than the viable
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 12 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 threshold (Table C2-1). For example, an increase in habitat quality and quantity will not change the

2 critical threshold as defined by the lowest escapement that replaces itself. Increasing or decreasing

3 habitat capacity will have less of an effect on the number of offspring produced than increasing or

4 decreasing productivity and, when the number of spawners that the habitat can support increases, the

5 number of offspring (recruits) produced for each additional spawner may not increase without an

6 increase in habitat quality (Table C2-1 and Figure C2-2). Increasing or decreasing spawning or rearing

7 habitat capacity will result in a corresponding increase or decrease in the viable escapement threshold.

8 Increasing or decreasing habitat quality will have a larger effect on the number of offspring produced

9 per spawner at a lower viable escapement threshold than with changes in habitat capacity (Figure C2-

10 2). This is because, although the amount of habitat is limited, the quality of the habitat in terms of food,

11 water quality, or other factors influences the survival of the offspring produced much more than a

12 change in the amount of available habitat. The greatest change in the magnitude of the viable

13 escapement threshold and the offspring produced occurs when both the capacity and the quality of the

14 habitat changes.

15 Because the RER is dependent on the probability of meeting the viable and critical thresholds, it will

16 change as these thresholds change. In general, as the habitat improves or increases, the RER will

17 increase because more fish will be produced for each spawner and a greater surplus will be available

18 beyond that needed to sustain the population (Table C2-1). When habitat quality and quantity

19 decreases, the RER will decrease because less surplus will be available and the possibility of falling

20 below the critical threshold will become more likely.
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 13 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

1 Table C2-1. Changes in the viable escapement thresholds, the critical escapement threshold, and the

2 available surplus as a function of changes in habitat capacity (carrying capacity in terms

3 of number of smolts rather than area) and productivity. Productivity and capacity were

4 increased or decreased by a factor of 2. These are examples only and do not represent an

5 actual Puget Sound Chinook salmon population.

Capacity Quality Both

Control Increase Decrease Increase Decrease Increase Decrease

Viable Escapement

Threshold 1,000 2,500 500 2,000 300 3,500 100

Critical Escapement

Threshold 2001 260 2001 240 2001 470 2001

Offspring produced at

VET 1,720 3,455 860 4,929 508 9,375 112

Recruits/spawner at VET 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.5 1.0 2.7 1.1

Surplus Available 720 1,460 360 2,930 8 5,880 0

1 6 The critical threshold is lower in these situations when calculated as 5% of the equilibrium abundance, but

7 without evidence that the spawners could replace themselves at such a low level, a generic critical threshold of

8 200 based on the general scientific literature would be implemented.

9 Source: S. Bishop, Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries

10 Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, August 2004.
nment

vest C - 14 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

wner-recruit relationship and, counter clockwise from upper right, effects on VET and CET resulting from (a) increasing (1)

asing (2) capacity, no change to quality; (b) increasing (1) and decreasing (2) quality, no change to capacity; (c) increasing

ecreasing (2) both capacity and quality.

tuation Change Capacity

 Productivity Change both Capacity and Productivity

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Spawners

Recruits=Spawners

VET

CET

0

1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Increased Capacity Decreased Capacity

VET1

VET2

CET1&2

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Increased Productivity Decreased Productivity

CET1&2

VET2

VET1

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Increase Both surplus Decrease Both

VET1

VET2

CET2

CET1
Appendix C – Technical Methods –

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 15 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

The following tables summarize the data and methods used to determine the critical and viable

thresholds and Rebuilding Exploitation Rates used in the evaluation of effects to Puget Sound chinook

salmon.

Table C2-21. Methods used to derive critical and viable thresholds for Puget Sound chinook salmon

populations.

Population Critical Threshold Method Viable Threshold Method

Strait of Juan de Fuca

Dungeness Spring 200 1 925 3

Elwha 200 1 2,900 3

North Puget Sound

Nooksack Spring

 North Fork Nooksack

 South Fork Nooksack

200

200

1

1

500 2

 Skagit Spring

 Upper Cascade

 Upper Sauk

 Suiattle

Skagit Summer/Fall

 Lower Sauk

 Upper Skagit

 Lower Skagit

170

130

170

200

967

251

3

3

3

1

2

2

NA

330

400

681

7,454

2,182

2

2

2

2

2

Stillaguamish Summer/Fall

 North Fork Stillaguamish

 South Fork Stillaguamish

300

200

2

1

552

300

2

2

Snohomish Summer/Fall

 Skykomish

 Snoqualmie

1,650

400

3

3

3,500

NA

2

South Puget Sound

Lake Washington-Cedar R. 200 1 1,200 3

Green-Duwamish 835 2 5,523 2

Puyallup 200 1 1,200 3

Nisqually 200 1 1,100 3

White Spring 200 1 1,000 3

Hood Canal

Mid-Canal Summer/Fall 200 1 1,250 1

Skokomish 200 1 1,250 1

Source: S. Bishop, National Marine Fisheries Service, data analysis conducted in 19992003.

1 = Generic guidelines from Viable Salmonid Population document (McElhaney et al. 2000).

2 = Spawner-recruit analysis.

3 = Critical: lowest escapement with a positive adult return.

4 = Viable: other sources of information related to population productivity/capacity (see Appendix C1).
ethods –

agement Standards and Fishery Impacts

vest C - 16 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

d to derive critical and viable escapement thresholds and Rebuilding Exploitation Rates.

Environmental Variables

Escapement Age Freshwater Marine

19842001 1992,93,95,99,2001 19841997 19841997 BY198020011980200119802001

1986,92-95,19972001

198690,19922001

1981-19971986-1997

198197 BY

none

(Skagit spring yearling indicator stock)

197419971974199719741997

Area 8/Skagit River

196572,7477,8089,

19921993

19701996

19701996

19701996

1979, 19811992 BY1979, 19811992 BY1979, 19811992 BY

(Stillaguamish and Samish indicator stocks)

er/Fall

amish

amish

1974199719851997

nonenone

No relationshipNo relationship

19831992 BY19831992 BY

(Stillaguamish and Samish used for marine survival

pre-1986)

/Fall

19792000 1989,19971999

(19791988,

19901996 simulated)

19791996 19791994 BY

(Stillaguamish, Samish, Quinsam, CHI indicator

stocks)

19711996 none No relationship 19831992 BY

hop, Puget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries Division, National Marine Fisheries Service,

ducted 1999-2003.
ethods –

agement Standards and Fishery Impacts

vest C - 17 December 2004

n NEPA Final EIS

d to derive critical and viable escapement thresholds and Rebuilding Exploitation Rates.

Fishery

Mortality

Management

Error Spawner-Recruit Function Indicator Stock

19841997 BY 19881993 Ricker, Bev-H, Hockey Stick 19841987 South Fork Nooksack fingerling

19891997 North Fork Nooksack yearling

19811997 BY19811997 BY

19881993

19881993

Ricker

Ricker, Bev-H, Hockey Stick

19811997 BY

(Skagit spring yearling indicator stocks)

19711992 BY19711992 BY19711992 BY

19881993

19881993

19881993

RickerRickerRicker

Stillaguamish and Samish

ll

h

h

19741993 BY19741993 BY

19881993

19881993

RickerRicker

Stillaguamish

19791996 BY 19881993 Beverton-Holt PS aggregate for preterminal fishing rates; terminal run

reconstruction for terminal fishing rates

19731975,19781981,

19851993

19881993 Ricker Soos Creek

(Nisqually and Grovers also used for marine survival in

19841985)

uget Sound/Washington Coastal Harvest Management Leader, Sustainable Fisheries Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, data

9-2003.

s sampled from spawning grounds. If insufficient samples were available, age data was simulated.

 management error from several Puget Sound chinook salmon indicator stocks (J. Gutmann, 1998).

ear in which the parents spawned.

Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 18 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix C3. Modeling Assumptions and Inputs for EIS Alternatives and Scenarios 

The effects on listed and unlisted salmon and socio-economic impacts evaluated in the Environmental 

Impact Statement were determined by the distribution and magnitude of catch, fishing opportunity 

(sport angler trips) and escapement. The Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM) and other 

sources of data were used to predict catch, exploitation rates, angler trips and escapement. Results were 

reported for five regional fisheries consistent with the available FRAM model output: 

Regional Fishery Washington Catch Areas 

Strait of Juan de Fuca 4B (except May-September when area is under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council), 5, 6, 6A, 6C 

Dungeness Bay (6D) 

All freshwater rivers flowing into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

North Puget Sound 7, 7A 

Bellingham Bay (7B, 7C, 7D) 

All freshwater rivers flowing into these marine areas. 

Central Puget Sound 8, , 8A, 9 

Skagit Bay (8) 

Tulalip Bay (8D) 

All freshwater rivers flowing into these marine areas. 

South Puget Sound Marine areas 10,11,13, 13A-13K 

Eliott Bay (10A) 

Sinclair Inlet (10E) 

Commencement Bay (11A) 

Lake Washington and a freshwater rivers flowing into South Puget Sound marine areas. 

Hood Canal Marine areas 12, 12B, 12C 

Port Gamble Bay (9A) 

Quilcene/Dabob Bays (12A) 

All freshwater rivers flowing into these marine areas. 

The following sections describes the assumptions made regarding the abundance of contributing 

salmon stocks and the structure of fisheries, in order to predict the catch and escapement of the five 

species of salmon associated with each alternative. As described below (C4), the FRAM allows a very 

detailed assessment of commercial and recreational harvest of chinook and coho salmon in Puget 

Sound, based on equally detailed input of expected stock abundance and the expected fishery regime, 

and predicts natural and hatchery escapement for management units or, with subsequent analysis, 

individual populations. Chinook catch and escapement were analyzed in greater detail (four scenarios), 

to consider the effects of variable northern (Canadian/Alaskan) intercepting fisheries and of variable 

abundance. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 19 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Fisheries for other species (i.e., pink, sockeye, coho, and chum salmon) are managed to achieve 

escapement goals established for management units. Their harvest distribution is analyzed in less detail 

because the structure of fisheries, which are primarily commercial, is much less complex. For species 

other than chinook salmon the effects of variable abundance were not modeled or described. 

Catch and escapement for each species of salmon was reported for each Puget Sound management unit, 

with catch in regional fisheries detailed where applicable. Total exploitation rates were estimated for 

each management unit. Estimates of total mortality and escapement were also reported for hatchery and 

naturally-spawning components where applicable. Exploitation rates were assumed to be the same for 

hatchery- and naturally-spawning components since the information is not available to distinguish 

between the two components. 

With the forecast abundance of hatchery production and natural components, and the expected catch in 

all fisheries as input, the FRAM estimates catch by fishery and escapement for individual management 

units of chinook and coho salmon. Catch was reported either as catch of all populations within a region, 

or catch of a mangement unit across all regional fisheries. 

For management units with multiple populations, the exploitation rate for each population was assumed 

to be the same as that of the management unit because the available model does not distinguish among 

populations. At this time, one coded-wire tag indicator stock is used to represent the exploitation rate 

on all populations within a management unit. A more detailed description of the FRAM is provided 

below in C4. 

Chinook Salmon 

Alternative 1

To simplify the analysis, and yet give a current perspective on the outcome of fisheries, modeling 

chinook salmon catch and escapement for the four alternative fishing regimes was based on the 

forecasts of abundance developed for pre-season planning in 2003. Modeling of Alternative 1 was 

based on the 2003 pre-season FRAM run, with some adjustments in the harvest objectives (e.g, 

Exploitation Rate [ER] ceilings) for some management units to reflect the proposed 2004–2009 Puget 

Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan (HMP) proposed for implementation during the 2005–2009 

fishing seasons, and consequent shaping of fisheries to achieve all those objectives. The pre-season 

(prior to implementation of the fisheries) expectations in 2003 were used to assess Alternative 1 

because: 1) 2003 is generally representative of status quo conditions – management objectives were 

identical to the proposed Puget Sound chinook harvest plan; 2) it includes impacts to chinook that 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 20 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

occur in pink fisheries that do not occur in even-numbered years, and; 3) pre-season expectations better 

reflect the intended implementation of the HMP. 

The pre-season 2003 fishing regime provides a valid general example of management intent under the 

HMP. Because chinook salmon from critical and non-critical units commingle in many marine areas, 

meeting the objectives for the weak stocks implies that otherwise-surplus chinook from strong units 

will not be harvested. In principle, this surplus could be harvested selectively in freshwater areas. 

However, the HMP states that stronger stocks will only be harvested ‘down’ to their escapement goals, 

or ‘up’ to their ER ceilings, if they meet stringent criteria defining harvestable surplus. It was assumed 

that these conditions would not be met during the term of the proposed HMP, so for many units (e.g., 

Skagit spring, Stillaguamish, Snohomish), the surplus was accrued to escapement. For other units (e.g., 

Green, Nisqually, Puyallup), harvestable surplus was forecasted, so the pre-season FRAM was 

configured to harvest that surplus, ‘up’ to the Recovery Exploitation Rate (RER), or ‘down’ to the 

stated escapement goal. 

Chinook salmon escapement estimates for each Puget Sound management unit were taken from FRAM 

runs that simulated each scenario under Alterative 1. The FRAM subtracts fishery-related mortality that 

occurs through the month of September from the initial (i.e., unfished) abundance of each unit, then 

discounts the contribution of surviving 2-, 3-, and 4-year-old fish, according to their maturation rates. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Due to the implications of escapement goal management, Alternatives 2 and 3 involved similar, very 

sweeping changes in the distribution of fisheries, relative to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3, 

terminal-area fisheries were defined as those harvesting only local-origin chinook. For example, the 

terminal area for the Skagit River would be defined where only Skagit-origin chinook would be caught. 

However, it was determined at the outset that virtually all marine area fisheries in Puget Sound 

encounter a mixture of Puget Sound chinook stocks. Since the abundance of one or more of these 

commingled stocks was below their escapement goals, marine area fishing was precluded under both 

Alternative 2 and 3. It was assumed that freshwater fishing areas harvested only the local management 

unit, and, in the case of the Skagit River where spring and summer/fall chinook units are present, they 

could be selectively harvested in management periods. In actuality, straying probably occurs naturally 

in all systems, so that even freshwater fisheries may encounter small numbers of non-local chinook. 

The fisheries regime developed to model Alternatives 2 and 3 allowed freshwater chinook fisheries to 

occur where abundance exceeded the escapement goals. Where chinook abundance was less than the 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 21 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

escapement goals, chinook fisheries, and fisheries directed at other salmon species that incur incidental 

chinook mortality, were precluded. 

With commercial and recreational fishing limited to freshwater areas, the technical workgroup assessed 

the extent to which harvestable surplus could be caught. It was assumed that treaty commercial and 

recreational fisheries would operate at their current scale of effort (i.e., fleet sizes, recreational trips), 

use existing gear types and season structure, and occur only in rivers where such commercial or 

recreational fishing has occurred in recent years. For example, if a large harvestable surplus was 

forecast to occur for a given stock, a priori judgment determined whether the local tribal commercial 

fleet effort (operating within their defined ‘usual and accustomed area’) and recent freshwater 

recreational angling effort could reasonably catch the harvestable surplus. Based on past harvest rates 

and harvest rates in areas of similar fleet size and fishery structure, the workgroup concluded that the 

Green River fishery was capable of harvesting the full amount of chinook (11,500) above the 

escapement goal. In contrast, it was determined that the current fleet size and fishery structure in the 

Nooksack-Samish area would not be capable of harvesting the total surplus of fall chinook (41,900) 

above its hatchery escapement goal. 

If the lack of harvestable surplus chinook precluded freshwater fisheries that would directly or 

incidentally harvest chinook, late-season chum and steelhead fisheries (i.e., those occurring from 

December through March) were assumed free of incidental impacts to listed chinook, and thus included 

in Alternative 2 and 3. The co-managers’ fish ticket database provided support for this assumption. 

No new fisheries were envisioned for Alternative 2 or 3. For example, non-tribal commercial fisheries 

have not occurred in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Marine Catch Areas 4B, 5, and 6C), deep South Puget 

Sound (Marine Catch Areas 13 through 13I), or freshwater areas for at least two decades, based on 

agreements with the tribes and to meet allocation objectives among non-tribal commercial and 

recreational users. It was assumed that the size of treaty gillnet fishing fleets that have operated recently 

in these freshwater areas would not expand. Fishing was not expanded to any freshwater areas that 

have not been recently opened to commercial or freshwater salmon harvest, even though, with the 

closure of marine areas, substantial harvestable surplus was projected to occur in some such areas. 

Similarly, it was assumed that recreational effort or regulatory bag limits would not increase, and the 

current scale of mark selective fisheries would not expand. These somewhat qualitative assessments of 

the harvest capability of existing commercial and recreational fisheries were made by a small group of 

WDFW and tribal fisheries management biologists. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 22 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

With forecasts of which stocks would return with harvestable abundance, and having determined the 

potential for current fishing effort to harvest that surplus, harvest scalars or catch levels were input 

accordingly to the FRAM. The primary distinction between the structure of fisheries in Alternatives 2 

and 3 was due to different escapement goals. When more than one population returns to a given river, 

for some management units Alternative 3 would set a more constraining escapement goal for the 

management units appropriate to its weakest population. 

The principle difference between the chinook salmon harvest allowed under Alternatives 2 and 3, and 

consequently the difference in allowable harvest of other species, was due to the harvestable surplus of 

listed chinook in the Snohomish and Stillaguamish units associated with Alternative 2. The chinook 

surplus also enabled harvest of pink, coho, and chum salmon in the Stillaguamish River and in Tulalip 

Harbor (Area 8D). Area 8D is an isolated marine area, adjacent to the hatchery facilities of the Tulalip 

Tribes; harvest in that area is believed not to harvest non-local chinook. 

Chinook escapement was estimated as the catch subtracted from the predicted abundance, i.e., those 

fish that escaped the fishery to spawn. It should be noted that the escapement does not increase by the 

same amount as the difference in catch between Alternatives 2 or 3 and Alternative 1. This is because 

escapement is comprised of those fish that escape fisheries to spawn. In the absence of fisheries, not all 

fish would escape. Some would die of natural causes, and some fish would remain in marine waters to 

mature and return to spawn in future years.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 involves the closure of all fisheries that would harvest any listed Puget Sound chinook 

salmon, regardless of their forecast abundance status, precluding all marine area fisheries, and all 

freshwater fisheries except those late-season chum and steelhead fisheries (operating from December 

through March) that would have no incidental impact to chinook. 

Abundance and Northern (Canadian/Alaskan) Fishery Scenarios

NMFS decided early in the DEIS analysis to examine the contingent effects of variable abundance, and 

increasing northern (Canadian/Alaskan) fishery interceptions, on harvest and escapement of Puget 

Sound chinook. As explained in DEIS Section 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, the two 

abundance conditions modeled for Puget Sound chinook were the 2003 forecast level, and 30 percent 

reduced abundance (Table C3-1). The need to examine the effects of variable abundance was driven, in 

part, by the widely accepted view that marine survival has varied in a cyclic manner (Mantua et al. 

1997), and evidence that freshwater survival has also varied widely under the primary influence of 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 23 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

incubation period flows (Seiler et al. 2002). The reduced abundance condition was based on 

observations of the period 1990 through 1999, for which average, aggregate abundance of all Puget 

Sound salmon stocks, natural and hatchery production combined, was approximately 30 percent lower 

than forecast for 2003. Individual natural and hatchery stocks varied independently to a greater or 

lesser extent 

Table C3-1. Annual abundance of Puget Sound chinook salmon management units under 2003 

forecasted and 30 percent reduced conditions, expressed as AEQ catch and escapement 

from the FRAM. 

Chinook salmon abundance during the term of the proposed HMP cannot be forecasted exactly, and 

may in fact increase from the 2003 level. However, the average of the previous decade provides a 

reasonable view of the potential for abundance to decline. 

It was necessary to examine the effects of higher northern (Canadian/Alaskan) fishery interceptions 

because the stated intent of the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and recent-year catch 

estimates support this likelihood. The modeled high northern fishery condition comprised different 

assumptions for the various areas. The west coast Vancouver Island troll fishery, and troll fisheries in 

Southeast Alaska were modeled at the maximum levels allowed by the current Chinook Annex to the 

Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST). Canadian fisheries in the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

were modeled as the observed catch in 1996 and 2002, respectively. Other northern fisheries were 

modeled at the level forecast for 2003. 

2003 -30%

Nooksack 1849 1294

Skagit S/F 23287 16301

Skagit Spr 1475 1032

Stillaguamish 2849 1994

Snohomish 6356 4449

L. Washngton 8809 6166

Green 31128 21789

White 1858 1301

Puyallup 11548 8084

Nisqually 27040 18928

Hood Can 47542 33279

JDF 4234 2964
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 24 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Recreational Effort

To assess economic consequences, it was necessary to estimate recreational fishing effort for each 

alternative. To estimate the number of recreational trips corresponding to modeled harvest, catches 

of all salmon, whether caught in marine areas or freshwater, and including chinook and coho from 

FRAM runs, were multiplied by 4. This generic estimate of salmon ‘angler success’ (i.e., 0.25 fish per 

trip) was derived from the WDFW Catch Record Card Analysis used to estimate recreational catch and 

effort on an annual basis. 

Other Salmon Species 

Modeled catch only differed among alternatives, and was not specified differently for the abundance / 

northern (Canadian/Alaskan) fishery scenarios, which were intended to assess only the effect of 

variable chinook abundance and northern fisheries on chinook catch. The high and 2003 northern 

fishery conditions included in the scenarios may imply a different level of coho catch in Canada, and 

therefore affect coho catch in Puget Sound, but these indirect effects could not be reliably predicted. 

Coho

Commercial and recreational coho salmon harvest was extracted directly from the final 2003 preseason coho FRAM model for Alternative 1. For Alternatives 2 and 3, marine area fisheries were 

closed, and only those freshwater fisheries left open where harvestable chinook abundance also enabled 

coho harvest. These open fisheries corresponded to those in the chinook models created to simulate 

Alternatives 2 and 3. No coho fishing was allowed under Alternative 4. 

Coho escapement estimates for each Puget Sound management unit extracted from FRAM 0319 (April 

2003) for Alternative 1, and modified as necessary to simulate the freshwater fisheries associated with 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Sockeye

Sockeye salmon are primarily caught by commercial fisheries in marine fishing areas, in particular 

those fisheries directed at Fraser River (British Columbia) stocks that occur in the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca (SJDF) and San Juan Islands (SJI). However, in years when the Lake Washington sockeye run 

exceeds its escapement goal (325,000), commercial and recreational fisheries occur in the Lake 

Washington Ship Canal and Lake Washington, respectively. Relatively small tribal commercial 

fisheries, intended to harvest Lake Washington sockeye salmon, also occur in Central Puget Sound 

under this circumstance. The Baker River (Skagit system) sockeye salmon stock has occasionally 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 25 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

returned at levels slightly above the escapement goal, but the small surplus has been harvested in the 

river by tribes for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. This Baker River fishery was not included in 

any alternative model. 

For Alternative 1, Fraser sockeye catch in the SJDF and SJI areas was modeled as the average of actual 

catch in 1998–2002. Lake Washington sockeye catch in marine and freshwater areas was modeled as 

the average of three recent years in which these fisheries occurred – 1996, 2000, and 2002. For 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, no sockeye catch was modeled, because the marine areas were closed due to 

commingled weak chinook stocks, and the terminal (freshwater) areas were closed because the forecast 

abundance of Lake Washington (Cedar River) chinook was below the escapement goal. 

Pink

Pink salmon harvest occurs primarily in odd-numbered years in Puget Sound, due to the predominance 

of odd-year returning stocks in Puget Sound and southern British Columbia. The majority of pink 

salmon harvest occurs in treaty and non-Indian commercial fisheries directed at Fraser River stocks that 

occur in the SJDF and SJI in August and September. For Alternative 1, pink harvest in these marine 

areas was modeled as the average of the last three fisheries (i.e., 1997, 1999, and 2001). 

A subset of pink salmon stocks in Puget Sound systems has consistently reached harvestable 

abundance, so models of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 included terminal-area marine and/or freshwater, 

commercial and recreational fisheries to harvest that surplus. These abundant stocks include those in 

the Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and Puyallup Rivers. These fisheries were modeled for 

Alternative 1 as they were projected during 2001 pre-season planning from forecast abundance. 

Pink salmon stocks in Puget Sound are managed to achieve escapement goals. Harvestable surplus is 

projected to occur, during pre-season planning, based on the surplus in excess of escapement goals, 

allocated to treaty and non-Indian fisheries. 

Chum

Commercial fisheries directed at fall chum salmon occur throughout Puget Sound in marine and 

freshwater areas. Harvestable surplus was modeled for Alternative 1 according to 2001 forecast 

abundance in excess of escapement goals. Fall chum fisheries generally extend from the last week of 

October through mid-December in freshwater areas, so harvest in December comprises a small 

proportion of the total harvestable abundance. Recreational chum salmon catch in marine and 

freshwater areas was modeled as the 1997−1999 average, from Catch Record Card estimates. For 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 26 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Alternatives 2 and 3, chum salmon harvest was precluded in some rivers due to the lack of surplus 

chinook that would be caught incidentally, except in the late season (December) when chinook are 

absent. The late chum stock that returns to the Nisqually River supports commercial and recreational 

fisheries that extend from December through January, so it is the only salmon population that would be 

harvested as usual under Alternative 4. 

For Alternatives 2 and 3, chum salmon fisheries in freshwater were modeled to harvest surplus chum, 

subject to the availability of surplus chinook that would be caught incidentally. 

Steelhead

Small-scale commercial fisheries for winter steelhead are promulgated by the tribes in many freshwater 

areas, and usually extend from December through April. Recreational steelhead fisheries are not 

included in the Proposed Action. Commercial steelhead catch was modeled according to pre-season 

forecasts (Status Reports) in some areas, and from recent-year average catch in other areas. Summer 

steelhead fisheries, defined for the purpose of this modeling exercise as those occurring from June 

through November, were included in the model for Alternative 1, but not in models for Alternatives 2, 

3, or 4. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-1. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario A Table C3-2. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinooAlternative 1--Proposed Action Alternative 1--Proposed ActionChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Lan

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 135 80 67 70 743 797 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 10,840 6 Dungeness Spring 10% SUS ER 0.22 -- 100 -- 352 0.05 14 8 7 7 79 85 Western Strait-Hoko 10% SUS ER 0.23 -- 230 -- 785 0.05 33 20 16 17 181 194 North Sound (Area 7) 9,740 7

 Elwha 10% SUS ER 0.22 -- 615 -- 2,125 0.05 88 52 43 46 483 518

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 21,552 8

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 41,060 27 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 0.20 -- 96 -- 388 0.07 5 4 30 33 60 51 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0.84 54,124 -- 10,044 -- 0.84 6,049 5,868 40,602 40,675 7,473 9,079 Hood Canal (Area 12) 4,509 3

TOTAL 87,700 54

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Angler trips during "base" Spring 38% Total ER 0.23 341 577 1,136 1,921 0.14 336 348 233 222 349 408 Sport Catch Area Marine Freshw Upper Sauk Area 5 42,841  Suiattle Area 6 19,275 4 Upper Cascade Area 7 33,132 43 Summer/Fall 50% Total ER 0.48 108 10,662 118 11,633 0.18 1,443 1,310 2,516 2,584 6,811 9,704 Area 8 51,743 218 Lower Sauk Area 9 54,268  Upper Skagit Area 10 40,291 188 Lower Skagit Area 11 75,935 2 Stillaguamish 25% Total ER 0.17 -- 471 -- 2,322 0.11 153 142 166 171 152 212 Area 12 19,588 5 Snohomish 21% Total ER 0.19 2,117 1,218 4,564 5,073 0.14 1,435 1,377 914 948 986 1,238 Area 13 34,875 1 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 0.99 9,175 -- 98 -- 0.99 1,795 2,100 6,969 6,918 411 462

Angler-trips this runJuan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 289

South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (w Cedar River index) 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 0.31 3,118 272 4,937 305 0.20 835 738 1,267 1,300 1,289 1,709 North Sound (Area 7) 97 Green-Duwamish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 5800 0.62 10,415 9,397 5,016 5,819 0.51 4,042 3,776 11,897 12,125 3,873 5,134 Puyallup 50% Total ER 0.49 4,284 2,338 2,338 2,392 0.39 1,825 1,718 3,278 3,308 1,518 2,013 Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 522

 Nisqually 1100 0.76 16,467 3,487 4,911 1,106 0.68 6,421 5,774 11,542 11,651 1,991 2,639 White Spring 20% Total ER 0.20 -- 366 -- 1,468 0.19 105 103 250 253 11 14 South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 465

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 0.54 35,136 29,528 -- 0.44 11,573 10,406 17,106 15,382 6,458 8,562

 McAllister, Deschutes Hood Canal (Area 12) 67Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,442 Mid-Canal 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 0.26 -- 188 -- 531 0.13 56 50 39 45 95 127 Skokomish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 nat. 0.63 9,792 2,020 6,104 1,211 0.50 4,116 3,952 5,198 5,420 2,497 3,361 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 0.76 19,272 225 5,594 591 0.63 2,286 2,030 13,909 14,202 3,301 4,443

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.31 0 272 0 610 49 131 92 cedar only natural 0.31 0 136 0 305 25 65 46 all hatchery 0.40 3,118 0 4,632 0 785 1,136 1,197 Combined 0.39 3,118 272 4,632 610 835 1,267 1,289

SUS Sport AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

Objective AEQ Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortality 

All Fisheries SUS Net &Troll 

Escapement 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 27 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-3. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario A Table C3-4. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook (U.S. aAlternative 2-Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level Alternative 2-Escapement Goal Management at the ManagemChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 24 24 746 801 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 00  Dungeness Spring 925 0.19 -- 82 -- 360 0.01 0 0 3 3 79 85

 Western Strait-Hoko 850 0.19 -- 184 -- 807 0.01 0 0 6 6 178 192 North Sound (Area 7) 16,147 16,147 

 Elwha 2,900 0.19 -- 504 -- 2,172 0.01 0 0 16 16 488 524

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 1,100 1,100 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 9,800 9,800 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 4,000 0.14 -- 70 -- 422 0.01 0 0 6 8 64 54

 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 8,900 0.44 26,496 -- 33,887 -- 0.44 16,384 16,388 2,601 2,858 7,511 9,123 Hood Canal (Area 12) 3,044 3,044 

TOTAL 30,091 30,091 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 2,000 0.12 162 273 1,229 2,073 0.02 0 0 69 73 365 420 Upper Sauk Suiattle Upper Cascade Summer/Fall 14,500 0.32 69 6,879 147 14,656 0.01 41 55 74 92 6,833 9,719 Lower Sauk Upper Skagit Lower Skagit Stillaguamish 900 0.66 -- 1,768 -- 903 0.60 782 782 829 832 157 219 Snohomish 4,600 0.22 2,306 1,313 4,024 4,634 0.16 1,104 1,105 1,491 1,501 1,025 1,286 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery -- 0.98 8,676 -- 195 -- 0.98 20 17 8,235 8,139 421 474South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (w Cedar River index) 1,200 0.18 1,589 133 5,755 307 0.05 14 18 398 473 1,309 1,736 Green-Duwamish 5,800 0.55 7,937 7,036 5,948 5,800 0.42 4,532 4,543 6,510 6,769 3,931 5,213 Puyallup 1,200 0.70 4,916 2,795 1,100 1,200 0.57 963 968 5,206 5,303 1,541 2,044 Nisqually 1,100 0.72 13,197 2,885 4,913 1,100 0.63 1,822 1,847 12,205 12,528 2,054 2,724 White Spring 1,000 0.46 -- 860 -- 1,000 0.46 416 0 432 434 13 15 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 9,600 0.30 16,604 38,545 -- 0.18 2,805 2,843 7,193 7,291 6,606 8,762 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 750 0.19 -- 127 -- 552 0.05 6 7 27 32 96 129 Skokomish 1200 0.60 8,850 1,816 6,174 1,218 0.46 3,197 3,242 4,939 5,092 2,530 3,403 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 1,850 0.90 21,315 144 1,851 625 0.76 202 261 17,912 18,115 3,345 4,498

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.18 0 133 0 614 1 38 93 cedar only natural 0.18 0 66 0 307 0 19 47 all hatchery 0.23 1,589 0 5,448 0 13 360 1,215 Combined 0.22 1,589 133 5,448 614 14 398 1,309

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net &Troll 

AEQ Mortality

Escapement S

AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

Sport 

Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 28 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-5. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario B Table C3-6. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook (UAlternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level Alternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the PopChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 24 24 746 801 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 00 

 Dungeness Spring 925 0.19 -- 82 -- 360 0.01 0 0 3 3 79 85 Western Strait-Hoko 850 0.19 -- 184 -- 807 0.01 0 0 6 6 178 192 North Sound (Area 7) 16,147 16,147  Elwha 2,900 0.19 -- 504 -- 2,172 0.01 0 0 16 16 488 524

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 29 29 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 9,801 9,801 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 4,000 0.14 -- 70 -- 422 0.01 0 0 6 8 64 54 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 8,900 0.44 26,496 -- 33,887 -- 0.44 16,384 16,388 2,601 2,858 7,511 9,123 Hood Canal (Area 12) 3,044 3,044 

TOTAL 29,021 29,021 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 2,000 0.12 161 272 1,230 2,074 0.02 0 0 67 71 366 420 Upper Sauk 986 Suiattle 574 Upper Cascade 440 Summer/Fall 14,500 0.32 69 6,879 147 14,656 0.01 41 55 74 92 6,833 9,719 Lower Sauk 1,926 Upper Skagit 8,434 Lower Skagit 4,140 NF Stillaguamish 600 0.08 -- 201 -- 2,468 0.02 0 0 44 47 157 219 SF Stillaguamish 300 Skykomish 3,600 0.10 1,253 617 4,933 5,475 0.04 531 532 314 325 1,025 1,286 Snoqualmie 1,000 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery -- 0.10 842 -- 7,906 -- 0.10 20 17 401 459 421 474

South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (w Cedar River index) 1,200 0.18 1,588 132 5,756 307 0.05 14 18 397 473 1,309 1,736 Green-Duwamish 5,800 0.55 7,937 7,036 5,948 5,800 0.42 4,532 4,544 6,510 6,768 3,931 5,213 Puyallup 1,200 0.70 4,916 2,795 1,100 1,200 0.57 963 968 5,206 5,303 1,541 2,044 Nisqually 1,100 0.72 13,197 2,885 4,913 1,100 0.63 1,822 1,847 12,205 12,528 2,054 2,724 White Spring 1,000 0.46 -- 860 -- 1,000 0.46 416 0 432 434 13 15 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 9,600 0.30 16,602 38,547 -- 0.18 2,805 2,843 7,191 7,289 6,606 8,762

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 750 0.19 -- 127 -- 552 0.05 6 7 27 32 96 129 Skokomish 1200 0.60 8,849 1,816 6,175 1,218 0.46 3,197 3,242 4,938 5,091 2,530 3,403

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 1,850 0.90 21,315 144 1,851 625 0.76 202 261 17,912 18,114 3,345 4,498

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.18 0 132 0 614 1 38 93 cedar only natural 0.18 0 66 0 307 0 19 47 all hatchery 0.23 1,588 0 5,449 0 13 359 1,215 Combined 0.22 1,588 132 5,449 614 14 397 1,309

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net &Troll 

AEQ Mortality

Escapement 

AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 29 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-7. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario A Table C3-8. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook Alternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Alternative 4--No Action/No Authorized TakeChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Land

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 24 24 746 801 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 

 Dungeness Spring 10% SUS ER 0.19 -- 82 -- 360 0.01 0 0 3 3 79 85 Western Strait-Hoko 10% SUS ER 0.19 -- 184 -- 807 0.01 0 0 6 6 178 192 North Sound (Area 7) 0  Elwha 10% SUS ER 0.19 -- 504 -- 2,172 0.01 0 0 16 16 488 524

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 0  Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 0.14 -- 70 -- 422 0.01 0 0 6 8 64 54 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0.51 10,349 -- 10,083 -- 0.51 237 241 2,601 2,858 7,511 9,123 Hood Canal (Area 12) 0 

TOTAL 0 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9)

 Skagit Spring 42% Total ER 0.12 161 272 1,230 2,074 0.02 0 0 67 71 366 420 Sport Catch Area Marine Freshwa Upper Sauk Area 5 42,841  Suiattle Area 6 19,275 4,7 Upper Cascade Area 7 33,132 43,7 Summer/Fall 52% Total ER 0.32 69 6,879 147 14,656 0.01 41 55 74 92 6,833 9,719 Area 8 51,743 218,7 Lower Sauk Area 9 54,268  Upper Skagit Area 10 40,291 8,6 Lower Skagit Area 11 75,935 21,8 Stillaguamish 25% Total ER 0.08 -- 201 -- 2,468 0.02 0 0 44 47 157 219 Area 12 19,588 5,0 Snohomish 24% Total ER 0.09 778 564 5,432 5,504 0.03 3 4 314 325 1,025 1,286 Area 13 34,875 11,5 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 0.10 842 -- 7,906 -- 0.10 20 17 401 459 421 474South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (w Cedar River index) 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 0.18 1,588 132 5,756 307 0.05 14 18 397 473 1,309 1,736

 Green-Duwamish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER5800 spawners?? 0.18 3,058 2,278 10,827 10,558 0.05 41 53 1,363 1,622 3,931 5,213

 Puyallup 50% Total ER 0.18 1,359 709 4,656 3,286 0.05 16 21 511 608 1,541 2,044 Nisqually 1100 spawners?? 0.16 3,201 647 14,908 3,338 0.07 89 114 1,705 2,028 2,054 2,724 White Spring 20% Total ER 0.02 -- 29 -- 1,831 0.01 0 0 16 18 13 15 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 0.20 10,577 41,786 -- 0.08 175 224 3,796 4,861 6,606 8,762

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 15% pre-terminal SUS ER750 spawners??? 0.19 -- 127 -- 552 0.05 6 7 27 32 96 129

 Skokomish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 0.19 2,811 577 12,214 2,482 0.05 153 197 704 857 2,530 3,403

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 0.19 4,334 144 18,833 625 0.05 202 261 930 1,133 3,345 4,498

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.18 0 132 0 614 1 38 93 cedar only natural 0.18 0 66 0 307 0 19 47 all hatchery 0.23 1,588 0 5,449 0 13 359 1,215 Combined 0.22 1,588 132 5,449 614 14 397 1,309

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net &Troll 

AEQ Mortality

Escapement 

AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

Salmon Angler Trip

Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 30 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-9. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario B Table C3-10. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinooAlternative 1--Proposed Action Alternative 1--Proposed ActionChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Lan

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 134 79 67 70 998 1,085 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 10,850 6 Dungeness Spring 10% SUS ER 0.27 -- 127 -- 336 0.05 14 8 7 7 106 115 Western Strait-Hoko 10% SUS ER 0.28 -- 293 -- 750 0.05 33 19 16 17 243 265 North Sound (Area 7) 9,605 7 Elwha 10% SUS ER 0.28 -- 780 -- 2,031 0.05 87 51 43 46 649 705

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 21,449 8

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 39,570 25 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 0.25 -- 121 -- 365 0.07 5 4 31 34 85 50 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0.85 56,201 -- 9,855 -- 0.85 5,969 5,802 36,076 36,211 14,156 17,025 Hood Canal (Area 12) 4,077 3

TOTAL 85,550 52

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Angler trips during "base" Spring 38% Total ER 0.27 397 672 1,088 1,845 0.14 334 345 234 222 501 574 Sport Catch Area Marine Freshw Upper Sauk Area 5 42,841  Suiattle Area 6 19,275 4 Upper Cascade Area 7 33,132 43 Summer/Fall 50% Total ER 0.55 132 13,219 110 11,029 0.16 1,411 1,279 2,396 2,458 9,544 13,999 Area 8 51,743 218 Lower Sauk Area 9 54,268  Upper Skagit Area 10 40,291 188 Lower Skagit Area 11 75,935 21 Stillaguamish 25% Total ER 0.19 -- 532 -- 2,281 0.11 152 142 168 172 212 291 Area 12 19,588 5 Snohomish 21% Total ER 0.22 2,417 1,377 4,342 4,901 0.13 1,399 1,341 909 945 1,487 1,826 Area 13 34,875 11 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 0.99 9,179 -- 96 -- 0.99 1,794 2,101 6,781 6,738 604 684

Angler-trips this runJuan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 289

South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 0.35 3,759 320 4,743 294 0.20 826 731 1,267 1,300 1,986 2,635 North Sound (Area 7) 96 Green-Duwamish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 5800 0.63 11,267 9,805 5,019 5,816 0.47 3,628 3,367 11,507 11,736 5,937 7,877 Puyallup 50% Total ER 0.50 4,592 2,437 2,424 2,419 0.35 1,724 1,618 2,975 3,005 2,332 3,094 Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 521 Nisqually 1100 0.76 16,975 3,590 5,007 1,126 0.65 6,373 5,731 11,087 11,198 3,105 4,119 White Spring 20% Total ER 0.20 -- 356 -- 1,459 0.18 105 103 217 220 34 40 South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 459 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 0.57 37,998 28,954 -- 0.42 10,661 9,587 17,356 17,530 9,982 13,245 McAllister, Deschutes Hood Canal (Area 12) 66Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,434 Mid-Canal 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 0.32 -- 238 -- 504 0.13 55 49 38 45 147 204 Skokomish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 nat. 0.63 10,228 2,109 6,213 1,237 0.44 3,699 3,531 4,758 4,978 3,880 5,390 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 0.78 20,326 282 5,372 562 0.58 2,252 1,991 13,228 13,518 5,129 7,125LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.35 0 320 0 588 49 131 140 cedar only natural 0.35 0 160 0 294 24 65 70 all hatchery 0.46 3,759 0 4,449 0 778 1,136 1,846 Combined 0.45 3,759 320 4,449 588 826 1,267 1,986

SUS Sport AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Net &Troll 

AEQ Mortality Escapement 

Mortality 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 31 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-11. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario B Table C3-12. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook (UAlternative 2-Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level Alternative 2-Escapement Goal Management at the ManagChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 24 24 1,000 1,086 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 00  Dungeness Spring 925 0.24 -- 108 -- 344 0.01 0 0 3 3 106 115

 Western Strait-Hoko 850 0.24 -- 246 -- 772 0.01 0 0 6 6 241 261 North Sound (Area 7) 14,454 14,454 

 Elwha 2,900 0.24 -- 669 -- 2,079 0.01 0 0 16 16 654 710

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 1,090 1,090 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 9,547 9,547 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 4,000 0.19 -- 99 -- 412 0.01 0 0 6 9 93 55

 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 8,900 0.76 31,437 -- 9,906 -- 0.76 14,683 14,689 2,559 2,811 14,195 17,070 Hood Canal (Area 12) 2,885 2,885 

TOTAL 27,976 27,976 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 2,000 0.16 223 378 1,188 2,009 0.02 0 0 71 74 530 592

 Upper Sauk Suiattle Upper Cascade Summer/Fall 14,500 0.41 96 9,584 139 13,935 0.00 39 53 75 94 9,567 14,013

 Lower Sauk Upper Skagit Lower Skagit Stillaguamish 900 0.67 -- 1,807 -- 904 0.59 770 770 819 821 219 301

 Snohomish 4,600 0.23 2,485 1,404 3,947 4,603 0.15 1,082 1,083 1,254 1,264 1,553 1,905

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery -- 0.98 8,712 -- 192 -- 0.98 20 17 8,073 7,978 619 699

South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 1,200 0.23 2,249 181 5,568 295 0.05 15 18 401 477 2,015 2,673

 Green-Duwamish 5,800 0.56 8,804 7,469 5,982 5,800 0.38 4,372 4,384 5,880 6,142 6,022 7,987

 Puyallup 1,200 0.71 5,322 2,929 1,109 1,200 0.53 965 970 4,922 5,020 2,365 3,137

 Nisqually 1,100 0.73 13,835 3,017 4,920 1,100 0.60 1,784 1,808 11,869 12,202 3,199 4,242

 White Spring 1,000 0.46 -- 844 -- 1,000 0.44 396 0 412 414 36 41

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 9,600 0.35 20,095 37,477 -- 0.17 2,748 2,786 7,147 7,347 10,201 13,530

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 750 0.25 -- 179 -- 527 0.05 6 7 27 32 149 206

 Skokomish 1200 0.61 9,412 1,931 6,220 1,231 0.40 3,038 3,081 4,379 4,531 3,926 5,454

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 1,850 0.90 22,254 203 1,850 597 0.69 202 259 17,065 17,267 5,190 7,209

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.23 0 181 0 590 1 38 142 cedar only natural 0.23 0 91 0 295 0 19 71 all hatchery 0.30 2,249 0 5,273 0 14 363 1,873 Combined 0.29 2,249 181 5,273 590 15 401 2,015

AK and BC 

Escapement 

Sp

AEQ Mortality Mortality

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net &Troll 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 32 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-13. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario B Table C3-14. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinooAlternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level Alternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the P

Regional Stocks Only All Stocks in Regional Fisheries

Chinook (by MU/Pop) All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net &Troll AK and BC Region Sport 

Objective AEQ Mortality Escapement Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortality Salmon 

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 24 24 1,000 1,086 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0

 Dungeness Spring 925 0.24 -- 108 -- 344 0.01 0 0 3 3 106 115 Western Strait-Hoko 850 0.24 -- 246 -- 772 0.01 0 0 6 6 241 261 North Sound (Area 7) 14,455 14,455  Elwha 2,900 0.24 -- 669 -- 2,079 0.01 0 0 16 16 654 710

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0 0 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 9,548 9,548 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 4,000 0.19 -- 99 -- 412 0.01 0 0 6 9 93 55 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 8,900 0.76 31,438 -- 9,906 -- 0.76 14,684 14,690 2,559 2,811 14,195 17,070 Hood Canal (Area 12) 2,885 2,885 

TOTAL 26,887 26,887 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 2,000 0.16 223 377 1,189 2,010 0.02 0 0 69 72 530 592 Upper Sauk 986 Suiattle 574 Upper Cascade 440 Summer/Fall 14,500 0.41 96 9,584 139 13,935 0.00 39 53 75 94 9,567 14,013 Lower Sauk 1,926 Upper Skagit 8,434 Lower Skagit 4,140 NF Stillaguamish 600 0.10 -- 265 -- 2,446 0.02 0 0 46 48 219 301 SF Stillaguamish 300 Skykomish 3,600 0.12 1,130 739 5,203 5,368 0.03 3 4 313 324 1,553 1,905 Snoqualmie 1,000 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery -- 0.12 1,050 -- 7,730 -- 0.12 20 17 411 466 619 699South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 1,200 0.23 2,249 181 5,569 295 0.05 15 18 400 477 2,015 2,673 Green-Duwamish 5,800 0.56 8,804 7,469 5,981 5,800 0.38 4,372 4,384 5,879 6,142 6,022 7,987 Puyallup 1,200 0.71 5,322 2,929 1,109 1,200 0.53 965 970 4,922 5,020 2,365 3,137 Nisqually 1,100 0.73 13,835 3,017 4,920 1,100 0.60 1,784 1,808 11,869 12,202 3,199 4,242 White Spring 1,000 0.46 -- 844 -- 1,000 0.44 396 0 412 414 36 41 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 9,600 0.35 20,093 37,479 -- 0.17 2,748 2,786 7,145 7,345 10,201 13,530 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 750 0.25 -- 179 -- 527 0.05 6 7 27 32 149 206 Skokomish 1200 0.61 9,411 1,931 6,221 1,231 0.40 3,038 3,081 4,378 4,530 3,926 5,454 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 1,850 0.90 22,254 203 1,850 597 0.69 202 259 17,066 17,267 5,190 7,209

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.23 0 181 0 590 1 38 142 cedar only natural 0.23 0 91 0 295 0 19 71 all hatchery 0.30 2,249 0 5,274 0 14 362 1,873 Combined 0.29 2,249 181 5,274 590 15 400 2,015

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 33 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-15. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario B Table C3-16. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinoAlternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Alternative 4--No Action/No Authorized TakeChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Lan

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 24 24 1,000 1,086 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 

 Dungeness Spring 10% SUS ER 0.24 -- 108 -- 344 0.01 0 0 3 3 106 115 Western Strait-Hoko 10% SUS ER 0.24 -- 246 -- 772 0.01 0 0 6 6 241 261 North Sound (Area 7) 0 

 Elwha 10% SUS ER 0.24 -- 669 -- 2,079 0.01 0 0 16 16 654 710

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 0 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 0.19 -- 99 -- 412 0.01 0 0 6 9 93 55 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0.63 16,983 -- 9,906 -- 0.63 229 235 2,559 2,811 14,195 17,070 Hood Canal (Area 12) 0 

TOTAL 0 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 42% Total ER 0.16 223 377 1,189 2,010 0.02 0 0 69 72 530 592 Sport Catch Area Marine Freshw Upper Sauk Area 5 42,841 

 Suiattle Area 6 19,275 4

 Upper Cascade Area 7 33,132 43

 Summer/Fall 52% Total ER 0.41 96 9,584 139 13,935 0.00 39 53 75 94 9,567 14,013 Area 8 51,743 218

 Lower Sauk Area 9 54,268 

 Upper Skagit Area 10 40,291 8

 Lower Skagit Area 11 75,935 21

 Stillaguamish 25% Total ER 0.10 -- 265 -- 2,446 0.02 0 0 46 48 219 301 Area 12 19,588 5

 Snohomish 24% Total ER 0.12 1,130 739 5,203 5,368 0.03 3 4 313 324 1,553 1,905 Area 13 34,875 11

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 0.12 1,050 -- 7,730 -- 0.12 20 17 411 466 619 699South Sound (Area 10,11,13)

15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1,200 0.23 2,249 181 5,569 295 0.05 15 18 400 477 2,015 2,673

 Green-Duwamish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 5800 0.23 4,316 3,117 10,470 10,153 0.05 42 53 1,369 1,631 6,022 7,987 Puyallup 50% Total ER 0.23 1,925 970 4,506 3,160 0.05 17 21 513 612 2,365 3,137 Nisqually 1100 0.21 4,168 856 14,587 3,261 0.07 88 113 1,737 2,070 3,199 4,242 White Spring 20% Total ER 0.03 -- 52 -- 1,792 0.01 0 0 16 18 36 41 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 0.26 14,227 40,641 -- 0.07 175 223 3,851 4,589 10,201 13,530

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 750 spawners??? 0.25 -- 179 -- 527 0.05 6 7 27 32 149 206 Skokomish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 0.25 3,970 815 11,662 2,370 0.05 153 196 706 858 3,926 5,454 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 0.25 6,122 203 17,983 597 0.05 202 259 933 1,134 5,190 7,209

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.23 0 181 0 590 1 38 142 cedar only natural 0.23 0 91 0 295 0 19 71 all hatchery 0.30 2,249 0 5,274 0 14 362 1,873 Combined 0.29 2,249 181 5,274 590 15 400 2,015

SUS Sport AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

AEQ Mortality 

Salmon Angler Trip

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Net &Troll 

Escapement 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 34 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-17. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario C Table C3-18. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook (UAlternative 1--Proposed Action Alternative 1--Proposed ActionChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 89 52 51 55 530 568 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 9,881 5,417  Dungeness Spring 10% SUS ER 0.22 -- 71 -- 245 0.05 9 6 5 6 56 60 Western Strait-Hoko 10% SUS ER 0.23 -- 165 -- 545 0.05 22 13 12 14 131 140 North Sound (Area 7) 8,232 6,922  Elwha 10% SUS ER 0.23 -- 434 -- 1,480 0.05 58 34 33 36 343 368

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 12,892 5,336 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 26,750 17,738 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 0.20 -- 69 -- 278 0.07 3 3 22 23 44 52 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0.80 37,544 -- 9,528 -- 0.80 5,378 5,271 26,731 26,887 5,435 6,616 Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,863 1,391 

TOTAL 59,619 36,805 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9)

 Skagit Angler trips during "base" Spring 38% Total ER 0.23 238 402 788 1,331 0.14 207 219 187 174 245 288 Sport Catch Area Marine Freshwater Upper Sauk Area 5 42,841 89

 Suiattle Area 6 19,275 4,777

 Upper Cascade Area 7 33,132 43,741

 Summer/Fall 50% Total ER 0.49 77 7,717 80 8,033 0.18 949 871 1,850 1,907 4,995 7,159 Area 8 51,743 218,796

 Lower Sauk Area 9 54,268 0

 Upper Skagit Area 10 40,291 188,282

 Lower Skagit Area 11 75,935 21,832

 Stillaguamish 25% Total ER 0.17 -- 342 -- 1,620 0.12 93 85 137 140 112 157 Area 12 19,588 5,057

 Snohomish 21% Total ER 0.20 1,497 868 3,185 3,543 0.14 918 878 730 755 716 899 Area 13 34,875 11,569

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 0.99 6,538 -- 58 -- 0.99 1,681 2,008 4,561 4,531 296 335

Angler-trips this run

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 277,804

South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 0.33 2,370 219 3,305 223 0.23 522 462 1,108 1,128 960 1,274 North Sound (Area 7) 91,859

 Green-Duwamish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 5800 0.49 6,396 5,684 4,558 5,801 0.39 1,427 1,265 7,774 7,920 2,880 3,823

 Puyallup 50% Total ER 0.50 3,177 1,772 1,478 1,798 0.39 1,401 1,336 2,418 2,436 1,129 1,499 Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 493,752

 Nisqually 1100 0.64 9,342 1,978 4,972 1,119 0.56 3,776 3,406 6,070 6,138 1,474 1,957 White Spring 20% Total ER 0.20 -- 254 -- 1,011 0.19 58 54 188 189 8 9 South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 425,600

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 0.58 25,723 18,808 -- 0.47 6,249 5,637 14,682 13,244 4,792 6,362

 McAllister, Deschutes Hood Canal (Area 12) 58,729

Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,347,743

 Mid-Canal 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 0.26 -- 132 -- 367 0.12 32 29 30 36 71 96 Skokomish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 nat. 0.45 4,930 1,017 6,147 1,239 0.31 1,656 1,566 2,420 2,600 1,871 2,539

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 0.74 13,074 158 4,209 410 0.60 1,338 1,199 9,421 9,659 2,474 3,356

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.33 0 219 0 446 31 120 68 cedar only natural 0.33 0 110 0 223 15 60 34 all hatchery 0.43 2,370 0 3,082 0 491 987 891 Combined 0.42 2,370 219 3,082 446 522 1,108 960

Spor

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Sport AK and BC SUS Net &Troll 

AEQ Mortality Escapement Mortality 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 35 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-19. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario C Table C3-20. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook Alternative 2-Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level Alternative 2-Escapement Goal Management at the MaChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 17 17 535 573 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 Dungeness Spring 925 0.19 -- 58 -- 251 0.01 0 0 2 2 57 61

 Western Strait-Hoko 850 0.19 -- 133 -- 564 0.01 0 0 4 4 129 138 North Sound (Area 7) 11,255 11,255 

 Elwha 2,900 0.19 -- 360 -- 1,516 0.01 0 0 11 11 349 374

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 414 414 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 5,560 5,560  Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 4,000 0.14 -- 51 -- 304 0.01 0 0 5 6 46 55

 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 8,900 0.66 18,809 -- 9,571 -- 0.66 11,428 11,432 1,907 2,095 5,474 6,659 Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,456 1,456 

TOTAL 18,685 18,685 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 2,000 0.12 114 192 865 1,460 0.02 0 0 49 53 257 298

 Upper Sauk Suiattle Upper Cascade Summer/Fall 14,500 0.33 50 5,047 102 10,215 0.01 29 38 54 67 5,014 7,180

 Lower Sauk Upper Skagit Lower Skagit Stillaguamish 900 0.52 -- 979 -- 909 0.46 414 414 448 450 117 161

 Snohomish 4,600 0.10 569 414 3,812 3,875 0.03 3 3 232 241 748 939

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery -- 0.10 612 -- 5,531 -- 0.10 14 12 294 334 304 344South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion ) 1,200 0.19 1,180 98 4,018 214 0.05 10 13 291 346 977 1,295

 Green-Duwamish 5,800 0.36 3,879 3,255 5,950 5,800 0.23 1,597 1,606 2,607 2,797 2,930 3,886

 Puyallup 1,200 0.57 3,160 1,618 1,100 1,200 0.44 959 962 2,670 2,741 1,149 1,524

 Nisqually 1,100 0.61 7,873 1,712 4,914 1,100 0.51 1,274 1,294 6,788 7,030 1,522 2,019

 White Spring 1,000 0.23 -- 304 -- 1,000 0.23 142 0 154 156 9 10

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 9,600 0.30 11,654 27,007 -- 0.17 1,963 1,993 4,781 4,856 4,912 6,515

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 750 0.20 -- 95 -- 385 0.05 4 5 19 24 72 98

 Skokomish 1200 0.43 4,528 929 6,080 1,221 0.29 1,566 1,597 1,990 2,104 1,901 2,576

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 1,850 0.86 14,501 107 1,857 436 0.72 146 187 11,950 12,100 2,512 3,406

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.19 0 98 0 428 1 28 70 cedar only natural 0.19 0 49 0 214 0 14 35 all hatchery 0.24 1,180 0 3,804 0 10 263 907 Combined 0.23 1,180 98 3,804 428 10 291 977

SUS Sport

AEQ Mortality Escapement 

AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Net &Troll Spor

Mortality 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 36 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-21. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario C Table C3-22. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinooAlternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level Alternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the PChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 17 17 535 573 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 00 

 Dungeness Spring 925 0.19 -- 58 -- 251 0.01 0 0 2 2 57 61 Western Strait-Hoko 850 0.19 -- 133 -- 564 0.01 0 0 4 4 129 138 North Sound (Area 7) 11,255 11,255  Elwha 2,900 0.19 -- 360 -- 1,516 0.01 0 0 11 11 349 374

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0 0 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 5,560 5,560  Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 4,000 0.144 -- 51 -- 304 0.01 0 0 5 6 46 55 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 8,900 0.66 18,809 -- 9,571 -- 0.66 11,428 11,432 1,907 2,095 5,474 6,659 Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,456 1,456 

TOTAL 18,271 18,271 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 2,000 0.12 114 192 865 1,460 0.02 0 0 49 53 257 298 Upper Sauk 986 Suiattle 574 Upper Cascade 440 Summer/Fall 14,500 0.33 50 5,047 102 10,215 0.01 29 38 54 67 5,014 7,180 Lower Sauk 1,926 Upper Skagit 8,434 Lower Skagit 4,140 NF Stillaguamish 600 0.08 -- 150 -- 1,738 0.02 0 0 33 35 117 161 SF Stillaguamish 300 Skykomish 3,600 0.10 569 414 3,812 3,875 0.03 3 3 232 241 748 939 Snoqualmie 1,000 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery -- 0.10 612 -- 5,531 -- 0.10 14 12 294 334 304 344South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion ) 1,200 0.19 1,180 98 4,018 214 0.05 10 13 291 346 977 1,295 Green-Duwamish 5,800 0.36 3,879 3,255 5,950 5,800 0.23 1,597 1,606 2,607 2,797 2,930 3,886 Puyallup 1,200 0.57 3,160 1,618 1,100 1,200 0.44 959 962 2,670 2,741 1,149 1,524 Nisqually 1,100 0.61 7,873 1,712 4,914 1,100 0.51 1,274 1,294 6,788 7,030 1,522 2,019 White Spring 1,000 0.23 -- 304 -- 1,000 0.23 142 0 154 156 9 10 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 9,600 0.30 11,654 27,007 -- 0.17 1,963 1,993 4,781 4,856 4,912 6,515

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 750 0.20 -- 95 -- 385 0.05 4 5 19 24 72 98 Skokomish 1200 0.43 4,528 929 6,080 1,221 0.29 1,566 1,597 1,990 2,104 1,901 2,576

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 1,850 0.86 14,501 107 1,857 436 0.72 146 187 11,950 12,100 2,512 3,406

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.19 0 98 0 428 1 28 70 cedar only natural 0.19 0 49 0 214 0 14 35 all hatchery 0.24 1,180 0 3,804 0 10 263 907 Combined 0.23 1,180 98 3,804 428 10 291 977

SUS Sport

AEQ Mortality Escapement 

AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Net &Troll Sp

Mortality 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 37 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-23. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario C Table C3-24. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook Alternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Alternative 4--No Action/No Authorized TakeChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Land

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 17 17 535 573 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 

 Dungeness Spring 10% SUS ER 0.19 -- 58 -- 251 0.01 0 0 2 2 57 61 Western Strait-Hoko 10% SUS ER 0.19 -- 133 -- 564 0.01 0 0 4 4 129 138 North Sound (Area 7) 0 

 Elwha 10% SUS ER 0.19 -- 360 -- 1,516 0.01 0 0 11 11 349 374

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 0 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 0.14 -- 51 -- 304 0.01 0 0 5 6 46 55 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0.44 7,554 -- 9,571 -- 0.44 173 177 1,907 2,095 5,474 6,659 Hood Canal (Area 12) 0 

TOTAL 0 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 42% Total ER 0.12 114 192 865 1,460 0.02 0 0 49 53 257 298 Sport Catch Area Marine Freshwa Upper Sauk Area 5 42,841 

 Suiattle Area 6 19,275 4,7

 Upper Cascade Area 7 33,132 43,7

 Summer/Fall 52% Total ER 0.33 50 5,047 102 10,215 0.01 29 38 54 67 5,014 7,180 Area 8 51,743 218,7

 Lower Sauk Area 9 54,268 

 Upper Skagit Area 10 40,291 8,6

 Lower Skagit Area 11 75,935 21,8

 Stillaguamish 25% Total ER 0.08 -- 150 -- 1,738 0.02 0 0 33 35 117 161 Area 12 19,588 5,0

 Snohomish 24% Total ER 0.10 569 414 3,812 3,875 0.03 3 3 232 241 748 939 Area 13 34,875 11,5

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 0.10 612 -- 5,531 -- 0.10 14 12 294 334 304 344South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1,200 0.19 1,180 98 4,018 214 0.05 10 13 291 346 977 1,295 Green-Duwamish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 5800 0.19 2,271 1,687 7,558 7,367 0.05 30 39 999 1,189 2,930 3,886 Puyallup 50% Total ER 0.19 1,010 525 3,250 2,293 0.05 12 16 374 445 1,149 1,524 Nisqually 1100 0.17 2,378 482 10,408 2,330 0.08 64 84 1,274 1,516 1,522 2,019 White Spring 20% Total ER 0.02 -- 21 -- 1,283 0.01 0 0 12 14 9 10 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 0.21 7,855 29,169 -- 0.08 127 166 2,818 3,696 4,912 6,515

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 750 spawners??? 0.20 -- 95 -- 385 0.05 4 5 19 24 72 98 Skokomish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 0.20 2,096 430 8,513 1,730 0.05 110 141 515 628 1,901 2,576 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 0.20 3,231 107 13,126 436 0.05 146 187 681 830 2,512 3,406

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.19 0 98 0 428 1 28 70 cedar only natural 0.19 0 49 0 214 0 14 35 all hatchery 0.24 1,180 0 3,804 0 10 263 907 Combined 0.23 1,180 98 3,804 428 10 291 977

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net &Troll 

AEQ Mortality

Escapement 

AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

Salmon Angler Trips

Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 38 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-25. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario D Table C3-26. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook Alternative 1--Proposed Action Alternative 1--Proposed ActionChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Lande

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 95 56 51 54 762 827 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 10,269 5,7

 Dungeness Spring 10% SUS ER 0.29 -- 96 -- 231 0.05 10 6 5 6 81 88 Western Strait-Hoko 10% SUS ER 0.30 -- 223 -- 514 0.05 23 14 12 13 187 203 North Sound (Area 7) 8,366 6,97

 Elwha 10% SUS ER 0.30 -- 589 -- 1,395 0.05 62 36 33 35 494 537

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 14,353 6,25

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 29,864 19,33

 Nooksack Spring ? 0.26 -- 87 -- 252 0.07 3 3 22 24 62 50 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0.81 39,341 -- 9,370 -- 0.81 5,403 5,305 23,057 23,264 10,881 13,079 Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,421 1,00

TOTAL 64,273 39,27

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Angler trips during "base" Spring 38% Total ER 0.28 294 498 749 1,270 0.15 232 241 189 174 371 420 Sport Catch Area Marine Freshwat Upper Sauk Area 5 42,841 

 Suiattle Area 6 19,275 4,77

 Upper Cascade Area 7 33,132 43,74

 Summer/Fall 50% Total ER 0.56 97 9,749 75 7,551 0.16 970 891 1,751 1,807 7,125 10,500 Area 8 51,743 218,79

 Lower Sauk Area 9 54,268 

 Upper Skagit Area 10 40,291 188,28

 Lower Skagit Area 11 75,935 21,83

 Stillaguamish 25% Total ER 0.20 -- 407 -- 1,584 0.12 105 96 141 143 161 221 Area 12 19,588 5,05

 Snohomish 21% Total ER 0.23 1,782 1,020 3,007 3,399 0.14 956 927 730 758 1,116 1,370 Area 13 34,875 11,56

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 0.99 6,562 -- 56 -- 0.99 1,698 2,025 4,395 4,371 469 530

Angler-trips this runJuan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 286,92

South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 0.38 2,958 262 3,147 214 0.22 580 524 1,107 1,128 1,534 2,034 North Sound (Area 7) 93,03

 Green-Duwamish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 5800 0.51 7,263 6,090 4,512 5,802 0.36 1,583 1,430 7,191 7,338 4,579 6,074 Puyallup 50% Total ER 0.50 3,445 1,862 1,588 1,834 0.35 1,332 1,270 2,176 2,194 1,799 2,386 Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 497,47

 Nisqually 1100 0.66 10,280 2,163 4,935 1,109 0.53 4,133 3,779 5,865 5,935 2,445 3,243 White Spring 20% Total ER 0.20 -- 250 -- 1,011 0.17 70 67 151 152 30 33 South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 433,3

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 0.62 29,428 17,893 -- 0.46 7,045 6,442 14,608 13,358 7,776 10,315

 McAllister, Deschutes Hood Canal (Area 12) 57,17

Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,367,9 Mid-Canal 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 0.34 -- 179 -- 344 0.12 35 32 30 35 114 158 Skokomish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 nat. 0.48 5,531 1,139 6,069 1,225 0.26 1,430 1,337 2,196 2,375 3,044 4,223 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 0.76 14,062 211 4,010 384 0.55 1,443 1,302 8,806 9,043 4,024 5,583

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.38 0 262 0 428 34 120 108 cedar only natural 0.38 0 131 0 214 17 60 54 all hatchery 0.50 2,958 0 2,933 0 546 986 1,426 Combined 0.49 2,958 262 2,933 428 580 1,107 1,534

SUS Sport AK and BC S

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Net &Troll 

AEQ Mortality Escapement 

Mortality 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 39 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-27. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario D Table C3-28. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook Alternative 2--Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level Alternative 2--Escapement Goal Management at the MaChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 17 17 763 830 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 00 

 Dungeness Spring 925 0.26 -- 83 -- 237 0.01 0 0 2 2 81 88

 Western Strait-Hoko 850 0.26 -- 188 -- 532 0.01 0 0 4 4 184 201 North Sound (Area 7) 9,851 9,851 

 Elwha 2,900 0.26 -- 509 -- 1,431 0.01 0 0 11 11 498 542

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 392 392 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 5,052 5,052 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 4,000 0.20 -- 73 -- 285 0.01 0 0 5 6 68 55

 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 8,900 0.52 22,812 -- 20,673 -- 0.52 10,016 10,022 1,868 2,051 10,928 13,132 Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,191 1,191 

TOTAL 16,485 16,485 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 2,000 0.17 163 277 825 1,395 0.02 0 0 49 54 390 436

 Upper Sauk Suiattle Upper Cascade Summer/Fall 14,500 0.43 71 7,157 96 9,625 0.00 28 37 54 68 7,146 10,524

 Lower Sauk Upper Skagit Lower Skagit Stillaguamish 900 0.52 -- 984 -- 919 0.43 391 391 425 426 167 227

 Snohomish 4,600 0.13 847 557 3,596 3,720 0.03 7 7 231 241 1,166 1,430

 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery -- 0.13 795 -- 5,351 -- 0.13 14 12 300 340 481 545South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 1,200 0.25 1,723 138 3,852 204 0.05 11 14 293 349 1,558 2,066

 Green-Duwamish 5,800 0.38 4,553 3,583 5,995 5,800 0.18 1,171 1,179 2,314 2,506 4,651 6,167

 Puyallup 1,200 0.59 3,481 1,720 1,113 1,200 0.39 961 965 2,412 2,484 1,828 2,423

 Nisqually 1,100 0.62 8,425 1,827 4,920 1,100 0.47 1,240 1,259 6,490 6,739 2,521 3,343

 White Spring 1,000 0.22 -- 289 -- 1,000 0.20 123 0 135 137 31 34

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 9,600 0.36 14,603 26,063 -- 0.16 1,913 1,941 4,734 4,805 7,957 10,551

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 750 0.28 -- 139 -- 361 0.05 4 5 19 24 117 162

 Skokomish 1200 0.46 5,024 1,031 6,038 1,215 0.23 1,300 1,331 1,669 1,782 3,085 4,278

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 1,850 0.87 15,202 158 1,854 408 0.64 144 184 11,138 11,286 4,078 5,656

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.25 0 138 0 408 1 28 110 cedar only natural 0.25 0 69 0 204 0 14 55 all hatchery 0.32 1,723 0 3,648 0 10 265 1,448 Combined 0.31 1,723 138 3,648 408 11 293 1,558

AK and BC 

Escapement S

Spor

AEQ Mortality Mortality

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net &Troll 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 40 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-29. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario D Table C3-30. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinook Alternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level Alternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the PoChinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed M

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 17 17 763 830 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0

 Dungeness Spring 925 0.26 -- 83 -- 237 0.01 0 0 2 2 81 88

 Western Strait-Hoko 850 0.26 -- 188 -- 532 0.01 0 0 4 4 184 201 North Sound (Area 7) 9,851 9,851 

 Elwha 2,900 0.26 -- 509 -- 1,431 0.01 0 0 11 11 498 542

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0 0 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 5,052 5,052 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 4,000 0.203 -- 73 -- 285 0.01 0 0 5 6 68 55

 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 8,900 0.52 22,812 -- 20,673 -- 0.52 10,016 10,022 1,868 2,051 10,928 13,132 Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,191 1,191 

TOTAL 16,093 16,093 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 2,000 0.17 163 277 825 1,395 0.02 0 0 49 54 390 436

 Upper Sauk 986 Suiattle 574 Upper Cascade 440 Summer/Fall 14,500 0.43 71 7,157 96 9,625 0.00 28 37 54 68 7,146 10,524

 Lower Sauk 1,926 Upper Skagit 8,434 Lower Skagit 4,140 NF Stillaguamish 600 0.11 -- 201 -- 1,702 0.02 0 0 34 35 167 227

 SF Stillaguamish 300 Skykomish 3,600 0.13 847 557 3,596 3,720 0.03 7 7 231 241 1,166 1,430

 Snoqualmie 1,000 Tulalip Tribal Hatchery -- 0.13 795 -- 5,351 -- 0.13 14 12 300 340 481 545South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 1,200 0.25 1,723 138 3,852 204 0.05 11 14 293 349 1,558 2,066

 Green-Duwamish 5,800 0.38 4,553 3,583 5,995 5,800 0.18 1,171 1,179 2,314 2,506 4,651 6,167

 Puyallup 1,200 0.59 3,481 1,720 1,113 1,200 0.39 961 965 2,412 2,484 1,828 2,423

 Nisqually 1,100 0.62 8,425 1,827 4,920 1,100 0.47 1,240 1,259 6,490 6,739 2,521 3,343

 White Spring 1,000 0.22 -- 289 -- 1,000 0.20 123 0 135 137 31 34

 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 9,600 0.36 14,603 26,063 -- 0.16 1,913 1,941 4,734 4,805 7,957 10,551

 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 750 0.28 -- 139 -- 361 0.05 4 5 19 24 117 162

 Skokomish 1200 0.46 5,024 1,031 6,038 1,215 0.23 1,300 1,331 1,669 1,782 3,085 4,278

 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 1,850 0.87 15,202 158 1,854 408 0.64 144 184 11,138 11,286 4,078 5,656

LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.25 0 138 0 408 1 28 110 cedar only natural 0.25 0 69 0 204 0 14 55 all hatchery 0.32 1,723 0 3,648 0 10 265 1,448 Combined 0.31 1,723 138 3,648 408 11 293 1,558

AK and BC 

Escapement S

Spor

AEQ Mortality Mortality

Regional Stocks Only

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net &Troll 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 41 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-31. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chinook stocks: Scenario D Table C3-32. Total fishing-related mortality of all chinooAlternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Alternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Chinook (by MU/Pop) Region

Exp. Rate Escapement Exp.Rate Hatchery Natural Hatchery Natural SUS ER Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Landed Total AEQ Land

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 0 17 17 763 830 Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 

 Dungeness Spring 10% SUS ER 0.26 -- 83 -- 237 0.01 0 0 2 2 81 88 Western Strait-Hoko 10% SUS ER 0.26 -- 188 -- 532 0.01 0 0 4 4 184 201 North Sound (Area 7) 0 

 Elwha 10% SUS ER 0.26 -- 509 -- 1,431 0.01 0 0 11 11 498 542

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0 

North Sound (Area 7) South Sound (Area 10,11,13) 0 

 Nooksack Spring 7% SUS ER 0.20 -- 73 -- 285 0.01 0 0 5 6 68 55 Nooksack/Samish summer-fall 0.58 12,961 -- 9,424 -- 0.58 165 171 1,868 2,051 10,928 13,132 Hood Canal (Area 12) 0 

TOTAL 0 

Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Skagit Spring 42% Total ER 0.17 163 277 825 1,395 0.02 0 0 49 54 390 436 Sport Catch Area Marine Freshw Upper Sauk Area 5 42,841  Suiattle Area 6 19,275 4, Upper Cascade Area 7 33,132 43, Summer/Fall 52% Total ER 0.43 71 7,157 96 9,625 0.00 28 37 54 68 7,146 10,524 Area 8 51,743 218, Lower Sauk Area 9 54,268  Upper Skagit Area 10 40,291 8, Lower Skagit Area 11 75,935 21, Stillaguamish 25% Total ER 0.11 -- 201 -- 1,702 0.02 0 0 34 35 167 227 Area 12 19,588 5, Snohomish 24% Total ER 0.13 844 556 3,600 3,720 0.03 3 3 231 241 1,166 1,430 Area 13 34,875 11, Tulalip Tribal Hatchery 0.13 795 -- 5,351 -- 0.13 14 12 300 340 481 545South Sound (Area 10,11,13) Lake Washington (Cedar River portion) 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1,200 0.25 1,723 138 3,852 204 0.05 11 14 293 349 1,558 2,066 Green-Duwamish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 5800 0.25 3,306 2,376 7,242 7,006 0.05 31 40 1,001 1,192 4,651 6,167 Puyallup 50% Total ER 0.25 1,476 739 3,118 2,180 0.05 12 16 375 447 1,828 2,423 Nisqually 1100 0.23 3,221 663 10,124 2,264 0.08 64 82 1,299 1,548 2,521 3,343 White Spring 20% Total ER 0.03 -- 43 -- 1,246 0.01 0 0 12 14 31 34 Gorst, Grovers, Minter, Chambers & 0.28 10,944 28,157 -- 0.08 127 164 2,860 3,693 7,957 10,551 McAllister, DeschutesHood Canal (Area 12) Mid-Canal 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 750 spawners??? 0.28 -- 139 -- 361 0.05 4 5 19 24 117 162 Skokomish 15% pre-terminal SUS ER 1200 0.28 3,079 632 7,983 1,622 0.05 109 139 516 628 3,085 4,278 Hoodsport H, Dewato, Union, Tahuya tribs. 0.28 4,747 158 12,309 408 0.05 144 184 682 831 4,078 5,656LA WA components: all natural (cedar plus N trib) 0.25 0 138 0 408 1 28 110 cedar only natural 0.25 0 69 0 204 0 14 55 all hatchery 0.32 1,723 0 3,648 0 10 265 1,448 Combined 0.31 1,723 138 3,648 408 11 293 1,558

SUS Sport AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only

AEQ Mortality 

Salmon Angler Trip

Objective Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Net &Troll 

Escapement 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 42 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-33. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural coho stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 1--Proposed ActionCoho (by MU) Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total La

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 63,798 4

 Juan de Fuca 0.14 14,570 2,739 9,516 17,323 6,659 5,319 10,432 9,686 218 185North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 7,549  Nooksack/Samish 0.50 39,524 8,291 27,518 8,184 10,450 9,454 32,791 31,761 4,574 4,240Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 43,693 4

 Skagit 0.37 4,559 43,233 5,872 74,038 11,842 9,596 35,079 32,897 871 550 Stillaguamish 0.37 65 13,988 1,174 24,096 4,678 3,620 9,216 8,449 159 89 Snohomish 0.33 22,473 67,223 13,541 137,327 32,426 25,767 55,926 50,953 1,344 920So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 41,595 3

 South Sound 0.55 206,910 57,064 120,196 47,446 85,517 79,452 173,914 166,931 4,543 4,173Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 9,161  Hood Canal 0.41 37,333 13,512 11,457 19,091 21,126 18,803 28,855 24,106 864 726

SUS Net & Troll Sport

Mortality Mortality Mortalit

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries SUS Sport AK and BC 

Total Mortality Escapement Mortality

Table C3-34. Total fishing-related mortalitSound regional fishery: All Scenarios

All Stocks in Regional 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 43 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-35. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural sockeye stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 1--Proposed ActionSockeye Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total Lan

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7)  Nooksack/Samish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9)  Skagit 0.00 250 -- -- 11,823 -- -- -- 250 -- -- Stillaguamish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Snohomish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 44

 South Sound 0.19 22,224 70,376 92,184 291,916 -- 44,900 -- 47,700 -- --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Escapement Mortality

AK and BC 

Mortality

SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll 

Table C3-36. Total fishing-related mortality Puget Sound regional fishery: All Scenarios

Mortality

Sport

Mortality

All Stocks in Re

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries

Total Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 44 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-37. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural pink stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 1--Proposed ActionPink Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total La

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 1

 Juan de Fuca 0.35 -- 2,574 -- 4,848 116 1,374 1,084North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 

 Nooksack/Samish 0.07 -- 7,184 -- 91,988 734 6,450 --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 7

 Skagit 0.30 -- 184,614 -- 430,792 49,312 135,302 -- Stillaguamish 0.36 -- 90,690 -- 164,000 9,690 81,000 -- Snohomish 0.37 -- 101,193 -- 173,000 14,193 87,000 --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 

 South Sound 0.09 6 1,313 66 13,283 1,003 316 --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal 0.39 27,056 12,870 4,513 20,065 424 33,043 6,459

Total Mortality Escapement 

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll AK and BC 

Mortality Mortality Mortality

Table C3-38. Total fishing-related mortalSound regional fishery: All Scenarios

Mortalit

All Stocks in R

Sport

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 45 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-39. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chum stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 1--Proposed ActionChum Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca 0.07 -- 196 -- 2,585 0 137 59North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 

 Nooksack/Samish 0.56 9,976 44,763 7,936 35,610 2,686 52,052 --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 

 Skagit 0.09 177 4,076 1,834 42,237 1,166 3,087 -- Stillaguamish 0.59 970 20,608 700 14,400 1,077 20,500 -- Snohomish 0.51 36,193 18,091 7,200 17,600 1,084 53,200 --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 

 South Sound 0.68 37,613 323,645 17,540 150,923 3,189 358,069 --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal 0.49 169,630 49,357 37,637 50,382 4,121 214,866 --

Mortality 

Regional Stocks Only

Escapement Morta

Spor

Table C3-40. Total fishing-related mortaSound regional fishery: All Scenarios

Mortality Mortality

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll AK and BC 

Total Mortality

All Stocks in 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 46 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Table C3-41. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural steelhead stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 1--Proposed ActionSteelhead

Wild

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Total Landed

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) na na na 739

 Juan de Fuca North Sound (Area 7) na na na 20 Nooksack/SamishCentral Sound (Area 8, 9) na na na 512 Skagit Stillaguamish Snohomish So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) na na na 663 South SoundHood Canal (Area 12) na na na 0 Hood Canal

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries Tribal Net 

Escapement Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 47 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-42. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural coho stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 2--Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit LevelCoho (by MU) Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total La

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 

 Juan de Fuca 0.06 6,345 1,212 17,622 18,819 591 413 6,747 6,079 219 186North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 1,034 1 Nooksack/Samish 0.13 10,674 2,142 56,057 14,272 3,758 3,405 4,449 3,981 4,609 4,272Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 1,062 1 Skagit 0.06 1,208 7,102 9,241 109,887 1,327 415 6,105 4,604 878 554 Stillaguamish 0.17 2,840 6,532 1,296 31,413 1,491 1,031 7,721 6,993 160 91 Snohomish 0.08 1,909 16,706 30,927 187,066 3,614 6,775 13,645 40,819 1,361 929So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 8,897 8 South Sound 0.33 92,656 33,957 233,962 69,945 22,184 20,084 99,739 95,161 4,690 4,321Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,395 1 Hood Canal 0.12 11,327 3,937 37,046 28,533 4,031 3,265 10,314 4,666 919 777

Mortality 

Sport

Mortality

SUS Net & Troll 

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries SUS Sport AK and BC 

Total Mortality Escapement Mortality Mortality

Table C3-43. Total fishing-related mortality Sound regional fishery: All Scenarios

All Stocks in Regional F

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 48 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-44. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural sockeye stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 2--Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit LevelSockeye Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total L

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6)  Juan de Fuca -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7)  Nooksack/Samish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9)  Skagit 0.0 -- -- -- 12073 -- -- -- -- -- -- Stillaguamish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Snohomish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13)  South Sound 0.0 -- -- 114,408 362,292 -- -- -- -- -- --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12)  Hood Canal -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mortality

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries

Total Mortality

AK and BC 

Escapement Mortality Mortality

SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll 

Table C3-45. Total fishing-related mortalitPuget Sound regional fishery: All Scenario

All Stocks in R

Sport

Mortalit

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 49 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-46. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural pink stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 2--Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit LevelPink Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total La

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca 0.15 -- 1084 -- 6338 -- -- -- -- -- 1084North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7)  Nooksack/Samish 0.00 -- -- -- 99172 -- -- -- -- -- --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9)  Skagit 0.00 -- -- -- 615406 -- -- -- -- -- -- Stillaguamish 0.21 -- 54331 -- 200360 0 5731 0 48600 -- -- Snohomish 0.00 -- -- -- 274193 -- -- -- 34800 -- --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13)  South Sound 0.04 3 597 69 13999 0 284 0 316 -- --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12)  Hood Canal 0.16 27080 5379 4488 27556 0 209 0 25792 -- 6459

Mortali

Escapement 

All Fisheries

Total Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortality

Table C3-47. Total fishing-related mortaPuget Sound regional fishery: All Scenar

SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll AK and BC 

All Stocks in R

Sport

Regional Stocks Only

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 50 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-48. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chum stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 2--Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit LevelChum Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total L

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca 0.02 -- 59 -- 2722 0 2 59North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 

 Nooksack/Samish 0.01 199 891 17713 79482 234 856 --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 

 Skagit 0.01 10 242 2000 46071 193 59 -- Stillaguamish 0.02 39 813 1631 34194 56 796 -- Snohomish 0.00 131 108 43262 35583 142 97 --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 

 South Sound 0.16 8,694 74,807 46459 399761 2338 81163 --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal 0.04 62182 4266 145084 95473 635 65813 --

Total Mortality Escapement Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortali

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll 

Table C3-49. Total fishing-related mortali

Sound regional fishery: All Scenarios

Regional Stocks Only All Stocks in R

AK and BC 

Sport

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 51 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Table C3-50. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural steelhead stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 2--Escapement Goal ManagementSteelhead

Wild

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Total Landed

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) na na na 610

 Juan de Fuca North Sound (Area 7) na na na 14 Nooksack/SamishCentral Sound (Area 8, 9) na na na 213 Skagit Stillaguamish Snohomish So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) na na na 653 South SoundHood Canal (Area 12) na na na 0 Hood Canal

Escapement Mortality

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries Tribal Net 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 52 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-51. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural coho stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population LevelCoho (by MU) Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total L

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 

 Juan de Fuca 0.06 6,345 1,212 17,622 18,819 591 413 6,747 6,079 219 186North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 1,034 

 Nooksack/Samish 0.13 10,674 2,142 56,057 14,272 3,758 3,405 4,449 3,981 4,609 4,272Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0 

 Skagit 0.06 1,208 7,102 9,241 109,887 1,327 415 6,105 4,604 878 554 Stillaguamish 0.08 19 3,105 1,317 34,840 429 42 2,535 1,866 160 91 Snohomish 0.08 4,699 16,706 30,938 187,066 3,614 1,338 16,435 12,434 1,361 931So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 8,897 

 South Sound 0.33 92,656 33,957 233,962 69,945 22,184 20,084 99,739 95,161 4,690 4,321Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 1,395 

 Hood Canal 0.12 11,327 3,937 37,046 28,533 4,031 3,265 10,314 4,666 919 777

SUS Net & Troll 

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries SUS Sport AK and BC 

Total Mortality Escapement Mortality Mortality

Table C3-52. Total fishing-related mortaPuget Sound regional fishery: All Scenar

Mortality Mortal

Spor

All Stocks in Regional 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 53 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-53. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural sockeye stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population LevelSockeye Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total L

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 

 Nooksack/Samish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 

 Skagit 0.0 -- -- -- 12073 -- -- -- -- -- -- Stillaguamish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Snohomish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 

 South Sound 0.0 -- -- 114,408 362,292 -- -- -- -- -- --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Mortality

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries

Total Mortality

AK and BC 

Escapement Mortality

SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll 

Mortality

Table C3-54. Total fishing-related mortaliPuget Sound regional fishery: All Scenario

All Stocks in R

Sport

Mortali

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 54 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-55. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural pink stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population LevelPink Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total L

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca 0.15 -- 1084 -- 6338 -- -- -- -- -- 1084North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 

 Nooksack/Samish 0.00 -- -- -- 99172 -- -- -- -- -- --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 

 Skagit 0.00 -- -- -- 615406 -- -- -- -- -- -- Stillaguamish 0.00 -- -- -- 254690 -- -- -- -- -- -- Snohomish 0.00 -- -- -- 274193 -- -- -- -- -- --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 

 South Sound 0.04 3 597 69 13999 0 284 0 316 -- --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal 0.16 27080 5379 4488 27556 0 209 0 25792 -- 6459

Sport

Escapement Mortali

All Fisheries

Total Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortality

Table C3-56. Total fishing-related mortalSound regional fishery: All Scenarios

SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll AK and BC 

Regional Stocks Only All Stocks in R

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 55 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-57. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chum stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population LevelChum Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total L

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca 0.02 -- 59 -- 2722 0 2 59North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 

 Nooksack/Samish 0.01 199 891 17713 79482 234 856 --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 

 Skagit 0.01 10 242 2000 46071 193 59 -- Stillaguamish 0.00 2 44 1668 34964 1 45 -- Snohomish 0.00 131 108 43262 35583 142 97 --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13)  South Sound 0.16 8,694 74,807 46459 399761 2338 81163 --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal 0.04 62182 4266 145084 95473 635 65813 --

Total Mortality Escapement 

Regional Stocks Only All Stocks in R

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll AK and BC Sport

Table C3-58. Total fishing-related mortaPuget Sound regional fishery: All Scenari

Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortal

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 56 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Table C3-59. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural steelhead stocks: All SceAlternative 3--Escapement Goal Management at the Population LevelSteelhead

Wild

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Total Landed

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) na na na 610

 Juan de Fuca North Sound (Area 7) na na na 14 Nooksack/SamishCentral Sound (Area 8, 9) na na na 213 Skagit Stillaguamish Snohomish So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) na na na 653 South SoundHood Canal (Area 12) na na na 0 Hood Canal

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries Tribal Net 

Escapement Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 57 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-60. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural coho stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Coho (by MU) Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 0 

 Juan de Fuca 0.06 2,236 1,212 21,732 18,819 591 413 2,638 2,050 219 186North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 0  Nooksack/Samish 0.07 10,674 1,108 56,057 15,305 2,724 2,420 4,449 3,989 4,609 4,272Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 0  Skagit 0.06 1,197 6,967 9,253 110,022 1,327 415 5,959 4,790 878 554 Stillaguamish 0.08 21 3,105 1,317 34,840 429 42 2,537 1,868 160 91 Snohomish 0.08 4,697 16,706 30,938 187,066 3,614 1,338 16,433 12,446 1,361 931So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 0  South Sound 0.06 37,270 6,099 293,781 97,804 13,287 11,610 25,392 22,276 4,690 4,321Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 0  Hood Canal 0.07 7,160 2,126 41,214 30,345 2,636 1,936 5,731 4,667 919 777

SUS Net & Troll 

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries SUS Sport AK and BC 

Total Mortality Escapement Mortality Mortality Morta

Mortality

Table C3-61. Total fishing-related mortalSound regional fishery: All Scenarios

All Stocks in Regiona

Spor

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 58 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-62. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural sockeye stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Sockeye Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 

 Nooksack/Samish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 

 Skagit 0.00 -- -- -- 12,073 -- -- -- -- -- -- Stillaguamish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Snohomish -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 

 South Sound 0.00 -- -- 114,408 362,292 -- -- -- -- -- --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

AK and BC 

Escapement Mortality Mortality

SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll 

Mortality Mortal

Table C3-63. Total fishing-related mortaliSound regional fishery: All Scenarios

All Stocks in 

Spor

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries

Total Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 59 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-64. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural pink stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Pink Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total 

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca 0.15 -- 1,084 -- 6,338 -- -- -- -- -- 1,084North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7) 

 Nooksack/Samish 0.00 -- -- -- 99,172 -- -- -- -- -- --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9) 

 Skagit 0.00 -- -- -- 615,406 -- -- -- -- -- -- Stillaguamish 0.00 -- -- -- 254,690 -- -- -- -- -- -- Snohomish 0.00 -- -- -- 274,193 -- -- -- -- -- --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) 

 South Sound 0.00 -- -- 72 14,596 -- -- -- -- -- --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal 0.10 1,186 5,273 10,658 47,387 -- -- -- -- -- 6,459

Spor

Morta

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll AK and BC 

Table C3-65. Total fishing-related mortaSound regional fishery: All Scenarios

Total Mortality Escapement Mortality Mortality Mortality

All Stocks in R

Regional Stocks Only

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 60 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Note: It is suggested that these tables be printed on larger paper to improve readability.

Table C3-66. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural chum stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Chum Region

Wild 

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Hat. Nat. Total Landed Total Landed Total Landed Total La

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) 

 Juan de Fuca 0.02 -- 59 -- 2,722 0 2 59North Sound (Area 7) North Sound (Area 7)  Nooksack/Samish 0.01 194 872 17,717 79,501 210 856 --Central Sound (Area 8, 9) Central Sound (Area 8, 9)  Skagit 0.01 10 242 2,000 46,071 193 59 -- Stillaguamish 0.00 2 44 1,668 34,964 1 45 -- Snohomish 0.00 131 108 43,262 35,583 142 97 --So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) So. Sound (Area 10,11,13)  South Sound 0.07 3,843 33,069 51,310 441,499 523 36,389 --Hood Canal (Area 12) Hood Canal (Area 12) 

 Hood Canal 0.00 243 117 207,023 99,621 8 352 --

Total Mortality

Regional Stocks Only All Stocks in Re

Sport

Escapement 

All Fisheries SUS Sport SUS Net & Troll 

Table C3-67. Total fishing-related mortality Sound regional fishery: All Scenarios

Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortalit

AK and BC 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 61 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts

Table C3-68. Total fishing related mortality of Puget Sound hatchery and natural steelhead stocks: All ScenariosAlternative 4--No Action/No Authorized Take Steelhead

Wild

Exp. Rate Hat. Nat. Total Landed

Juan de Fuca (Area 5, 6) na na na 609

 Juan de Fuca North Sound (Area 7) na na na 14 Nooksack/SamishCentral Sound (Area 8, 9) na na na 213 Skagit Stillaguamish Snohomish So. Sound (Area 10,11,13) na na na 512 South SoundHood Canal (Area 12) na na na 0 Hood Canal

Regional Stocks Only

All Fisheries Tribal Net 

Escapement Mortality

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS C - 62 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 63 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix C4. Structure and Function of the FRAM 

The Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM) is currently used by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC) to annually estimate impacts of proposed ocean and terminal 

fisheries on chinook and coho salmon stocks. The DEIS incorporates by reference a document 

entitled “FRAM – An overview for chinook and coho”, written by the Model Evaluation 

Workgroup for the Salmon Technical Team of the PFMC1

. The following was excerpted from 

that report. 

FRAM is a single season modeling tool with separate processing code for chinook and coho 

salmon. The chinook version evaluates impacts on most stock groups originating from the south 

central Oregon coast, Columbia River, Puget Sound, and Southern British Columbia. The coho 

version evaluates impacts on a comprehensive set of stocks originating from Central California to 

Southeast Alaska and represents total West Coast production. The FRAM produces a variety of 

output reports that are used to examine fishery impacts for compliance with management 

objectives, allocation arrangements, ESA compliance, and domestic and international legal 

obligations. Until recently FRAM was not used for assessing compliance with chinook or coho 

agreements in international fisheries management forums. However, the U.S. and Canada have 

agreed to develop a bilateral regional coho planning tool. FRAM will be used for the 

development of the first version of this regional model. The intent is to have a single common 

tool that can support both domestic and international fishery planning processes using a common 

set of data and assumptions. 

BACKGROUND 

The need for salmon fishery assessment tools at the stock-specific level became apparent 

beginning in the mid-1970s with treaty fishery rights litigation and the associated legal obligation 

for the states of Washington and Oregon to provide treaty tribes with the opportunity to harvest 

specific shares of individual runs. Other legal issues such as the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 

Management Act and the Law of the Seas convention contributed to the need for developing 

better assessment tools. These legal issues in conjunction with the information available from the 

coast wide coded wire tag (CWT) program provided the impetus for developing the early salmon 

fishery assessment models. 

In the late 1970s, the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) and U.S. National Bureau of 

Standards (NBS) developed a model for evaluating alternative fishery regulatory packages. The 

WDF/NBS Model could be configured for either chinook or coho by using different input data 

files. This model was coded in FORTRAN and ran on a mainframe computer at the University of 

Washington. Model runs were usually processed over night and results were painstakingly 

extracted from large volumes of printed output reports. The WDF/NBS model was not 

extensively used by the PFMC because it proved costly to operate and its results were difficult to 

obtain in a timely manner. Morishima and Henry (2000) provide a more in-depth history of 

Pacific Northwest salmon management and fishery modeling. 

In the early 1980s, the development of personal computers permitted the WDF/NBS model to be 

converted into simple spreadsheet models. This transformation improved accessibility to the 

 

1

 Yuen, H., A.Rankis,, L.LaVoy, J.Packer, C.Melcher, R. Conrad , C. D. Simmons, R. Sharma, and 

A.Grover. 2004 In prep. FRAM: an overview of chinook and coho. Report of the Model Evaluation 

Workgroup to the STT. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 64 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

model during the PFMC preseason planning processes. The first spreadsheet model for chinook 

used by the PFMC was developed in the mid 1980s to model Columbia River “tule” fall chinook. 

The Coho Assessment Model (CAM) was the corresponding spreadsheet model for coho and 

covered stocks from the Columbia River, Puget Sound, and Washington and Oregon coastal 

areas. The Coho Assessment Model was revised over time, principally to improve report 

generation capabilities and provide more detailed information on management of terminal area 

fisheries through the use of Terminal Area Management Modules (TAMMs). The CAM was used 

as the primary model for evaluating coho impacts for PFMC fisheries until the mid 1990s. 

Increasing demands for information soon outstripped the capacity of these spreadsheet models to 

evaluate the fishery regimes under consideration by the PFMC. In the mid 1990s, CAM was 

programmed in QUICK BASIC and was renamed FRAM. The recognition that common 

algorithms underlie both the coho and chinook spreadsheet models led to the effort to develop the 

QUICK BASIC version of FRAM for both species. The FRAM code could be used to evaluate 

fishery regimes for either chinook or coho by using different input file configurations. In 1998, 

FRAM was converted to VISUAL BASIC to take advantage of improved user interfaces 

available through the MS WINDOWS operating system. A multi-agency Model Evaluation 

Subgroup periodically reviewed model performance and parameter estimation methods and 

coordinated revisions to model capabilities during this period (1998-2000). 

MODEL OVERVIEW 

The FRAM is a discrete, time-oriented, age-structured, deterministic computer model intended to 

predict the impacts from a variety of proposed fishery regulation mechanisms for a single 

management year. It produces point estimates of fishery impacts by stock for specific time 

periods and age classes. The FRAM performs bookkeeping functions to track the progress of 

individual stock groups as the fisheries in each time step exploit them. Individual stock age 

groups are exploited as a single pool, that is, in each time step all pre-terminal fisheries operate 

on the entire cohort and all terminal fisheries operate on the mature run. 

Currently, 33 stock groups are represented in Chinook FRAM and 128 stock groups are 

represented in Coho FRAM (see Appendices 1 and 2 for lists of the stocks). Each of these groups 

have both marked and unmarked components to permit assessment of mark-selective fishery 

regulations. For most wild stocks and hatchery stocks without marking or tagging programs, the 

cohort size of the marked component is zero and therefore the current version of FRAM has a 

virtual total of 66 stock groups for chinook and 256 for coho. Stocks or stock-aggregates 

represented in the FRAM were chosen based on the level of management interest, their 

contribution rate to PFMC fisheries, and the availability of representative CWT recoveries in the 

fisheries. 

The FRAM includes pre-terminal and terminal fisheries in southeast Alaska, Canada, Puget 

Sound, and off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. There are 73 fisheries in 

Chinook FRAM and 206 fisheries in Coho FRAM. The intent is to encompass all fishery impacts 

to modeled chinook and coho stocks in order to account for all fishing-related impacts and 

thereby improve model accuracy. Terminal fisheries in Chinook FRAM are aggregations of gears 

and management areas. Terminal fisheries in Coho FRAM are modeled with finer resolution, 

most notably by including individual freshwater fisheries. Fishery number and fishery name for 

each of the FRAM fisheries are listed in Appendix 3 for chinook and Appendix 4 for coho. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 65 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

The time step structure used in FRAM represents a compromise level of resolution that 

corresponds to management planning fishery seasons and species-specific migration and 

maturation schedules. 

The FRAM consists of four time periods for chinook and five periods for coho (Table 2-1). At 

each time step a cohort is subjected to natural mortality, pre-terminal fisheries, and also 

potentially to maturation (chinook only), and terminal fisheries. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 66 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 2-1. FRAM time steps for coho and chinook. 

Coho Chinook

Period Months Period Months 

Time 1 January-June Time 1 Preceding OctoberTime 2 July Time 2 May-June

Time 3 August Time 3 July-September

Time 4 September Time 4 October-April 

Time 5 October - 

The recovery data available in the CWT database limit the time-step resolution of the model. 

Increasing the time-step resolution of the model usually decreases the number of CWT recoveries 

for a stock within a time period. Since estimation of fishery impacts, like exploitation rates, is 

dependent on CWT recovery information, decreasing the number of CWT recoveries in time/area 

strata increases the variance of the estimated exploitation rates in those strata. In recognition of 

these data limitations, efforts were made to restrict the level of time-step resolution to that 

necessary for fishery management purposes. 

Major assumptions and limitations of the model are described briefly below. 

1. CWT fish accurately represent the modeled stock. Many “model” stocks are aggregates 

of stocks that are represented by CWTs from only one component. For example, in many 

cases wild stocks are aggregated with hatchery stocks and both are represented by the 

hatchery stock’s CWT data. Therefore, for each modeled stock aggregate, it is assumed 

that the CWT data accurately depict the exploitation and distribution of the untagged fish 

in the modeled stock. 

2. Length at age of chinook is stock specific and is constant from year to year. Growth 

functions are used for chinook in determining the proportion of the age class that is legal 

size in size-limit fisheries. Parameters for the growth curves were estimated from data 

collected over a number of years. It is assumed that growth in the year to be modeled is 

similar to that in the years used to estimate the parameters. 

3. Stock distribution and migration is constant from year to year and estimated as the 

average distribution in the base period data. We currently lack data on the annual 

variability in distribution and migration patterns of chinook and coho salmon stocks. In 

the absence of such estimates, fishery-specific exploitation rates are computed relative to 

the entire cohort. Changes in the distribution and migration of stocks from the base 

period will result in poor estimates of stock composition and stock-specific exploitation 

rates. 

4. There are not multiple encounters with the gear by the fish in a specific time-area fishery 

stratum. Within each time-area fishery stratum, fish are assumed to be vulnerable to the 

gear only once. The catch equations used in the model are discrete and not instantaneous. 

Potential bias in the estimates may increase with large selective fisheries or longer time 

intervals, both of which increase the likelihood that fish will encounter the gear more 

than once. 

While it is difficult to directly test the validity of these assumptions, results of validation 

exercises could provide one assessment of how well these assumptions are met and the sensitivity 

of the model to the assumptions. Currently, there is little effort directed at model validation. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 67 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

BASE PERIOD DATA 

The Chinook FRAM is calibrated using escapement, catch, and CWT recovery data from 1974-

1979 brood year CWT releases. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, fisheries were being 

conducted across an extensive geographic area and over an extended period of time, thus giving 

the best available representation of CWT stock distribution. Not all stocks represented in the 

Chinook FRAM have CWT recovery data available from the 1974-1979 brood year base period 

(e.g., Snake River fall chinook). These stocks are categorized as “Out-of-Base” stocks. Available 

CWT data for these stocks are translated to equivalent base period recovery and escapement data 

using known fishing effort and harvest relationships between recovery years. 

Model base period data for the Coho FRAM is derived from fishery and escapement recoveries of 

CWTs and terminal area run size estimates for the return years 1986-1991. 

Chinook and coho base period data are used to estimate base period stock abundances and agespecific time-area fishery exploitation rates and maturation rates for modeled stocks. These 

estimates are derived through species-specific cohort analysis procedures. Cohort analysis is a 

series of steps and processes that uses CWT recoveries and base period catch and escapement 

data to “back-calculate” or reconstruct a pre-fishing cohort size for each stock and age group 

using assumed natural mortality and incidental mortality rates. 

GENERAL INPUT TYPES 

The five general types of input values used by FRAM are: 

1. Cohort Abundance: For each stock or stock aggregate, an annual estimate of abundance is 

obtained from a source that is independent of the model. For preseason simulation 

modeling, these forecasts of stock abundance are used to estimate initial cohort size. For 

chinook, initial stock abundance estimates are segregated by age class, from age-2 to age5 year old fish. For coho, only one age class (age 3) is assumed vulnerable to fisheries. 

Coho abundances are input to the model as January age-3 abundance. Chinook and coho 

abundance estimates are further segregated by mark status (“marked” or “unmarked”). 

2. Size Limits: For chinook, minimum size limits are specified by fishery where 

appropriate. For coho, age-3 fish are assumed fully vulnerable and age-2 fish are assumed 

fully invulnerable to modeled fisheries. 

3. Fishery Catch Mortality: The model provides five options for estimating mortality in a 

fishery: a quota, an exploitation rate scalar, a ceiling, “selective”, and harvest rate (for 

Puget Sound terminal fisheries only). 

a) Quota. Catch in the fishery is set equal to a value input by the user. 

b) Exploitation rate scalar. The exploitation rate in the fishery is scaled, relative to the 

base period, using a scalar input by the user. 

c) Ceiling. Catch is first calculated based on an exploitation rate scalar and then 

compared to a ceiling; if the estimated catch exceeds the ceiling, then the catch is 

truncated at the ceiling value. 

d) Selective. Identified as either a quota or exploitation rate scalar controlled fishery 

with additional calculations to cover catches and encounters for marked and 

unmarked groups. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 68 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

e) Harvest rate. A terminal area harvest rate is applied to either all fish present in the 

terminal area or to the number of local-origin stock only. 

4. Release Mortality: This is the mortality associated with the release of landed fish from 

hook-and-line and other gears. Release mortality rates assumed for coho are shown in 

Table 3-1a and for chinook in Table 3-1b. Hook-and-release mortality is assessed when 

coho or chinook are not allowed to be retained (so-called “chinook/coho non-retention”, 

or CNR fisheries), when size limits apply, or in mark-selective fisheries. Release 

mortality has been estimated in a number of studies of hook-and-line fisheries, and 

release mortality rates for troll and recreational fisheries in the ocean have been formally 

adopted by the PFMC. Release mortality in net fisheries for chinook or coho nonretention is estimated external to FRAM and input into the model as either “landed catch” 

or as CNR mortality. 

Mark-selective fisheries have two additional variations of “release” mortality that are 

described as either the inappropriate retention of an unmarked fish or the release of a 

marked fish which consequently endures some release mortality. The failure to release an 

unmarked fish is a user input to the model called “Unmarked Recognition Error” (or 

Retention Error Rate) and is the proportion of the unmarked fish encountered that are 

retained. The release of marked fish that subsequently die due to release is a user input to 

the model called “Marked Recognition Error” and is the proportion of the marked fish 

encountered that are released. These rates are identified in Table 3-2. 

5. Other Non-landed Mortality: This category includes fishing-induced mortality not 

associated with direct handling (or landing) of the fish (see Table 3-1a for coho and Table 

3-1b for chinook). Application is for sport and troll hook-and-line “drop-off” (fish that 

drop off from the hook before they are brought to vessel but die from hook injuries), and 

net gear “drop-out” (fish which are not brought on board but die from injury as a result of 

being netted). In general, a 5% mortality rate is applied to the landed catch to account for 

“other non-landed mortality” in hook-and-line fisheries. Net drop-out mortality rates vary 

depending on species, net type, or terminal versus pre-terminal nature of the fishery. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 69 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 3-1a. FRAM/TAMM fishery-related mortality rates for coho salmon used for Southern 

U.S. fisheries in 2003.

Fishery: 

designated by 

area, user group, 

and/or gear type 

Fishery 

Type Comments Release Mortality 

"Other" 

Mortalitya

 

MSF barbless 14.0% 5.0% 

Non-Retention N. Pt. Arena 14.0%b 5.0% PFMC Ocean b

Recreational 

Non-Retention S. Pt. Arena 23.0%b

 5.0%b

PFMC Ocean T-Troll Retention n.a.c 5.0% 

PFMC Ocean NT-Troll MSF barbless 26.0% 5.0% 

Area 5, 6C Troll Retention n.a. 5.0% 

Retention n.a. 5.0% 

Puget Sound Recreational MSF barbless 7.0% 5.0% 

WA Coastal Recreational Retention n.a. 5.0% 

Buoy 10 Recreational MSF barbed 16.0% 5.0% 

Gillnet and Setnet n.a. 2.0% 

PS Purse Seine 26.0%b 0.0% 

PS Reef Net, Beach 

Seine, Round Haul n.a. n.a. 

Freshwater Net n.a. 2.0% 

Retention n.a. 5.0% 

Freshwater Recreational 

Non-Retention 10.0%b

 5.0% 

a The “other” mortality rates (which include drop-out and drop-off) are applied to landed fish (retention fisheries), 

thus FRAM does not assess “drop-off” in non-retention fisheries. Drop-off (and release mortality) associated with 

CNR fisheries are estimated outside the model and used as inputs to the model. For mark-selective fisheries (MSF), 

“other” mortality rates are applied to encounters of marked and unmarked fish. 

b

 Rate assessed external to FRAM. 

c

 None assessed. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 70 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 3-1b. FRAM/TAMM fishery-related mortality rates for chinook salmon used for 

Southern U.S. fisheries in 2003. 

Fishery: 

designated by 

area, user group, 

and/or gear type 

Fishery 

Type Comments

"Shaker" 

Release 

Mortality 

"Adult" 

Release 

Mortality 

"Other" 

Mortalitya

Retention N Point 

Arena 14.0% n.a.c

 5.0% PFMC Ocean 

Recreational Retention S Point 

Arena 23.0% n.a. 5.0% 

PFMC Ocean Troll Retention barbless 25.5% n.a. 5.0% 

Area 5,6,7 T-Troll Retention barbed 30.0% n.a. 5.0% 

Retention barbless 20.0% n.a. 5.0% 

MSF barbless 20.0% 10.0% 5.0% Puget Sound (PS) 

Recreational 

Non-Retention barbless 20.0% 10.0% n.a. 

Buoy 10 Recreational not modeled within FRAM n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Commercial Net 

PS Areas 4B,5,6,6C PTd GN, SN n.a. n.a. 3.0% 

WA Coastal & Col R. 

Net PTd

 GN, SN n.a. n.a. 3.0% 

PS Areas 6A,7,7A PTd GN, SN, Purse S n.a. n.a. 1.0% 

NT PS Areas: 

6B,9,12,12B,12C PTd

 GN, SN, Purse S n.a. n.a. 1.0% 

T PS Areas:7B,7C,7D PTd GN, SN, Purse S n.a. n.a. 1.0% 

All other PS marine net Terminal GN, SN n.a. n.a. 2.0% 

 immature n.a. 45.0%b 0.0% PS Purse Seine 

 mature n.a. 33.0%b 0.0% 

PS Reef Net, Beach 

Seine, Round Haul n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Freshwater Net n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Retention n.a. n.a. n.a. 

MSF TAMM n.a. 10.0%b n.a. Freshwater 

Recreational 

Non-Retention TAMM n.a. 10.0%b

 n.a. 

a The “other” mortality rates (which include drop-out and drop-off) are applied to landed fish (retention fisheries), thus FRAM 

does not assess “drop-off” in non-retention fisheries. Drop-off (and release mortality) associated with CNR fisheries are 

estimated outside the model and used as inputs to the model. For mark-selective fisheries (MSF), “other” mortality rates are 

applied to encounters of marked and unmarked fish. 

b

 Rate assessed external to FRAM. 

c

 None assessed. 

d

 PT = Pre-terminal.
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 71 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 3-2. Mark-selective fishery input values for Southern U.S. fisheries.

Fishery Unmarked Retention Rate 

(% of unmarked fish retained) 

Mark Release Rate 

(% of marked fish released) 

NOF troll, sport 

SOF sport 

2% 

2% 

6% 

6% 

Area 5,6 sport—2001 

coho 

Area 5,6 sport—2002 

coho 

Area 5,6 sport—2003 

coho 

Area 5,6 sport—2003 

chinook 

2% 

2% 

2% 

8% 

34% 

38% 

38% 

6% 

Area 7 sport—2001 coho 

Area 7 sport—2002 coho 

Area 7 sport—2003 coho 

5% 

8% 

8% 

6% 

9% 

9% 

Area 13 sport—2002 

coho 

Area 13 sport—2003 

coho 

27% 

27% 

18% 

18% 

Other PS marine sport 8% 9% 

OUTPUT REPORTS AND MODEL USE 

Model results are available as either standard FRAM printed output reports or in Excel 

spreadsheets that are linked to FRAM results/reports. The TAMM spreadsheets provide 

comprehensive summaries of fishery mortality, exploitation rate, run size, and escapement for 

key stocks in the PFMC and North of Falcon annual salmon season setting processes. Early 

versions of these spreadsheets focused on finer resolution of stocks and fisheries for Puget Sound 

terminal areas. The TAMM spreadsheets have now broadened in scope and contain information 

for both pre-terminal and terminal fisheries as well as FRAM fishery inputs for terminal fisheries 

in coastal Washington (coho) and in Puget Sound (both species). Other model results not shown 

in the spreadsheets can be generated directly from FRAM. These reports include summaries of 

catch by fishery, catch by stock, catch by age, and escapement/run size reports. A new report has 

been created for FRAM to provide more detailed information relative to mark-selective fisheries 

for chinook and coho. For a full scope of FRAM report generating functions, refer to “Users 

Manual for the Fishery Regulation Assessment Models (FRAM) for Chinook and Coho” (MEW 

in prep.). 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 72 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURE 

For each time step and fishery, FRAM simulates fishery regulations following the sequence of 

computations depicted for coho (Figure 1) and chinook (Figure 2). The first step for both coho 

and chinook is to scale the predicted cohort size for the current year to the base period: this is 

done by stock for the January age-3 cohort for coho and for the age-2 through age-5 cohorts for 

chinook. Each stock’s cohort is then processed through a time step loop defined for the species 

(five time steps for coho and four for chinook). Within the time step loop: (1) natural mortality is 

applied to the beginning cohort size; (2) the procedures to calculate projected catches for the all 

fisheries in the time step are executed; and (3) all fishery mortalities for the cohort (stock) are 

totaled and the remaining abundance of the stock is calculated. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 73 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Figure 1. Flow chart for FRAM coho model. 

Scale Cohort to Base Period 

Time Step Loop 

Natural Mortality

Calculate Landed Catch 

TAMM 

Inputs

MarkSelective Species Non-Retention

Fishery

Retention 

Fishery

Calculate Encounters 

Calculate Incidental Mortality: 

Drop-off & Drop-out 

Calculate Selective Impacts: 

 Marked & Unmarked Catch 

 Drop-off 

Total dead 

fish is 

model 

input 

Sum Fishery Mortality

by Stock

FRAM 

Processing 

Through Time

Calculate Stock

Escapement 

Calculate Remaining Abundance by 

Time Step Loop 

TAMM Terminal Area Management Module 

Iteratively process pre-terminal fishery 

inputs 

Iteratively process terminal fishery

Yes

No 

Fishery Mortality Processing 

Yes No 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 74 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Figure 2. Flow chart for FRAM chinook model.

Scale Cohort to Base Period (by age class) 

Time Step Loop 

Natural 

TAMM Processing 

Iteratively process pre-terminal 

fishery inputs 

TAMM Inputs 

Processed? 

MarkSelective Species NonRetention

Retention 

Fishery

Calculate Incidental Mortality: Drop-off & Drop-out

 Sub-legal Sized Shakers 

Sum Fishery Mortality

by Stock and Age 

Calculate Remaining Cohort 

FRAM Processing 

Complete? 

Calculate Terminal 

Run Sizes 

Immature 

Cohort 

Mature 

Cohort 

Maturation 

Pre-Terminal 

Fisheries 

Time Step Loop 

Calculate Encounters Calculate Legal Sized Shakers Calculate Landed Catch

Immature Cohort 

Yes 

No

No 

Calculate Selective 

Impacts 

Mature 

Cohort

Terminal Fisheries 

Mortality Processing 

Yes
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 75 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

After FRAM has processed all steps in the time step loop, the program checks for the presence of 

an optional Terminal Area Management Module (TAMM). If the model user has not specified a 

TAMM input file for additional modeling, FRAM processing is complete and final terminal run 

sizes (chinook) or escapements (coho) are calculated. If a TAMM has been specified, then FRAM 

will repeat processing through the specified fisheries and time step loops. Although TAMMs are 

focused upon terminal area fisheries, some of these fisheries are in mixed-stock areas and may 

also impact both mature and immature chinook. Thus there exists an iterative FRAM/TAMM 

process to obtain the final tabulations of fishery mortalities and stock escapements (see Section 7 

for further TAMM explanation). 

Scale Cohort to Base Period 

The equation below establishes the starting cohort size for all stocks as a product of two 

parameters: the average cohort size for stock s at age a (BPCohorts,a) during the base period and a 

stock and age specific scalar (StockScalars,a). StockScalars,a is estimated externally to the model 

and is an annual input to the model. 

s,a, s,a s,a Cohort = BPCohort x StockScalar 1

Natural Mortality 

At the beginning of each time step, each cohort is decreased to account for projected natural 

mortality using the following equation: 

( ) s,a,t s,a,t M a,t Cohort = Cohort x 1 −

where Ma,t is the natural mortality rate for age a fish during time step t (see Appendix Table 5 for 

specific rates used for coho and chinook). 

Catch 

The FRAM simulates fisheries through the use of linear equations. Different types of 

computations are used depending upon whether or not a fishery operates under mark-retention 

restrictions. If all fish can be retained regardless of mark status, the following general formula is 

used (mark-selective fisheries are described in Section 6.5): 

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a,t s,a,t f ,t SHRS s, f ,t Catch = BPER x Cohort x PV x FishScalar x
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 76 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

where: 

Catchs,a,f,t = Catch of stock s, age a, in fishery f, at time step t;

BPERs,a,f,t = Base Period Exploitation Rate (harvest rate for terminal fisheries) for 

stock s, age a, in fishery f, at time step t (BPER is derived from cohort 

analysis using CWT release and recovery data);

Cohorts,a,t = Number of fish in cohort (chinook are expressed as both immature and 

mature cohorts) for stock s at age a in time step t; 

 

PVs,a,t = Proportion of cohort for stock s, age a, vulnerable to the gear at time step t

(for chinook PV is a function of a Von Bertalanffy growth curve; for coho 

PV is always = 1.0);

FishScalarf,t = Impact scalar for fishery f at time step t relative to the base period; and

SHRSs,f,t = Stock-specific exploitation rate scalar for stock s, in fishery f, at time step 

t (the default value of 1.0 is rarely changed).

The parameter FishScalarf,t is the foundation for the model’s fishery simulation algorithms. 

FRAM can evaluate two general types of fisheries: (1) effort-based or (2) catch-based. For effortbased fisheries, the parameter FishScalarf,t is specified by the modeler to reflect expected effort 

relative to the average effort observed during the model’s base period. For catch-based fisheries, 

FishScalarf,t is computed automatically so as to attain a specified catch level. If the catch level is 

to be modeled as a quota, then FishScalarf,t is computed as: 

∑ ∑ =

a s,a, f ,t f s

f ,t

f ,t Catch x ( / Pr opModelStock )

QuotaLevel FishScalar

1

where ∑ ∑a

s a f t

s

Catch , , , is computed with FishScalarf,t = 1.0 and PropModelStockf is the 

proportion of model stocks in the catch to the total catch in fishery f for the base period 

(PropModelStockf is used for chinook only, it is always set to 1.0 for coho). 

If the catch level is to be modeled as a ceiling, both an effort scalar and quota are specified. A 

catch estimate is made during a first iteration of FRAM using the effort scalar. If the effort scalar 

computes a catch level that is less than the catch ceiling, then the final catch estimate is this 

effort-based catch. If the initial effort scalar computes to a catch level that exceeds the ceiling, 

then the final catch estimate is the quota. In the case of a ceiling-type fishery, the final 

FishScalarf,t will be calculated based on the lower of the two types of catch estimates (effort 

scalar or quota). 

Incidental Mortality 

Several types of incidental mortality can be accounted for in FRAM either through external 

calculations of mortality or internal FRAM processing. Incidental mortality associated with hookand-line drop-off and net drop-out is expressed as a fraction of retained catch or as a fraction of 

encounters in the case of mark-selective fisheries. Incidental mortality in mark-selective fisheries 

is discussed in the next section. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 77 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Mortalities in species non-retention fisheries (CNR) are derived using four different methods for 

chinook and one for coho. Chinook non-retention mortalities are model estimates from inputs of: 

the level of open versus non-retention effort within each time step (Methods 1 and 2), legal and 

sub-legal encounters (Method 3), or from total encounters (Method 4). The method for coho is 

simply an external-to-the-model estimate of coho mortalities in a fishery based on historical 

observations. The methods were developed to fit the observations from various fisheries. Method 

1 was developed for Canadian and Alaskan fisheries that had both open and non-retention 

regulation periods and had changes in the gear or fishing patterns to avoid chinook encounters. 

METHOD 1 – Computed Mortalities

f ,t f ,t

f ,t

f ,t

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t x RelRate x LegalSelRate

FishScaler

FishScaler

CNRLegal Catch x − = 1

= ∑ ∑

s a f ,t s,a,t s,a,t TotalLegPop (Cohort x PV ) for stocks with catch in fishery f

= ∑ ∑ − s a f ,t s,a,t s,a,t TotalSubLegPop (Cohort x (1 PV )) for stocks with catch in fishery f

EncRate f ,t = TotalSubLegPop f ,t TotalLegPop f ,t

= ∑ ∑

s a f ,t s,a, f ,t f TotCatch Catch x (1/ Pr opModelSto ck )

f ,t f ,t s,a , f ,t

f ,t

f ,t

s,a , f ,t f ,t f ,t x RelRate x SubSelRate x PropSubPop FishScaler

FishScaler

CNRSub TotCatch x EncRate x − = 1

METHOD 2 – Ratio of Non-Retention to Retention Days 

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t f ,t f ,t f ,t f ,t CNRLegal = Catch x (CNRDays RetentDays ) x RelRate x LegalSelRate

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t f ,t f ,t f ,t CNRSub = Shakers x (CNRDays RetentDays ) x SubSelRate 

METHOD 3 – External Estimates of Legal and Sub-Legal Sized Encounters 

LegalPropCatchs,a, f ,t = Catchs,a, f ,t TotCatchf ,t

SubLegPop Cohort x ( PV ) s,a,t = s,a,t − s,a,t 1

s,a, f ,t s,a,t s,a, f ,t RelRate f ,t SubLegNR = SubLegPop x SubER x

s a f t

s a

SubLegPropEncs,a, f ,t = SubLegNRs,a, f ,t ∑∑ SubLegNR , , ,

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t f ,t f ,t f CNRLegal = LegalPropCatch x LegalEnc x RelRate x PropModelS tock

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t f ,t f ,t f CNRSub = SubLegPropEnc x SubLegEnc x RelRate x PropModelS tock
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 78 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

METHOD 4 – External Estimate of Total Encounters 

LegalPropCatchs,a, f ,t = Catchs,a, f ,t TotCatchf ,t

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a,t s,a,t s, f ,t LegalPropCatchs,a, f ,t LegalEnc = BPER x Cohort x PV x SHRS x

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a,t SubLegEnc = SubER x SubLegPop

∑ ∑ + ∑ ∑ =

s a s,a, f ,t s a s,a, f ,t

f ,t

f ,t LegalEnc SubLegEnc

TotalEstCNR

CNRScaler

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t f ,t f ,t CNRLegal = LegalEnc x CNRScaler x Re lRate

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t f ,t f ,t CNRSub = SubLegEnc x CNRScaler x Re lRate

METHOD 5 – Coho Non-Retention Mortalities from External Estimates 

∑

=

s

s, f ,t s,t s, f ,t

s, f ,t s,t s, f ,t

s, f,t BPER x Cohort x SHRS

BPER x Cohort x SHRS

PropCatch

s, f ,t f ,t PropCatchs, f ,t CNR = EstCNRMorts x

where Cohorts,a,t, Catchs,a,f,t, FishScalerf,t, PVs,a,t, PropModelStockf, BPERs,a,f,t, and SHRSs,f,t, are 

previously defined and: 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 79 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

CNRLegals,a,f,t = Legal-sized adult non-retention mortality for stock s, age a, in fishery f,

at time step t; 

RelRatef,t = Release mortality rate for fish in fishery f at time step t; 

LegalSelRatef,t = Legal-sized adult selectivity rate for fishery f in time step t, in response 

to changes in gear or fishing pattern (model input for Methods 1 and 2); 

TotalLegPopf,t = Total number of legal-sized fish from modeled stocks available to 

fishery f at time step t; 

TotalSubLegPopf,t = Total number of sub-legal sized fish from modeled stocks available to 

fishery f at time step t; 

EncRatef,t = For modeled stocks, the ratio of sub-legal sized chinook encountered for 

every legal-sized chinook in fishery f at time step t; 

TotCatchf,t = Total landed catch in fishery f at time step t; 

CNRSubs,a,f,t = Sub-legal sized non-retention mortality for stock s, age a, in fishery f, at 

time step t; 

SubSelRatef,t = Sub-legal sized selectivity rate for fishery f in time step t, in response to 

changes in gear or fishing pattern (model input for Methods 1 and 2); 

PropSubPops,a,f,t = Proportion of sub-legal sized population for stock s, age a, in fishery f, at 

time step t; 

CNRDaysf,t = Number of non-retention days in fishery f, at time step t (model input for 

Method 2); 

RetentDaysf,t = Number of retention days in fishery f at time step t (model input for 

Method 2); 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 80 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Sub-legal shaker mortality is not estimated for coho since most minimum size limits - if they exist 

- apply to age 2 fish that are not represented in the model. The sub-legal and legal size encounters 

are stock and age specific and are calculated using Von Bertalanffy growth curves generated from 

CWT data. The calculations for sub-legal sized chinook (shakers) are shown below: 

s,a,t PVs,a,t SubLegProp = 1−

s,a,t s,a,t SubLegProps,a,t SubLegPop = Cohort x

s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a,t f ,t RelRate f ,t Shakers = SubER x SubLegPop x FishScalar x

where all components are defined previously and (1-PVs,a,t) is the proportion of the cohort for 

stock s, age a, vulnerable to the gear at time step t (for chinook PV is function of Von Bertalanffy 

growth curve; for coho PV is always = 1). 

Shakerss,a,f,t = Sub-legal shaker mortality for stock s, age a, in fishery f, at time step t

(see following sub-section for method of calculation); 

LegalPropCatchs,a,f,t = Proportion of legal-sized catch for stock s, age a, in fishery f, at time 

step t; 

SubLegPops,a,t = Sub-legal sized population for stock s, age a, at time step t; 

SubLegNRs,a,f,t = Sub-legal sized non-retention mortalities for stock s, age a, in fishery f, 

at time step t; 

SubERs,a,f,t = Sub-legal sized encounter rate for stock s, age a, in fishery f, at time step 

t calculated from base period data; 

SubLegPropEncs,a,f,t = Sub-legal sized proportion of encounters for stock s, age a, in fishery f, 

at time step t; 

LegalEncf,t = Total number of legal-sized encounters in fishery f at time step t (model 

input for Method 3); 

SubLegEncf,t = Total number of sub-legal sized encounters in fishery f at time step t

(model input for Method 3); 

LegalEncs,a,f,t = Legal-sized encounters for stock s, age a, in fishery f, at time step t; 

SubLegEncs,a,f,t = Sub-legal sized encounters for stock s, age a, in fishery f, at time step t; 

CNRScalarf,t = Non-retention scalar in fishery f at time step t; 

TotalEstCNRf,t = Total estimated non-retention (legal and sub-legal) in fishery f at time 

step t (model input for Method 4); 

PropCatchs,f,t = Proportion of coho catch for stock s in fishery f at time step t; 

EstCNRMortsf,t = Estimated coho non-retention mortalities in fishery f at time step t

(model input for Method 5); and 

CNRs,f,t = Coho non-retention mortality for stock s in fishery f, at time step t.
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 81 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Mark-Selective Fisheries 

The implementation of mark-selective fishery regulations requires the use of more complex 

computations. Different equations are employed for marked and unmarked fish. The time-period 

specific forms of the equations utilized in Coho FRAM under non-selective and mark-selective 

fisheries are depicted in the following table. Computations for chinook mark-selective fisheries 

must account for sub-legal mortality, which does not differ between marked and unmarked 

components. The counterpart equations for chinook would contain the elements associated with 

sub-legal mortality, but due to the increased complexity this introduces the analogous equations 

for chinook are not presented here. 

Non-Selective Fisheries Mark-Selective Fisheries 

Discrete 

Equations Marked Fish Unmarked Fish 

Landed 

mortalities s, f s, f Ns,t C = ER x C ER x N x ( mre ) s,f = s,f s,t 1− f s, f s, f s,t f C = ER x N x ure

Release 

mortalities s,f s,f s,t f f R = ER x N x mre x rm s,f s,f s,t f f R = ER x N x (1−ure ) x rm

Drop-off 

mortalities s, f s, f f D = C x dmr s, f s, f s,t f D = ER x N x dmr s, f s, f s,t f D = ER x N x dmr

where: 

Cs,f = number of landed mortalities of stock s in fishery f; 

Ds,f = drop-off mortalities for stock s in fishery f; 

dmrf = drop-off mortality rate in fishery f; 

ERs,f = exploitation rate for stock s in fishery f (this parameter is equivalent to BPER x 

PV x SHRS in the previously described formulation); 

mref = marked-retention error (releasing marked fish in a selective fishery) in fishery f; 

Ns,t = cohort size for stock s at the beginning of time period t; 

Rs,f = number of release mortalities for stock s in fishery f; 

rmf = release mortality rate in fishery f; and 

uref = unmarked recognition error (retaining and landing unmarked fish in a selective 

fishery) in fishery f. 

Maturation (chinook only) 

For chinook, the maturation process occurs after the pre-terminal catch has been calculated and 

results in a mature cohort for each stock, age, and time step. The number of fish from the age a

cohort for stock s that matures at time step t (TermCohorts,a,t) is calculated by: 

s,a,t s,a,t MatRates,a,t TermCohort = Cohort x

where MatRates,a,t is a stock, age, and time step specific maturation rate that is calculated from 

base period data. The mature portion of the cohort is available to those fisheries, during the same 

time period, that have been designated as harvesting only mature fish while the immature portion 

of the cohort (Cohorts,at, - TermCohorts,a,t) is then used to initiate the next time step. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 82 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Escapement 

All chinook fisheries in FRAM are designated as pre-terminal or terminal in the base period data. 

The terminal fisheries only harvest fish from the mature cohort thus simulating a migration 

pattern from the pre-terminal mixed stock areas. Escapement is defined as any fish from the 

mature cohort that does not die from fishery-related mortality. For coho, fisheries during time 

steps 1 through 4 are on immature fish and by default all coho fisheries in time step five are on 

mature fish. In the current versions of the chinook and coho base periods, all maturation and 

escapement of a stock occurs within a single time step. The only exceptions are Skagit stocks of 

spring and summer/fall chinook and Columbia River summer chinook. The equations for chinook 

and coho are given below: 

chinook: 

TotTermMort (Catch Shakers Dropoff LegalShakers CNR ) s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t f term s,a,t ∑ + + + + −

s a t s a t s a t Escape TermCohort TotTermMort , , = , , − , ,

coho: 

= − ∑ + + +

f s,a s,a, s, f , s, f , s, f , s, f , Escape Cohort ( (Catch LegalShakers Dropoff CNR )) 5 5 5 5 5

where (age = 3 and time step = 5 for coho): 

TotTermMorts,a,t = Total terminal fishery mortality for stock s, age a, at time step t; 

Escapes,a,t = Escapement for stock s, age a, at time step t; 

Catchs,a,f,t = Catch for stock s, age a, in terminal fishery f, at time step t; 

Shakerss,a,f,t = Sub-legal mortality for stock s, age a, in terminal fishery f, at time step t; 

Dropoffs,a,f,t = Non-landed mortality for stock s, age a, in terminal fishery f, at time step t; 

LegalShakerss,a,f,t = Legal-sized mortality of fish released during mark-selective fisheries for 

stock s, age a, in terminal fishery f, at time step t; and 

CNRs,a,f,t = Non-retention mortality (legal and sub-legal sized) for stock s, age a, in 

terminal fishery f, at time step t. 

Other Algorithms and Equations Used in the Model

Adult Equivalency (chinook only). Fishery-related mortality for chinook is expressed as a 

nominal value or adjusted for “Adult Equivalents” (AEQ) to account for the multiple ages that the 

fish mature and are vulnerable to fisheries. Fishery-related mortalities are expressed as adult 

equivalent mortalities so that all fishery mortalities can be expressed in a common unit of 

measure, which is the number of fish that would have matured (escaped to spawn) in the absence 

of fishing. The AEQ factors adjust for the natural mortality that would have occurred between the 

time/age the fish were caught and the time/age that they would have matured or escaped to 

spawn. The factors used in FRAM are calculated in the CWT base period calibration process and 

take into account fixed age-specific natural mortality rates and age and stock specific maturation 

rates which are calculated from CWT recoveries. Stock and age specific AEQ values are 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 83 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

expressed in terms of the expected contribution to the age-5, time step 3 fish, which is the oldest 

age-class at the final time step for mature fish. The AEQ value at the maximum age and final 

time-step is 1.0 and all other age/time-step values are a proportion of this value. Note that all age 

classes have an AEQ value of 1.0 in designated “terminal fisheries” (exploitation rates for 

chinook are usually expressed in terms of adult equivalent mortality). The AEQ factor is 

calculated as:

AEQ MatRate [( MatRate ) x ( M ) x AEQ ] s,a,t s,a,t s,a,t a,t 1 s,a,t 1 1 1 = + − − + +

where AEQs,a,t =1 for a = 5 and t = 3 (maximum age and final time step for most chinook 

stocks). 

Proportion Modeled Stocks (for chinook only and calculated using base period data). The “model 

stock proportion” is a value unique to chinook and is the proportion of the total catch in a fishery 

that is accounted for by the modeled stocks. These proportion modeled stocks values are 

calculated during the chinook FRAM calibration process. They are fishery specific and remain 

constant through all time periods. The coho cohort analysis used to create the model base period 

exploitation rates include estimates for all stock production regions, thus the proportion modeled 

stock is assumed to always be 1.0. 

PropModelStockf

f

sat s,a , f ,t

TotalCatch

∑ ∑ ∑ Catch

=

where TotalCatchf = the average total Base Period catch in fishery f. 

Total Mortality. Total mortality is used to calculate simple exploitation rates by stock, age 

(chinook), fishery, and time period. The equations used for chinook and coho, respectively, are: 

chinook: 

= ∑ + + + +

f s,a,t s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t s,a, f ,t TotMort (Catch Shakers Dropoff LegalShakers CNR )

coho: 

= ∑ + + +

f s,t s, f ,t s, f ,t s, f ,t s, f ,t TotMort (Catch Dropoff LegalShakers CNR )

and Total Exploitation Rate is then estimated as: 

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

∑ ∑

+ =

a t s,a ,t a t s,a ,t

a t s,a ,t

s TotMort Escape

TotMort

ER

where all components are defined previously. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 84 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

TERMINAL AREA MANAGEMENT MODULE (TAMM) 

The FRAM program interacts with two species-specific (chinook and coho) spreadsheet programs 

that allow users to specify terminal fishery impacts on a finer level of resolution. The spreadsheet 

program, TAMM, began with separate sections for each of the six Puget Sound terminal areas 

(Table 7-1) that are defined in the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (1985) for the State of 

Washington and the Treaty Tribes of Puget Sound. This structure has supported development of 

unique regional management goals and allows managers the flexibility to analyze and report 

FRAM model output according to their needs. The chinook TAMM contains the original Puget 

Sound sections, while the coho TAMM has been expanded to allow report generation for many 

non-Puget Sound stock groups. 

Table 7-1. Puget Sound terminal management regions.

Nooksack-Samish Skagit 

Stillaguamish-Snohomish South Sound 

Hood Canal Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Historically, managers used TAMMs to analyze fishery impacts on individual population 

components of the larger FRAM stock groupings. The relatively new 1986-1991 coho base period 

now includes individual Puget Sound populations (61 stocks) at the management level of 

resolution. Similarly, the expanded Puget Sound coho fisheries are comprehensive; thus coho 

TAMM now serves more as a recipient of FRAM output for customized report generation. In 

contrast, chinook TAMM remains a critical element of pre-season Puget Sound modeling, as 

many populations of management focus need to be “extracted” from the aggregated FRAM stock 

groupings. Abundance levels of every Puget Sound chinook hatchery and natural population are 

entered into the TAMM, as are harvest impacts from all Puget Sound fisheries, to allow fisheryspecific impact analyses on all the populations of interest. 

The current chinook base period data (as in the older versions of the coho base period) aggregates 

terminal area fisheries for FRAM modeling at a higher level than used for management. Typically 

chinook FRAM has no individual area freshwater terminal sport fisheries or freshwater net 

fisheries. The chinook TAMM provides the ability to model the individual Puget Sound marine 

and freshwater net fisheries by smaller date increments associated with fisheries directed at 

chinook, pink, coho, chum, or steelhead. In addition, test fisheries and fisheries in sub-areas can 

be specified. Similarly, the ability to model individual Puget Sound freshwater sport fisheries is 

also provided. The appropriate chinook TAMM fishery impacts are summed into the terminal 

fishery definitions used by FRAM to calculate the FRAM fishery scalar inputs. 

The TAMM fishery inputs, in addition to a fixed catch, allow for two fishery control mechanisms 

that are not used by FRAM. The control mechanisms (harvest rates) are percent of terminal area 

abundance (TAA) and percent of extreme terminal run size (ETRS). Each terminal area has 

specific rules for calculation of the TAA and ETRS values. Basically, the TAA rules include the 

escapement of all local area stocks and the terminal catch of all stocks. The ETRS rules include 

escapement and only the terminal catch of the local area stocks, but for a mixed-stock area an 

associated non-local stock catch is also calculated by FRAM as a base period proportion of total 

fishery catch. The derivation of these rules comes from the definitions used in the annual terminal 

run reconstruction for each of the species. Run reconstruction estimates are used in the 

calculation of modeling inputs for terminal area fishery impacts under the TAA and ETRS 

methods. The same run reconstructions may be used to develop in-season run size update models. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 85 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

The TAA and ETRS methods create a problem for estimating the FRAM fishery scalars because 

the run size in each terminal region is dependent on the impacts from all the other regions. For 

example, a decrease in Skagit terminal fisheries results in higher escapement for Nooksack and 

higher TAA and ETRS values. The fishery impacts in Nooksack terminal fisheries would then be 

calculated higher which lowers the original Skagit TAA and ETRS values. 

An iterative process was developed to solve the problem of simultaneous equations between the 

terminal areas. The FRAM program reruns the terminal fishery time steps until the difference 

between the TAMM specified expected fishery impacts and FRAM estimates (calculated from 

base period exploitation rates) are within ±0.1% of the expected value or the difference is less 

than one fish. On each iteration the FRAM fishery scalars are adjusted by a proportion that is 

calculated as the expected value divided by the FRAM estimate for each terminal fishery. 

As already discussed, the current FRAM coho base period data has much finer resolution of the 

terminal area fisheries than does the chinook base period. This is a result of the coho run 

reconstruction program RRTERM fishery definitions that were used to develop this coho base 

period data. The coho TAMM fishery definitions are the same as the FRAM terminal fisheries 

and thus allow direct input for effort base fishery scalars and quota values. An iterative process is 

still needed for the TAA and ETRS abundance based methods. 

The TAMM spreadsheets are used to create most of the output reports needed by fishery 

managers during the pre-season fishery negotiation processes. This functionality was preserved in 

the current TAMM spreadsheets to ensure continuity and familiarity with the older versions of the 

program and to divide the duties and responsibilities for input and error checking during the 

intense management sessions. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 86 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 1. Chinook FRAM Stocks. 

Unmarked 

Stock # Stock Name 

Abbreviated 

Name CWT Broods Included* 

1 Nooksack-Samish summer/fall NkSm FlFi 77,79 

3 North Fork Nooksack early (spring) NFNK Sprg OOB - 84,88 (N. Fk.) 

5 South Fork Nooksack early (spring) SFNK Sprg OOB - 84,88 (N. Fk.) 

7 Skagit summer/fall fingerling Skag FlFi 76,77 

9 Skagit summer/fall yearling Skag FlYr 76 

11 Skagit spring yearling Skag SpYr OOB - 85, 86, 87,90 

13 Snohomish summer/fall fingerling Snoh FlFi OOB - 86, 87, 88 

15 Snohomish summer/fall yearling Snoh FlYr 76 

17 Stillaguamish summer/fall fingerling Stil FlFi OOB - 86, 87, 88,89,90 

19 Tulalip summer/fall fingerling Tula FlFi OOB - 86, 87, 88 

21 Mid S. Puget Sound fall fingerling USPS FlFi 78,79 

23 UW Accelerated fall fingerling UW-A FlFi 77-79 

25 Deep S. Puget Sound fall fingerling DSPS FlFi 78,79 

27 South Puget Sound fall yearling SPSo FlYr 78,79 

29 White River spring fingerling Whte SpFi OOB – 91-93 

31 Hood Canal fall fingerling HdCl FlFi 78,79 

33 Hood Canal fall yearling HdCl FlYr 78,79 

35 Juan de Fuca Tribs. fall fingerling SJDF FlFi 78,79 

37 Oregon Lower Columbia River Hatchery Oregn LRH 78,79 

39 Wash. Lower Columbia River Hatchery Washn LRH 77,79 

41 Lower Columbia River Wild Low CR Wi 77-78 

43 Bonneville Pool Hatchery tule BP H Tule 76-79 

45 Columbia Upriver summer Upp CR Su 76,77 

47 Columbia Upriver bright Col R Brt 75-77 

49 Washington Lower River spring WaLR Sprg 77 

51 Willamette spring Will Sprg 76-78 

53 Snake River fall SnakeR Fl OOB - 84, 85, 86 

55 Oregon North Migrating fall Ore No Fl 76-78 

57 West Coast Vancouver Island Total WCVI Totl 74-77 

59 Fraser Late Fraser Lt OOB - 81,82,83 

61 Fraser Early Fraser Er 78,79; OOB -, 86 

63 Lower Georgia Strait fall Lwr Geo St 77,78 

65 White River spring yearling Whte SpYr OOB – 91-93 

*OOB = Out-of-base stock. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 87 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 2. Coho FRAM Stocks. 

Production 

Region 

Unmarked 

Stock # 

Abbreviated 

Name Coho Stock Name 

NOOKSM 1 nkskrw Nooksack River Wild 

NOOKSM 3 kendlh Kendall Creek Hatchery 

NOOKSM 5 skokmh Skookum Creek Hatchery 

NOOKSM 7 lumpdh Lummi Ponds Hatchery 

NOOKSM 9 bhambh Bellingham Bay Net Pens 

NOOKSM 11 samshw Samish River Wild 

NOOKSM 13 ar77aw Area 7/7A Independent Wild 

NOOKSM 15 whatch Whatcom Creek Hatchery 

SKAGIT 17 skagtw Skagit River Wild 

SKAGIT 19 skagth Skagit River Hatchery 

SKAGIT 21 skgbkh Baker (Skagit) Hatchery 

SKAGIT 23 skgbkw Baker (Skagit) Wild 

SKAGIT 25 swinch Swinomish Channel Hatchery 

SKAGIT 27 oakhbh Oak Harbor Net Pens 

STILSN 29 stillw Stillaguamish River Wild 

STILSN 31 stillh Stillaguamish River Hatchery 

STILSN 33 tuliph Tulalip Hatchery 

STILSN 35 snohow Snohomish River Wild 

STILSN 37 snohoh Snohomish River Hatchery 

STILSN 39 ar8anh Area 8A Net Pens 

HOODCL 41 ptgamh Port Gamble Net Pens 

HOODCL 43 ptgamw Port Gamble Bay Wild 

HOODCL 45 ar12bw Area 12/12B Wild 

HOODCL 47 qlcnbh Quilcene Hatchery 

HOODCL 49 qlcenh Quilcene Bay Net Pens 

HOODCL 51 ar12aw Area 12A Wild 

HOODCL 53 hoodsh Hoodsport Hatchery 

HOODCL 55 ar12dw Area 12C/12D Wild 

HOODCL 57 gadamh George Adams Hatchery 

HOODCL 59 skokrw Skokomish River Wild 

SPGSND 61 ar13bw Area 13B Misc. Wild 

SPGSND 63 deschw Deschutes R. (WA) Wild 

SPGSND 65 ssdnph South Puget Sound Net Pens 

SPGSND 67 nisqlh Nisqually River Hatchery 

SPGSND 69 nisqlw Nisqually River Wild 

SPGSND 71 foxish Fox Island Net Pens 

SPGSND 73 mintch Minter Creek Hatchery 

SPGSND 75 ar13mw Area 13 Miscellaneous Wild 

SPGSND 77 chambh Chambers Creek Hatchery 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 88 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 2. Coho FRAM Stocks (continued). 

Production 

Region 

Unmarked 

Stock # 

Abbreviated 

Name Coho Stock Name 

SPGSND 79 ar13mh Area 13 Misc. Hatchery 

SPGSND 81 ar13aw Area 13A Miscellaneous Wild 

SPGSND 83 puyalh Puyallup River Hatchery 

SPGSND 85 puyalw Puyallup River Wild 

SPGSND 87 are11h Area 11 Hatchery 

SPGSND 89 ar11mw Area 11 Miscellaneous Wild 

SPGSND 91 ar10eh Area 10E Hatchery 

SPGSND 93 ar10ew Area 10E Miscellaneous Wild 

SPGSND 95 greenh Green River Hatchery 

SPGSND 97 greenw Green River Wild 

SPGSND 99 lakwah Lake Washington Hatchery 

SPGSND 101 lakwaw Lake Washington Wild 

SPGSND 103 are10h Area 10 H inc. Ebay,SeaAq NP 

SPGSND 105 ar10mw Area 10 Miscellaneous Wild 

SJDFCA 107 dungew Dungeness River Wild 

SJDFCA 109 dungeh Dungeness Hatchery 

SJDFCA 111 elwhaw Elwha River Wild 

SJDFCA 113 elwhah Elwha Hatchery 

SJDFCA 115 ejdfmw East JDF Miscellaneous Wild 

SJDFCA 117 wjdfmw West JDF Miscellaneous Wild 

SJDFCA 119 ptangh Port Angeles Net Pens 

SJDFCA 121 area9w Area 9 Miscellaneous Wild 

MAKAHC 123 makahw Makah Coastal Wild 

MAKAHC 125 makahh Makah Coastal Hatchery 

QUILUT 127 quilsw Quillayute R Summer Natural 

QUILUT 129 quilsh Quillayute R Summer Hatchery 

QUILUT 131 quilfw Quillayute River Fall Natural 

QUILUT 133 quilfh Quillayute River Fall Hatchery 

HOHRIV 135 hohrvw Hoh River Wild 

HOHRIV 137 hohrvh Hoh River Hatchery 

QUEETS 139 quetfw Queets River Fall Natural 

QUEETS 141 quetfh Queets River Fall Hatchery 

QUEETS 143 quetph Queets R Supplemental Hat. 

QUINLT 145 quinfw Quinault River Fall Natural 

QUINLT 147 quinfh Quinault River Fall Hatchery 

GRAYHB 149 chehlw Chehalis River Wild 

GRAYHB 151 chehlh Chehalis River (Bingham) Hat. 

GRAYHB 153 humptw Humptulips River Wild 

GRAYHB 155 humpth Humptulips River Hatchery 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 89 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 2. Coho FRAM Stocks (continued). 

Production 

Region 

Unmarked 

Stock # 

Abbreviated 

Name Coho Stock Name 

GRAYHB 157 gryhmw Grays Harbor Misc. Wild 

GRAYHB 159 gryhbh Grays Harbor Net Pens 

WILLAPA 161 willaw Willapa Bay Natural 

WILLAPA 163 willah Willapa Bay Hatchery 

COLRIV 165 colreh Columbia River Early Hatchery 

COLRIV 167 youngh Youngs Bay Hatchery 

COLRIV 169 sandew Sandy Early Wild 

COLRIV 171 clakew Clakamas Early Wild 

COLRIV 173 claklw Clakamas Late Wild 

COLRIV 175 colrlh Columbia River Late Hatchery 

OREGON 177 orenoh Oregon North Coastal Hat. 

OREGON 179 orenow Oregon North Coastal Wild 

OREGON 181 orenmh Oregon No. Mid Coastal Hat. 

OREGON 183 orenmw Oregon No. Mid Coastal Wild 

OREGON 185 oresmh Oregon So. Mid Coastal Hat. 

OREGON 187 oresmw Oregon So. Mid Coastal Wild 

OREGON 189 oranah Oregon Anadromous Hatchery 

OREGON 191 oraqah Oregon Aqua-Foods Hatchery 

ORECAL 193 oresoh Oregon South Coastal Hat. 

ORECAL 195 oresow Oregon South Coastal Wild 

ORECAL 197 calnoh California North Coastal Hat. 

ORECAL 199 calnow California North Coastal Wild 

ORECAL 201 calcnh California Central Coastal Hat. 

ORECAL 203 calcnw California Central Coastal Wild 

GSMLND 205 gsmndh Georgia Strait Mainland Hat. 

GSMLND 207 gsmndw Georgia Strait Mainland Wild 

GSVNCI 209 gsvcih Georgia Strait Vanc. Is. Hat. 

GSVNCI 211 gsvciw Georgia Strait Vanc. Is. Wild 

JNSTRT 213 jnstrh Johnstone Strait Hatchery 

JNSTRT 215 jnstrw Johnstone Strait Wild 

SWVNCI 217 swvcih SW Vancouver Island Hat. 

SWVNCI 219 swvciw SW Vancouver Island Wild 

NWVNCI 221 nwvcih NW Vancouver Island Hatchery 

NWVNCI 223 nwvciw NW Vancouver Island Wild 

FRSLOW 225 frslwh Lower Fraser River Hatchery 

FRSLOW 227 frslww Lower Fraser River Wild 

FRSUPP 229 frsuph Upper Fraser River Hatchery 

FRSUPP 231 frsupw Upper Fraser River Wild 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 90 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 2. Coho FRAM Stocks (continued). 

Production 

Region 

Unmarked 

Stock # 

Abbreviated 

Name Coho Stock Name 

THOMPR 233 thomph Thompson River Hatchery 

THOMPR 235 thompw Thompson River Wild 

BCCNTL 237 bccnhw BC Central Coast Hat./Wild 

BCNCST 239 bcnchw BC North Coast Hatchery/Wild 

QUEENC 241 quenhw Queen Charlotte Is. Hat/Wild 

NASSRV 243 nasshw Nass River Hatchery/Wild 

SKEENA 245 skeehw Skeena River Hatchery/Wild 

TRANAC 247 tranhw Trans Boundary Hatchery/Wild 

NIASKA 249 niakhw Alaska No. Inside Hat./Wild 

NOASKA 251 noakhw Alaska No. Outside Hat./Wild 

SIASKA 253 siakhw Alaska So. Inside Hat./Wild 

SOASKA 255 soakhw Alaska So. Outside Hat./Wild 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 91 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 3. Chinook FRAM Fisheries. 

# Fishery Name # Fishery Name 

1 Southeast Alaska Troll 38 T San Juan Net (Area 6A,7,7A) 

2 Southeast Alaska Net 39 NT Nooksack-Samish Net 

3 Southeast Alaska Sport 40 T Nooksack-Samish Net 

4 North/Central British Columbia Net 41 T Juan de Fuca Troll (Area 5,6,7) 

5 West Coast Vancouver Island Net 42 Area 5/6 Sport 

6 Strait of Georgia Net 43 NT Juan de Fuca Net (Area 4B,5,6,6C) 

7 Canada Juan de Fuca Net (Area 20) 44 T Juan de Fuca Net (Area 4B,5,6,6C) 

8 North/Central British Columbia Sport 45 Area 8 Sport a

9 North/Central British Columbia Troll 46 NT Skagit Net (Area 8) 

10 West Coast Vancouver Island Troll 47 T Skagit Net (Area 8) 

11 West Coast Vancouver Island Sport 48 Area 8D Sport 

12 Strait of Georgia Troll 49 NT Stilly-Snohomish Net (Area 8A) 

13 North Strait of Georgia Sport 50 T Stilly-Snohomish Net (Area 8A) 

14 South Strait of Georgia Sport 51 NT Tulalip Bay Net (Area 8D) 

15 BC Juan de Fuca Sport 52 T Tulalip Bay Net (Area 8D) 

16 NT Cape Flattery-Quillayute Troll (Area 3-4) 53 Area 9 Sport 

17 T Cape Flattery-Quillayute Troll (Area 3-4) 54 NT Area 6B/9 Net 

18 Cape Flattery-Quillayute Sport (Area 3-4) 55 T Area 6B/9 Net 

19 Cape Flattery-Quillayute Net (Area 3-4) 56 Area 10 Sport 

20 NT Grays Harbor Troll (Area 2) 57 Area 11 Sport 

21 T Grays Harbor Troll (Area 2) 58 NT Area 10/11 Net 

22 Grays Harbor Sport (Area 2) 59 T Area 10/11 Net 

23 NT Grays Harbor Net 60 NT Area 10A Net 

24 T Grays Harbor Net 61 T Area 10A Net 

25 Willapa Net 62 NT Area 10E Net 

26 NT Columbia River Troll (Area 1) 63 T Area 10E Net 

27 Columbia River Sport (Area 1) 64 Area 12 Sport 

28 Columbia River Net 65 NT Hood Canal Net (Area 12,12B,12C) 

29 Buoy 10 Sport 66 T Hood Canal Net (Area 12,12B,12C) 

30 Orford Reef-Cape Falcon Troll (Central OR) 67 Area 13 Sport 

31 Orford Reef-Cape Falcon Sport (Central OR) 68 NT Deep S. Puget Sound Net (13,13D-K) 

32 Horse Mountain-Orford Reef Troll (KMZ) 69 T Deep S. Puget Sound Net (13,13D-K) 

33 Horse Mountain-Orford Reef Sport (KMZ) 70 NT Area 13A Net 

34 Southern California Troll 71 T Area 13A Net 

35 Southern California Sport 72 Freshwater Sport 

36 Area 7 Sport 73 Freshwater Net b

37 NT San Juan Net (Area 6A,7,7A) 

Notes: * (T = Treaty; NT = Non-treaty) 

a

 Sport areas 8-1 and 8-2 were combined and input into Fishery 45. 

b

 In Puget Sound, fishery 73 combines Area 11A with Puyallup River; Areas 9A, 12A, 12D with 

Hood Canal; Area 13C with Chambers Creek.
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 92 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 4. Coho FRAM Fisheries. 

Fishery 

Abbreviation 

Fishery 

Number Coho FRAM Fishery Long Name 

No Cal Trm 1 North California Coast Terminal Catch 

Cn Cal Trm 2 Central California Coast Terminal Catch 

Ft Brg Spt 3 Fort Bragg Sport 

Ft Brg Trl 4 Fort Bragg Troll 

Ca KMZ Spt 5 KMZ Sport (Klamath Management Zone) 

Ca KMZ Trl 6 KMZ Troll (Klamath Management Zone) 

So Cal Spt 7 Southern California Sport 

So Cal Trl 8 Southern California Troll 

So Ore Trm 9 South Oregon Coast Terminal Catch 

Or Prv Trm 10 Oregon Private Hatchery Terminal Catch 

SMi Or Trm 11 South-Mid Oregon Coast Terminal Catch 

NMi Or Trm 12 North-Mid Oregon Coast Terminal Catch 

No Ore Trm 13 North Oregon Coast Terminal Catch 

Or Cst Trm 14 Mid-North Oregon Coast Terminal Catch 

Brkngs Spt 15 Brookings Sport 

Brkngs Trl 16 Brookings Troll 

Newprt Spt 17 Newport Sport 

Newprt Trl 18 Newport Troll 

Coos B Spt 19 Coos Bay Sport 

Coos B Trl 20 Coos Bay Troll 

Tillmk Spt 21 Tillamook Sport 

Tillmk Trl 22 Tillamook Troll 

Buoy10 Spt 23 Buoy 10 Sport (Columbia River Estuary) 

L ColR Spt 24 Lower Columbia River Mainstem Sport 

L ColR Net 25 Lower Columbia River Net (Excl Youngs Bay) 

Yngs B Net 26 Youngs Bay Net 

LCROrT Spt 27 Below Bonneville Oregon Tributary Sport 

Clackm Spt 28 Clackamas River Sport 

SandyR Spt 29 Sandy River Sport 

LCRWaT Spt 30 Below Bonneville Washington Tributary Sport 

UpColR Spt 31 Above Bonneville Sport

UpColR Net 32 Above Bonneville Net

A1-Ast Spt 33 Area 1 (Illwaco) & Astoria Sport

A1-Ast Trl 34 Area 1 (Illwaco) & Astoria Troll

Area2TrlNT 35 Area 2 Troll Non-treaty (Westport)

Area2TrlTR 36 Area 2 Troll Treaty (Westport)

Area 2 Spt 37 Area 2 Sport (Westport)

Area3TrlNT 38 Area 3 Troll Non-treaty (LaPush)

Area3TrlTR 39 Area 3 Troll Treaty (LaPush)
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 93 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 4. Coho FRAM Fisheries (continued). 

Fishery 

Abbreviation 

Fishery 

Number Coho FRAM Fishery Long Name 

Area 3 Spt 40 Area 3 Sport (LaPush) 

Area 4 Spt 41 Area 4 Sport (Neah Bay) 

A4/4BTrlNT 42 Area 4/4B (Neah Bay PFMC Regs) Troll Non-treaty 

A4/4BTrlTR 43 Area 4/4B (Neah Bay PFMC Regs) Troll Treaty 

A 5-6C Trl 44 Area 5, 6, 6C Troll (Strait of Juan de Fuca) 

Willpa Spt 45 Willapa Bay (Area 2.1) Sport 

Wlp Tb Spt 46 Willapa Tributary Sport 

WlpaBT Net 47 Willapa Bay & FW Trib Net 

GryHbr Spt 48 Grays Harbor (Area 2.2) Sport 

SGryHb Spt 49 South Grays Harbor Sport (Westport Boat Basin) 

GryHbr Net 50 Grays Harbor Estuary Net 

Hump R Spt 51 Humptulips River Sport 

LwCheh Net 52 Lower Chehalis River Net 

Hump R C&S 53 Humptulips River Ceremonial & Subsistence 

Chehal Spt 54 Chehalis River Sport 

Hump R Net 55 Humptulips River Net 

UpCheh Net 56 Upper Chehalis River Net 

Chehal C&S 57 Chehalis River Ceremonial & Subsistence 

Wynoch Spt 58 Wynochee River Sport 

Hoquam Spt 59 Hoquiam River Sport 

Wishkh Spt 60 Wishkah River Sport 

Satsop Spt 61 Satsop River Sport 

Quin R Spt 62 Quinault River Sport 

Quin R Net 63 Quinault River Net 

Quin R C&S 64 Quinault River Ceremonial & Subsistence 

Queets Spt 65 Queets River Sport 

Clrwtr Spt 66 Clearwater River Sport 

Salm R Spt 67 Salmon River (Queets) Sport 

Queets Net 68 Queets River Net 

Queets C&S 69 Queets River Ceremonial & Subsistence 

Quilly Spt 70 Quillayute River Sport 

Quilly Net 71 Quillayute River Net 

Quilly C&S 72 Quillayute River Ceremonial & Subsistence 

Hoh R Spt 73 Hoh River Sport 

Hoh R Net 74 Hoh River Net 

Hoh R C&S 75 Hoh River Ceremonial & Subsistence

Mak FW Spt 76 Makah Tributary Sport

Mak FW Net 77 Makah Freshwater Net

Makah C&S 78 Makah Ceremonial & Subsistence
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 94 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 4. Coho FRAM Fisheries (continued). 

Fishery 

Abbreviation 

Fishery 

Number Coho FRAM Fishery Long Name 

A 4-4A Net 79 Area 4, 4A Net (Neah Bay) 

A4B6CNetNT 80 Area 4B, 5, 6C Net Nontreaty (Strait of Juan de Fuca) 

A4B6CNetTR 81 Area 4B, 5, 6C Net Treaty (Strait of Juan de Fuca) 

Ar6D NetNT 82 Area 6D Dungeness Bay/River Net Nontreaty 

Ar6D NetTR 83 Area 6D Dungeness Bay/River Net Treaty 

Elwha Net 84 Elwha River Net 

WJDF T Net 85 West Juan de Fuca Straits Tributary Net 

EJDF T Net 86 East Juan de Fuca Straits Tributary Net 

A6-7ANetNT 87 Area 7, 7A Net Nontreaty (San Juan Islands) 

A6-7ANetTR 88 Area 7, 7A Net Treaty (San Juan Islands) 

EJDF FWSpt 89 East Juan de Fuca Straits Tributary Sport 

WJDF FWSpt 90 West Juan de Fuca Straits Tributary Sport 

Area 5 Spt 91 Area 5 Marine Sport (Sekiu) 

Area 6 Spt 92 Area 6 Marine Sport (Port Angeles) 

Area 7 Spt 93 Area 7 Marine Sport (San Juan Islands) 

Dung R Spt 94 Dungeness River Sport 

ElwhaR Spt 95 Elwha River Sport 

A7BCDNetNT 96 Area 7B-7C-7D Net Nontreaty (Bellingham Bay) 

A7BCDNetTR 97 Area 7B-7C-7D Net Treaty (Bellingham Bay) 

Nook R Net 98 Nooksack River Net 

Nook R Spt 99 Nooksack River Sport 

Samh R Spt 100 Samish River Sport 

Ar 8 NetNT 101 Area 8 Skagit Marine Net Nontreaty 

Ar 8 NetTR 102 Area 8 Skagit Marine Net Treaty 

Skag R Net 103 Skagit River Net 

SkgR TsNet 104 Skagit River Test Net 

SwinCh Net 105 Swinomish Channel Net 

Ar 8-1 Spt 106 Area 8.1 Marine Sport 

Area 9 Spt 107 Area 9 Marine Sport (Admiralty Inlet) 

Skag R Spt 108 Skagit River Sport 

Ar8A NetNT 109 Area 8A Stillaguamish/Snohomish Net Nontreaty

Ar8A NetTR 110 Area 8A Stillaguamish/Snohomish Net Treaty

Ar8D NetNT 111 Area 8D Tulalip Bay Net Nontreaty

Ar8D NetTR 112 Area 8D Tulalip Bay Net Treaty

Stil R Net 113 Stillaguamish River Net

Snoh R Net 114 Snohomish River Net

Ar 8-2 Spt 115 Area 8.2 Marine Sport

Stil R Spt 116 Stillaguamish River Sport

Snoh R Spt 117 Snohomish River Sport
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 95 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 4. Coho FRAM Fisheries (continued). 

Fishery 

Abbreviation 

Fishery 

Number Coho FRAM Fishery Long Name 

Ar 10 Spt 118 Area 10 Marine Sport (Seattle) 

Ar10 NetNT 119 Area 10 Net Nontreaty (Seattle) 

Ar10 NetTR 120 Area 10 Net Treaty (Seattle) 

Ar10ANetNT 121 Area 10A Net Nontreaty (Elliott Bay) 

Ar10ANetTR 122 Area 10A Net Treaty (Elliott Bay) 

Ar10ENetNT 123 Area 10E Net Nontreaty (East Kitsap) 

Ar10EnetTR 124 Area 10E Net Treaty (East Kitsap) 

10F-G Net 125 Area 10F-G Ship Canal/Lake Washington Net Treaty 

Duwm R Net 126 Green/Duwamish River Net 

Duwm R Spt 127 Green/Duwamish River Sport 

L WaSm Spt 128 Lake Washington-Lake Sammamish Tributary Sport 

Ar 11 Spt 129 Area 11 Marine Sport (Tacoma) 

Ar11 NetNT 130 Area 11 Net Nontreaty (Tacoma) 

Ar11 NetTR 131 Area 11 Net Treaty (Tacoma) 

Ar11ANetNT 132 Area 11A Net Nontreaty (Commencement Bay) 

Ar11ANetTR 133 Area 11A Net Treaty (Commencement Bay) 

Puyl R Net 134 Puyallup River Net 

Puyl R Spt 135 Puyallup River Sport 

Ar 13 Spt 136 Area 13 Marine Sport (South Puget Sound) 

Ar13 NetNT 137 Area 13 Net Nontreaty (South Puget Sound) 

Ar13 NetTR 138 Area 13 Net Treaty (South Puget Sound) 

Ar13CNetNT 139 Area 13C Net Nontreaty (Chambers Bay) 

Ar13CNetTR 140 Area 13C Net Treaty (Chambers Bay) 

Ar13ANetNT 141 Area 13A Net Nontreaty (Carr Inlet) 

Ar13ANetTR 142 Area 13A Net Treaty (Carr Inlet) 

Ar13DNetNT 143 Area 13D Net Nontreaty (South Puget Sound)

Ar13DNetTR 144 Area 13D Net Treaty (South Puget Sound)

A13FKNetNT 145 Area 13F-13K Net Nontreaty (South PS Inlets)

A13FKNetTR 146 Area 13F-13K Net Treaty (South PS Inlets)

Nisq R Net 147 Nisqually River Net

McAlls Net 148 McAllister Creek Net

13D-K TSpt 149 13D-13K Tributary Sport (South PS Inlets)

Nisq R Spt 150 Nisqually River Sport

Desc R Spt 151 Deschutes River Sport (Olympia)

Ar 12 Spt 152 Area 12 Marine Sport (Hood Canal)

1212BNetNT 153 Area 12-12B Net Nontreaty (Upper Hood Canal)

1212BNetTR 154 Area 12-12B Net Treaty (Upper Hood Canal)

Ar9A NetNT 155 Area 9A Net Nontreaty (Port Gamble)

Ar9A NetTR 156 Area 9-9A Net Treaty (Port Gamble/On Reservation)
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 96 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 4. Coho FRAM Fisheries (continued). 

Fishery 

Abbreviation 

Fishery 

Number Coho FRAM Fishery Long Name 

Ar12ANetNT 157 12A Net Nontreaty (Quilcene Bay) 

Ar12ANetTR 158 12A Net Treaty (Quilcene Bay) 

A12CDNetNT 159 12C-12D Net Nontreaty (Lower Hood Canal) 

A12CDNetTR 160 12C-12D Net Treaty (Lower Hood Canal) 

Skok R Net 161 Skokomish River Net 

Quilcn Net 162 Quilcene River Net 

1212B TSpt 163 12-12B Tributary FW Sport 

Quilcn Spt 164 12A Tributary FW Sport (Quilcene River) 

12C-D TSpt 165 12C-12D Tributary FW Sport 

Skok R Spt 166 Skokomish River Sport 

GSMLND Trm 167 Georgia Strait Mainland Terminal Catch 

GSVNCI Trm 168 Georgia Strait Vancouver Island Terminal Catch 

JNSTRT Trm 169 Johnstone Strait Terminal Catch 

SWVNCI Trm 170 SW Vancouver Island Terminal Catch 

NWVNCI Trm 171 NW Vancouver Island Terminal Catch 

FRSLOW Trm 172 Lower Fraser River Terminal Catch 

FRSUPP Trm 173 Upper Fraser River Terminal Catch 

THOMPR Trm 174 Thompson River Terminal Catch 

No BC Trl 175 Northern British Columbia Troll 

NoC BC Trl 176 North Central British Columbia Troll 

SoC BC Trl 177 South Central British Columbia Troll 

NW VI Trl 178 NW Vancouver Island Troll 

SW VI Trl 179 SW Vancouver Island Troll 

GeoStr Trl 180 Georgia Straits Troll 

BC JDF Trl 181 British Columbia Juan de Fuca Troll 

No BC Net 182 Northern British Columbia Net 

Cen BC Net 183 Central British Columbia Net 

NW VI Net 184 NW Vancouver Island Net 

SW VI Net 185 SW Vancouver Island Net 

Johnst Net 186 Johnstone Straits Net 

GeoStr Net 187 Georgia Straits Net 

Fraser Net 188 Fraser River Gill Net 

BC JDF Net 189 British Columbia Juan de Fuca Net 

No BC Spt 190 Northern British Columbia Sport 

Cen BC Spt 191 Central British Columbia Sport 

BC JDF Spt 192 British Columbia Juan de Fuca Sport 

WC VI Spt 193 West Coast Vancouver Island Sport 

NGaStr Spt 194 North Georgia Straits Sport 

SGaStr Spt 195 South Georgia Straits Sport
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 97 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Appendix 4. Coho FRAM Fisheries (continued). 

Fishery 

Abbreviation 

Fishery 

Number Coho FRAM Fishery Long Name 

Albern Spt 196 Alberni Canal Sport

BCCNTL TTR 197 BCCNTL Terminal Run (Catch + Escapement)

BCNCST TTR 198 BCNCST Terminal Run (Catch + Escapement)

QUEENC TTR 199 QUEENC Terminal Run (Catch + Escapement)

NASSRV TTR 200 NASSRV Terminal Run (Catch + Escapement)

SKEENA TTR 201 SKEENA Terminal Run (Catch + Escapement)

SW AK Trl 202 Southwest Alaska Troll

SE AK Trl 203 Southeast Alaska Troll

NW AK Trl 204 Northwest Alaska Troll

NE AK Trl 205 Northeast Alaska Troll

Alaska Net 206 Alaska Net (Areas 182:183:185:192)
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 98 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

GLOSSARY

Adult Equivalent (AEQ) - The potential contribution of fish of a given age to the 

spawning escapement, in the absence of fishing. Because of natural mortality and 

unaccounted losses, not all unharvested fish contribute to spawning escapement. For 

example, a two-year-old chinook has a lower probability of surviving to spawn, in the 

absence of fishing, than does a five-year-old, and these two age classes have different 

“adult equivalents”. 

Base Period - A set of years used to estimate exploitation rates, maturation rates, and 

stock abundances from CWT data. The years used for the base period differ by species 

and stock, but range from 1974-1979. Brood years are chosen based on consistent codedwire tagging, and consistent sampling and fisheries in return years. Some stocks in the 

model were not tagged during the 1974-1979 period; recoveries of these stocks (called 

“out-of-base” stocks) are adjusted to account for changes in exploitation rates relative to 

the base period. 

Catch Ceiling - A fishery catch limitation expressed in numbers of fish. A ceiling fishery 

is managed so as not to exceed the ceiling; actual catch is expected to fall somewhere 

below the ceiling. 

Catch Quota - A fishery catch allocation expressed in numbers of fish. A quota fishery is 

managed to catch the quota; actual catch is expected to be slightly above or below the 

quota. 

Chinook/Coho Nonretention (CNR) - Time periods when salmon fishing is allowed, 

but the retention of chinook (or coho) salmon is prohibited. 

Cohort Analysis - A sequential population analysis technique that is used during model 

calibration to reconstruct the exploited life history of coded-wire tag groups. 

Cohort Size (initial) - The total number of fish of a given age and stock at the beginning 

of the fishing season. 

Coded-Wire Tag (CWT) - Coded microtags that are implanted in juvenile salmon prior 

to release. A tagged fish usually has its adipose fin removed to signal tag presence. 

Fisheries and escapements are sampled for tagged fish. When recovered, the binary code 

on the tag provides specific information about the individual's tag group (e.g., location 

and timing of release, special hatchery treatments). 

Dropoff Mortality - Mortality of salmon that "drop-off" sport or troll fishing gear before 

they are landed, and die from their injuries prior to harvest or spawning. 

Dropout Mortality - Mortality of salmon that die in a fishing net and "drop-out" prior to 

harvest or salmon that disentangle from a net while it is in the water and die from their 

injuries prior to harvest or spawning. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 99 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Exploitation Rate (ER) - Catch or total fishing mortality in a fishery expressed as a 

proportion of the total cohort size in all areas (i.e., the total number of fish in the stock of 

interest at the beginning of the fishing year). 

Exploitation Rate Scalar - A multiplier used to estimate fishery impacts by adjusting the 

base periods exploitation rates. Exploitation rate scalars can be either stock and fishery 

specific, or they can be applied to all stocks in a fishery. 

FRAM - The Fishery Regulation Assessment Model is a simulation model developed for 

use in estimating the impacts of Pacific Coast fisheries on chinook and coho stocks of 

interest to fishery managers. 

Harvest Rate (HR) - Catch or total fishing mortality in a fishery expressed as a 

proportion of the total fish abundance available in a given fishing area at the start of a 

time period. 

Hooking Mortality - Mortality of salmon that are caught and released by sport or troll 

gear, and die from their injuries prior to harvest or spawning. 

Management System Evaluation - An evaluation of how well the model predicts 

variables of interest (e.g., terminal runs, catch by stock, and stock composition) when 

pre-season estimates of abundance and fishery catches are used as input data. In other 

words, given that the model performs adequately, does our preseason decision making 

process, based on preseason predictions, result in the anticipated outcome? 

Marked Recognition Error - the probability that a marked fish will be inadvertently 

released. 

Model Calibration - Model process involving base period data which (1) scales the 

coded-wire tag recoveries to represent a stock, (2) allocates nonlanded catch mortality to 

stocks, and (3) reconstruct the cohort in order to compute exploitation rates, maturation 

rates, and stock abundance. 

Model Simulation - Use of the model to vary the calibrated fish population abundance 

and fishing rates to portray the effects, on the stocks and fisheries, of different sets of 

regulations. 

Nonlanded Catch - This category of fishery-related mortality includes hook-and-line 

drop-off, net gear drop-out, hooking mortality, and other sources of nonlanded mortality 

such as unreported or illegal catch. 

Nontreaty Fisheries - Fisheries conducted by fishers who are not members of the 

twenty-four Belloni or Boldt Case Area Tribes. 

Preterminal - In FRAM, a “preterminal” fishery is one that operates on both mature and 

immature fish. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 100 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Shaker Mortality - "Shakers": This term represents fish that are released from 

recreational and troll hook and line fisheries, either because they are outside of the 

regulatory size limits, because the species is not allowed to be kept, or because the 

individual fisher chooses, for personal or economic reasons, to release the fish. 

Terminal - In FRAM, a “terminal” fishery is one that operates only on mature fish. 

These fisheries tend to be adjacent to a stock’s stream of origin and harvest returning 

adult fish. 

Terminal Area Management Modules (TAMM) - Spreadsheets external to but 

integrated with FRAM that are used to: (1) provide input for FRAM simulations 

regarding projected Puget Sound terminal area catches or stock-specific impacts; (2) 

compute escapements for Puget Sound stock aggregates; and (3) create output reports that 

summarize simulated regulations, stock exploitation rates, allocation accounting, and 

escapement estimates. 

Treaty Fisheries - Fisheries conducted by fishers who are members of the twenty-four 

Belloni or Boldt Case Area Tribes. 

Unmarked Recognition Error (or Retention Error Rate) - the probability that an 

unmarked fish will be retained inappropriately in a selective fishery (e.g. naturallyoccurring marks, fisher fails to identify mark, fisher fails to comply with release 

requirement). 

Validation - An evaluation of how well the model predicts variables of interest (e.g., 

terminal runs, catch by stock, and stock composition) when post-season estimates of 

stock abundance and fishery catches are used as input data. Validation is intended to 

evaluate performance of the model. In other words, does the model yield correct stockspecific impacts using, as inputs, actual stock size and fishery catch information. 
Appendix C – Technical Methods – 

Derivation of Harvest Management Standards and Fishery Impacts 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest C - 101 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

REFERENCES

Chinook Model Work Group (CMWG). 1989. Chinook model specifications. Unpub. 

draft report, Aug. 8, 1989. Chinook Model Work Group. 12 pages. 

CMWG. 1990a. Description and preliminary documentation for a model of chinook 

fisheries. Unpub. draft report, Oct. 19, 1990. Chinook Model Work Group. 45 

pages. 

CMWG. 1990b. Supplemental documentation for chinook model. Unpub. draft report, 

Nov. 14, 1990. Chinook Model Work Group. 13 pages. 

CMWG. 1991. Chinook model status report. Unpub. draft report for PFMC Sci. and Stat. 

Comm., Feb. 21, 1991. Chinook Model Work Group. 9 pages 

CMWG. 1992. Chinook model status report. Unpub. draft report for PFMC Sci. and Stat. 

Comm., Nov. 24, 1992. Chinook Model Work Group. 12 pages. 

CMWG. 1996. Chinook model validation and management system evaluation. Unpub. 

draft report, May, 1996. Chinook Model Work Group. 26 pages. 

Chinook Technical Committee. 1992. Long-term research plans for coastwide pacific 

chinook stocks. Pacific Salmon Commission, Report TCCHINOOK (92)-3. 

Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Hunter, M.A. 1985. The 1976-1978 brood coho model. Progress Report 222. Washington 

Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington. 

Johnson, F.C. 1975. A model for salmon fishery regulatory analysis: second interim 

report. NBS Report 75745. Nat. Bur. Standards. Washington, DC. 

Packer, J. 1994. Memo to CAM Working Group Re: New Coho Assessment Model 

Program. January 10, 1994. 47 pages incl. attachment. 

The Policy Work Group on Net Dropout Rates. 1989. Recommendation of the policy 

work group on net dropout rates. July 25, 1989. 2 pages. 

Scott, Jr., J.B. 1988. Coho Fishery Management Assessment Model - User’s Manual. 181 

pages. 

Washington Department of Fisheries. 1981. The WDF/NBS Catch Regulation Analysis 

Model: A Contemporary Salmon Management Tool. 10 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Coho FRAM Changes for Mass 

Marking and Selective Fisheries. 16 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission. 1995. Users manual for the fishery regulation assessment model 

(FRAM) for chinook and coho. Draft report, Dec. 3, 1995. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 88 

pages. 
 

 

APPENDIX D 

Technical Methods – 

Economics 

Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - i December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table of Contents 

Appendix D 

APPENDIX D − TECHNICAL METHODS – ECONOMICS................................................................................... D-1

D1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ D-1

D2 Commercial Fishing Activity and Values................................................................................................ D-1

D2.1 Methods .................................................................................................................................... D-1

D2.1.1 Step 1: Allocate Landings to Economic Regions....................................................... D-1

D2.1.2 Step 2: Convert Landings in Each Region to Harvested Weights ............................. D-2

D2.1.3 Step 3: Convert Harvested Weights to Ex-Vessel and Ex-Processor Values............ D-3

D2.1.4 Step 4: Estimate Direct Employment Impacts on the Commercial Fishing Industry 

and Salmon Processing Industry............................................................................... D-3

D2.1.5 Step 5: Estimate Direct Personal Income Impacts on the Commercial Fishing 

Industry and Salmon Processing Industry ................................................................. D-6

D2.1.6 Step 6: Estimate Net Economic Values Associated with Commercial Salmon 

Fishing and Processing ............................................................................................. D-7

D2.2 Assumptions Used in the Analysis ............................................................................................ D-9

D2.3 Estimated Values ...................................................................................................................... D-9

D3 Sport Fishing Activity and Values ........................................................................................................ D-46

D3.1 Methods .................................................................................................................................. D-46

D3.1.1 Step 1: Allocate Sport Fishing Trips to Economic Regions ..................................... D-46

D3.1.2 Step 2: Allocate Sport Fishing Trips to Locals and Non-Locals............................... D-47

D3.1.3 Step 3: Allocate Marine Sport Fishing Trips by Mode of Fishing............................. D-47

D3.1.4 Step 4: Convert Sport Fishing Trips in Each Region to Spending........................... D-48

D3.1.5 Step 3: Estimate Net Economic Value..................................................................... D-48

D3.2 Assumptions Used in the Analysis .......................................................................................... D-50

D3.3 Estimated Values .................................................................................................................... D-50

D4 Effects on the Local and Regional Economy ....................................................................................... D-59

D4.1 Methods .................................................................................................................................. D-59

D4.1.1 Step 1: Estimate Total Economic Effects Resulting from Changes in Commercial 

Fishing Activity ........................................................................................................ D-59

D4.1.2 Step 2: Estimate Total Economic Effects Resulting from Changes in Sport Fishing 

Expenditures ........................................................................................................... D-60
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - ii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

D4.2 Key Assumptions Used in the Analysis ................................................................................... D-61

D4.3 Estimated Values .................................................................................................................... D-62

References ................................................................................................................................................... D-79

ATTACHMENT A 

Background Data for the Affected Environment................................................................................... D-80

ATTACHMENT B 

 Economic Factors for Commercial Salmon Fishing Developed by The Research Group

ATTACHMENT C 

Net Economic Value Factors for Commercial Fishing Developed by Meyer Resources, Inc.

ATTACHMENT D 

Net Economic Value Factors for Commercial Salmon Fishing Developed by The Research Group

ATTACHMENT E 

 Economic Factors for Salmon Sport Fishing Developed by The Research Group
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - iii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

List of Tables and Figures 

Table D-1. Percentages used to allocate estimated harvest in marine catch areas to economic regions......... D-2

Table D-2. Average weights (in pounds) used to convert estimated landings to ex-vessel weights.................. D-2

Table D-3. Average prices (per pound) used to convert estimated harvested poundage to ex-vessel 

values. ............................................................................................................................................. D-3

Table D-4. Average prices (per landed round pound) used to convert estimated harvested poundage to 

ex-processor values. ....................................................................................................................... D-3

Table D-5. Factors (full-time equivalent jobs per million landed round pounds) used to convert estimated 

harvested poundage to employment in the commercial salmon fishing industry............................. D-5

Table D-6. Factors (full-time equivalent employment per million landed round pounds) used to convert 

estimated harvested poundage to employment in the salmon processing industry......................... D-6

Table D-7. Factors (personal income per landed round pound) used to convert estimated harvested 

poundage to personal income in the commercial salmon fishing industry....................................... D-7

Table D-8. Factors (personal income per landed round pound) used to convert estimated harvested 

poundage to personal income in the salmon processing industry. .................................................. D-7

Table D-9, Pg 1. Allocation of estimated commercial landings to economic regions. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-10

Table D-9, Pg 2. Allocation of estimated commercial landings to economic regions. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-11

Table D-9, Pg 3. Allocation of estimated commercial landings to economic regions. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-12

Table D-9, Pg 4. Allocation of estimated commercial landings to economic regions. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-13

Table D-10, Pg 1. Estimated weight of commercial landings in round pounds in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-14

Table D-10, Pg 2. Estimated weight of commercial landings in round pounds in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-15

Table D-10, Pg 3. Estimated weight of commercial landings in round pounds in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-16

Table D-10, Pg 4. Estimated weight of commercial landings in round pounds in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-17
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - iv December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D-11, Pg 1. Estimated ex-vessel value of commercial landings (in 2002 dollars) in the economic 

regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-18

Table D-11, Pg 2. Estimated ex-vessel value of commercial landings (in 2002 dollars) in the economic 

regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-19

Table D-11, Pg 3. Estimated ex-vessel value of commercial landings (in 2002 dollars) in the economic 

regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-20

Table D-11, Pg 4. Estimated ex-vessel value of commercial landings (in 2002 dollars) in the economic 

regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-21

Table D-12, Pg 1. Estimated ex-processor value of commercial landings (in 2002 Dollars) in the economic 

regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-22

Table D-12, Pg 2. Estimated ex-processor value of commercial landings (in 2002 Dollars) in the economic 

regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-23

Table D-12, Pg 3. Estimated ex-processor value of commercial landings (in 2002 Dollars) in the economic 

regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-24

Table D-12, Pg 4. Estimated ex-processor value of commercial landings (in 2002 Dollars) in the economic 

regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-25

Table D-13, Pg 1. Direct changes in harvesting sector jobs (in full- and part-time jobs) caused by changes 

in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance 

with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries...................................... D-26

Table D-13, Pg 2. Direct changes in harvesting sector jobs (in full- and part-time jobs) caused by changes 

in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance 

with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries...................................... D-27

Table D-13, Pg 3. Direct changes in harvesting sector jobs (in full- and part-time jobs) caused by changes 

in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance 

with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries...................................... D-28

Table D-13, Pg 4. Direct changes in harvesting sector jobs (in full- and part-time jobs) caused by changes 

in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance 

with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries...................................... D-29

Table D-14, Pg 1. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-30
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - v December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D-14, Pg 2. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-31

Table D-14, Pg 3. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-32

Table D-14, Pg 4. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-33

Table D-15, Pg 1. Direct changes in processing sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused 

by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-34

Table D-15, Pg 2. Direct changes in processing sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused 

by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-35

Table D-15, Pg 3. Direct changes in processing sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused 

by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-36

Table D-15, Pg 4. Direct changes in processing sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused 

by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-37

Table D-16, Pg 1. Direct changes in harvesting sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-38

Table D-16, Pg 2. Direct changes in harvesting sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-39

Table D-16, Pg 3. Direct changes in harvesting sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-40

Table D-16, Pg 4. Direct changes in harvesting sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-41

Table D-17, Pg 1. Direct changes in processing sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-42

Table D-17, Pg 2. Direct changes in processing sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-43
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - vi December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D-17, Pg 3. Direct changes in processing sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-44

Table D-17, Pg 4. Direct changes in processing sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by 

changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 

abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries................... D-45

Table D-18. Allocation of marine and freshwater sport fishing trips to each economic region................. D-46

Table D-19. Average angler spending per trip by mode and angler group.............................................. D-49

Table D-20, Pg 1. Estimated sport fishing angler trips by angler group, angler mode, and economic 

region. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon 

Treaty fisheries. ................................................................................................................... D-51

Table D-20, Pg 2. Estimated sport fishing angler trips by angler group, angler mode, and economic 

region. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon 

Treaty fisheries. ................................................................................................................... D-52

Table D-20, Pg 3. Estimated sport fishing angler trips by angler group, angler mode, and economic 

region. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon 

Treaty fisheries. ................................................................................................................... D-53

Table D-20, Pg 4. Estimated sport fishing angler trips by angler group, angler mode, and economic 

region. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon 

Treaty fisheries. ................................................................................................................... D-54

Table D-21, Pg 1. Estimated sport fishing expenditures (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-55

Table D-21, Pg 2. Estimated sport fishing expenditures (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-56

Table D-21, Pg 3. Estimated sport fishing expenditures (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-57

Table D-21, Pg 4. Estimated sport fishing expenditures (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-58

Table D-22. Multipliers (full-time-equivalent jobs per million pounds of landings) used to estimate 

total regional employment effects resulting from changes in commercial fishing 

landings. .............................................................................................................................. D-60

Table D-23. Multipliers (personal income per pound of landings) used to estimate total income 

effects resulting from changes in commercial fishing landings. ........................................... D-60

Table D-24. Multipliers used to estimate total regional economic effects resulting from changes in 

sport fishing expenditures.................................................................................................... D-61
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - vii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D-25, Pg 1. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in 

commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-63

Table D-25, Pg 2. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in 

commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-64

Table D-25, Pg 3. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in 

commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-65

Table D-25, Pg 4. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in 

commercial landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with 

maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries............................................. D-66

Table D-26, Pg 1. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial 

landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries ............................................................. D-67

Table D-26, Pg 2. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial 

landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries ............................................................. D-68

Table D-26, Pg 3. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial 

landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries ............................................................. D-69

Table D-26, Pg 4. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial 

landings under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries ............................................................. D-70

Table D-27, Pg 1. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in sport 

fishing trips under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-71

Table D-27, Pg 2. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in sport 

fishing trips under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-72

Table D-27, Pg 3. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in sport 

fishing trips under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-73

Table D-27, Pg 4. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in sport 

fishing trips under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-74

Table D-28, Pg 1. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in sport fishing 

trips under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-75
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - viii December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D-28, Pg 2. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in sport fishing 

trips under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-76

Table D-28, Pg 3. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in sport fishing 

trips under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-77

Table D-28, Pg 4. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in sport fishing 

trips under the project alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum 

Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries. ............................................................ D-78

Table D.A-1. Ex-vessel value of salmon landed in Puget Sound ports between 1991 and 1998 (in 

thousands of nominal dollars)........................................................................................................ D-81

Table D.A-2. Annual average catch (pounds landed) and ex-vessel value of salmon harvested in Puget 

Sound from 1991 through 2000 (in thousands of pounds or thousands of nominal dollars).......... D-82

Table D.A-3. Annual average commercial (tribal and non-tribal) harvest (pounds landed)1 of salmon in 

marine waters of Puget Sound, by marine catch area and species (1991 through 2000). ............ D-83

Table D.A-4. Average annual commercial (tribal and non-tribal) harvest (pounds landed) of salmon in 

freshwater areas of Puget Sound, by catch area and species (1991 through 2000). .................... D-84

Table D.A-5. Number of licenses issued for commercial salmon fishing in Puget Sound between 1991 and 

2000. 1 ........................................................................................................................................... D-85

Table D.A-6. Distribution of 2001 commercial non-tribal harvest (pounds landed) of salmon by marine 

catch area and commercial fishing permit holder region of residence........................................... D-86

Table D.A-7. Distribution of 2001 commercial non-tribal harvest (pounds landed) of salmon by marine 

catch area and type of gear used. ................................................................................................. D-87

Table D.A-8. Annual average catch (in thousands of pounds landed) and ex-vessel value (in thousands of 

nominal dollars) of salmon harvested by tribes in Puget Sound (1991 through 2000)................... D-88

Table D.A-9. Distribution of tribal commercial harvest (pounds landed) of salmon by marine catch area in 

2001............................................................................................................................................... D-89

Table D.A-10.Number of sport fishing trips for salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound, by marine catch area 

(1991 through 2000). ..................................................................................................................... D-90

Table D.A-11. Annual sport catch of salmon by species in marine and freshwater areas of the Puget Sound 

(1991 through 2000). ..................................................................................................................... D-91

Table D.A-12.Proportion of 2001 sport catch of salmon in Puget Sound marine waters by angler county of 

origin.............................................................................................................................................. D-92
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

APPENDIX D − TECHNICAL METHODS – ECONOMICS 

D1 Introduction 

This technical appendix describes the methods, data, and key assumptions used in the analysis of 

economic effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. The appendix is organized similar to Section 

4.6 subsections, with a description of methods, data, and assumptions for commercial fishing activity 

and values, sport-fishing activity and values, and effects on the local and regional economy. 

Background data used in developing the Affected Environment (Section 3.6) is presented in 

Attachment A to this appendix. Information, including data and assumptions, developed by The 

Research Group and Meyer Resources, Inc. to produce economic factors employed in the impact 

assessment, is provided in Attachments B, C, D, and E to this appendix. 

D2 Commercial Fishing Activity and Values 

D2.1 Methods 

Estimates of Puget Sound net and troll commercial salmon landings, in numbers of fish landed by 

species for both marine and freshwater catch areas, were developed by the fishery modeling group for 

each alternative and provided to the economic analysis team. For purposes of the economic analysis, 

these landings were assigned to one of the three economic regions in which landings are made and then 

converted to pounds landed, ex-vessel values, and ex-processor values. To evaluate the direct effects of 

the alternatives on employment and personal income (wages, profits and other income) levels in the 

commercial fishing industry and salmon processing industry, ex-vessel values and ex-processor values 

were used with direct employment and personal income multipliers and coefficients to determine 

changes in these economic conditions within each region. The following steps were undertaken to 

accomplish these tasks. 

D2.1.1 Step 1: Allocate Landings to Economic Regions 

Three economic regions were established based on port locations to assess the economic effects of 

changes in harvests of Puget Sound salmon. The ports were grouped into the following three regions: 

North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood 

Canal. The geographic boundaries of these regions in relation to city and county boundaries are shown 

in Attachment B. The regional boundaries were chosen in consideration of fishing industry labor 

markets, location of ports where salmon deliveries are received and where primary processing occurs, 

ports where there is a likeness in fleet and vessel profiles, and other considerations. Nearly all landings 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

from Puget Sound catch areas are accounted for in the selected regions. Some deliveries, however, 

occur elsewhere in Washington. For this reason, the sum of the economic impacts in the three regions 

does not necessarily equal statewide economic impacts. 

Estimated non-tribal and tribal marine and freshwater landings were allocated to the three economic 

regions based on a mapping of Puget Sound catch areas to the ports where the catch is landed, using 

2002 chinook salmon catch data. The landing and catch area assignments, and the data used to make 

the assignments, are included in Attachment B to this appendix. The landings assignments are 

summarized in Table D-1. To allocate the estimated landings for each alternative, the percentages 

shown in Table D-1 were applied to total estimated landings within each region for each species (i.e., 

chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, chum, and steelhead). For example, using the percentage in Table D-1, 

100 percent of the catch in Marine Catch Areas 7, 8, and 9 were assumed to be landed in ports located 

in the North Puget Sound region. 

Table D-1. Percentages used to allocate estimated harvest in marine catch areas to economic regions. 

Marine Catch Area North Puget Sound 

South Puget Sound/South 

Hood Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal 

Areas 5, 6 0% 0% 100% 

Area 7 100% 0% 0% 

Area 8, 9 100% 0% 0% 

Areas 10, 11, 13 0% 100% 0% 

Area 12 0% 100% 0% 

D2.1.2 Step 2: Convert Landings in Each Region to Harvested Weights 

Once estimated landings (in number of fish) for each species were allocated to each region (Step 1), the 

total harvested weight was calculated by multiplying marine and freshwater landings by average 

weights for each species. These averages, which are shown in Table D-2, were based on 1996−2001 

averages derived from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s License and Fish Ticket 

(LIFT) data base. 

Table D-2. Average weights (in pounds) used to convert estimated landings to ex-vessel weights. 

Species Marine Freshwater 

Chinook 13.29 12.44 

Chum 9.04 11.10 

Coho 5.79 5.39 

Pink 3.84 3.96 

Sockeye 5.56 5.13 

Steelhead 7.68 6.95 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

D2.1.3 Step 3: Convert Harvested Weights to Ex-Vessel and Ex-Processor Values 

Once harvest weights were estimated (Step 2), the ex-vessel and ex-processor values of the harvests in 

each region were estimated by multiplying harvested poundage by average ex-vessel and ex-processor 

prices per pound for each species. The ex-vessel averages, shown in Table D-3, were based on 

1996−2001 averages derived from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s LIFT data base. 

The ex-processor prices, shown in Table D-4, were developed based on data analysis conducted by The 

Research Group (Attachment B). 

Table D-3. Average prices (per pound) used to convert estimated harvested poundage to ex-vessel 

values. 

Species Marine Freshwater 

Chinook $0.81 $0.63 

Chum $0.24 $0.24 

Coho $0.47 $0.41 

Pink $0.17 $0.15 

Sockeye $1.20 $0.82 

Steelhead $0.77 $0.67 

Table D-4. Average prices (per landed round pound) used to convert estimated harvested poundage 

to ex-processor values. 

Species North Puget Sound 

South Puget Sound/South 

Hood Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal 

Chinook: 

Net 

Troll 

$1.02 

$1.34 

$1.34 

$1.66 

$1.20 

$1.52 

Chum $0.79 $0.76 $1.00 

Coho: 

Net 

Troll 

$0.94 

$0.57 

$1.16 

$0.61 

$1.00 

$1.00 

Pink $0.71 $1.46 $1.31 

Sockeye $1.50 $1.50 $1.46 

Steelhead $0.71 $1.46 $1.31 

D2.1.4 Step 4: Estimate Direct Employment Impacts on the Commercial Fishing Industry and 

Salmon Processing Industry 

Employment in the commercial salmon fishing industry is highly seasonal, with jobs lasting from a few 

weeks to a few months. Based upon the availability and abundance of different commercial species and 

restrictions imposed on the harvest of protected species, fishing crews may quickly switch from fishing 

for salmon to other species. Vessel owners, who are often self-employed, may also increase and 

decrease crew sizes on a seasonal basis. Employment attributable solely to commercial salmon fishing 

activities is therefore difficult to estimate and assess. In an effort to accurately capture employment 

effects in the commercial salmon fishing industry, two measures of employment were developed using 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 4 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

different estimation procedures. The first measure, hereafter referred to as direct jobs, reflects both fulland part-time employment in the commercial fishing industry. The second measure, hereafter referred 

to as direct employment, reflects full-time equivalent employment in the industry. For the processing 

industry, which is less sensitive to the availability of specific commercial species, only full-time 

equivalent employment was used to characterize employment effects. 

Direct jobs in the commercial salmon fishing industry generated by harvests under each alternative 

were estimated using a direct employment multiplier representing the number of full- and part-time 

jobs generated per million dollars of ex-vessel revenue received by commercial fishermen. As 

discussed below, a single direct multiplier was used for all regions for non-tribal fishermen. Similarly, 

a single multiplier was used for all regions for tribal fishermen. Using a single multiplier for all regions 

incorporates the assumption that, on average, labor requirements per fish harvested would not vary 

across the three regions. 

Direct jobs multipliers for non-tribal and tribal fishermen were estimated for all regions using nontribal and tribal jobs data developed using the number of active license holders from the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 2001 LIFT data base, and using assumptions concerning the typical 

crew size for commercial salmon fishing using different gear methods. Estimates of typical crew size 

were: one person for fishing using hook and line, dip nets, set nets, hand lines, and trolling; 1.5 crew 

persons for gill nets; 2 crew persons for fishing using beach seines; 3 crew persons for fishing using 

reef nets; and 4 crew persons for fishing using purse seines. To arrive at an estimate of the number of 

commercial salmon fishing jobs per million dollars of ex-vessel revenue, the estimated non-tribal and 

tribal commercial salmon fishing jobs were divided by the 2001 total ex-vessel values for Puget Sound 

salmon harvests for non-tribal and tribal fishermen. This method resulted in the following direct jobs 

multipliers: non-tribal – 365 jobs per $1 million in ex-vessel revenue; tribal – 507 jobs per $1 million in 

ex-vessel revenue. These jobs multipliers reflect the fact that commercial salmon fishing generates a 

large number of part-time jobs relative to full-time employment opportunities because, as discussed 

previously, most salmon fishermen only harvest salmon for a few months each year. Additionally, 

many commercial salmon license holders may fish for only a few days each year, participating in the 

fishery long enough to maintain their licenses. The jobs multipliers were applied to the estimated exvessel values for non-tribal and tribal fishermen in each region to determine the number of estimated 

fishing jobs generated under each alternative. 

Full-time equivalent employment in the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries generated 

by harvests under each alternative were estimated using employment factors (i.e., coefficients) 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 5 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

developed by The Research Group (Attachment B). Factors were provided for each salmon species 

specific to the three economic regions for composite product forms (i.e., averaged over all product 

forms, including eggs). Factors were also supplied for gear groups, when appropriate. (All salmon 

species other than chinook and coho are landed solely with net gear.) Factors were provided for making 

average calculations (i.e., total economic contributions resulting from the overall salmon fishery), and 

marginal calculations (i.e., economic contributions resulting from changes to the fishery). The direct 

employment factors for salmon harvesters and processors, shown in Tables D-5 and D-6, respectively, 

represent the estimated number of full-time equivalent jobs in the commercial salmon fishing and 

processing industries generated per million round pounds of landed salmon. The average employment 

factors were applied to the landed poundage estimates for each region to estimate employment levels 

for the Proposed Action. Similarly, the marginal employment factors were applied to the landed 

poundage estimates for each region to estimate employment levels for each alternative to the Proposed 

Action. 

Table D-5. Factors (full-time equivalent jobs per million landed round pounds) used to convert 

estimated harvested poundage to employment in the commercial salmon fishing industry. 

 North Puget Sound 

South Puget Sound/South 

Hood Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal 

Species Average Marginal Average Marginal Average Marginal 

Chinook: 

Net 

Troll 

16.7 

23.3 

18.7 

26.2 

15.3 

21.5 

17.3 

24.1 

16.4 

23.6 

18.5 

26.5 

Chum 2.9 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.6 

Coho: 

Net 

Troll 

8.2 

7.5 

9.2 

8.4 

7.5 

7.5 

8.4 

8.4 

7.9 

7.5 

8.9 

8.4 

Pink 10.7 12.0 9.9 11.0 10.7 12.1 

Sockeye 21.0 23.5 19.1 21.4 20.5 23.1 

Steelhead 10.67 12.0 9.9 11.0 10.7 12.1 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 6 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D-6. Factors (full-time equivalent employment per million landed round pounds) used to 

convert estimated harvested poundage to employment in the salmon processing industry. 

 North Puget Sound 

South Puget Sound/South 

Hood Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal 

Species Average Marginal Average Marginal Average Marginal 

Chinook: 

Net 

Troll 

14.9 

14.4 

16.7 

16.1 

13.0 

12.5 

14.6 

14.1 

14.7 

14.0 

16.5 

15.7 

Chum 14.7 16.6 12.8 14.4 14.3 16.1 

Coho: 

Net 

Troll 

15.1 

13.6 

16.9 

15.3 

13.1 

13.6 

14.7 

15.3 

14.7 

13.6 

16.5 

15.3 

Pink 14.7 16.6 12.8 14.4 14.5 16.3 

Sockeye 14.9 16.7 13.1 14.7 14.7 16.5 

Steelhead 14.7 16.6 12.8 14.4 14.5 16.3 

D2.1.5 Step 5: Estimate Direct Personal Income Impacts on the Commercial Fishing Industry 

and Salmon Processing Industry 

For the commercial fishing and processing industries, personal income generated by harvests under 

each alternative was estimated using a direct income coefficient representing the amount of income 

generated per round pound of commercial salmon landings. 

Personal income for the commercial fishing and salmon processing industries generated by harvests 

under each alternative was estimated using income factors (i.e., coefficients) developed by The 

Research Group (Attachment B). Factors were provided for each salmon species specific to the three 

economic regions for composite product forms (i.e., averaged over all product forms, including eggs). 

Factors were also supplied for gear groups, when appropriate. (All salmon species other than chinook 

and coho are landed solely with net gear.) Factors were provided for making average calculations (i.e., 

total economic contributions resulting from the overall salmon fishery), and marginal calculations (i.e., 

economic contributions resulting from changes to the fishery). The direct personal income factors for 

salmon harvesters and processors, which are shown in Tables D-7 and D-8, respectively, represent the 

amount of personal income received by the commercial salmon fishing and processing industries per 

round pound of landed salmon. These factors were applied to the landed poundage estimates for each 

region to estimate direct personal income levels for each alternative. 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 7 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D-7. Factors (personal income per landed round pound) used to convert estimated harvested 

poundage to personal income in the commercial salmon fishing industry. 

 North Puget Sound 

South Puget Sound/South 

Hood Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal 

Species Average Marginal Average Marginal Average Marginal 

Chinook: 

Net 

Troll 

$0.43 

$0.60 

$0.48 

$0.62 

$0.39 

$0.54 

$0.43 

$0.60 

$0.42 

$0.60 

$0.47 

$0.68 

Chum $0.07 $0.08 $0.07 $0.08 $0.06 $0.07 

Coho: 

Net 

Troll 

$0.21 

$0.60 

$0.24 

$0.62 

$0.19 

$0.54 

$0.21 

$0.60 

$0.20 

$0.19 

$0.23 

$0.22 

Pink $0.28 $0.28 $0.25 $0.28 $0.27 $0.31 

Sockeye $0.54 $0.55 $0.48 $0.54 $0.52 $0.59 

Steelhead $0.28 $0.28 $0.25 $0.28 $0.27 $0.31 

Table D-8. Factors (personal income per landed round pound) used to convert estimated harvested 

poundage to personal income in the salmon processing industry. 

 North Puget Sound 

South Puget Sound/South 

Hood Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal 

Species Average Marginal Average Marginal Average Marginal 

Chinook: 

Net 

Troll 

$0.37 

$0.36 

$0.42 

$0.40 

$0.34 

$0.32 

$0.38 

$0.37 

$0.37 

$0.35 

$0.42 

$0.40 

Chum $0.37 $0.41 $0.33 $0.37 $0.36 $0.41 

Coho: 

Net 

Troll 

$0.38 

$0.36 

$0.42 

$0.40 

$0.34 

$0.32 

$0.38 

$0.37 

$0.37 

$0.35 

$0.42 

$0.39 

Pink $0.37 $0.41 $0.33 $0.37 $0.37 $0.41 

Sockeye $0.37 $0.42 $0.34 $0.38 $0.37 $0.42 

Steelhead $0.37 $0.41 $0.33 $0.37 $0.37 $0.41 

D2.1.6 Step 6: Estimate Net Economic Values Associated with Commercial Salmon Fishing and 

Processing 

The net economic value of the Puget Sound commercial salmon fishery can be measured in terms of its 

monetary value to producers and consumers. Producers include the commercial fishers, including 

operators (or permit holders) and crewmembers, and fish processors. Consumers include the public that 

consumes salmon. 

For this analysis, only net economic value to producers is evaluated because it is assumed that changes 

in the supply of salmon from the alternatives would not measurably affect the price that consumers pay 

for salmon. Net economic value to salmon fishers is represented by the difference between the exvessel value of the salmon harvest and out-of-pocket and capital investment expenses for commercial 

salmon fishermen and the opportunity cost of labor. 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 8 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Coefficients developed by Meyer Resources, Inc. for this study and reported in Attachment C were 

used to estimate net economic values associated with commercial fishing. As described in Attachment 

C, net economic values associated with commercial salmon fishing under the status-quo conditions can 

be considered from two different accounting perspectives. Net economic efficiency returns describe 

“present-day, average net economic returns evident in the salmon fishery without consideration of 

benefit trade-offs with family and/or community goals.” Net socio-economic returns describe “net 

economic returns from present fishing activities plus potential economic rent foregone to achieve 

family, community or fishing port objectives.” 

Because the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) generally reflects a status quo condition, a coefficient 

based on average conditions was considered appropriate for estimating the net economic value of the 

commercial salmon harvest. A coefficient of 0.58 was used for this estimation, which reflects a 

measure of net economic efficiency and takes into account that the opportunity (or alternative) cost of 

labor for many persons involved in commercial fishing is very low, particularly tribal labor. The 

determination that alternative employment opportunities for commercial fishermen are limited and that 

wages paid to commercial fishermen should be treated as a “credit” in the calculation of net economic 

value was based on a review of available unemployment data for commercial fishermen in the Puget 

Sound area obtained from the Washington State Employment Security Department. It was concluded 

that the unemployment rate for both tribal and non-tribal commercial fishermen who harvest salmon in 

Puget Sound likely exceeds the U.S. Water Resources Council thresholds for “substantial and persistent 

unemployment.” The 0.58 coefficient under the Proposed Action/Status Quo Condition was applied to 

the ex-vessel value of the commercial salmon harvest for Alternative 1. 

For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, a “marginal” coefficient of 0.94 was used that also assumes limited 

alternative employment opportunities for both tribal and non-tribal commercial fishermen. It should be 

noted that differences potentially exist in alternative employment opportunities and in the disposition of 

capital used for commercial fishing between tribal and non-tribal commercial fishermen, and that these 

differences would affect the calculation of net economic values for the two user groups. Resolution of 

this issue, however, was beyond the scope of this study, so the same net economic value coefficient 

was used for both tribal and non-tribal fishermen. The 0.94 coefficient was applied to the reduction in 

ex-vessel values of the commercial salmon harvest for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 to estimate the change in 

net economic value associated with commercial salmon fishing. 

For estimating net economic values associated with salmon processing, coefficients developed by The 

Research Group for this study and reported in Attachment D were used. These coefficients represent 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 9 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

the net income to processors, and are derived as 50 percent of the economic contribution margin. The 

coefficients are specific to different species and gear types. 

It should be noted that the reduction in net economic values associated with salmon harvest and 

processing under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be larger than the net economic values associated with 

Alternative 1. This would occur because the reduction in values associated with these alternatives, 

estimated at 94 percent of the reductions in ex-vessel values, would exceed the net economic values 

associated with Alternative 1, which are estimated at 58 percent of the ex-vessel values. This result is 

technically feasible because of the potential negative effect of large reductions in the salmon harvest on 

the value of capital investment in boats and equipment used for salmon fishing, in addition to the 

reduction in income to operators and crew. It should be emphasized that there are many considerations 

that can affect the coefficients for estimating net economic values in a particular fishery, as noted in a 

review of coefficients in the existing literature (National Marine Fisheries Service 2002) for evaluating 

marginal changes in net economic values of commercial salmon fishing. Consequently, the coefficients 

used to estimate net economic values for this study should be interpreted with caution. 

D2.2 Assumptions Used in the Analysis 

The following key assumptions were incorporated into the assessment of commercial fishing activity 

and values. 

• The allocation of landings among economic regions assumes that economic impacts generated by 

harvests from marine areas and rivers are primarily felt in the port and river locations where the 

harvests are landed. 

• Average fish weights and ex-vessel prices over the period 1996−2001 were assumed in the 

analysis. 

• For the assessment of direct job effects, labor requirements per harvested fish for non-tribal and 

tribal commercial fishing operations were assumed not to vary across the three regions. 

• A coefficient of 0.58 was assumed in estimating the net economic value of the salmon harvest by 

tribal and non-tribal commercial fishermen under the Proposed Action, and a coefficient of 0.94 

was assumed in estimating the loss associated with reductions in harvest under Alternatives 2, 3, 

or 4. 

D2.3 Estimated Values 

The estimated regional distributions of harvests, estimated harvest weights, harvest values, processor 

values, and direct employment and personal income resulting from the methodology and assumptions 

described above are presented in Tables D-9 through D-17 for all alternatives under Scenario B (2003 

abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries), which is currently considered the most likely 

scenario. 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-9. Allocation of estimated commercial landings to economic regions.

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 21,548 2,079 0 23,627

 Tribal

Marine Net 26,355 13,539 1,350 41,244

Marine Troll 0 0 1,010 1,010

Freshwater Net 2,883 35,013 3 37,899

Tribal Subtotal 29,238 48,552 2,363 80,153

Total 50,786 50,631 2,363 103,780

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 15,852 6,624 1,886 24,362

 Tribal

Marine Net 73,472 83,246 21,162 177,880

Marine Troll 0 0 910 910

Freshwater Net 28,180 74,048 1,807 104,035

Tribal Subtotal 101,652 157,294 23,879 282,825

Total 117,504 163,918 25,765 307,187

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 246,594 0 0 246,594

 Tribal

Marine Net 255,609 0 26,419 282,028

Freshwater Net 250 47,700 0 47,950

Tribal Subtotal 255,859 47,700 26,419 329,978

Total 502,453 47,700 26,419 576,572

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 710,844 4,441 0 715,285

 Tribal

Marine Net 685,155 28,748 1,374 715,277

Freshwater Net 46,432 170 0 46,602

Tribal Subtotal 731,587 28,918 1,374 761,879

Total 1,442,431 33,359 1,374 1,477,164

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 116,650 269,152 0 385,802

 Tribal

Marine Net 98,181 226,281 10,450 334,912

Freshwater Net 54,008 77,502 0 131,510

Tribal Subtotal 152,189 303,783 10,450 466,422

Total 268,839 572,935 10,450 852,224

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0000

 Tribal

Marine Net 282 7 119 408

Freshwater Net 250 656 620 1,526

Tribal Subtotal 532 663 739 1,934

Total 532 663 739 1,934

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 1,111,488 282,296 1,886 1,395,670

 Tribal

Marine Net 1,139,054 351,821 60,874 1,551,748

Marine Troll 0 0 1,920 1,920

Freshwater Net 132,004 235,090 2,430 369,523

Tribal Subtotal 1,271,057 586,910 65,224 1,923,191

Total 2,382,545 869,206 67,110 3,318,861

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 10 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-9. Allocation of estimated commercial landings to economic regions.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Change from Change from Change from Change f

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baselin

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 2 -21,546 -100.0% 0 -2,079 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 2 

 Tribal

Marine Net 7,579 -18,776 -71.2% 0 -13,539 -100.0% 0 -1,350 -100.0% 7,579 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,010 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 770 -2,114 -73.3% 42,540 7,526 21.5% 0 -3 -100.0% 43,309 

Tribal Subtotal 8,349 -20,890 -71.4% 42,540 -6,013 -12.4% 0 -2,363 -100.0% 50,888 

Total 8,351 -42,436 -83.6% 42,540 -8,092 -16.0% 0 -2,363 -100.0% 50,890 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 519 -15,333 -96.7% 0 -6,624 -100.0% 2,304 418 22.2% 2,823 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -73,472 -100.0% 0 -83,246 -100.0% 0 -21,162 -100.0% 0 -

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -910 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 33,142 4,962 17.6% 77,382 3,334 4.5% 1,725 -82 -4.5% 112,249 

Tribal Subtotal 33,142 -68,510 -67.4% 77,382 -79,912 -50.8% 1,725 -22,154 -92.8% 112,249 -

Total 33,661 -83,843 -71.4% 77,382 -86,536 -52.8% 4,029 -21,736 -84.4% 115,072 -

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -246,594 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -255,609 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 0 -250 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -255,859 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Total 0 -502,453 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -710,844 -100.0% 0 -4,441 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -685,155 -100.0% 0 -28,748 -100.0% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 83,400 36,968 79.6% 26,108 25,938 15257.6% 0 0 0.0% 109,508 

Tribal Subtotal 83,400 -648,187 -88.6% 26,108 -2,810 -9.7% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 109,508 -

Total 83,400 -1,359,031 -94.2% 26,108 -7,251 -21.7% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 109,508 -1,

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -116,650 -100.0% 0 -269,152 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -98,181 -100.0% 0 -226,281 -100.0% 0 -10,450 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 1,808 -52,200 -96.7% 146,976 69,474 89.6% 2 2 0.0% 148,786 

Tribal Subtotal 1,808 -150,381 -98.8% 146,976 -156,807 -51.6% 2 -10,448 -100.0% 148,786 -

Total 1,808 -267,031 -99.3% 146,976 -425,959 -74.3% 2 -10,448 -100.0% 148,786 -

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -282 -100.0% 0 -7 -100.0% 0 -119 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 227 -23 -9.2% 653 -3 -0.5% 610 -10 -1.6% 1,490 

Tribal Subtotal 227 -305 -57.3% 653 -10 -1.5% 610 -129 -17.5% 1,490 

Total 227 -305 -57.3% 653 -10 -1.5% 610 -129 -17.5% 1,490 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 521 -1,110,967 -100.0% 0 -282,296 -100.0% 2,304 418 22.2% 2,825 -1,

 Tribal

Marine Net 7,579 -1,131,475 -99.3% 0 -351,821 -100.0% 0 -60,874 -100.0% 7,579 -1,

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,920 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 119,347 -12,657 -9.6% 293,659 58,569 24.9% 2,337 -93 -3.8% 415,343 

Tribal Subtotal 126,926 -1,144,132 -90.0% 293,659 -293,251 -50.0% 2,337 -62,887 -96.4% 422,922 -1,

Total 127,447 -2,255,098 -94.7% 293,659 -575,547 -66.2% 4,641 -62,469 -93.1% 425,747 -2,

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 11 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-9. Allocation of estimated commercial landings to economic regions.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Change from Change from Change from Change f

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number Baselin

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 2 -21,546 -100.0% 0 -2,079 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 2 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -26,355 -100.0% 0 -13,539 -100.0% 0 -1,350 -100.0% 0 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,010 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 0 -2,883 -100.0% 42,540 7,526 21.5% 0 -3 -100.0% 42,540 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -29,238 -100.0% 42,540 -6,013 -12.4% 0 -2,363 -100.0% 42,540 

Total 2 -50,784 -100.0% 42,540 -8,092 -16.0% 0 -2,363 -100.0% 42,542 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 519 -15,333 -96.7% 0 -6,624 -100.0% 2,304 418 22.2% 2,823 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -73,472 -100.0% 0 -83,246 -100.0% 0 -21,162 -100.0% 0 -

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -910 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 143 -28,037 -99.5% 77,382 3,334 4.5% 1,725 -82 -4.5% 79,250 

Tribal Subtotal 143 -101,509 -99.9% 77,382 -79,912 -50.8% 1,725 -22,154 -92.8% 79,250 -

Total 662 -116,842 -99.4% 77,382 -86,536 -52.8% 4,029 -21,736 -84.4% 82,073 -

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -246,594 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -255,609 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 0 -250 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -255,859 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Total 0 -502,453 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -710,844 -100.0% 0 -4,441 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -685,155 -100.0% 0 -28,748 -100.0% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 0 -46,432 -100.0% 26,108 25,938 15257.6% 0 0 0.0% 26,108 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -731,587 -100.0% 26,108 -2,810 -9.7% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 26,108 -

Total 0 -1,442,431 -100.0% 26,108 -7,251 -21.7% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 26,108 -1,

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -116,650 -100.0% 0 -269,152 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -98,181 -100.0% 0 -226,281 -100.0% 0 -10,450 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 1,057 -52,951 -98.0% 146,976 69,474 89.6% 2 2 0.0% 148,035 

Tribal Subtotal 1,057 -151,132 -99.3% 146,976 -156,807 -51.6% 2 -10,448 -100.0% 148,035 -

Total 1,057 -267,782 -99.6% 146,976 -425,959 -74.3% 2 -10,448 -100.0% 148,035 -

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -282 -100.0% 0 -7 -100.0% 0 -119 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 227 -23 -9.2% 653 -3 -0.5% 610 -10 -1.6% 1,490 

Tribal Subtotal 227 -305 -57.3% 653 -10 -1.5% 610 -129 -17.5% 1,490 

Total 227 -305 -57.3% 653 -10 -1.5% 610 -129 -17.5% 1,490 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 521 -1,110,967 -100.0% 0 -282,296 -100.0% 2,304 418 22.2% 2,825 -1,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,139,054 -100.0% 0 -351,821 -100.0% 0 -60,874 -100.0% 0 -1,

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,920 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 1,427 -130,577 -98.9% 293,659 58,569 24.9% 2,337 -93 -3.8% 297,423 

Tribal Subtotal 1,427 -1,269,630 -99.9% 293,659 -293,251 -50.0% 2,337 -62,887 -96.4% 297,423 -1,

Total 1,948 -2,380,597 -99.9% 293,659 -575,547 -66.2% 4,641 -62,469 -93.1% 300,248 -3,0

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 12 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-9. Allocation of estimated commercial landings to economic regions.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Change from Change from Change from Change f

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number Baselin

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -21,548 -100.0% 0 -2,079 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -26,355 -100.0% 0 -13,539 -100.0% 0 -1,350 -100.0% 0 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,010 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 0 -2,883 -100.0% 0 -35,013 -100.0% 0 -3 -100.0% 0 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -29,238 -100.0% 0 -48,552 -100.0% 0 -2,363 -100.0% 0 

Total 0 -50,786 -100.0% 0 -50,631 -100.0% 0 -2,363 -100.0% 0 -

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -15,852 -100.0% 0 -6,624 -100.0% 0 -1,886 -100.0% 0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -73,472 -100.0% 0 -83,246 -100.0% 0 -21,162 -100.0% 0 -

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -910 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 0 -28,180 -100.0% 0 -74,048 -100.0% 0 -1,807 -100.0% 0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0 -101,652 -100.0% 0 -157,294 -100.0% 0 -23,879 -100.0% 0 -

Total 0 -117,504 -100.0% 0 -163,918 -100.0% 0 -25,765 -100.0% 0 -

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -246,594 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -255,609 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 0 -250 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -255,859 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Total 0 -502,453 -100.0% 0 -47,700 -100.0% 0 -26,419 -100.0% 0 -

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -710,844 -100.0% 0 -4,441 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -685,155 -100.0% 0 -28,748 -100.0% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 0 -46,432 -100.0% 0 -170 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -731,587 -100.0% 0 -28,918 -100.0% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 0 -

Total 0 -1,442,431 -100.0% 0 -33,359 -100.0% 0 -1,374 -100.0% 0 -1,

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -116,650 -100.0% 0 -269,152 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -98,181 -100.0% 0 -226,281 -100.0% 0 -10,450 -100.0% 0 -

Freshwater Net 1,057 -52,951 -98.0% 36,741 -40,761 -52.6% 2 2 0.0% 37,800 

Tribal Subtotal 1,057 -151,132 -99.3% 36,741 -267,042 -87.9% 2 -10,448 -100.0% 37,800 -

Total 1,057 -267,782 -99.6% 36,741 -536,194 -93.6% 2 -10,448 -100.0% 37,800 -

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -282 -100.0% 0 -7 -100.0% 0 -119 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 227 -23 -9.2% 512 -144 -22.0% 609 -11 -1.8% 1,348 

Tribal Subtotal 227 -305 -57.3% 512 -151 -22.8% 609 -130 -17.6% 1,348 

Total 227 -305 -57.3% 512 -151 -22.8% 609 -130 -17.6% 1,348 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,111,488 -100.0% 0 -282,296 -100.0% 0 -1,886 -100.0% 0 -1,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,139,054 -100.0% 0 -351,821 -100.0% 0 -60,874 -100.0% 0 -1,

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,920 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 1,284 -130,720 -99.0% 37,253 -197,837 -84.2% 611 -1,819 -74.9% 39,148 -

Tribal Subtotal 1,284 -1,269,773 -99.9% 37,253 -549,657 -93.7% 611 -64,613 -99.1% 39,148 -1,

Total 1,284 -2,381,261 -99.9% 37,253 -831,953 -95.7% 611 -66,499 -99.1% 39,148 -3,

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 13 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Average

Round

Pounds Per North SJF/ State

Specie Fish Landed Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 13.29 286,373 27,630 0 314,003

 Tribal

Marine Net 13.29 350,258 179,933 17,942 548,133

Marine Troll 13.29 0 0 13,423 13,423

Freshwater Net 12.44 35,866 435,568 34 471,467

Tribal Subtotal NA 386,124 615,501 31,398 1,033,023

Total NA 672,497 643,131 31,398 1,347,026

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 5.79 91,783 38,352 10,920 141,055

 Tribal

Marine Net 5.79 425,403 481,994 122,528 1,029,925

Marine Troll 5.79 0 0 5,269 5,269

Freshwater Net 5.39 151,890 399,119 9,740 560,749

Tribal Subtotal NA 577,293 881,113 137,537 1,595,943

Total NA 669,076 919,465 148,457 1,736,998

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 5.56 1,371,063 0 0 1,371,063

 Tribal

Marine Net 5.56 1,421,186 0 146,890 1,568,076

Freshwater Net 5.13 1,283 244,701 0 245,984

Tribal Subtotal NA 1,422,469 244,701 146,890 1,814,059

Total NA 2,793,531 244,701 146,890 3,185,122

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 3.84 2,729,641 17,053 0 2,746,694

 Tribal

Marine Net 3.84 2,630,994 110,392 5,276 2,746,662

Freshwater Net 3.96 183,872 673 0 184,546

Tribal Subtotal NA 2,814,866 111,066 5,276 2,931,208

Total NA 5,544,507 128,119 5,276 5,677,902

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 9.04 1,054,515 2,433,134 0 3,487,649

 Tribal

Marine Net 9.04 887,556 2,045,578 94,468 3,027,602

Freshwater Net 11.10 599,490 860,276 0 1,459,766

Tribal Subtotal NA 1,487,046 2,905,853 94,468 4,487,367

Total NA 2,541,561 5,338,987 94,468 7,975,016

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 7.68 0000

 Tribal

Marine Net 7.68 2,166 54 914 3,133

Freshwater Net 6.95 1,738 4,559 4,309 10,606

Tribal Subtotal NA 3,903 4,613 5,223 13,739

Total NA 3,903 4,613 5,223 13,739

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net NA 5,533,374 2,516,170 10,920 8,060,464

 Tribal

Marine Net NA 5,717,562 2,817,951 388,017 8,923,531

Marine Troll NA 0 0 18,692 18,692

Freshwater Net NA 974,138 1,944,895 14,083 2,933,116

Tribal Subtotal NA 6,691,701 4,762,847 420,792 11,875,339

Total NA 12,225,075 7,279,016 431,712 19,935,803

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-10. Estimated weight of commercial landings in round pounds in the economic regions with 

 implementation of the alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 14 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-10. Estimated weight of commercial landings in round pounds in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change f

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baselin

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 27 -286,346 -100.0% 0 -27,630 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 27 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 100,725 -249,533 -71.2% 0 -179,933 -100.0% 0 -17,942 -100.0% 100,725 -

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -13,423 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 9,573 -26,293 -73.3% 529,196 93,628 21.5% 0 -34 -100.0% 538,769 

Tribal Subtotal 110,298 -275,826 -71.4% 529,196 -86,305 -14.0% 0 -31,398 -100.0% 639,494 -

Total 110,325 -562,172 -83.6% 529,196 -113,935 -17.7% 0 -31,398 -100.0% 639,521 -

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 3,005 -88,778 -96.7% 0 -38,352 -100.0% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 16,345 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -425,403 -100.0% 0 -481,994 -100.0% 0 -122,528 -100.0% 0 -1,0

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -5,269 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 178,635 26,745 17.6% 417,089 17,970 4.5% 9,298 -442 -4.5% 605,022 

Tribal Subtotal 178,635 -398,658 -69.1% 417,089 -464,024 -52.7% 9,298 -128,239 -93.2% 605,022 -

Total 181,640 -487,436 -72.9% 417,089 -502,376 -54.6% 22,638 -125,819 -84.8% 621,367 -1,

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,371,063 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,421,186 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -1,

Freshwater Net 0 -1,283 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0 -1,422,469 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -1,

Total 0 -2,793,531 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -3,

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,729,641 -100.0% 0 -17,053 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -2,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,630,994 -100.0% 0 -110,392 -100.0% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 0 -2,

Freshwater Net 330,264 146,392 79.6% 103,388 102,714 15257.6% 0 0 0.0% 433,652 

Tribal Subtotal 330,264 -2,484,602 -88.3% 103,388 -7,678 -6.9% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 433,652 -2,

Total 330,264 -5,214,243 -94.0% 103,388 -24,731 -19.3% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 433,652 -5,

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,054,515 -100.0% 0 -2,433,134 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -3,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -887,556 -100.0% 0 -2,045,578 -100.0% 0 -94,468 -100.0% 0 -3,0

Freshwater Net 20,069 -579,421 -96.7% 1,631,436 771,160 89.6% 22 22 0.0% 1,651,527 

Tribal Subtotal 20,069 -1,466,977 -98.7% 1,631,436 -1,274,418 -43.9% 22 -94,446 -100.0% 1,651,527 -2,

Total 20,069 -2,521,492 -99.2% 1,631,436 -3,707,552 -69.4% 22 -94,446 -100.0% 1,651,527 -6,

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,166 -100.0% 0 -54 -100.0% 0 -914 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 1,578 -160 -9.2% 4,538 -21 -0.5% 4,240 -70 -1.6% 10,356 

Tribal Subtotal 1,578 -2,326 -59.6% 4,538 -75 -1.6% 4,240 -983 -18.8% 10,356 

Total 1,578 -2,326 -59.6% 4,538 -75 -1.6% 4,240 -983 -18.8% 10,356 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 3,032 -5,530,343 -99.9% 0 -2,516,170 -100.0% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 16,372 -8,0

 Tribal

Marine Net 100,725 -5,616,837 -98.2% 0 -2,817,951 -100.0% 0 -388,017 -100.0% 100,725 -8,

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -18,692 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 540,119 -434,019 -44.6% 2,685,646 740,751 38.1% 13,559 -523 -3.7% 3,239,325 

Tribal Subtotal 640,844 -6,050,857 -90.4% 2,685,646 -2,077,200 -43.6% 13,559 -407,232 -96.8% 3,340,050 -8,

Total 643,875 -11,581,199 -94.7% 2,685,646 -4,593,370 -63.1% 26,900 -404,812 -93.8% 3,356,421 -16,5

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 15 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-10. Estimated weight of commercial landings in round pounds in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change from

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number Baselin

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 27 -286,346 -100.0% 0 -27,630 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 27 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -350,258 -100.0% 0 -179,933 -100.0% 0 -17,942 -100.0% 0 -

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -13,423 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 0 -35,866 -100.0% 529,196 93,628 21.5% 0 -34 -100.0% 529,196 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -386,124 -100.0% 529,196 -86,305 -14.0% 0 -31,398 -100.0% 529,196 -

Total 27 -672,470 -100.0% 529,196 -113,935 -17.7% 0 -31,398 -100.0% 529,222 -

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 3,005 -88,778 -96.7% 0 -38,352 -100.0% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 16,345 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -425,403 -100.0% 0 -481,994 -100.0% 0 -122,528 -100.0% 0 -1,0

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -5,269 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 771 -151,119 -99.5% 417,089 17,970 4.5% 9,298 -442 -4.5% 427,158 -

Tribal Subtotal 771 -576,522 -99.9% 417,089 -464,024 -52.7% 9,298 -128,239 -93.2% 427,158 -1,

Total 3,776 -665,300 -99.4% 417,089 -502,376 -54.6% 22,638 -125,819 -84.8% 443,503 -1,

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,371,063 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,421,186 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -1,

Freshwater Net 0 -1,283 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0 -1,422,469 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -1,

Total 0 -2,793,531 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -3,

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,729,641 -100.0% 0 -17,053 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -2,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,630,994 -100.0% 0 -110,392 -100.0% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 0 -2,

Freshwater Net 0 -183,872 -100.0% 103,388 102,714 15257.6% 0 0 0.0% 103,388 

Tribal Subtotal 0 -2,814,866 -100.0% 103,388 -7,678 -6.9% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 103,388 -2,

Total 0 -5,544,507 -100.0% 103,388 -24,731 -19.3% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 103,388 -5,

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,054,515 -100.0% 0 -2,433,134 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -3,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -887,556 -100.0% 0 -2,045,578 -100.0% 0 -94,468 -100.0% 0 -3,0

Freshwater Net 11,733 -587,757 -98.0% 1,631,436 771,160 89.6% 22 22 0.0% 1,643,190 

Tribal Subtotal 11,733 -1,475,313 -99.2% 1,631,436 -1,274,418 -43.9% 22 -94,446 -100.0% 1,643,190 -2,

Total 11,733 -2,529,828 -99.5% 1,631,436 -3,707,552 -69.4% 22 -94,446 -100.0% 1,643,190 -6,

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,166 -100.0% 0 -54 -100.0% 0 -914 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 1,578 -160 -9.2% 4,538 -21 -0.5% 4,240 -70 -1.6% 10,356 

Tribal Subtotal 1,578 -2,326 -59.6% 4,538 -75 -1.6% 4,240 -983 -18.8% 10,356 

Total 1,578 -2,326 -59.6% 4,538 -75 -1.6% 4,240 -983 -18.8% 10,356 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 3,032 -5,530,343 -99.9% 0 -2,516,170 -100.0% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 16,372 -8,0

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -5,717,562 -100.0% 0 -2,817,951 -100.0% 0 -388,017 -100.0% 0 -8,9

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -18,692 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 14,081 -960,057 -98.6% 2,685,646 740,751 38.1% 13,559 -523 -3.7% 2,713,287 -

Tribal Subtotal 14,081 -6,677,620 -99.8% 2,685,646 -2,077,200 -43.6% 13,559 -407,232 -96.8% 2,713,287 -9,

Total 17,113 -12,207,962 -99.9% 2,685,646 -4,593,370 -63.1% 26,900 -404,812 -93.8% 2,729,659 -17,2

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 16 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-10. Estimated weight of commercial landings in round pounds in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change f

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number Baselin

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -286,373 -100.0% 0 -27,630 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -350,258 -100.0% 0 -179,933 -100.0% 0 -17,942 -100.0% 0 -

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -13,423 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 0 -35,866 -100.0% 0 -435,568 -100.0% 0 -34 -100.0% 0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0 -386,124 -100.0% 0 -615,501 -100.0% 0 -31,398 -100.0% 0 -1,0

Total 0 -672,497 -100.0% 0 -643,131 -100.0% 0 -31,398 -100.0% 0 -1,

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -91,783 -100.0% 0 -38,352 -100.0% 0 -10,920 -100.0% 0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -425,403 -100.0% 0 -481,994 -100.0% 0 -122,528 -100.0% 0 -1,0

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -5,269 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 0 -151,890 -100.0% 0 -399,119 -100.0% 0 -9,740 -100.0% 0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0 -577,293 -100.0% 0 -881,113 -100.0% 0 -137,537 -100.0% 0 -1,

Total 0 -669,076 -100.0% 0 -919,465 -100.0% 0 -148,457 -100.0% 0 -1,

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,371,063 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -1,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,421,186 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -1,

Freshwater Net 0 -1,283 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0 -1,422,469 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -1,

Total 0 -2,793,531 -100.0% 0 -244,701 -100.0% 0 -146,890 -100.0% 0 -3,

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,729,641 -100.0% 0 -17,053 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -2,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,630,994 -100.0% 0 -110,392 -100.0% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 0 -2,

Freshwater Net 0 -183,872 -100.0% 0 -673 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0 -2,814,866 -100.0% 0 -111,066 -100.0% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 0 -2,9

Total 0 -5,544,507 -100.0% 0 -128,119 -100.0% 0 -5,276 -100.0% 0 -5,

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -1,054,515 -100.0% 0 -2,433,134 -100.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -3,

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -887,556 -100.0% 0 -2,045,578 -100.0% 0 -94,468 -100.0% 0 -3,0

Freshwater Net 11,733 -587,757 -98.0% 407,825 -452,450 -52.6% 22 22 0.0% 419,580 -1,0

Tribal Subtotal 11,733 -1,475,313 -99.2% 407,825 -2,498,028 -86.0% 22 -94,446 -100.0% 419,580 -4,0

Total 11,733 -2,529,828 -99.5% 407,825 -4,931,162 -92.4% 22 -94,446 -100.0% 419,580 -7,

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,166 -100.0% 0 -54 -100.0% 0 -914 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 1,578 -160 -9.2% 3,558 -1,001 -22.0% 4,233 -76 -1.8% 9,369 

Tribal Subtotal 1,578 -2,326 -59.6% 3,558 -1,055 -22.9% 4,233 -990 -19.0% 9,369 

Total 1,578 -2,326 -59.6% 3,558 -1,055 -22.9% 4,233 -990 -19.0% 9,369 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -5,533,374 -100.0% 0 -2,516,170 -100.0% 0 -10,920 -100.0% 0 -8,0

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -5,717,562 -100.0% 0 -2,817,951 -100.0% 0 -388,017 -100.0% 0 -8,9

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -18,692 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 13,310 -960,828 -98.6% 411,384 -1,533,512 -78.8% 4,255 -9,828 -69.8% 428,949 -2,

Tribal Subtotal 13,310 -6,678,390 -99.8% 411,384 -4,351,463 -91.4% 4,255 -416,537 -99.0% 428,949 -11,4

Total 13,310 -12,211,764 -99.9% 411,384 -6,867,633 -94.3% 4,255 -427,457 -99.0% 428,949 -19,5

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 17 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Ex-Vessel

Price Per

Round North SJF/ State

Specie Pound Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.81 $231,962 $22,380 $0 $254,342

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.81 $283,709 $145,746 $14,533 $443,988

Marine Troll $0.81 $0 $0 $10,873 $10,873

Freshwater Net $0.63 $22,595 $274,408 $21 $297,024

Tribal Subtotal NA $306,304 $420,154 $25,427 $751,885

Total NA $538,266 $442,534 $25,427 $1,006,227

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.47 $43,138 $18,026 $5,132 $66,296

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.47 $199,939 $226,537 $57,588 $484,065

Marine Troll $0.47 $0 $0 $2,476 $2,476

Freshwater Net $0.41 $62,275 $163,639 $3,993 $229,907

Tribal Subtotal NA $262,214 $390,176 $64,058 $716,448

Total NA $305,352 $408,202 $69,190 $782,744

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $1.20 $1,645,275 $0 $0 $1,645,275

 Tribal

Marine Net $1.20 $1,705,423 $0 $176,268 $1,881,691

Freshwater Net $0.82 $1,052 $200,655 $0 $201,706

Tribal Subtotal NA $1,706,475 $200,655 $176,268 $2,083,397

Total NA $3,351,750 $200,655 $176,268 $3,728,672

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.17 $464,039 $2,899 $0 $466,938

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.17 $447,269 $18,767 $897 $466,933

Freshwater Net $0.15 $27,581 $101 $0 $27,682

Tribal Subtotal NA $474,850 $18,868 $897 $494,614

Total NA $938,889 $21,767 $897 $961,552

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.24 $253,084 $583,952 $0 $837,036

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.24 $213,013 $490,939 $22,672 $726,624

Freshwater Net $0.24 $143,878 $206,466 $0 $350,344

Tribal Subtotal NA $356,891 $697,405 $22,672 $1,076,968

Total NA $609,975 $1,281,357 $22,672 $1,914,004

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.77 $1,668 $41 $704 $2,413

Freshwater Net $0.67 $1,164 $3,055 $2,887 $7,106

Tribal Subtotal NA $2,832 $3,096 $3,591 $9,519

Total NA $2,832 $3,096 $3,591 $9,519

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net NA 2,637,498 627,257 5,132 3,269,887

 Tribal

Marine Net NA 2,851,022 882,030 272,661 4,005,713

Marine Troll NA 0 0 13,349 13,349

Freshwater Net NA 258,545 848,323 6,902 1,113,769

Tribal Subtotal NA 3,109,566 1,730,353 292,912 5,132,831

Total NA 5,747,064 2,357,610 298,044 8,402,718

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-11. Estimated ex-vessel value of commercial landings (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with 

implementation of the alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 18 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-11. Estimated ex-vessel value of commercial landings (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives.

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Cha

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $22 -$231,941 -100.0% $0 -$22,380 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $22 

 Tribal

Marine Net $81,587 -$202,122 -71.2% $0 -$145,746 -100.0% $0 -$14,533 -100.0% $81,587 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$10,873 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $6,031 -$16,564 -73.3% $333,393 $58,986 21.5% $0 -$21 -100.0% $339,424 

Tribal Subtotal $87,618 -$218,686 -71.4% $333,393 -$86,760 -20.6% $0 -$25,427 -100.0% $421,012 

Total $87,640 -$450,627 -83.7% $333,393 -$109,140 -24.7% $0 -$25,427 -100.0% $421,033 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $1,412 -$41,726 -96.7% $0 -$18,026 -100.0% $6,270 $1,138 22.2% $7,682 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$199,939 -100.0% $0 -$226,537 -100.0% $0 -$57,588 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$2,476 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $73,241 $10,966 17.6% $171,006 $7,368 4.5% $3,812 -$181 -4.5% $248,059 

Tribal Subtotal $73,241 -$188,974 -72.1% $171,006 -$219,170 -56.2% $3,812 -$60,246 -94.0% $248,059 

Total $74,653 -$230,700 -75.6% $171,006 -$237,195 -58.1% $10,082 -$59,108 -85.4% $255,741 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,645,275 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,705,423 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$1,052 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$1,706,475 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$3,351,750 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% $0 

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$464,039 -100.0% $0 -$2,899 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$447,269 -100.0% $0 -$18,767 -100.0% $0 -$897 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $49,540 $21,959 79.6% $15,508 $15,407 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $65,048 

Tribal Subtotal $49,540 -$425,310 -89.6% $15,508 -$3,360 -17.8% $0 -$897 -100.0% $65,048 

Total $49,540 -$889,349 -94.7% $15,508 -$6,259 -28.8% $0 -$897 -100.0% $65,048 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$253,084 -100.0% $0 -$583,952 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$213,013 -100.0% $0 -$490,939 -100.0% $0 -$22,672 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $4,817 -$139,061 -96.7% $391,545 $185,078 89.6% $5 $5 0.0% $396,366 

Tribal Subtotal $4,817 -$352,075 -98.7% $391,545 -$305,860 -43.9% $5 -$22,667 -100.0% $396,366 

Total $4,817 -$605,158 -99.2% $391,545 -$889,812 -69.4% $5 -$22,667 -100.0% $396,366 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,668 -100.0% $0 -$41 -100.0% $0 -$704 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $1,057 -$107 -9.2% $3,041 -$14 -0.5% $2,840 -$47 -1.6% $6,938 

Tribal Subtotal $1,057 -$1,775 -62.7% $3,041 -$55 -1.8% $2,840 -$750 -20.9% $6,938 

Total $1,057 -$1,775 -62.7% $3,041 -$55 -1.8% $2,840 -$750 -20.9% $6,938 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 1,434 -2,636,064 -99.9% 0 -627,257 -100.0% 6,270 1,138 22.2% 7,704 

 Tribal

Marine Net 81,587 -2,769,434 -97.1% 0 -882,030 -100.0% 0 -272,661 -100.0% 81,587 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -13,349 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 134,685 -123,860 -47.9% 914,493 66,170 7.8% 6,658 -244 -3.5% 1,055,836 

Tribal Subtotal 216,272 -2,893,294 -93.0% 914,493 -815,860 -47.1% 6,658 -286,254 -97.7% 1,137,423 

Total 217,706 -5,529,358 -96.2% 914,493 -1,443,117 -61.2% 12,928 -285,117 -95.7% 1,145,127 

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 19 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-11. Estimated ex-vessel value of commercial landings (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives.

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Cha

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $22 -$231,941 -100.0% $0 -$22,380 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $22 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$283,709 -100.0% $0 -$145,746 -100.0% $0 -$14,533 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$10,873 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$22,595 -100.0% $333,393 $58,986 21.5% $0 -$21 -100.0% $333,393 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$306,304 -100.0% $333,393 -$86,760 -20.6% $0 -$25,427 -100.0% $333,393 

Total $22 -$538,245 -100.0% $333,393 -$109,140 -24.7% $0 -$25,427 -100.0% $333,415 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $1,412 -$41,726 -96.7% $0 -$18,026 -100.0% $6,270 $1,138 22.2% $7,682 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$199,939 -100.0% $0 -$226,537 -100.0% $0 -$57,588 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$2,476 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $316 -$61,959 -99.5% $171,006 $7,368 4.5% $3,812 -$181 -4.5% $175,135 

Tribal Subtotal $316 -$261,898 -99.9% $171,006 -$219,170 -56.2% $3,812 -$60,246 -94.0% $175,135 

Total $1,728 -$303,624 -99.4% $171,006 -$237,195 -58.1% $10,082 -$59,108 -85.4% $182,817 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,645,275 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,705,423 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$1,052 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$1,706,475 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$3,351,750 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% $0 

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$464,039 -100.0% $0 -$2,899 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$447,269 -100.0% $0 -$18,767 -100.0% $0 -$897 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$27,581 -100.0% $15,508 $15,407 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $15,508 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$474,850 -100.0% $15,508 -$3,360 -17.8% $0 -$897 -100.0% $15,508 

Total $0 -$938,889 -100.0% $15,508 -$6,259 -28.8% $0 -$897 -100.0% $15,508 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$253,084 -100.0% $0 -$583,952 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$213,013 -100.0% $0 -$490,939 -100.0% $0 -$22,672 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $2,816 -$141,062 -98.0% $391,545 $185,078 89.6% $5 $5 0.0% $394,366 

Tribal Subtotal $2,816 -$354,075 -99.2% $391,545 -$305,860 -43.9% $5 -$22,667 -100.0% $394,366 

Total $2,816 -$607,159 -99.5% $391,545 -$889,812 -69.4% $5 -$22,667 -100.0% $394,366 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,668 -100.0% $0 -$41 -100.0% $0 -$704 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $1,057 -$107 -9.2% $3,041 -$14 -0.5% $2,840 -$47 -1.6% $6,938 

Tribal Subtotal $1,057 -$1,775 -62.7% $3,041 -$55 -1.8% $2,840 -$750 -20.9% $6,938 

Total $1,057 -$1,775 -62.7% $3,041 -$55 -1.8% $2,840 -$750 -20.9% $6,938 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 1,434 -2,636,064 -99.9% 0 -627,257 -100.0% 6,270 1,138 22.2% 7,704 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,851,022 -100.0% 0 -882,030 -100.0% 0 -272,661 -100.0% 0 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -13,349 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 4,189 -254,356 -98.4% 914,493 66,170 7.8% 6,658 -244 -3.5% 925,340 

Tribal Subtotal 4,189 -3,105,377 -99.9% 914,493 -815,860 -47.1% 6,658 -286,254 -97.7% 925,340 

Total 5,623 -5,741,441 -99.9% 914,493 -1,443,117 -61.2% 12,928 -285,117 -95.7% 933,044 

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 20 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-11. Estimated ex-vessel value of commercial landings (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives.

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with Maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number 

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$231,962 -100.0% $0 -$22,380 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$283,709 -100.0% $0 -$145,746 -100.0% $0 -$14,533 -100.0% 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$10,873 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $0 -$22,595 -100.0% $0 -$274,408 -100.0% $0 -$21 -100.0% 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$306,304 -100.0% $0 -$420,154 -100.0% $0 -$25,427 -100.0% 

Total $0 -$538,266 -100.0% $0 -$442,534 -100.0% $0 -$25,427 -100.0% 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$43,138 -100.0% $0 -$18,026 -100.0% $0 -$5,132 -100.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$199,939 -100.0% $0 -$226,537 -100.0% $0 -$57,588 -100.0% 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$2,476 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $0 -$62,275 -100.0% $0 -$163,639 -100.0% $0 -$3,993 -100.0% 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$262,214 -100.0% $0 -$390,176 -100.0% $0 -$64,058 -100.0% 

Total $0 -$305,352 -100.0% $0 -$408,202 -100.0% $0 -$69,190 -100.0% 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,645,275 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,705,423 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $0 -$1,052 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$1,706,475 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% 

Total $0 -$3,351,750 -100.0% $0 -$200,655 -100.0% $0 -$176,268 -100.0% 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$464,039 -100.0% $0 -$2,899 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$447,269 -100.0% $0 -$18,767 -100.0% $0 -$897 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $0 -$27,581 -100.0% $0 -$101 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$474,850 -100.0% $0 -$18,868 -100.0% $0 -$897 -100.0% 

Total $0 -$938,889 -100.0% $0 -$21,767 -100.0% $0 -$897 -100.0% 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$253,084 -100.0% $0 -$583,952 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$213,013 -100.0% $0 -$490,939 -100.0% $0 -$22,672 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $2,816 -$141,062 -98.0% $97,878 -$108,588 -52.6% $5 $5 0.0% $10

Tribal Subtotal $2,816 -$354,075 -99.2% $97,878 -$599,527 -86.0% $5 -$22,667 -100.0% $10

Total $2,816 -$607,159 -99.5% $97,878 -$1,183,479 -92.4% $5 -$22,667 -100.0% $10

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,668 -100.0% $0 -$41 -100.0% $0 -$704 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $1,057 -$107 -9.2% $2,384 -$671 -22.0% $2,836 -$51 -1.8% $

Tribal Subtotal $1,057 -$1,775 -62.7% $2,384 -$712 -23.0% $2,836 -$755 -21.0% $

Total $1,057 -$1,775 -62.7% $2,384 -$712 -23.0% $2,836 -$755 -21.0% $

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,637,498 -100.0% 0 -627,257 -100.0% 0 -5,132 -100.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -2,851,022 -100.0% 0 -882,030 -100.0% 0 -272,661 -100.0% 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -13,349 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net 3,873 -254,672 -98.5% 100,262 -748,061 -88.2% 2,841 -4,061 -58.8% 10

Tribal Subtotal 3,873 -3,105,693 -99.9% 100,262 -1,630,091 -94.2% 2,841 -290,071 -99.0% 10

Total 3,873 -5,743,191 -99.9% 100,262 -2,257,348 -95.7% 2,841 -295,203 -99.0% 10

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 21 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $1.02 $1.34 $1.20 $292,100 $37,024 $0 $329,124

 Tribal

Marine Net $1.02 $1.34 $1.20 $357,263 $241,111 $21,530 $619,904

Marine Troll $1.34 $1.66 $1.52 $0 $0 $20,403 $20,403

Freshwater Net $1.02 $1.34 $1.20 $36,583 $583,661 $41 $620,284

Tribal Subtotal NA NA NA $393,846 $824,771 $41,973 $1,260,591

Total NA NA NA $685,946 $861,795 $41,973 $1,589,715

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.94 $1.16 $1.00 $86,276 $44,489 $10,920 $141,685

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.94 $1.16 $1.00 $399,879 $559,113 $122,528 $1,081,520

Marine Troll $0.61 $0.61 $1.00 $0 $0 $5,269 $5,269

Freshwater Net $0.94 $1.16 $1.00 $142,777 $462,978 $9,740 $615,494

Tribal Subtotal NA NA NA $542,655 $1,022,091 $137,537 $1,702,283

Total NA NA NA $628,932 $1,066,580 $148,457 $1,843,968

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $1.50 $1.50 $1.46 $2,056,594 $0 $0 $2,056,594

 Tribal

Marine Net $1.50 $1.50 $1.46 $2,131,779 $0 $214,459 $2,346,238

Freshwater Net $1.50 $1.50 $1.46 $1,924 $367,052 $0 $368,975

Tribal Subtotal NA NA NA $2,133,703 $367,052 $214,459 $2,715,213

Total NA NA NA $4,190,297 $367,052 $214,459 $4,771,807

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.71 $1.46 $1.31 $1,938,045 $24,898 $0 $1,962,943

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.71 $1.46 $1.31 $1,868,006 $161,173 $6,912 $2,036,090

Freshwater Net $0.71 $1.46 $1.31 $130,549 $983 $0 $131,532

Tribal Subtotal NA NA NA $1,998,555 $162,156 $6,912 $2,167,622

Total NA NA NA $3,936,600 $187,054 $6,912 $4,130,565

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.79 $0.76 $1.00 $833,067 $1,849,182 $0 $2,682,249

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.79 $0.76 $1.00 $701,169 $1,554,639 $94,468 $2,350,276

Freshwater Net $0.79 $0.76 $1.00 $473,597 $653,809 $0 $1,127,407

Tribal Subtotal NA NA NA $1,174,766 $2,208,448 $94,468 $3,477,683

Total NA NA NA $2,007,833 $4,057,630 $94,468 $6,159,931

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0.71 $1.46 $1.31 $0 $0 $0 $0

 Tribal

Marine Net $0.71 $1.46 $1.31 $1,538 $78 $1,197 $2,813

Freshwater Net $0.71 $1.46 $1.31 $1,234 $6,656 $5,645 $13,535

Tribal Subtotal NA NA NA $2,771 $6,735 $6,842 $16,348

Total NA NA NA $2,771 $6,735 $6,842 $16,348

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net NA NA NA 5,206,082 1,955,593 10,920 7,172,595

 Tribal

Marine Net NA NA NA 5,459,633 2,516,114 461,094 8,436,841

Marine Troll NA NA NA 0 0 25,672 25,672

Freshwater Net NA NA NA 786,664 2,075,139 15,425 2,877,228

Tribal Subtotal NA NA NA 6,246,297 4,591,253 502,191 11,339,741

Total NA NA NA 11,452,379 6,546,846 513,111 18,512,335

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Ex-Processor Price Per Round Pound Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-12. Estimated ex-processor value of commercial landings (in 2002 Dollars) in the economic regions with 

 implementation of the alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 22 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-12. Estimated ex-processor value of commercial landings (in 2002 Dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alterantives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Cha

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number B

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net $27 -$292,073 -100.0% $0 -$37,024 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $27 

 Tribal

Marine Net $102,739 -$254,524 -71.2% $0 -$241,111 -100.0% $0 -$21,530 -100.0% $102,739 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$20,403 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $9,765 -$26,818 -73.3% $709,122 $125,462 21.5% $0 -$41 -100.0% $718,887 

Tribal Subtotal $112,504 -$281,342 -71.4% $709,122 -$115,649 -14.0% $0 -$41,973 -100.0% $821,626 

Total $112,531 -$573,415 -83.6% $709,122 -$152,673 -17.7% $0 -$41,973 -100.0% $821,654 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $2,825 -$83,451 -96.7% $0 -$44,489 -100.0% $13,340 $2,420 22.2% $16,165 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$399,879 -100.0% $0 -$559,113 -100.0% $0 -$122,528 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$5,269 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $167,917 $25,140 17.6% $483,823 $20,846 4.5% $9,298 -$442 -4.5% $661,038 

Tribal Subtotal $167,917 -$374,738 -69.1% $483,823 -$538,268 -52.7% $9,298 -$128,239 -93.2% $661,038 

Total $170,742 -$458,190 -72.9% $483,823 -$582,757 -54.6% $22,638 -$125,819 -84.8% $677,203 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,056,594 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,131,779 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$1,924 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$2,133,703 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$4,190,297 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% $0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,938,045 -100.0% $0 -$24,898 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,868,006 -100.0% $0 -$161,173 -100.0% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $234,487 $103,938 79.6% $150,946 $149,963 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $385,433 

Tribal Subtotal $234,487 -$1,764,067 -88.3% $150,946 -$11,210 -6.9% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% $385,433 

Total $234,487 -$3,702,112 -94.0% $150,946 -$36,108 -19.3% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% $385,433 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$833,067 -100.0% $0 -$1,849,182 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$701,169 -100.0% $0 -$1,554,639 -100.0% $0 -$94,468 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $15,854 -$457,743 -96.7% $1,239,891 $586,082 89.6% $22 $22 0.0% $1,255,768 

Tribal Subtotal $15,854 -$1,158,912 -98.7% $1,239,891 -$968,557 -43.9% $22 -$94,446 -100.0% $1,255,768 

Total $15,854 -$1,991,979 -99.2% $1,239,891 -$2,817,739 -69.4% $22 -$94,446 -100.0% $1,255,768 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,538 -100.0% $0 -$78 -100.0% $0 -$1,197 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $1,120 -$113 -9.2% $6,626 -$30 -0.5% $5,554 -$91 -1.6% $13,300 

Tribal Subtotal $1,120 -$1,651 -59.6% $6,626 -$109 -1.6% $5,554 -$1,288 -18.8% $13,300 

Total $1,120 -$1,651 -59.6% $6,626 -$109 -1.6% $5,554 -$1,288 -18.8% $13,300 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 2,852 -5,203,230 -99.9% 0 -1,955,593 -100.0% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 16,192 

 Tribal

Marine Net 102,739 -5,356,894 -98.1% 0 -2,516,114 -100.0% 0 -461,094 -100.0% 102,739 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -25,672 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 429,144 -357,520 -45.4% 2,590,409 515,270 24.8% 14,874 -552 -3.6% 3,034,426 

Tribal Subtotal 531,883 -5,714,414 -91.5% 2,590,409 -2,000,844 -43.6% 14,874 -487,317 -97.0% 3,137,166 

Total 534,735 -10,917,644 -95.3% 2,590,409 -3,956,437 -60.4% 28,214 -484,897 -94.5% 3,153,358 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 23 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-12. Estimated ex-processor value of commercial landings (in 2002 Dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alterantives.

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Chang

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $27 -$292,073 -100.0% $0 -$37,024 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $27 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$357,263 -100.0% $0 -$241,111 -100.0% $0 -$21,530 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$20,403 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$36,583 -100.0% $709,122 $125,462 21.5% $0 -$41 -100.0% $709,122 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$393,846 -100.0% $709,122 -$115,649 -14.0% $0 -$41,973 -100.0% $709,122 

Total $27 -$685,919 -100.0% $709,122 -$152,673 -17.7% $0 -$41,973 -100.0% $709,150 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $2,825 -$83,451 -96.7% $0 -$44,489 -100.0% $13,340 $2,420 22.2% $16,165 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$399,879 -100.0% $0 -$559,113 -100.0% $0 -$122,528 -100.0% $0 -

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$5,269 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $725 -$142,052 -99.5% $483,823 $20,846 4.5% $9,298 -$442 -4.5% $493,845 

Tribal Subtotal $725 -$541,931 -99.9% $483,823 -$538,268 -52.7% $9,298 -$128,239 -93.2% $493,845 -

Total $3,549 -$625,382 -99.4% $483,823 -$582,757 -54.6% $22,638 -$125,819 -84.8% $510,010 -

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,056,594 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,131,779 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% $0 -

Freshwater Net $0 -$1,924 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$2,133,703 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% $0 -

Total $0 -$4,190,297 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% $0 -

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,938,045 -100.0% $0 -$24,898 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,868,006 -100.0% $0 -$161,173 -100.0% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% $0 -

Freshwater Net $0 -$130,549 -100.0% $150,946 $149,963 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $150,946 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$1,998,555 -100.0% $150,946 -$11,210 -6.9% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% $150,946 -

Total $0 -$3,936,600 -100.0% $150,946 -$36,108 -19.3% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% $150,946 -

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$833,067 -100.0% $0 -$1,849,182 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$701,169 -100.0% $0 -$1,554,639 -100.0% $0 -$94,468 -100.0% $0 -

Freshwater Net $9,269 -$464,328 -98.0% $1,239,891 $586,082 89.6% $22 $22 0.0% $1,249,182 

Tribal Subtotal $9,269 -$1,165,498 -99.2% $1,239,891 -$968,557 -43.9% $22 -$94,446 -100.0% $1,249,182 -

Total $9,269 -$1,998,564 -99.5% $1,239,891 -$2,817,739 -69.4% $22 -$94,446 -100.0% $1,249,182 -

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,538 -100.0% $0 -$78 -100.0% $0 -$1,197 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $1,120 -$113 -9.2% $6,626 -$30 -0.5% $5,554 -$91 -1.6% $13,300 

Tribal Subtotal $1,120 -$1,651 -59.6% $6,626 -$109 -1.6% $5,554 -$1,288 -18.8% $13,300 

Total $1,120 -$1,651 -59.6% $6,626 -$109 -1.6% $5,554 -$1,288 -18.8% $13,300 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 2,852 -5,203,230 -99.9% 0 -1,955,593 -100.0% 13,340 2,420 22.2% 16,192 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -5,459,633 -100.0% 0 -2,516,114 -100.0% 0 -461,094 -100.0% 0 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -25,672 -100.0% 0 

Freshwater Net 11,113 -775,550 -98.6% 2,590,409 515,270 24.8% 14,874 -552 -3.6% 2,616,396 

Tribal Subtotal 11,113 -6,235,184 -99.8% 2,590,409 -2,000,844 -43.6% 14,874 -487,317 -97.0% 2,616,396 

Total 13,965 -11,438,414 -99.9% 2,590,409 -3,956,437 -60.4% 28,214 -484,897 -94.5% 2,632,588 -

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 24 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-12. Estimated ex-processor value of commercial landings (in 2002 Dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alterantives.

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number 

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$292,100 -100.0% $0 -$37,024 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$357,263 -100.0% $0 -$241,111 -100.0% $0 -$21,530 -100.0% 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$20,403 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $0 -$36,583 -100.0% $0 -$583,661 -100.0% $0 -$41 -100.0% 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$393,846 -100.0% $0 -$824,771 -100.0% $0 -$41,973 -100.0% 

Total $0 -$685,946 -100.0% $0 -$861,795 -100.0% $0 -$41,973 -100.0% 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$86,276 -100.0% $0 -$44,489 -100.0% $0 -$10,920 -100.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$399,879 -100.0% $0 -$559,113 -100.0% $0 -$122,528 -100.0% 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$5,269 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $0 -$142,777 -100.0% $0 -$462,978 -100.0% $0 -$9,740 -100.0% 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$542,655 -100.0% $0 -$1,022,091 -100.0% $0 -$137,537 -100.0% 

Total $0 -$628,932 -100.0% $0 -$1,066,580 -100.0% $0 -$148,457 -100.0% 

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,056,594 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,131,779 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $0 -$1,924 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$2,133,703 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% 

Total $0 -$4,190,297 -100.0% $0 -$367,052 -100.0% $0 -$214,459 -100.0% 

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,938,045 -100.0% $0 -$24,898 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,868,006 -100.0% $0 -$161,173 -100.0% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $0 -$130,549 -100.0% $0 -$983 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$1,998,555 -100.0% $0 -$162,156 -100.0% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% 

Total $0 -$3,936,600 -100.0% $0 -$187,054 -100.0% $0 -$6,912 -100.0% 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$833,067 -100.0% $0 -$1,849,182 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$701,169 -100.0% $0 -$1,554,639 -100.0% $0 -$94,468 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $9,269 -$464,328 -98.0% $309,947 -$343,862 -52.6% $22 $22 0.0% $319,

Tribal Subtotal $9,269 -$1,165,498 -99.2% $309,947 -$1,898,501 -86.0% $22 -$94,446 -100.0% $319,

Total $9,269 -$1,998,564 -99.5% $309,947 -$3,747,683 -92.4% $22 -$94,446 -100.0% $319,

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,538 -100.0% $0 -$78 -100.0% $0 -$1,197 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net $1,120 -$113 -9.2% $5,195 -$1,461 -22.0% $5,545 -$100 -1.8% $11,

Tribal Subtotal $1,120 -$1,651 -59.6% $5,195 -$1,540 -22.9% $5,545 -$1,297 -19.0% $11,

Total $1,120 -$1,651 -59.6% $5,195 -$1,540 -22.9% $5,545 -$1,297 -19.0% $11,

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0 -5,206,082 -100.0% 0 -1,955,593 -100.0% 0 -10,920 -100.0% 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0 -5,459,633 -100.0% 0 -2,516,114 -100.0% 0 -461,094 -100.0% 

Marine Troll 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 -25,672 -100.0% 

Freshwater Net 10,389 -776,275 -98.7% 315,142 -1,759,996 -84.8% 5,567 -9,858 -63.9% 331,

Tribal Subtotal 10,389 -6,235,908 -99.8% 315,142 -4,276,111 -93.1% 5,567 -496,624 -98.9% 331,

Total 10,389 -11,441,990 -99.9% 315,142 -6,231,703 -95.2% 5,567 -507,544 -98.9% 331,

North Puget Sound

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 25 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 84.7 8.2 0.0 92.8

 Tribal

Marine Net 143.8 73.9 7.4 225.1

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 5.5 5.5

Freshwater Net 11.5 139.1 0.0 150.6

Tribal Subtotal 155.3 213.0 12.9 381.2

Total 240.0 221.2 12.9 474.0

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 15.7 6.6 1.9 24.2

 Tribal

Marine Net 101.4 114.9 29.2 245.4

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3

Freshwater Net 31.6 83.0 2.0 116.6

Tribal Subtotal 132.9 197.8 32.5 363.2

Total 148.7 204.4 34.4 387.4

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 600.5 0.0 0.0 600.5

 Tribal

Marine Net 864.6 0.0 89.4 954.0

Freshwater Net 0.5 101.7 0.0 102.3

Tribal Subtotal 865.2 101.7 89.4 1,056.3

Total 1,465.7 101.7 89.4 1,656.8

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 169.4 1.1 0.0 170.4

 Tribal

Marine Net 226.8 9.5 0.5 236.7

Freshwater Net 14.0 0.1 0.0 14.0

Tribal Subtotal 240.7 9.6 0.5 250.8

Total 410.1 10.6 0.5 421.2

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 92.4 213.1 0.0 305.5

 Tribal

Marine Net 108.0 248.9 11.5 368.4

Freshwater Net 72.9 104.7 0.0 177.6

Tribal Subtotal 180.9 353.6 11.5 546.0

Total 273.3 566.7 11.5 851.5

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.8 0.0 0.4 1.2

Freshwater Net 0.6 1.5 1.5 3.6

Tribal Subtotal 1.4 1.6 1.8 4.8

Total 1.4 1.6 1.8 4.8

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 962.7 228.9 1.9 1,193.5

 Tribal

Marine Net 1,445.5 447.2 138.2 2,030.9

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 6.8 6.8

Freshwater Net 131.1 430.1 3.5 564.7

Tribal Subtotal 1,576.6 877.3 148.5 2,602.3

Total 2,539.2 1,106.2 150.4 3,795.9

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-13. Direct changes in harvesting sector jobs (in full- and part-time jobs) caused 

 by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 26 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-13. Direct changes in harvesting sector jobs (in full- and part-time jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Chang

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -84.7 -100.0% 0.0 -8.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 41.4 -102.5 -71.2% 0.0 -73.9 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 41.4 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -5.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 3.1 -8.4 -73.3% 169.0 29.9 21.5% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 172.1 

Tribal Subtotal 44.4 -110.9 -71.4% 169.0 -44.0 -20.6% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 213.5 

Total 44.4 -195.5 -81.5% 169.0 -52.2 -23.6% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 213.5 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.5 -15.2 -96.7% 0.0 -6.6 -100.0% 2.3 0.4 22.2% 2.8 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -101.4 -100.0% 0.0 -114.9 -100.0% 0.0 -29.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 37.1 5.6 17.6% 86.7 3.7 4.5% 1.9 -0.1 -4.5% 125.8 

Tribal Subtotal 37.1 -95.8 -72.1% 86.7 -111.1 -56.2% 1.9 -30.5 -94.0% 125.8 

Total 37.6 -111.0 -74.7% 86.7 -117.7 -57.6% 4.2 -30.1 -87.7% 128.6 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -600.5 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -864.6 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -865.2 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -1,465.7 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -169.4 -100.0% 0.0 -1.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -226.8 -100.0% 0.0 -9.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 25.1 11.1 79.6% 7.9 7.8 15257.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 33.0 

Tribal Subtotal 25.1 -215.6 -89.6% 7.9 -1.7 -17.8% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 33.0 

Total 25.1 -385.0 -93.9% 7.9 -2.8 -26.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 33.0 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -92.4 -100.0% 0.0 -213.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -108.0 -100.0% 0.0 -248.9 -100.0% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 2.4 -70.5 -96.7% 198.5 93.8 89.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 201.0 

Tribal Subtotal 2.4 -178.5 -98.7% 198.5 -155.1 -43.9% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 201.0 

Total 2.4 -270.9 -99.1% 198.5 -368.2 -65.0% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 201.0 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.5 -0.1 -9.2% 1.5 0.0 -0.5% 1.4 0.0 -1.6% 3.5 

Tribal Subtotal 0.5 -0.9 -62.7% 1.5 0.0 -1.8% 1.4 -0.4 -20.9% 3.5 

Total 0.5 -0.9 -62.7% 1.5 0.0 -1.8% 1.4 -0.4 -20.9% 3.5 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.5 -962.2 -99.9% 0.0 -228.9 -100.0% 2.3 0.4 22.2% 2.8 

 Tribal

Marine Net 41.4 -1,404.1 -97.1% 0.0 -447.2 -100.0% 0.0 -138.2 -100.0% 41.4 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -6.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 68.3 -62.8 -47.9% 463.6 33.5 7.8% 3.4 -0.1 -3.5% 535.3 

Tribal Subtotal 109.6 -1,466.9 -93.0% 463.6 -413.6 -47.1% 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 576.7 

Total 110.2 -2,429.1 -95.7% 463.6 -642.6 -58.1% 5.7 -144.7 -96.2% 579.5 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 27 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-13. Direct changes in harvesting sector jobs (in full- and part-time jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Chang

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -84.7 -100.0% 0.0 -8.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -143.8 -100.0% 0.0 -73.9 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -5.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 169.0 29.9 21.5% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 169.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -155.3 -100.0% 169.0 -44.0 -20.6% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 169.0 

Total 0.0 -240.0 -100.0% 169.0 -52.2 -23.6% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 169.0 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.5 -15.2 -96.7% 0.0 -6.6 -100.0% 2.3 0.4 22.2% 2.8 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -101.4 -100.0% 0.0 -114.9 -100.0% 0.0 -29.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.2 -31.4 -99.5% 86.7 3.7 4.5% 1.9 -0.1 -4.5% 88.8 

Tribal Subtotal 0.2 -132.8 -99.9% 86.7 -111.1 -56.2% 1.9 -30.5 -94.0% 88.8 

Total 0.7 -148.0 -99.5% 86.7 -117.7 -57.6% 4.2 -30.1 -87.7% 91.6 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -600.5 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -864.6 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -865.2 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -1,465.7 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -169.4 -100.0% 0.0 -1.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -226.8 -100.0% 0.0 -9.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -14.0 -100.0% 7.9 7.8 15257.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 7.9 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -240.7 -100.0% 7.9 -1.7 -17.8% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 7.9 

Total 0.0 -410.1 -100.0% 7.9 -2.8 -26.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 7.9 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -92.4 -100.0% 0.0 -213.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -108.0 -100.0% 0.0 -248.9 -100.0% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 1.4 -71.5 -98.0% 198.5 93.8 89.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 199.9 

Tribal Subtotal 1.4 -179.5 -99.2% 198.5 -155.1 -43.9% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 199.9 

Total 1.4 -271.9 -99.5% 198.5 -368.2 -65.0% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 199.9 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.5 -0.1 -9.2% 1.5 0.0 -0.5% 1.4 0.0 -1.6% 3.5 

Tribal Subtotal 0.5 -0.9 -62.7% 1.5 0.0 -1.8% 1.4 -0.4 -20.9% 3.5 

Total 0.5 -0.9 -62.7% 1.5 0.0 -1.8% 1.4 -0.4 -20.9% 3.5 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.5 -962.2 -99.9% 0.0 -228.9 -100.0% 2.3 0.4 22.2% 2.8 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -1,445.5 -100.0% 0.0 -447.2 -100.0% 0.0 -138.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -6.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 2.1 -129.0 -98.4% 463.6 33.5 7.8% 3.4 -0.1 -3.5% 469.1 

Tribal Subtotal 2.1 -1,574.4 -99.9% 463.6 -413.6 -47.1% 3.4 -145.1 -97.7% 469.1 

Total 2.6 -2,536.6 -99.9% 463.6 -642.6 -58.1% 5.7 -144.7 -96.2% 472.0 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 28 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-13. Direct changes in harvesting sector jobs (in full- and part-time jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Chang

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -84.7 -100.0% 0.0 -8.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -143.8 -100.0% 0.0 -73.9 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -5.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 0.0 -139.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -155.3 -100.0% 0.0 -213.0 -100.0% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -240.0 -100.0% 0.0 -221.2 -100.0% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 0.0 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -15.7 -100.0% 0.0 -6.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1.9 -100.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -101.4 -100.0% 0.0 -114.9 -100.0% 0.0 -29.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -31.6 -100.0% 0.0 -83.0 -100.0% 0.0 -2.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -132.9 -100.0% 0.0 -197.8 -100.0% 0.0 -32.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -148.7 -100.0% 0.0 -204.4 -100.0% 0.0 -34.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -600.5 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -864.6 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -865.2 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -1,465.7 -100.0% 0.0 -101.7 -100.0% 0.0 -89.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -169.4 -100.0% 0.0 -1.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -226.8 -100.0% 0.0 -9.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -14.0 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -240.7 -100.0% 0.0 -9.6 -100.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -410.1 -100.0% 0.0 -10.6 -100.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -92.4 -100.0% 0.0 -213.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -108.0 -100.0% 0.0 -248.9 -100.0% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 1.4 -71.5 -98.0% 49.6 -55.1 -52.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 51.1 

Tribal Subtotal 1.4 -179.5 -99.2% 49.6 -304.0 -86.0% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 51.1 

Total 1.4 -271.9 -99.5% 49.6 -517.1 -91.2% 0.0 -11.5 -100.0% 51.1 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.5 -0.1 -9.2% 1.2 -0.3 -22.0% 1.4 0.0 -1.8% 3.2 

Tribal Subtotal 0.5 -0.9 -62.7% 1.2 -0.4 -23.0% 1.4 -0.4 -21.0% 3.2 

Total 0.5 -0.9 -62.7% 1.2 -0.4 -23.0% 1.4 -0.4 -21.0% 3.2 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -962.7 -100.0% 0.0 -228.9 -100.0% 0.0 -1.9 -100.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -1,445.5 -100.0% 0.0 -447.2 -100.0% 0.0 -138.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -6.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 2.0 -129.1 -98.5% 50.8 -379.3 -88.2% 1.4 -2.1 -58.8% 54.2 

Tribal Subtotal 2.0 -1,574.6 -99.9% 50.8 -826.5 -94.2% 1.4 -147.1 -99.0% 54.2 

Total 2.0 -2,537.3 -99.9% 50.8 -1,055.4 -95.4% 1.4 -148.9 -99.0% 54.2 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 29 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 4.8 0.4 0.0 5.0

 Tribal

Marine Net 5.8 2.8 0.3 8.7

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3

Freshwater Net 0.6 6.7 0.0 7.5

Tribal Subtotal 6.4 9.4 0.6 16.5

Total 11.2 9.9 0.6 21.5

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.8 0.3 0.1 1.1

 Tribal

Marine Net 3.5 3.6 1.0 7.9

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Freshwater Net 1.2 3.0 0.1 4.3

Tribal Subtotal 4.7 6.6 1.1 12.2

Total 5.5 6.9 1.2 13.3

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 28.7 0.0 0.0 27.1

 Tribal

Marine Net 29.8 0.0 3.0 31.0

Freshwater Net 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.9

Tribal Subtotal 29.8 4.7 3.0 35.9

Total 58.5 4.7 3.0 63.0

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 29.3 0.2 0.0 28.3

 Tribal

Marine Net 28.2 1.1 0.1 28.3

Freshwater Net 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.9

Tribal Subtotal 30.2 1.1 0.1 30.2

Total 59.5 1.3 0.1 58.6

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 3.1 6.5 0.0 9.0

 Tribal

Marine Net 2.6 5.5 0.2 7.8

Freshwater Net 1.7 2.3 0.0 3.8

Tribal Subtotal 4.3 7.8 0.2 11.6

Total 7.4 14.3 0.2 20.6

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Total 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 66.6 7.4 0.1 70.5

 Tribal

Marine Net 69.9 12.9 4.6 83.8

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3

Freshwater Net 5.6 16.7 0.1 22.4

Tribal Subtotal 75.5 29.6 5.0 106.6

Total 142.2 37.1 5.1 177.1

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-14. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) 

 caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 30 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-14. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries., continued

Change from Change from Change from C

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number 

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -4.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 1.9 -4.0 -67.7% 0.0 -2.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 1.8 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.2 -0.4 -70.0% 9.1 2.4 36.6% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 9.6 

Tribal Subtotal 2.1 -4.4 -67.9% 9.1 -0.3 -3.3% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 11.4 

Total 2.1 -9.2 -81.6% 9.1 -0.7 -7.5% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 11.4 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.7 -96.3% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.1 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -3.5 -100.0% 0.0 -3.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 1.6 0.4 31.9% 3.5 0.5 17.0% 0.1 0.0 7.8% 5.2 

Tribal Subtotal 1.6 -3.1 -65.3% 3.5 -3.1 -47.0% 0.1 -1.0 -92.4% 5.2 

Total 1.7 -3.8 -69.6% 3.5 -3.4 -49.2% 0.2 -1.0 -82.8% 5.3 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -28.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.8 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -29.8 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -58.5 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -28.2 -100.0% 0.0 -1.1 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 4.0 2.0 101.4% 1.1 1.1 17119.2% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 5.0 

Tribal Subtotal 4.0 -26.2 -86.8% 1.1 0.0 4.4% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 5.0 

Total 4.0 -55.5 -93.3% 1.1 -0.1 -9.5% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 5.0 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -3.1 -100.0% 0.0 -6.5 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 0.0 -5.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.1 -1.7 -96.3% 5.0 2.7 114.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 4.8 

Tribal Subtotal 0.1 -4.3 -98.5% 5.0 -2.8 -36.4% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 4.8 

Total 0.1 -7.3 -99.1% 5.0 -9.4 -65.4% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 4.8 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 1.8% 0.1 0.0 11.6% 0.1 0.0 11.0% 0.1 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 -54.7% 0.1 0.0 10.3% 0.1 0.0 -8.5% 0.1 

Total 0.0 0.0 -54.7% 0.1 0.0 10.3% 0.1 0.0 -8.5% 0.1 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -66.6 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.1 

 Tribal

Marine Net 1.9 -68.0 -97.3% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 0.0 -4.6 -100.0% 1.8 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 5.9 0.3 4.8% 18.8 2.1 12.4% 0.1 0.0 8.5% 24.7 

Tribal Subtotal 7.8 -67.8 -89.7% 18.8 -10.9 -36.7% 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 26.5 

Total 7.8 -134.4 -94.5% 18.8 -18.3 -49.3% 0.3 -4.9 -95.1% 26.7 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* Stat

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 31 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-14. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries., continued

Change from Change from Change from C

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number 

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -4.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -5.8 -100.0% 0.0 -2.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 9.1 2.4 36.6% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 9.5 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -6.4 -100.0% 9.1 -0.3 -3.3% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 9.5 

Total 0.0 -11.2 -100.0% 9.1 -0.7 -7.5% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 9.5 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.7 -96.3% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.1 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -3.5 -100.0% 0.0 -3.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -1.2 -99.4% 3.5 0.5 17.0% 0.1 0.0 7.8% 3.7 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -4.7 -99.9% 3.5 -3.1 -47.0% 0.1 -1.0 -92.4% 3.7 

Total 0.0 -5.4 -99.4% 3.5 -3.4 -49.2% 0.2 -1.0 -82.8% 3.8 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -28.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.8 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -29.8 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -58.5 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -28.2 -100.0% 0.0 -1.1 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -2.0 -100.0% 1.1 1.1 17119.2% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1.2 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -30.2 -100.0% 1.1 0.0 4.4% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 1.2 

Total 0.0 -59.5 -100.0% 1.1 -0.1 -9.5% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 1.2 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -3.1 -100.0% 0.0 -6.5 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 0.0 -5.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -1.7 -97.8% 5.0 2.7 114.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 4.7 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -4.3 -99.1% 5.0 -2.8 -36.4% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 4.7 

Total 0.0 -7.4 -99.5% 5.0 -9.4 -65.4% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 4.7 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 1.8% 0.1 0.0 11.6% 0.1 0.0 11.0% 0.1 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 -54.7% 0.1 0.0 10.3% 0.1 0.0 -8.5% 0.1 

Total 0.0 0.0 -54.7% 0.1 0.0 10.3% 0.1 0.0 -8.5% 0.1 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -66.6 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.1 0.0 37.9% 0.1 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -69.9 -100.0% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 0.0 -4.6 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.1 -5.5 -98.9% 18.8 2.1 12.4% 0.1 0.0 8.5% 19.2 

Tribal Subtotal 0.1 -75.5 -99.9% 18.8 -10.9 -36.7% 0.1 -4.9 -97.3% 19.2 

Total 0.1 -142.1 -99.9% 18.8 -18.3 -49.3% 0.3 -4.9 -95.1% 19.3 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* Stat

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 32 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-14. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in cTable D-23. Direct changes in harvesting sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial lanScenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries., continued Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum AK and Canadian PST fisheries, continued .

Change from Change from Change from Change from

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number Baseline 

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -4.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -5.8 -100.0% 0.0 -2.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 0.0 -6.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -6.4 -100.0% 0.0 -9.4 -100.0% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1

Total 0.0 -11.2 -100.0% 0.0 -9.9 -100.0% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 0.0 -2

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -3.5 -100.0% 0.0 -3.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1.0 -100.0% 0.0 -

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -1.2 -100.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 -6.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1.1 -100.0% 0.0 -1

Total 0.0 -5.5 -100.0% 0.0 -6.9 -100.0% 0.0 -1.2 -100.0% 0.0 -1

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -28.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -2

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.8 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 -3

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -29.8 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 -3

Total 0.0 -58.5 -100.0% 0.0 -4.7 -100.0% 0.0 -3.0 -100.0% 0.0 -6

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -2

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -28.2 -100.0% 0.0 -1.1 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -2

Freshwater Net 0.0 -2.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -30.2 -100.0% 0.0 -1.1 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -3

Total 0.0 -59.5 -100.0% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -5

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -3.1 -100.0% 0.0 -6.5 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 0.0 -5.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 -

Freshwater Net 0.0 -1.7 -97.8% 1.2 -1.1 -46.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1.2 -

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -4.3 -99.1% 1.2 -6.6 -84.1% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 1.2 -1

Total 0.0 -7.4 -99.5% 1.2 -13.1 -91.3% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 1.2 -1

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 1.8% 0.0 0.0 -12.5% 0.1 0.0 10.8% 0.1 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 -54.7% 0.0 0.0 -13.5% 0.1 0.0 -8.6% 0.1 

Total 0.0 0.0 -54.7% 0.0 0.0 -13.5% 0.1 0.0 -8.6% 0.1 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -66.6 -100.0% 0.0 -7.4 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -7

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -69.9 -100.0% 0.0 -12.9 -100.0% 0.0 -4.6 -100.0% 0.0 -8

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 -

Freshwater Net 0.1 -5.5 -99.0% 1.3 -15.4 -92.3% 0.1 -0.1 -58.5% 1.3 -2

Tribal Subtotal 0.1 -75.5 -99.9% 1.3 -28.4 -95.7% 0.1 -5.0 -99.0% 1.3 -10

Total 0.1 -142.1 -100.0% 1.3 -35.8 -96.5% 0.1 -5.1 -99.0% 1.3 -17

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 33 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 4.3 0.4 0.0 4.4

 Tribal

Marine Net 5.2 2.3 0.3 7.7

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2

Freshwater Net 0.5 5.6 0.0 6.7

Tribal Subtotal 5.7 8.0 0.5 14.6

Total 10.0 8.3 0.5 19.0

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 1.4 0.5 0.2 2.0

 Tribal

Marine Net 6.4 6.3 1.8 14.7

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Freshwater Net 2.3 5.2 0.1 8.0

Tribal Subtotal 8.7 11.6 2.0 22.7

Total 10.1 12.1 2.2 24.7

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 20.4 0.0 0.0 19.4

 Tribal

Marine Net 21.1 0.0 2.2 22.1

Freshwater Net 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.5

Tribal Subtotal 21.2 3.2 2.2 25.6

Total 41.6 3.2 2.2 45.0

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 40.1 0.2 0.0 38.8

 Tribal

Marine Net 38.7 1.4 0.1 38.8

Freshwater Net 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.6

Tribal Subtotal 41.4 1.4 0.1 41.4

Total 81.5 1.6 0.1 80.2

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 15.5 31.2 0.0 48.2

 Tribal

Marine Net 13.0 26.3 1.4 41.8

Freshwater Net 8.8 11.0 0.0 20.2

Tribal Subtotal 21.9 37.3 1.4 62.0

Total 37.3 68.5 1.4 110.2

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Tribal Subtotal 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Total 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 81.6 32.3 0.2 112.8

 Tribal

Marine Net 84.5 36.3 5.7 125.2

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3

Freshwater Net 14.4 25.2 0.2 41.0

Tribal Subtotal 98.9 61.5 6.1 166.5

Total 180.5 93.9 6.3 279.3

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-15. Direct changes in processing sector employment (in full-time equivalent 

 jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 34 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-15. Direct changes in processing sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Chang

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -4.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 1.5 -3.7 -71.2% 0.0 -2.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 1.4 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.1 -0.4 -73.3% 6.9 1.2 21.5% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 7.6 

Tribal Subtotal 1.6 -4.1 -71.4% 6.9 -1.1 -14.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 9.0 

Total 1.6 -8.4 -83.6% 6.9 -1.5 -17.7% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 9.0 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -1.3 -96.7% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.2 0.0 22.2% 0.2 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -6.4 -100.0% 0.0 -6.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 2.7 0.4 17.6% 5.5 0.2 4.5% 0.1 0.0 -4.5% 8.6 

Tribal Subtotal 2.7 -6.0 -69.1% 5.5 -6.1 -52.7% 0.1 -1.9 -93.2% 8.6 

Total 2.7 -7.3 -72.9% 5.5 -6.6 -54.6% 0.3 -1.8 -84.7% 8.9 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -20.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -21.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -21.2 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -41.6 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -40.1 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -38.7 -100.0% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 4.9 2.2 79.6% 1.3 1.3 15257.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 6.1 

Tribal Subtotal 4.9 -36.5 -88.3% 1.3 -0.1 -6.9% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 6.1 

Total 4.9 -76.6 -94.0% 1.3 -0.3 -19.3% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 6.1 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -15.5 -100.0% 0.0 -31.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -13.0 -100.0% 0.0 -26.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.3 -8.5 -96.7% 20.9 9.9 89.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 22.8 

Tribal Subtotal 0.3 -21.6 -98.7% 20.9 -16.4 -43.9% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 22.8 

Total 0.3 -37.1 -99.2% 20.9 -47.6 -69.4% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 22.8 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -9.2% 0.1 0.0 -0.5% 0.1 0.0 -1.6% 0.1 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 -59.6% 0.1 0.0 -1.6% 0.1 0.0 -18.8% 0.1 

Total 0.0 0.0 -59.6% 0.1 0.0 -1.6% 0.1 0.0 -18.8% 0.1 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -81.6 -99.9% 0.0 -32.3 -100.0% 0.2 0.0 22.2% 0.2 

 Tribal

Marine Net 1.5 -83.0 -98.2% 0.0 -36.3 -100.0% 0.0 -5.7 -100.0% 1.4 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 8.0 -6.4 -44.3% 34.7 9.5 37.5% 0.2 0.0 -3.7% 45.3 

Tribal Subtotal 9.5 -89.4 -90.4% 34.7 -26.9 -43.7% 0.2 -5.9 -96.8% 46.7 

Total 9.5 -171.0 -94.7% 34.7 -59.2 -63.1% 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 47.0 

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 35 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-15. Direct changes in processing sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change 

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -4.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -5.2 -100.0% 0.0 -2.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 6.9 1.2 21.5% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 7.5 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -5.7 -100.0% 6.9 -1.1 -14.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 7.5 

Total 0.0 -10.0 -100.0% 6.9 -1.5 -17.7% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 7.5 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -1.3 -96.7% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.2 0.0 22.2% 0.2 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -6.4 -100.0% 0.0 -6.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -2.3 -99.5% 5.5 0.2 4.5% 0.1 0.0 -4.5% 6.1 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -8.7 -99.9% 5.5 -6.1 -52.7% 0.1 -1.9 -93.2% 6.1 

Total 0.1 -10.0 -99.4% 5.5 -6.6 -54.6% 0.3 -1.8 -84.7% 6.3 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -20.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -21.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -21.2 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -41.6 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -40.1 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -38.7 -100.0% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -2.7 -100.0% 1.3 1.3 15257.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1.5 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -41.4 -100.0% 1.3 -0.1 -6.9% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 1.5 

Total 0.0 -81.5 -100.0% 1.3 -0.3 -19.3% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 1.5 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -15.5 -100.0% 0.0 -31.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -13.0 -100.0% 0.0 -26.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.2 -8.6 -98.0% 20.9 9.9 89.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 22.7 

Tribal Subtotal 0.2 -21.7 -99.2% 20.9 -16.4 -43.9% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 22.7 

Total 0.2 -37.2 -99.5% 20.9 -47.6 -69.4% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 22.7 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -9.2% 0.1 0.0 -0.5% 0.1 0.0 -1.6% 0.1 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 -59.6% 0.1 0.0 -1.6% 0.1 0.0 -18.8% 0.1 

Total 0.0 0.0 -59.6% 0.1 0.0 -1.6% 0.1 0.0 -18.8% 0.1 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -81.6 -99.9% 0.0 -32.3 -100.0% 0.2 0.0 22.2% 0.2 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -84.5 -100.0% 0.0 -36.3 -100.0% 0.0 -5.7 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.2 -14.2 -98.6% 34.7 9.5 37.5% 0.2 0.0 -3.7% 37.9 

Tribal Subtotal 0.2 -98.7 -99.8% 34.7 -26.9 -43.7% 0.2 -5.9 -96.8% 37.9 

Total 0.3 -180.3 -99.9% 34.7 -59.2 -63.1% 0.4 -5.9 -93.7% 38.1 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 36 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-15. Direct changes in processing sector employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change 

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -4.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -5.2 -100.0% 0.0 -2.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 -5.6 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -5.7 -100.0% 0.0 -8.0 -100.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -10.0 -100.0% 0.0 -8.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 0.0 -0.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -6.4 -100.0% 0.0 -6.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -2.3 -100.0% 0.0 -5.2 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 -11.6 -100.0% 0.0 -2.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -10.1 -100.0% 0.0 -12.1 -100.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -20.4 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -21.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -21.2 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -41.6 -100.0% 0.0 -3.2 -100.0% 0.0 -2.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -40.1 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -38.7 -100.0% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -2.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -41.4 -100.0% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -81.5 -100.0% 0.0 -1.6 -100.0% 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -15.5 -100.0% 0.0 -31.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -13.0 -100.0% 0.0 -26.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.2 -8.6 -98.0% 5.2 -5.8 -52.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 5.8 

Tribal Subtotal 0.2 -21.7 -99.2% 5.2 -32.1 -86.0% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 5.8 

Total 0.2 -37.2 -99.5% 5.2 -63.3 -92.4% 0.0 -1.4 -100.0% 5.8 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 0.0 -9.2% 0.0 0.0 -22.0% 0.1 0.0 -1.8% 0.1 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 -59.6% 0.0 0.0 -22.9% 0.1 0.0 -19.0% 0.1 

Total 0.0 0.0 -59.6% 0.0 0.0 -22.9% 0.1 0.0 -19.0% 0.1 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -81.6 -100.0% 0.0 -32.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -84.5 -100.0% 0.0 -36.3 -100.0% 0.0 -5.7 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.2 -14.2 -98.6% 5.3 -19.9 -79.1% 0.1 -0.1 -70.0% 5.9 

Tribal Subtotal 0.2 -98.7 -99.8% 5.3 -56.3 -91.4% 0.1 -6.1 -99.0% 5.9 

Total 0.2 -180.3 -99.9% 5.3 -88.6 -94.4% 0.1 -6.2 -99.0% 5.9 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 37 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $122,828 $10,676 $0 $126,889

 Tribal

Marine Net $150,229 $69,526 $7,533 $221,500

Marine Troll $0 $0 $8,041 $7,714

Freshwater Net $15,383 $168,303 $14 $190,520

Tribal Subtotal $165,612 $237,830 $15,588 $419,735

Total $288,441 $248,506 $15,588 $546,623

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $19,457 $7,249 $2,180 $27,234

 Tribal

Marine Net $90,181 $91,097 $24,466 $198,848

Marine Troll $0 $0 $998 $994

Freshwater Net $32,199 $75,433 $1,945 $108,264

Tribal Subtotal $122,380 $166,530 $27,409 $308,105

Total $141,837 $173,779 $29,590 $335,339

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $736,768 $0 $0 $689,480

 Tribal

Marine Net $763,703 $0 $76,712 $788,554

Freshwater Net $689 $117,163 $0 $123,700

Tribal Subtotal $764,392 $117,163 $76,712 $912,254

Total $1,501,160 $117,163 $76,712 $1,601,734

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $753,599 $4,226 $0 $715,294

 Tribal

Marine Net $726,365 $27,355 $1,432 $715,286

Freshwater Net $50,763 $167 $0 $48,059

Tribal Subtotal $777,128 $27,522 $1,432 $763,345

Total $1,530,727 $31,748 $1,432 $1,478,639

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $77,981 $163,507 $0 $234,893

 Tribal

Marine Net $65,635 $137,463 $5,804 $203,909

Freshwater Net $44,332 $57,811 $0 $98,315

Tribal Subtotal $109,967 $195,273 $5,804 $302,224

Total $187,948 $358,780 $5,804 $537,117

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 $0 $0

 Tribal

Marine Net $598 $13 $248 $816

Freshwater Net $480 $1,130 $1,169 $2,762

Tribal Subtotal $1,078 $1,143 $1,417 $3,578

Total $1,078 $1,143 $1,417 $3,578

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $1,710,634 $185,657 $2,180 $1,793,789

 Tribal

Marine Net $1,796,710 $325,455 $116,194 $2,128,913

Marine Troll $0 $0 $9,039 $8,708

Freshwater Net $143,847 $420,007 $3,128 $571,620

Tribal Subtotal $1,940,557 $745,461 $128,362 $2,709,241

Total $3,651,191 $931,118 $130,542 $4,503,030

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-16. Direct changes in harvesting sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused 

 by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 38 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-16. Direct changes in harvesting sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Ch

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $11 -$122,817 -100.0% $0 -$10,676 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $11 

 Tribal

Marine Net $43,202 -$107,027 -71.2% $0 -$69,526 -100.0% $0 -$7,533 -100.0% $40,703 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$8,041 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $4,106 -$11,277 -73.3% $204,481 $36,178 21.5% $0 -$14 -100.0% $217,717 

Tribal Subtotal $47,308 -$118,304 -71.4% $204,481 -$33,348 -14.0% $0 -$15,588 -100.0% $258,419 

Total $47,319 -$241,121 -83.6% $204,481 -$44,025 -17.7% $0 -$15,588 -100.0% $258,430 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $637 -$18,820 -96.7% $0 -$7,249 -100.0% $2,664 $483 22.2% $3,156 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$90,181 -100.0% $0 -$91,097 -100.0% $0 -$24,466 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$998 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $37,869 $5,670 17.6% $78,830 $3,396 4.5% $1,857 -$88 -4.5% $116,812 

Tribal Subtotal $37,869 -$84,511 -69.1% $78,830 -$87,701 -52.7% $1,857 -$25,553 -93.2% $116,812 

Total $38,506 -$103,332 -72.9% $78,830 -$94,949 -54.6% $4,520 -$25,070 -84.7% $119,967 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$736,768 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$763,703 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$689 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$764,392 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$1,501,160 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$753,599 -100.0% $0 -$4,226 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$726,365 -100.0% $0 -$27,355 -100.0% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $91,179 $40,416 79.6% $25,619 $25,453 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $112,932 

Tribal Subtotal $91,179 -$685,949 -88.3% $25,619 -$1,903 -6.9% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $112,932 

Total $91,179 -$1,439,548 -94.0% $25,619 -$6,128 -19.3% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $112,932 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$77,981 -100.0% $0 -$163,507 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$65,635 -100.0% $0 -$137,463 -100.0% $0 -$5,804 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $1,484 -$42,848 -96.7% $109,632 $51,822 89.6% $1 $1 0.0% $111,230 

Tribal Subtotal $1,484 -$108,483 -98.7% $109,632 -$85,641 -43.9% $1 -$5,803 -100.0% $111,230 

Total $1,484 -$186,464 -99.2% $109,632 -$249,147 -69.4% $1 -$5,803 -100.0% $111,230 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$598 -100.0% $0 -$13 -100.0% $0 -$248 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $436 -$44 -9.2% $1,125 -$5 -0.5% $1,150 -$19 -1.6% $2,697 

Tribal Subtotal $436 -$642 -59.6% $1,125 -$18 -1.6% $1,150 -$267 -18.8% $2,697 

Total $436 -$642 -59.6% $1,125 -$18 -1.6% $1,150 -$267 -18.8% $2,697 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net $648 -$1,709,985 -100.0% $0 -$185,657 -100.0% $2,664 $483 22.2% $3,167 

 Tribal

Marine Net $43,202 -$1,753,509 -97.6% $0 -$325,455 -100.0% $0 -$116,194 -100.0% $40,703 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$9,039 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $135,074 -$8,773 -6.1% $419,688 -$319 -0.1% $3,008 -$120 -3.8% $561,387 

Tribal Subtotal $178,276 -$1,762,282 -90.8% $419,688 -$325,774 -43.7% $3,008 -$125,353 -97.7% $602,090 

Total $178,924 -$3,472,267 -95.1% $419,688 -$511,431 -54.9% $5,672 -$124,870 -95.7% $605,256 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 39 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-16. Direct changes in harvesting sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Ch

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $11 -$122,817 -100.0% $0 -$10,676 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $11 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$150,229 -100.0% $0 -$69,526 -100.0% $0 -$7,533 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$8,041 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$15,383 -100.0% $204,481 $36,178 21.5% $0 -$14 -100.0% $213,848 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$165,612 -100.0% $204,481 -$33,348 -14.0% $0 -$15,588 -100.0% $213,848 

Total $11 -$288,429 -100.0% $204,481 -$44,025 -17.7% $0 -$15,588 -100.0% $213,859 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $637 -$18,820 -96.7% $0 -$7,249 -100.0% $2,664 $483 22.2% $3,156 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$90,181 -100.0% $0 -$91,097 -100.0% $0 -$24,466 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$998 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $163 -$32,036 -99.5% $78,830 $3,396 4.5% $1,857 -$88 -4.5% $82,471 

Tribal Subtotal $163 -$122,217 -99.9% $78,830 -$87,701 -52.7% $1,857 -$25,553 -93.2% $82,471 

Total $800 -$141,037 -99.4% $78,830 -$94,949 -54.6% $4,520 -$25,070 -84.7% $85,627 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$736,768 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$763,703 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$689 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$764,392 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$1,501,160 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$753,599 -100.0% $0 -$4,226 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$726,365 -100.0% $0 -$27,355 -100.0% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$50,763 -100.0% $25,619 $25,453 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $26,924 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$777,128 -100.0% $25,619 -$1,903 -6.9% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $26,924 

Total $0 -$1,530,727 -100.0% $25,619 -$6,128 -19.3% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $26,924 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$77,981 -100.0% $0 -$163,507 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$65,635 -100.0% $0 -$137,463 -100.0% $0 -$5,804 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $868 -$43,465 -98.0% $109,632 $51,822 89.6% $1 $1 0.0% $110,669 

Tribal Subtotal $868 -$109,099 -99.2% $109,632 -$85,641 -43.9% $1 -$5,803 -100.0% $110,669 

Total $868 -$187,081 -99.5% $109,632 -$249,147 -69.4% $1 -$5,803 -100.0% $110,669 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$598 -100.0% $0 -$13 -100.0% $0 -$248 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $436 -$44 -9.2% $1,125 -$5 -0.5% $1,150 -$19 -1.6% $2,697 

Tribal Subtotal $436 -$642 -59.6% $1,125 -$18 -1.6% $1,150 -$267 -18.8% $2,697 

Total $436 -$642 -59.6% $1,125 -$18 -1.6% $1,150 -$267 -18.8% $2,697 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net $648 -$1,709,985 -100.0% $0 -$185,657 -100.0% $2,664 $483 22.2% $3,167 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,796,710 -100.0% $0 -$325,455 -100.0% $0 -$116,194 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$9,039 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $1,467 -$142,380 -99.0% $419,688 -$319 -0.1% $3,008 -$120 -3.8% $436,609 

Tribal Subtotal $1,467 -$1,939,091 -99.9% $419,688 -$325,774 -43.7% $3,008 -$125,353 -97.7% $436,609 

Total $2,115 -$3,649,076 -99.9% $419,688 -$511,431 -54.9% $5,672 -$124,870 -95.7% $439,776 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 40 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-16. Direct changes in harvesting sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Ch

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$122,828 -100.0% $0 -$10,676 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$150,229 -100.0% $0 -$69,526 -100.0% $0 -$7,533 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$8,041 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$15,383 -100.0% $0 -$168,303 -100.0% $0 -$14 -100.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$165,612 -100.0% $0 -$237,830 -100.0% $0 -$15,588 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$288,441 -100.0% $0 -$248,506 -100.0% $0 -$15,588 -100.0% $0 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$19,457 -100.0% $0 -$7,249 -100.0% $0 -$2,180 -100.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$90,181 -100.0% $0 -$91,097 -100.0% $0 -$24,466 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$998 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$32,199 -100.0% $0 -$75,433 -100.0% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$122,380 -100.0% $0 -$166,530 -100.0% $0 -$27,409 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$141,837 -100.0% $0 -$173,779 -100.0% $0 -$29,590 -100.0% $0 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$736,768 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$763,703 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$689 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$764,392 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$1,501,160 -100.0% $0 -$117,163 -100.0% $0 -$76,712 -100.0% $0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$753,599 -100.0% $0 -$4,226 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$726,365 -100.0% $0 -$27,355 -100.0% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$50,763 -100.0% $0 -$167 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$777,128 -100.0% $0 -$27,522 -100.0% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$1,530,727 -100.0% $0 -$31,748 -100.0% $0 -$1,432 -100.0% $0 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$77,981 -100.0% $0 -$163,507 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$65,635 -100.0% $0 -$137,463 -100.0% $0 -$5,804 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $868 -$43,465 -98.0% $27,406 -$30,405 -52.6% $1 $1 0.0% $28,259 

Tribal Subtotal $868 -$109,099 -99.2% $27,406 -$167,867 -86.0% $1 -$5,803 -100.0% $28,259 

Total $868 -$187,081 -99.5% $27,406 -$331,374 -92.4% $1 -$5,803 -100.0% $28,259 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$598 -100.0% $0 -$13 -100.0% $0 -$248 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $436 -$44 -9.2% $882 -$248 -22.0% $1,149 -$21 -1.8% $2,440 

Tribal Subtotal $436 -$642 -59.6% $882 -$261 -22.9% $1,149 -$269 -19.0% $2,440 

Total $436 -$642 -59.6% $882 -$261 -22.9% $1,149 -$269 -19.0% $2,440 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,710,634 -100.0% $0 -$185,657 -100.0% $0 -$2,180 -100.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,796,710 -100.0% $0 -$325,455 -100.0% $0 -$116,194 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$9,039 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $1,303 -$142,544 -99.1% $28,288 -$391,719 -93.3% $1,150 -$1,978 -63.2% $30,698 

Tribal Subtotal $1,303 -$1,939,254 -99.9% $28,288 -$717,174 -96.2% $1,150 -$127,212 -99.1% $30,698 

Total $1,303 -$3,649,888 -100.0% $28,288 -$902,831 -97.0% $1,150 -$129,392 -99.1% $30,698 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 41 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $107,298 $9,284 $0 $112,790

 Tribal

Marine Net $131,235 $60,458 $6,706 $196,889

Marine Troll $0 $0 $4,742 $4,641

Freshwater Net $13,438 $146,351 $13 $169,351

Tribal Subtotal $144,673 $206,808 $11,461 $370,881

Total $251,971 $216,092 $11,461 $483,671

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $34,842 $13,047 $4,081 $51,300

 Tribal

Marine Net $161,487 $163,974 $45,796 $374,573

Marine Troll $0 $0 $1,834 $1,798

Freshwater Net $57,659 $135,780 $3,640 $203,939

Tribal Subtotal $219,146 $299,755 $51,271 $580,310

Total $253,988 $312,802 $55,352 $631,611

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $513,710 $0 $0 $492,486

 Tribal

Marine Net $532,490 $0 $54,901 $563,253

Freshwater Net $481 $83,247 $0 $88,357

Tribal Subtotal $532,971 $83,247 $54,901 $651,610

Total $1,046,680 $83,247 $54,901 $1,144,096

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $1,009,285 $5,658 $0 $986,613

 Tribal

Marine Net $972,810 $36,628 $1,945 $986,601

Freshwater Net $67,987 $223 $0 $66,289

Tribal Subtotal $1,040,797 $36,852 $1,945 $1,052,890

Total $2,050,081 $42,510 $1,945 $2,039,502

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $389,907 $807,314 $0 $1,221,444

 Tribal

Marine Net $328,174 $678,723 $34,341 $1,060,327

Freshwater Net $221,661 $285,439 $0 $511,239

Tribal Subtotal $549,835 $964,162 $34,341 $1,571,566

Total $939,742 $1,771,476 $34,341 $2,793,010

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 $0 $0

 Tribal

Marine Net $801 $18 $337 $1,407

Freshwater Net $642 $1,513 $1,588 $4,762

Tribal Subtotal $1,443 $1,531 $1,925 $6,169

Total $1,443 $1,531 $1,925 $6,169

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $2,055,041 $835,303 $4,081 $2,864,633

 Tribal

Marine Net $2,126,996 $939,801 $144,026 $3,183,050

Marine Troll $0 $0 $6,576 $6,439

Freshwater Net $361,868 $652,554 $5,241 $1,043,937

Tribal Subtotal $2,488,865 $1,592,354 $155,844 $4,233,426

Total $4,543,906 $2,427,658 $159,926 $7,098,058

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-17. Direct changes in processing sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) 

 caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 42 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-17. Direct changes in processing sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Ch

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $10 -$107,288 -100.0% $0 -$9,284 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $10 

 Tribal

Marine Net $37,740 -$93,495 -71.2% $0 -$60,458 -100.0% $0 -$6,706 -100.0% $36,180 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$4,742 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $3,587 -$9,851 -73.3% $177,810 $31,459 21.5% $0 -$13 -100.0% $193,526 

Tribal Subtotal $41,326 -$103,346 -71.4% $177,810 -$28,999 -14.0% $0 -$11,461 -100.0% $229,706 

Total $41,336 -$210,635 -83.6% $177,810 -$38,282 -17.7% $0 -$11,461 -100.0% $229,716 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $1,141 -$33,701 -96.7% $0 -$13,047 -100.0% $4,986 $905 22.2% $5,945 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$161,487 -100.0% $0 -$163,974 -100.0% $0 -$45,796 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$1,834 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $67,812 $10,153 17.6% $141,894 $6,113 4.5% $3,475 -$165 -4.5% $220,040 

Tribal Subtotal $67,812 -$151,334 -69.1% $141,894 -$157,861 -52.7% $3,475 -$47,796 -93.2% $220,040 

Total $68,953 -$185,035 -72.9% $141,894 -$170,908 -54.6% $8,461 -$46,891 -84.7% $225,985 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$513,710 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$532,490 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$481 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$532,971 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$1,046,680 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$1,009,285 -100.0% $0 -$5,658 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$972,810 -100.0% $0 -$36,628 -100.0% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $122,115 $54,128 79.6% $34,304 $34,081 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $155,768 

Tribal Subtotal $122,115 -$918,682 -88.3% $34,304 -$2,548 -6.9% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $155,768 

Total $122,115 -$1,927,966 -94.0% $34,304 -$8,206 -19.3% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $155,768 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$389,907 -100.0% $0 -$807,314 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$328,174 -100.0% $0 -$678,723 -100.0% $0 -$34,341 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $7,420 -$214,241 -96.7% $541,310 $255,871 89.6% $8 $8 0.0% $578,398 

Tribal Subtotal $7,420 -$542,415 -98.7% $541,310 -$422,852 -43.9% $8 -$34,333 -100.0% $578,398 

Total $7,420 -$932,322 -99.2% $541,310 -$1,230,166 -69.4% $8 -$34,333 -100.0% $578,398 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$801 -100.0% $0 -$18 -100.0% $0 -$337 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $583 -$59 -9.2% $1,506 -$7 -0.5% $1,563 -$26 -1.6% $4,650 

Tribal Subtotal $583 -$860 -59.6% $1,506 -$25 -1.6% $1,563 -$363 -18.8% $4,650 

Total $583 -$860 -59.6% $1,506 -$25 -1.6% $1,563 -$363 -18.8% $4,650 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net $1,151 -$2,053,891 -99.9% $0 -$835,303 -100.0% $4,986 $905 22.2% $5,954 

 Tribal

Marine Net $37,740 -$2,089,257 -98.2% $0 -$939,801 -100.0% $0 -$144,026 -100.0% $36,180 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$6,576 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $201,518 -$160,351 -44.3% $896,824 $244,270 37.4% $5,046 -$195 -3.7% $1,152,381 

Tribal Subtotal $239,257 -$2,249,608 -90.4% $896,824 -$695,531 -43.7% $5,046 -$150,798 -96.8% $1,188,562 

Total $240,408 -$4,303,498 -94.7% $896,824 -$1,530,834 -63.1% $10,032 -$149,894 -93.7% $1,194,516 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 43 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-17. Direct changes in processing sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change from

Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number Baseline 

$10 -$107,288 -100.0% $0 -$9,284 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $10 -$112,7

$0 -$131,235 -100.0% $0 -$60,458 -100.0% $0 -$6,706 -100.0% $0 -$196,8$0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$4,742 -100.0% $0 -$4,6$0 -$13,438 -100.0% $177,810 $31,459 21.5% $0 -$13 -100.0% $190,087 $20,7

$0 -$144,673 -100.0% $177,810 -$28,999 -14.0% $0 -$11,461 -100.0% $190,087 -$180,7

$10 -$251,961 -100.0% $177,810 -$38,282 -17.7% $0 -$11,461 -100.0% $190,097 -$293,5

$1,141 -$33,701 -96.7% $0 -$13,047 -100.0% $4,986 $905 22.2% $5,945 -$45,3

$0 -$161,487 -100.0% $0 -$163,974 -100.0% $0 -$45,796 -100.0% $0 -$374,5

$0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$1,834 -100.0% $0 -$1,7

$293 -$57,366 -99.5% $141,894 $6,113 4.5% $3,475 -$165 -4.5% $155,353 -$48,5

$293 -$218,854 -99.9% $141,894 -$157,861 -52.7% $3,475 -$47,796 -93.2% $155,353 -$424,9

$1,433 -$252,555 -99.4% $141,894 -$170,908 -54.6% $8,461 -$46,891 -84.7% $161,297 -$470,3

$0 -$513,710 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$492,4

$0 -$532,490 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 -$563,2$0 -$481 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$88,3$0 -$532,971 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 -$651,6

$0 -$1,046,680 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 -$1,144,0

$0 -$1,009,285 -100.0% $0 -$5,658 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$986,6$0 -$972,810 -100.0% $0 -$36,628 -100.0% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $0 -$986,6

$0 -$67,987 -100.0% $34,304 $34,081 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $37,137 -$29,1

$0 -$1,040,797 -100.0% $34,304 -$2,548 -6.9% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $37,137 -$1,015,7

$0 -$2,050,081 -100.0% $34,304 -$8,206 -19.3% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $37,137 -$2,002,3

$0 -$389,907 -100.0% $0 -$807,314 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$1,221,4

$0 -$328,174 -100.0% $0 -$678,723 -100.0% $0 -$34,341 -100.0% $0 -$1,060,3

$4,338 -$217,323 -98.0% $541,310 $255,871 89.6% $8 $8 0.0% $575,478 $64,2

$4,338 -$545,497 -99.2% $541,310 -$422,852 -43.9% $8 -$34,333 -100.0% $575,478 -$996,0

$4,338 -$935,404 -99.5% $541,310 -$1,230,166 -69.4% $8 -$34,333 -100.0% $575,478 -$2,217,5

$0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 -$801 -100.0% $0 -$18 -100.0% $0 -$337 -100.0% $0 -$1,4

$583 -$59 -9.2% $1,506 -$7 -0.5% $1,563 -$26 -1.6% $4,650 -$1

$583 -$860 -59.6% $1,506 -$25 -1.6% $1,563 -$363 -18.8% $4,650 -$1,5

$583 -$860 -59.6% $1,506 -$25 -1.6% $1,563 -$363 -18.8% $4,650 -$1,5

$1,151 -$2,053,891 -99.9% $0 -$835,303 -100.0% $4,986 $905 22.2% $5,954 -$2,858,6

$0 -$2,126,996 -100.0% $0 -$939,801 -100.0% $0 -$144,026 -100.0% $0 -$3,183,0

$0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$6,576 -100.0% $0 -$6,4

$5,214 -$356,654 -98.6% $896,824 $244,270 37.4% $5,046 -$195 -3.7% $962,705 -$81,2

$5,214 -$2,483,651 -99.8% $896,824 -$695,531 -43.7% $5,046 -$150,798 -96.8% $962,705 -$3,270,7

$6,365 -$4,537,541 -99.9% $896,824 -$1,530,834 -63.1% $10,032 -$149,894 -93.7% $968,659 -$6,129,4

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 44 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-17. Direct changes in processing sector personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change from

Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number Baseline 

$0 -$107,298 -100.0% $0 -$9,284 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$112,7

$0 -$131,235 -100.0% $0 -$60,458 -100.0% $0 -$6,706 -100.0% $0 -$196,8$0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$4,742 -100.0% $0 -$4,6$0 -$13,438 -100.0% $0 -$146,351 -100.0% $0 -$13 -100.0% $0 -$169,3

$0 -$144,673 -100.0% $0 -$206,808 -100.0% $0 -$11,461 -100.0% $0 -$370,8

$0 -$251,971 -100.0% $0 -$216,092 -100.0% $0 -$11,461 -100.0% $0 -$483,6

$0 -$34,842 -100.0% $0 -$13,047 -100.0% $0 -$4,081 -100.0% $0 -$51,3

$0 -$161,487 -100.0% $0 -$163,974 -100.0% $0 -$45,796 -100.0% $0 -$374,5$0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$1,834 -100.0% $0 -$1,7$0 -$57,659 -100.0% $0 -$135,780 -100.0% $0 -$3,640 -100.0% $0 -$203,9$0 -$219,146 -100.0% $0 -$299,755 -100.0% $0 -$51,271 -100.0% $0 -$580,3

$0 -$253,988 -100.0% $0 -$312,802 -100.0% $0 -$55,352 -100.0% $0 -$631,6

$0 -$513,710 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$492,4

$0 -$532,490 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 -$563,2$0 -$481 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$88,3$0 -$532,971 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 -$651,6

$0 -$1,046,680 -100.0% $0 -$83,247 -100.0% $0 -$54,901 -100.0% $0 -$1,144,0

$0 -$1,009,285 -100.0% $0 -$5,658 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$986,6$0 -$972,810 -100.0% $0 -$36,628 -100.0% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $0 -$986,6

$0 -$67,987 -100.0% $0 -$223 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$66,2

$0 -$1,040,797 -100.0% $0 -$36,852 -100.0% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $0 -$1,052,8

$0 -$2,050,081 -100.0% $0 -$42,510 -100.0% $0 -$1,945 -100.0% $0 -$2,039,5

$0 -$389,907 -100.0% $0 -$807,314 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$1,221,4$0 -$328,174 -100.0% $0 -$678,723 -100.0% $0 -$34,341 -100.0% $0 -$1,060,3

$4,338 -$217,323 -98.0% $135,316 -$150,123 -52.6% $8 $8 0.0% $146,945 -$364,2

$4,338 -$545,497 -99.2% $135,316 -$828,846 -86.0% $8 -$34,333 -100.0% $146,945 -$1,424,6

$4,338 -$935,404 -99.5% $135,316 -$1,636,160 -92.4% $8 -$34,333 -100.0% $146,945 -$2,646,0

$0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 -$801 -100.0% $0 -$18 -100.0% $0 -$337 -100.0% $0 -$1,4

$583 -$59 -9.2% $1,181 -$332 -22.0% $1,560 -$28 -1.8% $4,207 -$5

$583 -$860 -59.6% $1,181 -$350 -22.9% $1,560 -$365 -19.0% $4,207 -$1,9

$583 -$860 -59.6% $1,181 -$350 -22.9% $1,560 -$365 -19.0% $4,207 -$1,9

$0 -$2,055,041 -100.0% $0 -$835,303 -100.0% $0 -$4,081 -100.0% $0 -$2,864,6

$0 -$2,126,996 -100.0% $0 -$939,801 -100.0% $0 -$144,026 -100.0% $0 -$3,183,0$0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$6,576 -100.0% $0 -$6,4

$4,922 -$356,947 -98.6% $136,497 -$516,057 -79.1% $1,568 -$3,673 -70.1% $151,152 -$892,7

$4,922 -$2,483,943 -99.8% $136,497 -$1,455,857 -91.4% $1,568 -$154,276 -99.0% $151,152 -$4,082,2

$4,922 -$4,538,985 -99.9% $136,497 -$2,291,161 -94.4% $1,568 -$158,357 -99.0% $151,152 -$6,946,9

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 45 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 46 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

D3 Sport Fishing Activity and Values 

D3.1 Methods 

Estimates of the number of sport fishing trips in marine and fresh waters of Puget Sound were 

developed for each alternative by the fishery modeling group and provided to the economic analysis 

team. For purposes of the economic analysis, these estimates of sport fishing trips were assigned to one 

of the three economic regions where they occurred (freshwater trips) or to the marina or launch area 

where they originated (marine trips). The number of trips and the level of spending by residents and 

non-residents of the region also were estimated to evaluate the effects on the regional economy. Lastly, 

the net economic value (net benefits to anglers) associated with the alternatives was estimated. The 

following steps were undertaken to accomplish these tasks. 

D3.1.1 Step 1: Allocate Sport Fishing Trips to Economic Regions 

Estimated sport fishing trips in marine waters were allocated to the economic regions based on angler 

catch records information from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The 

WDFW data report the percentage of the 2001 sport harvest in each Marine Catch Area that was caught 

by persons residing in each county and region. Using this information, the estimated number of sport 

fishing trips was allocated to the three economic regions as shown in Table D-18. 

Table D-18. Allocation of marine and freshwater sport fishing trips to each economic region. 

Region Marine Freshwater 

Strait of Juan de Fuca/ South 

Hood Canal 49.9% 8.1% 

South Puget Sound/ South 

Hood Canal 32.8% 40.2% 

North Puget Sound 17.3% 51.7% 

Estimated sport fishing trips in fresh waters were allocated to the economic regions based on the 

location where the streams and rivers are located (Table D-18). In cases where the predicted number of 

sport fishing trips in fresh waters included trips in rivers and streams in more than one economic region 

(e.g., Marine Catch Areas 8 and 9 and Marine Catch Area 12), the trips were apportioned based on the 

percentage of the trips that occurred in each region. For Marine Catch Areas 8 and 9, it was estimated 

that about 90 percent of the trips were to fresh waters in the North Puget Sound region and 10 percent 

of the trips were to rivers and streams in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region. For 

Marine Catch Area 12, it was estimated that about 83 percent of the trips were to rivers and streams in 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 47 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region, and that 17 percent of the trips were to rivers and 

streams in the Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal region. 

D3.1.2 Step 2: Allocate Sport Fishing Trips to Locals and Non-Locals 

The number of sport fishing trips by region (Step 1) was then apportioned to trips made by local 

residents (i.e., residents of a region of interest), trips made by non-local residents (i.e., persons who live 

outside the region of interest but within the state), and trips made by non-residents (i.e., persons who 

live outside the state). The percentages of trips made by local residents, non-local residents, and nonresidents were derived from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife information on the 

proportion of the 2001 sport catch of salmon in marine waters by county of origin of anglers (Table 

D.A-12). For example, the average proportion of the 2001 sport harvest in catch areas 5 and 6 (the 

primary catch areas in proximity to the Strait of Juan de Fuca/South Hood Canal region) caught by 

persons living in Clallam and Jefferson Counties was 42 percent (16.8% + 67.6% divided by 2). 

Similar calculations were made for the proportion of catch by persons residing in the South Puget 

Sound/South Hood Canal region (85 percent) and North Puget Sound Region (72%). Note that the 

calculated proportion for persons residing in the South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal region (78%) 

was adjusted upwards to 85 percent to account for the relatively large population that lives in that 

region. 

D3.1.3 Step 3: Allocate Marine Sport Fishing Trips by Mode of Fishing 

The number of marine sport fishing trips by region and by residency (Step 2) was then allocated by 

mode of fishing. (Note that freshwater sport fishing trips were not allocated by mode because 

information on spending by mode was not available.) Three modes of marine sport fishing were 

considered: private/rental boat fishing, charter boat fishing, and shore fishing. The percentages used to 

allocate sport fishing trips by mode were as follows: private/rental boat fishing, 90 percent of all sport 

fishing trips; charter boat fishing, 5 percent of all sport fishing trips; and shore fishing, 5 percent of all 

sport fishing trips. These percentages were developed from information reported in an economic report 

on salmon and sturgeon fishing prepared for the Washington Department of Community Development 

(ICF Technology Incorporated 1988), and on recent discussions with staff at the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (personal communication with Pat Pattillo, Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, December 20, 2003). 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 48 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

D3.1.4 Step 4: Convert Sport Fishing Trips in Each Region to Spending 

The number of sport fishing trips by local residents, non-local residents, and non-residents was then 

converted to spending within each region. Estimates of average spending per trip were developed based 

on information from two previous studies (The Research Group 1991 and Gentner et al. 2001) of 

expenditures associated with sport fishing in marine and fresh waters in the Pacific Northwest. As 

shown in Table D-19, regional spending by local and non-local residents who sport fish for salmon and 

steelhead in marine waters of the Puget Sound is estimated to average about $52 per angler day for 

fishing from the shore, $46 per angler day for fishing from private boats, and $152 per angler day for 

fishing from charter boats (in 2002 dollars). Regional spending by non-residents who sport fish for 

salmon and steelhead in marine waters of the Puget Sound is estimated to average about $105 per 

angler day for fishing from the shore, $96 per angler day for fishing from private boats, and $208 per 

angler day for fishing from charter boats (in 2002 dollars). Expenditures associated with sport fishing 

for salmon and steelhead in fresh waters of Puget Sound are estimated at about $66 per angler day by 

local and non-local residents and about $65 per angler day by non-residents. 

It should be noted that these spending estimates do not include spending outside the region of interest. 

For example, most non-residents who come to the Puget Sound area to sportfish also incur costs 

outside the Puget Sound area (i.e., at home or en-route to their fishing destination); these costs, 

however, are not included in the estimates in Table D-19 because they do not affect the Puget Sound 

regional economy. 

D3.1.5 Step 3: Estimate Net Economic Value 

Net economic values associated with sport fishing include the value that the Puget Sound salmon 

fishery generates for consumers and producers. Net economic value to consumers is measured by the 

dollar amount anglers would be willing to pay over and above what they actually pay to participate in 

sport fishing. Net economic value to producers (e.g., charter boat operators, guides, and other sport 

fishing-related businesses) is measured by the net income (or profit) generated by sales to recreational 

anglers. 

For this analysis, only net economic values to sport anglers are evaluated. It is assumed that most 

changes in the net income to producers (i.e., businesses that directly supply goods and services to 

anglers) would be offset by a change in net income to producers of other goods and services. For 

example, if sport anglers have fewer opportunities to sport fish for salmon in Puget Sound, the 

reduction in net income to sport fishery-related producers associated with the reduction in angler 

spending would be offset by increases in net income to producers of other goods and services as 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 49 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

anglers shift their spending patterns. Consequently, there likely would be little net change in net 

income from a regional or state perspective; however, it should be recognized that suppliers of sport 

fishing-related goods and services would likely experience a net loss in income. 

Table D-19. Average angler spending per trip by mode and angler group. 

Angler 

Group/Expenditure 

Sector Marine Charter Marine Private Boat Marine Shore Freshwater 

Local Residents: 

Transportation 

Food 

Lodging 

Boat Fuel 

Party/Charter Fees 

Access/Boat Launching 

Equipment Rental 

Bait and Ice 

Total 

$31.67 

$22.06 

$28.26 

$0.00 

$52.91 

$0.22 

$15.81 

$1.07 

$152.00 

$17.57 

$10.01 

$7.56 

$6.66 

$0.00 

$1.45 

$0.37 

$3.00 

$46.62 

$22.08 

$12.93 

$11.95 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.18 

$1.46 

$3.54 

$52.14 

$15.15 

$16.24 

$0.60 

$12.04 

$2.15 

$0.00 

$2.46 

$17.55 

$66.20 

Non-Local Residents: 

Transportation 

Food 

Lodging 

Boat Fuel 

Party/Charter Fees 

Access/Boat Launching 

Equipment Rental 

Bait and Ice 

Total 

$31.67 

$22.06 

$28.26 

$0.00 

$52.91 

$0.22 

$15.81 

$1.07 

$152.00 

$17.57 

$10.01 

$7.56 

$6.66 

$0.00 

$1.45 

$0.37 

$3.00 

$46.62 

$22.08 

$12.93 

$11.95 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.18 

$1.46 

$3.54 

$52.14 

$10.43 

$19.09 

$4.56 

$10.84 

$3.73 

$0.00 

$2.24 

$15.31 

$66.20 

Non-residents of the State: 

Transportation 

Food 

Lodging 

Boat Fuel 

Party/Charter Fees 

Access/Boat Launching 

Equipment Rental 

Bait and Ice 

Total 

$99.45 

$21.87 

$25.37 

$0.00 

$34.39 

$2.12 

$23.40 

$1.27 

$207.87 

$44.07 

$21.60 

$12.68 

$10.34 

$0.00 

$1.97 

$1.45 

$4.20 

$96.31 

$55.57 

$17.03 

$16.10 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$4.30 

$6.73 

$5.61 

$105.34 

$5.58 

$21.46 

$8.33 

$9.43 

$5.18 

$0.00 

$1.98 

$12.78 

$64.74 

As discussed in Section 3.6, the net economic value to sport anglers is estimated based on a study of 

sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest (Olsen et al. 1991). The average net 

economic value of sport fishing for salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound waters (including tributaries) 

was estimated at about $47 per angler day (in 1989 dollars). When adjusted to 2000 dollars using the 

consumer price index, the value is $65 per angler day. This factor was applied to the estimated number 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 50 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

of angler days provided by the fishery modeling group to estimate the net economic value of sport 

fishing under the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

D3.2 Assumptions Used in the Analysis 

The following key assumptions were incorporated into the assessment of sport fishing activity and 

values. 

• Ninety percent (90%) of the sport fishing trips in the marine waters of Puget Sound occur with 

the use of private/rental boats, 5 percent occurs with the use of charter boats, and 5 percent 

occurs from the shore. 

• Changes (reductions) in net income to sport fishing-related businesses associated with reductions 

in angler spending were assumed to be offset by increases in net income to producers of other 

goods and services. 

D3.3 Estimated Values 

The estimated regional distributions of sport fishing trips and angler spending resulting from the 

methodology and assumptions described above are presented in Tables D-20 and D-21 for all 

alternatives under Scenario B (2003 abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries). 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-20. Estimated sport fishing angler trips by angler group, angler mode, and economic region. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Angler Group Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Local Residents

Marine Charter Boat 4,997 10,224 4,902 20,

Marine Private Boat 89,945 184,024 88,235 362,

Marine Shore 4,997 10,224 4,902 20,

Freshwater (all modes) 267,433 242,080 24,567 534,

Subtotal 367,372 446,552 122,606 936,

Non-Local Residents

Marine Charter Boat 1,027 1,247 11,826 14,

Marine Private Boat 18,484 22,448 212,866 253,

Marine Shore 1,027 1,247 11,826 14,

Freshwater (all modes) 92,859 34,176 29,246 156,

Subtotal 113,397 59,118 265,764 438,

Non-residents of the State

Marine Charter Boat 232 279 1,235 1,

Marine Private Boat 4,180 5,023 22,232 31,

Marine Shore 232 279 1,235 1,

Freshwater (all modes) 11,143 8,544 4,679 24,

Subtotal 15,787 14,125 29,381 59,

Total

Marine Charter Boat 6,256 11,750 17,963 35,

Marine Private Boat 112,609 211,495 323,333 647,

Marine Shore 6,256 11,750 17,963 35,

Freshwater (all modes) 371,435 284,800 58,492 714,

Total 496,556 519,795 417,751 1,434,

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 51 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-20. Estimated sport fishing angler trips by angler group, angler mode, and economic region, continued . 

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Numbe

Local Residents

Marine Charter Boat 0 -4,997 -100.0% 0 -10,224 -100.0% 0 -4,902 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -89,945 -100.0% 0 -184,024 -100.0% 0 -88,235 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -4,997 -100.0% 0 -10,224 -100.0% 0 -4,902 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 81,460 -185,973 -69.5% 86,084 -155,996 -64.4% 3,808 -20,759 -84.5% 1

Subtotal 81,460 -285,912 -77.8% 86,084 -360,468 -80.7% 3,808 -118,798 -96.9% 1

Non-Local Residents

Marine Charter Boat 0 -1,027 -100.0% 0 -1,247 -100.0% 0 -11,826 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -18,484 -100.0% 0 -22,448 -100.0% 0 -212,866 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -1,027 -100.0% 0 -1,247 -100.0% 0 -11,826 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 28,285 -64,574 -69.5% 12,153 -22,023 -64.4% 4,534 -24,712 -84.5% 

Subtotal 28,285 -85,112 -75.1% 12,153 -46,965 -79.4% 4,534 -261,230 -98.3% 

Non-residents of the State

Marine Charter Boat 0 -232 -100.0% 0 -279 -100.0% 0 -1,235 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -4,180 -100.0% 0 -5,023 -100.0% 0 -22,232 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -232 -100.0% 0 -279 -100.0% 0 -1,235 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 3,394 -7,749 -69.5% 3,038 -5,506 -64.4% 725 -3,954 -84.5% 

Subtotal 3,394 -12,393 -78.5% 3,038 -11,087 -78.5% 725 -28,656 -97.5% 

Total

Marine Charter Boat 0 -6,256 -100.0% 0 -11,750 -100.0% 0 -17,963 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -112,609 -100.0% 0 -211,495 -100.0% 0 -323,333 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -6,256 -100.0% 0 -11,750 -100.0% 0 -17,963 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 113,139 -258,296 -69.5% 101,275 -183,525 -64.4% 9,067 -49,425 -84.5% 2

Total 113,139 -383,417 -77.2% 101,275 -418,520 -80.5% 9,067 -408,684 -97.8% 2

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 52 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-20. Estimated sport fishing angler trips by angler group, angler mode, and economic region, continued . 

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Numbe

Local Residents

Marine Charter Boat 0 -4,997 -100.0% 0 -10,224 -100.0% 0 -4,902 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -89,945 -100.0% 0 -184,024 -100.0% 0 -88,235 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -4,997 -100.0% 0 -10,224 -100.0% 0 -4,902 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 46,152 -221,281 -82.7% 86,086 -155,994 -64.4% 1,520 -23,047 -93.8% 1

Subtotal 46,152 -321,220 -87.4% 86,086 -360,466 -80.7% 1,520 -121,086 -98.8% 1

Non-Local Residents

Marine Charter Boat 0 -1,027 -100.0% 0 -1,247 -100.0% 0 -11,826 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -18,484 -100.0% 0 -22,448 -100.0% 0 -212,866 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -1,027 -100.0% 0 -1,247 -100.0% 0 -11,826 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 16,025 -76,834 -82.7% 12,153 -22,023 -64.4% 1,809 -27,437 -93.8% 

Subtotal 16,025 -97,372 -85.9% 12,153 -46,965 -79.4% 1,809 -263,955 -99.3% 

Non-residents of the State

Marine Charter Boat 0 -232 -100.0% 0 -279 -100.0% 0 -1,235 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -4,180 -100.0% 0 -5,023 -100.0% 0 -22,232 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -232 -100.0% 0 -279 -100.0% 0 -1,235 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 1,923 -9,220 -82.7% 3,038 -5,506 -64.4% 289 -4,390 -93.8% 

Subtotal 1,923 -13,864 -87.8% 3,038 -11,087 -78.5% 289 -29,092 -99.0% 

Total

Marine Charter Boat 0 -6,256 -100.0% 0 -11,750 -100.0% 0 -17,963 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -112,609 -100.0% 0 -211,495 -100.0% 0 -323,333 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -6,256 -100.0% 0 -11,750 -100.0% 0 -17,963 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 64,100 -307,335 -82.7% 101,277 -183,523 -64.4% 3,618 -54,874 -93.8% 1

Total 64,100 -432,456 -87.1% 101,277 -418,518 -80.5% 3,618 -414,133 -99.1% 1

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 53 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-20. Estimated sport fishing angler trips by angler group, angler mode, and economic region, continued . 

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Numbe

Local Residents

Marine Charter Boat 0 -4,997 -100.0% 0 -10,224 -100.0% 0 -4,902 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -89,945 -100.0% 0 -184,024 -100.0% 0 -88,235 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -4,997 -100.0% 0 -10,224 -100.0% 0 -4,902 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 1,476 -265,957 -99.4% 1,801 -240,279 -99.3% 59 -24,508 -99.8% 

Subtotal 1,476 -365,896 -99.6% 1,801 -444,751 -99.6% 59 -122,547 -100.0% 

Non-Local Residents

Marine Charter Boat 0 -1,027 -100.0% 0 -1,247 -100.0% 0 -11,826 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -18,484 -100.0% 0 -22,448 -100.0% 0 -212,866 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -1,027 -100.0% 0 -1,247 -100.0% 0 -11,826 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 513 -92,346 -99.4% 254 -33,922 -99.3% 70 -29,176 -99.8% 

Subtotal 513 -112,884 -99.5% 254 -58,864 -99.6% 70 -265,694 -100.0% 

Non-residents of the State

Marine Charter Boat 0 -232 -100.0% 0 -279 -100.0% 0 -1,235 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -4,180 -100.0% 0 -5,023 -100.0% 0 -22,232 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -232 -100.0% 0 -279 -100.0% 0 -1,235 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 62 -11,081 -99.4% 64 -8,480 -99.3% 11 -4,668 -99.8% 

Subtotal 62 -15,725 -99.6% 64 -14,061 -99.5% 11 -29,370 -100.0% 

Total

Marine Charter Boat 0 -6,256 -100.0% 0 -11,750 -100.0% 0 -17,963 -100.0% 

Marine Private Boat 0 -112,609 -100.0% 0 -211,495 -100.0% 0 -323,333 -100.0% 

Marine Shore 0 -6,256 -100.0% 0 -11,750 -100.0% 0 -17,963 -100.0% 

reshwater (all modes) 2,051 -369,384 -99.4% 2,119 -282,681 -99.3% 140 -58,352 -99.8% 

Total 2,051 -494,505 -99.6% 2,119 -517,676 -99.6% 140 -417,611 -100.0% 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 54 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-21. Estimated sport fishing expenditures (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alternative

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine North 

Spending Sectors Charter Private Boat Shore Freshwater Charter Private Boat Shore Freshwater Puget Sound SPS/SHC* 

Local Residents

Transportation $31.67 $17.57 $22.08 $15.15 NA NA NA NA $5,852,511 $7,352,101 

Food $22.06 $10.01 $12.93 $16.24 NA NA NA NA $5,449,288 $6,194,586 

Lodging $28.26 $7.56 $11.95 $0.60 NA NA NA NA $900,158 $1,658,646 

Boat Fuel $0.00 $6.66 $0.00 $12.04 NA NA NA NA $4,083,318 $4,681,195 

Party/Charter Fees $52.91 $0.00 $0.00 $2.15 NA NA NA NA $576,080 $522,721 

ccess/Boat Launching $0.22 $1.45 $0.18 $0.00 NA NA NA NA $210,322 $430,317 

Equipment Rental $15.81 $0.37 $1.46 $2.46 NA NA NA NA $703,807 $689,472 

Bait and Ice $1.07 $3.00 $3.54 $17.55 NA NA NA NA $5,740,518 $6,390,817 

Total $152.00 $46.62 $52.14 $66.19 NA NA NA NA $23,516,003 $27,919,855 

Non-Local Residents

Transportation $31.67 $17.57 $22.08 $10.43 NA NA NA NA $1,348,485 $817,893 

Food $22.06 $10.01 $12.93 $19.09 NA NA NA NA $1,993,638 $920,757 

Lodging $28.26 $7.56 $11.95 $4.56 NA NA NA NA $604,472 $375,691 

Boat Fuel $0.00 $6.66 $0.00 $10.84 NA NA NA NA $1,129,695 $519,972 

Party/Charter Fees $52.91 $0.00 $0.00 $3.73 NA NA NA NA $400,703 $193,455 

ccess/Boat Launching $0.22 $1.45 $0.18 $0.00 NA NA NA NA $27,213 $33,048 

Equipment Rental $15.81 $0.37 $1.46 $2.24 NA NA NA NA $232,580 $106,396 

Bait and Ice $1.07 $3.00 $3.54 $15.31 NA NA NA NA $1,481,858 $596,327 

Total $152.00 $46.62 $52.14 $66.20 NA NA NA NA $7,218,642 $3,563,540 

Non-residents of the State

Transportation $99.45 $44.07 $55.57 $5.58 $11.05 $4.90 $6.17 $2.44 $282,355 $312,290 

Food $21.87 $21.60 $17.03 $21.46 $2.43 $2.40 $1.89 $3.08 $338,442 $302,704 

Lodging $25.37 $12.68 $16.10 $8.33 $2.82 $1.41 $1.79 $0.50 $155,445 $146,433 

Boat Fuel $0.00 $10.34 $0.00 $9.43 $0.00 $1.15 $0.00 $1.39 $148,300 $132,508 

Party/Charter Fees $34.39 $0.00 $0.00 $5.18 $3.82 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,699 $53,853 

ccess/Boat Launching $2.12 $1.97 $4.30 $0.00 $0.24 $0.22 $0.48 $0.00 $9,724 $11,686 

Equipment Rental $23.40 $1.45 $6.73 $1.98 $2.60 $0.16 $0.75 $0.00 $35,114 $32,607 

Bait and Ice $1.27 $4.20 $5.61 $12.78 $0.14 $0.47 $0.62 $0.00 $161,560 $132,208 

Total $207.87 $96.31 $105.34 $64.74 $23.10 $10.71 $11.70 $7.41 $1,196,638 $1,124,289 

Net Impact**

Transportation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $7,483,351 $8,482,284 

Food NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $7,781,367 $7,418,047 

Lodging NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $1,660,075 $2,180,771 

Boat Fuel NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $5,361,313 $5,333,674 

Party/Charter Fees NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $1,042,482 $770,029 

ccess/Boat Launching NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $247,259 $475,051 

Equipment Rental NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $971,501 $828,475 

Bait and Ice NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $7,383,935 $7,119,353 

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $31,931,283 $32,607,684 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 1 - Proposed A

Average Angler Spending Per Trip Average Spending Per Trip by Non-Resident

within the Region Anglers Within the State but Outside of the Region

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 55 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-21. Estimated sport fishing expenditures (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Spending Sectors Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation $1,234,119 -$4,618,392 -0.789130006 $1,304,173 -$6,047,928 -0.822612258 $57,691 -$2,081,162 -0.973027042 $2,5

Food $1,322,910 -$4,126,377 -0.757232422 $1,398,004 -$4,796,582 -0.774318387 $61,842 -$1,422,272 -0.958330743 $2,7

Lodging $48,876 -$851,282 -0.945702875 $51,650 -$1,606,996 -0.968859906 $2,285 -$738,091 -0.996913999 $1

Boat Fuel $980,778 -$3,102,540 -0.759808487 $1,036,451 -$3,644,744 -0.778592563 $45,848 -$1,096,948 -0.959880595 $2,0

Party/Charter Fees $175,139 -$400,941 -0.695981614 $185,081 -$337,641 -0.645928706 $8,187 -$45,710 -0.848096822 $3

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$210,322 -1 $0 -$430,317 -1 $0 -$206,324 -1 

Equipment Rental $200,392 -$503,416 -0.715274881 $211,767 -$477,706 -0.692856973 $9,368 -$96,116 -0.911193213 $4

Bait and Ice $1,429,623 -$4,310,895 -0.750959214 $1,510,774 -$4,880,043 -0.763602336 $66,830 -$1,391,483 -0.954172799 $3,0

Total $5,391,837 -$18,124,165 -0.770716246 $5,697,900 -$22,221,955 -0.795919431 $252,052 -$7,078,106 -0.965614446 $11,3

Non-Local Residents

Transportation $295,013 -$1,053,472 -0.781226592 $126,756 -$691,138 -0.845021604 $47,290 -$4,633,449 -0.989896975 $4

Food $539,961 -$1,453,677 -0.729158111 $232,001 -$688,756 -0.748032534 $86,554 -$3,016,332 -0.972105309 $8

Lodging $128,980 -$475,492 -0.786624272 $55,418 -$320,274 -0.852491451 $20,675 -$2,197,477 -0.990679161 $2

Boat Fuel $306,609 -$823,086 -0.728590991 $131,739 -$388,233 -0.746642816 $49,149 -$1,685,566 -0.971667633 $4

Party/Charter Fees $105,503 -$295,200 -0.736704879 $45,331 -$148,125 -0.765678678 $16,912 -$717,889 -0.976984497 $1

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$27,213 -1 $0 -$33,048 -1 $0 -$313,386 -1 

Equipment Rental $63,358 -$169,221 -0.727583937 $27,223 -$79,173 -0.744137004 $10,156 -$338,350 -0.970858045 $1

Bait and Ice $433,043 -$1,048,814 -0.707769962 $186,062 -$410,265 -0.687986024 $69,416 -$1,071,457 -0.939155722 $6

Total $1,872,467 -$5,346,175 -0.740606739 $804,529 -$2,759,011 -0.774233289 $300,151 -$13,973,907 -0.978972286 $2,9

Non-residents of the State

Transportation $18,939 -$263,417 -0.932926607 $16,952 -$295,338 -0.945716943 $4,046 -$1,193,277 -0.996621212 $

Food $72,835 -$265,606 -0.784792282 $65,195 -$237,509 -0.784623098 $15,559 -$613,106 -0.975251487 $1

Lodging $28,272 -$127,173 -0.818121604 $25,307 -$121,127 -0.827180418 $6,039 -$366,054 -0.983769527 $

Boat Fuel $32,005 -$116,294 -0.784184175 $28,648 -$103,859 -0.783798743 $6,837 -$267,165 -0.975048526 $

Party/Charter Fees $17,581 -$48,118 -0.732402911 $15,737 -$38,116 -0.707780088 $3,756 -$62,953 -0.943703139 $

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$9,724 -1 $0 -$11,686 -1 $0 -$51,726 -1 

Equipment Rental $6,720 -$28,394 -0.808621559 $6,015 -$26,592 -0.815521576 $1,436 -$77,276 -0.981762482 $

Bait and Ice $43,375 -$118,184 -0.731521413 $38,826 -$93,383 -0.706330095 $9,266 -$152,403 -0.942688392 $

Total $219,728 -$976,911 -0.816379308 $196,680 -$927,609 -0.82506271 $46,937 -$2,783,960 -0.983419918 $5

Net Impact**

Transportation $313,951 -$1,316,889 -0.175975794 $143,708 -$986,475 -0.116298295 $51,335 -$5,826,727 -0.726804087 $

Food $612,796 -$1,719,284 -0.220948776 $297,196 -$926,265 -0.124866389 $102,113 -$3,629,438 -0.695872615 $1

Lodging $157,252 -$602,665 -0.363034761 $80,724 -$441,400 -0.202405669 $26,714 -$2,563,531 -0.769685607 $

Boat Fuel $338,615 -$939,380 -0.175214518 $160,387 -$492,092 -0.092261429 $55,985 -$1,952,731 -0.619616977 $

Party/Charter Fees $123,084 -$343,318 -0.329327356 $61,068 -$186,240 -0.241861524 $20,667 -$780,843 -0.912831251 $

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$36,937 -0.149384459 $0 -$44,735 -0.094168516 $0 -$365,112 -0.638937895 

Equipment Rental $70,079 -$197,615 -0.203412344 $33,238 -$105,764 -0.127661658 $11,592 -$415,626 -0.780223164 $

Bait and Ice $476,419 -$1,166,999 -0.158045648 $224,888 -$503,648 -0.070743455 $78,681 -$1,223,860 -0.443290358 $

Total $2,092,195 -$6,323,085 -0.198021654 $1,001,209 -$3,686,620 -0.113059857 $347,087 -$16,757,867 -0.685810946 $5

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 56 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-21. Estimated sport fishing expenditures (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Spending Sectors Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation $699,203 -$5,153,308 -0.880529438 $1,304,203 -$6,047,898 -0.822608137 $23,028 -$2,115,825 -0.989233483 $2,0

Food $749,508 -$4,699,779 -0.862457534 $1,398,037 -$4,796,549 -0.774313144 $24,685 -$1,459,429 -0.983367313 $2,1

Lodging $27,691 -$872,467 -0.969237406 $51,652 -$1,606,995 -0.968859182 $912 -$739,464 -0.998768193 $

Boat Fuel $555,670 -$3,527,648 -0.86391703 $1,036,475 -$3,644,719 -0.778587419 $18,301 -$1,124,496 -0.983985952 $1,6

Party/Charter Fees $99,227 -$476,853 -0.82775526 $185,085 -$337,636 -0.64592048 $3,268 -$50,629 -0.939366379 $2

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$210,322 -1 $0 -$430,317 -1 $0 -$206,324 -1 

Equipment Rental $113,534 -$590,273 -0.838686058 $211,772 -$477,701 -0.692849837 $3,739 -$101,745 -0.964551913 $3

Bait and Ice $809,968 -$4,930,550 -0.858903384 $1,510,809 -$4,880,008 -0.763596844 $26,676 -$1,431,637 -0.98170763 $2,3

Total $3,054,801 -$20,461,202 -0.870096933 $5,698,032 -$22,221,823 -0.79591469 $100,609 -$7,229,549 -0.986274674 $8,8

Non-Local Residents

Transportation $167,141 -$1,181,344 -0.876052895 $126,756 -$691,138 -0.845021604 $18,868 -$4,661,871 -0.99596904 $3

Food $305,917 -$1,687,721 -0.846553252 $232,001 -$688,756 -0.748032534 $34,534 -$3,068,353 -0.988870425 $5

Lodging $73,074 -$531,398 -0.879110976 $55,418 -$320,274 -0.852491451 $8,249 -$2,209,903 -0.996281121 $1

Boat Fuel $173,711 -$955,984 -0.846231948 $131,739 -$388,233 -0.746642816 $19,610 -$1,715,105 -0.988695798 $3

Party/Charter Fees $59,773 -$340,929 -0.850828909 $45,331 -$148,125 -0.765678678 $6,748 -$728,054 -0.990817149 $1

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$27,213 -1 $0 -$33,048 -1 $0 -$313,386 -1 

Equipment Rental $35,896 -$196,684 -0.845661396 $27,223 -$79,173 -0.744137004 $4,052 -$344,454 -0.988372784 $

Bait and Ice $245,343 -$1,236,515 -0.834435695 $186,062 -$410,265 -0.687986024 $27,696 -$1,113,176 -0.975724019 $4

Total $1,060,855 -$6,157,787 -0.853039526 $804,529 -$2,759,011 -0.774233289 $119,756 -$14,154,302 -0.991610248 $1,9

Non-residents of the State

Transportation $10,730 -$271,625 -0.961997014 $16,952 -$295,338 -0.945716943 $1,613 -$1,195,710 -0.998653145 $

Food $41,268 -$297,174 -0.878065869 $65,195 -$237,509 -0.784623098 $6,202 -$622,462 -0.990134731 $1

Lodging $16,019 -$139,426 -0.896949866 $25,307 -$121,127 -0.827180418 $2,407 -$369,686 -0.993530198 $

Boat Fuel $18,134 -$130,166 -0.877721322 $28,648 -$103,859 -0.783798743 $2,725 -$271,277 -0.990053826 $

Party/Charter Fees $9,961 -$55,738 -0.848382675 $15,737 -$38,116 -0.707780088 $1,497 -$65,212 -0.977558906 $

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$9,724 -1 $0 -$11,686 -1 $0 -$51,726 -1 

Equipment Rental $3,808 -$31,307 -0.891567253 $6,015 -$26,592 -0.815521576 $572 -$78,139 -0.992730148 $

Bait and Ice $24,576 -$136,984 -0.847883228 $38,826 -$93,383 -0.706330095 $3,693 -$157,975 -0.977154407 $

Total $124,495 -$1,072,143 -0.895962702 $196,680 -$927,609 -0.82506271 $18,710 -$2,812,187 -0.993390836 $3

Net Impact**

Transportation $177,871 -$1,452,969 -0.194160159 $143,708 -$986,475 -0.116298295 $20,480 -$5,857,581 -0.730652778 $

Food $347,185 -$1,984,895 -0.255083016 $297,196 -$926,265 -0.124866389 $40,736 -$3,690,815 -0.707640399 $1

Lodging $89,093 -$670,824 -0.404092574 $80,724 -$441,400 -0.202405669 $10,656 -$2,579,589 -0.774506894 $

Boat Fuel $191,845 -$1,086,150 -0.202590262 $160,387 -$492,092 -0.092261429 $22,335 -$1,986,381 -0.630294541 $

Party/Charter Fees $69,734 -$396,667 -0.380502889 $61,068 -$186,240 -0.241861524 $8,245 -$793,266 -0.927353837 $

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$36,937 -0.149384459 $0 -$44,735 -0.094168516 $0 -$365,112 -0.638937895 

Equipment Rental $39,704 -$227,990 -0.234678373 $33,238 -$105,764 -0.127661658 $4,624 -$422,593 -0.793302304 $

Bait and Ice $269,919 -$1,373,499 -0.186011764 $224,888 -$503,648 -0.070743455 $31,389 -$1,271,152 -0.460419779 $

Total $1,185,350 -$7,229,930 -0.226421533 $1,001,209 -$3,686,620 -0.113059857 $138,466 -$16,966,489 -0.694348728 $3

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 57 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-21. Estimated sport fishing expenditures (in 2002 dollars) in the economic regions with implementation of the alternatives. Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Spending Sectors Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation $22,361 -$5,830,150 -0.996179179 $27,285 -$7,324,816 -0.996288796 $894 -$2,137,959 -0.999582089 $

Food $23,970 -$5,425,318 -0.995601216 $29,248 -$6,165,338 -0.995278419 $958 -$1,483,156 -0.999354389 $

Lodging $886 -$899,273 -0.999016173 $1,081 -$1,657,566 -0.999348505 $35 -$740,340 -0.999952186 

Boat Fuel $17,771 -$4,065,547 -0.995647893 $21,684 -$4,659,511 -0.995367841 $710 -$1,142,086 -0.999378402 $

Party/Charter Fees $3,173 -$572,907 -0.994491393 $3,872 -$518,849 -0.992592324 $127 -$53,771 -0.997646458 

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$210,322 -1 $0 -$430,317 -1 $0 -$206,324 -1 

Equipment Rental $3,631 -$700,176 -0.994840974 $4,430 -$685,042 -0.99357413 $145 -$105,339 -0.998624055 

Bait and Ice $25,904 -$5,714,614 -0.99548755 $31,608 -$6,359,209 -0.995054224 $1,035 -$1,457,277 -0.999289967 $

Total $97,696 -$23,418,306 -0.995845534 $119,208 -$27,800,647 -0.995730344 $3,905 -$7,326,252 -0.999467241 $2

Non-Local Residents

Transportation $5,351 -$1,343,134 -0.996032146 $2,649 -$815,244 -0.996760922 $730 -$4,680,009 -0.99984402 

Food $9,793 -$1,983,845 -0.995087789 $4,849 -$915,908 -0.994733832 $1,336 -$3,101,550 -0.999569336 $

Lodging $2,339 -$602,132 -0.996130042 $1,158 -$374,533 -0.996917043 $319 -$2,217,833 -0.999856096 

Boat Fuel $5,561 -$1,124,134 -0.995077503 $2,753 -$517,218 -0.994704787 $759 -$1,733,955 -0.999562579 

Party/Charter Fees $1,913 -$398,789 -0.995224663 $947 -$192,508 -0.99510264 $261 -$734,540 -0.999644666 

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$27,213 -1 $0 -$33,048 -1 $0 -$313,386 -1 

Equipment Rental $1,149 -$231,430 -0.995059238 $569 -$105,827 -0.994652415 $157 -$348,350 -0.99955008 

Bait and Ice $7,854 -$1,474,004 -0.994699876 $3,889 -$592,438 -0.993478849 $1,072 -$1,139,800 -0.999060631 $

Total $33,961 -$7,184,681 -0.995295431 $16,815 -$3,546,725 -0.995281433 $4,634 -$14,269,424 -0.999675355 $

Non-residents of the State

Transportation $346 -$282,009 -0.998774735 $357 -$311,933 -0.998856446 $61 -$1,197,261 -0.999948736 

Food $1,331 -$337,111 -0.996068686 $1,373 -$301,331 -0.995462764 $236 -$628,428 -0.999624505 

Lodging $516 -$154,928 -0.996677531 $533 -$145,900 -0.996359298 $92 -$372,002 -0.999753745 

Boat Fuel $585 -$147,715 -0.996057578 $604 -$131,904 -0.995445398 $104 -$273,898 -0.999621426 

Party/Charter Fees $321 -$65,378 -0.995111662 $332 -$53,521 -0.993843952 $57 -$66,652 -0.999145841 

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$9,724 -1 $0 -$11,686 -1 $0 -$51,726 -1 

Equipment Rental $123 -$34,992 -0.996503988 $127 -$32,480 -0.996113687 $22 -$78,690 -0.999723293 

Bait and Ice $792 -$160,767 -0.995095559 $818 -$131,391 -0.993813406 $141 -$161,528 -0.999130445 

Total $4,014 -$1,192,624 -0.996645703 $4,143 -$1,120,146 -0.996314685 $712 -$2,830,185 -0.99974844 

Net Impact**

Transportation $5,697 -$1,625,143 -0.217167838 $3,006 -$1,127,177 -0.132885984 $791 -$5,877,270 -0.733108711 

Food $11,124 -$2,320,956 -0.298270946 $6,222 -$1,217,239 -0.164091531 $1,572 -$3,729,978 -0.715149201 

Lodging $2,856 -$757,061 -0.456040151 $1,691 -$520,433 -0.23864646 $411 -$2,589,835 -0.777583071 

Boat Fuel $6,146 -$1,271,849 -0.237227171 $3,357 -$649,122 -0.121702669 $863 -$2,007,854 -0.637107873 

Party/Charter Fees $2,235 -$464,167 -0.44525195 $1,279 -$246,029 -0.319506093 $318 -$801,192 -0.936620191 

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$36,937 -0.149384459 $0 -$44,735 -0.094168516 $0 -$365,112 -0.638937895 

Equipment Rental $1,272 -$266,422 -0.274237423 $696 -$138,307 -0.166941402 $179 -$427,039 -0.801648063 

Bait and Ice $8,646 -$1,634,771 -0.221395648 $4,707 -$723,829 -0.101670622 $1,212 -$1,301,329 -0.471350068 

Total $37,974 -$8,377,306 -0.26235418 $20,958 -$4,666,871 -0.143121806 $5,346 -$17,099,608 -0.699796606 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 58 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 59 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

D4 Effects on the Local and Regional Economy 

D4.1 Methods 

Changes in revenues received by commercial fishermen and processors and expenditures made by sport 

anglers would result in changes in economic activity statewide and within each region. For purposes of 

the economic analysis, these changes were characterized by total (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced) 

changes in employment and personal income. The following steps were employed to estimate changes 

in regional economic activity caused by changes in fishing activity under the alternatives. 

D4.1.1 Step 1: Estimate Total Economic Effects Resulting from Changes in Commercial Fishing 

Activity 

Total changes in employment (full-time equivalent) and personal income (wages, profits, and other 

income) resulting from changes in commercial salmon fishing landings were estimated using regional 

and statewide multipliers developed by The Research Group (Attachment B) for this project. 

As described in more detail in Attachment B, the 2000 IMPLAN database was used by The Research 

Group to construct a Fisheries Economic Assessment Model (FEAM) for the four geographic areas 

used in the assessment (i.e., three economic regions and statewide). The FEAM model uses basic inputoutput relationships from the IMPLAN model (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2002). Custom commercial 

fishing industry sectors, consisting of aggregated and disaggregated IMPLAN industrial sectors, were 

developed for the model. To assess economic effects using the FEAM model, the input/output 

relationships for the custom sectors are applied to spending patterns from the harvesting and processing 

components of the fishing industry to generate estimates of direct, indirect, and induced impacts on 

local economies and the state of Washington. Inputs to the FEAM model include landing weights for 

salmon species, prices, product forms, and budgets for fishing industry businesses. Coefficients and 

multiplier factors based on landed weight were derived from FEAM outputs. 

The FEAM factors were used to estimate the regional economic impacts of the Proposed Action and 

alternatives to the Proposed Action generated by commercial harvests. Average per unit impact factors 

were used to estimate the total economic contributions of baseline (i.e., the Proposed Action) harvest 

conditions; marginal per unit impact factors were used to calculate impacts resulting from changes in 

harvests under the alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

Tables D-22 and D-23 show the multipliers generated by the FEAM model for use in the assessment of 

Puget Sound harvest management alternatives. These multipliers were applied to the commercial 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 60 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

fishing landings estimated for each alternative to arrive at estimates of total regional and statewide 

employment and personal income generated by commercial salmon harvests. 

Table D-22. Multipliers (full-time-equivalent jobs per million pounds of landings) used to estimate 

total regional employment effects resulting from changes in commercial fishing landings. 

 North Puget Sound 

South Puget 

Sound/South Hood 

Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal Statewide 

Species Average Marginal Average Marginal Average Marginal Average Marginal 

Chinook: 

Net 

Troll 

50.9 

60.9 

57.2 

68.4 

47.5 

56.8 

53.3 

63.8 

52.3 

63.2 

58.8 

71.0 

48.9 

59.1 

54.9 

66.4 

Chum 28.1 31.6 26.3 29.6 28.0 31.4 26.7 30.0 

Coho: 

Net 

Troll 

37.3 

35.5 

41.9 

39.9 

34.7 

35.5 

39.0 

39.9 

37.9 

35.5 

42.6 

39.9 

35.8 

34.0 

40.2 

38.2 

Pink 40.9 45.9 38.1 42.8 42.4 47.7 39.8 44.7 

Sockeye 57.8 65.0 53.9 60.5 59.3 66.6 55.1 62.0 

Steelhead 40.9 45.9 38.1 42.8 42.4 47.7 39.8 44.7 

Table D-23. Multipliers (personal income per pound of landings) used to estimate total income effects 

resulting from changes in commercial fishing landings. 

 North Puget Sound 

South Puget 

Sound/South Hood 

Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal Statewide 

Species Average Marginal Average Marginal Average Marginal Average Marginal 

Chinook: 

Net 

Troll 

$1.63 

$1.95 

$1.83 

$2.19 

$1.72 

$2.06 

$1.93 

$2.31 

$1.55 

$1.87 

$1.74 

$2.10 

$1.70 

$2.06 

$1.91 

$2.31 

Chum $0.90 $1.01 $0.95 $1.07 $0.83 $0.93 $0.93 $1.04 

Coho: 

Net 

Troll 

$1.19 

$1.05 

$1.34 

$1.18 

$1.25 

$1.05 

$1.41 

$1.18 

$1.12 

$1.05 

$1.26 

$1.18 

$1.24 

$1.18 

$1.40 

$1.33 

Pink $1.31 $1.47 $1.38 $1.55 $1.25 $1.41 $1.38 $1.56 

Sockeye $1.85 $2.08 $1.95 $2.19 $1.75 $1.97 $1.92 $2.15 

Steelhead $1.31 $1.47 $1.38 $1.55 $1.25 $1.41 $1.38 $1.56 

D4.1.2 Step 2: Estimate Total Economic Effects Resulting from Changes in Sport Fishing 

Expenditures 

Total changes in employment (full-time equivalent) and personal income (wages, profits, and other 

income) resulting from changes in sport fishing expenditures were estimated using regional and 

statewide coefficients and multipliers developed by The Research Group (Attachment D to this 

appendix) through its FEAM model. Using a methodology similar to the one employed to develop 

commercial fishing factors (Step 1), sport fishing impact factors (i.e., coefficients and multipliers) were 

developed for custom sport fishing industry sectors consisting of aggregated and disaggregated 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 61 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

IMPLAN industrial sectors. The coefficients represent the total number of full-time-equivalent jobs and 

total personal income generated per million dollars and per dollar, respectively, of angler expenditures 

in the following sectors: transportation, food, lodging, boat fuel, party/charter fees, access/boat 

launching, equipment rental, and bait and ice. 

Table D-24 shows the multipliers generated by the FEAM model and used in the analysis.. These 

multipliers were applied to expenditures by non-local (i.e., residing outside of the region) anglers 

estimated for each alternative to arrive at estimates of total regional jobs and personal income 

generated by estimated salmon sport fishing expenditures. Only expenditures by non-local (i.e., not 

residing in the affected region) and non-resident (i.e., not residing in Washington) anglers were 

considered in the evaluation of regional economic impacts because expenditures by local residents 

would only shift sales, jobs, and personal income within each region, and would likely not generate a 

net change in regional economic activity. 

Table D-24. Multipliers used to estimate total regional economic effects resulting from changes in 

sport fishing expenditures. 

 North Puget Sound 

South Puget 

Sound/South Hood 

Canal 

The Straits of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood Canal Statewide 

Sector Jobs1 Personal 

Income2

Jobs1 Personal 

Income2 Jobs1 Personal 

Income2 Jobs1 Personal Income2

Transportation 17.4 $0.62 15.6 $0.68 18.9 $0.55 14.9 $0.69 

Food 23.3 $0.63 20.4 $0.74 22.5 $0.49 23.3 $0.78 

Lodging 25.8 $0.82 22.4 $0.91 29.2 $0.76 25.3 $0.92 

Boat fuel 9.5 $0.51 9.0 $0.57 12.1 $0.46 9.8 $0.58 

Party/Charter 

Fees 37.4 $0.84 39.5 $0.92 38.8 $0.80 41.4 $0.94 

Access/Boat 

Launching 27.8 $0.75 28.4 $0.85 29.2 $0.67 30.1 $0.86 

Equipment 

Rental 16.3 $0.68 14.8 $0.83 18.7 $0.55 16.5 $0.83 

Bait and Ice 13.5 $0.83 10.5 $0.87 13.1 $0.81 12.3 $0.89 

Notes: 

1

 Represents the number of full-time-equivalent jobs per million dollars of angler expenditures. 

2

 Represents the amount of personal income per dollar of angler expenditures. 

D4.2 Key Assumptions Used in the Analysis 

The following key assumption was incorporated into the assessment of regional economic effects: 

Changes in sport fishing expenditures by local residents of an economic region would 

result in no net changes in regional employment or personal income. 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 62 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

D4.3 Estimated Values 

The estimated regional and statewide effects on sales, employment, and personal income resulting from 

the methodology and assumptions described above are presented in Tables D-25 through D-28 for all 

alternatives under Scenario B (2003 abundance and 2003 Canadian/Alaskan fisheries). 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 14.6 1.3 0.0 15.4

 Tribal

Marine Net 17.8 8.5 0.9 26.8

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8

Freshwater Net 1.8 20.7 0.0 23.1

Tribal Subtotal 19.7 29.2 1.8 50.7

Total 34.2 30.5 1.8 66.0

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 3.4 1.3 0.4 5.0

 Tribal

Marine Net 15.9 16.7 4.6 36.9

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2

Freshwater Net 5.7 13.8 0.4 20.1

Tribal Subtotal 21.5 30.6 5.2 57.1

Total 25.0 31.9 5.6 62.2

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 79.2 0.0 0.0 75.5

 Tribal

Marine Net 82.1 0.0 8.7 86.4

Freshwater Net 0.1 13.2 0.0 13.6

Tribal Subtotal 82.2 13.2 8.7 100.0

Total 161.5 13.2 8.7 175.5

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 111.6 0.6 0.0 109.3

 Tribal

Marine Net 107.6 4.2 0.2 109.3

Freshwater Net 7.5 0.0 0.0 7.3

Tribal Subtotal 115.1 4.2 0.2 116.7

Total 226.8 4.9 0.2 226.0

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 29.6 64.0 0.0 93.1

 Tribal

Marine Net 24.9 53.8 2.6 80.8

Freshwater Net 16.8 22.6 0.0 39.0

Tribal Subtotal 41.8 76.4 2.6 119.8

Total 71.4 140.4 2.6 212.9

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

Freshwater Net 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4

Tribal Subtotal 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5

Total 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 238.5 67.3 0.4 298.4

 Tribal

Marine Net 248.5 83.3 17.2 340.4

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

Freshwater Net 32.0 70.6 0.6 103.4

Tribal Subtotal 280.5 153.8 18.8 444.8

Total 519.0 221.1 19.2 743.1

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-25. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes 

 in commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 63 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-25. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change 

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -14.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 5.1 -12.7 -71.2% 0.0 -8.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.9 -100.0% 4.9 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.5 -1.3 -73.3% 25.1 4.4 21.5% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 26.3 

Tribal Subtotal 5.6 -14.0 -71.4% 25.1 -4.1 -14.0% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 31.3 

Total 5.6 -28.6 -83.6% 25.1 -5.4 -17.7% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 31.3 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.1 -3.3 -96.7% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.5 0.1 22.2% 0.6 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -15.9 -100.0% 0.0 -16.7 -100.0% 0.0 -4.6 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 6.7 1.0 17.6% 14.5 0.6 4.5% 0.4 0.0 -4.5% 21.7 

Tribal Subtotal 6.7 -14.9 -69.1% 14.5 -16.1 -52.7% 0.4 -4.8 -93.2% 21.7 

Total 6.8 -18.2 -72.9% 14.5 -17.4 -54.6% 0.9 -4.8 -84.7% 22.2 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -79.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -82.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -82.2 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -161.5 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -111.6 -100.0% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -107.6 -100.0% 0.0 -4.2 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 13.5 6.0 79.6% 3.9 3.9 15257.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 17.3 

Tribal Subtotal 13.5 -101.6 -88.3% 3.9 -0.3 -6.9% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 17.3 

Total 13.5 -213.3 -94.0% 3.9 -0.9 -19.3% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 17.3 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.6 -100.0% 0.0 -64.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -24.9 -100.0% 0.0 -53.8 -100.0% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.6 -16.3 -96.7% 42.9 20.3 89.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 44.1 

Tribal Subtotal 0.6 -41.2 -98.7% 42.9 -33.5 -43.9% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 44.1 

Total 0.6 -70.9 -99.2% 42.9 -97.5 -69.4% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 44.1 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.1 0.0 -9.2% 0.2 0.0 -0.5% 0.2 0.0 -1.6% 0.4 

Tribal Subtotal 0.1 -0.1 -59.6% 0.2 0.0 -1.6% 0.2 0.0 -18.8% 0.4 

Total 0.1 -0.1 -59.6% 0.2 0.0 -1.6% 0.2 0.0 -18.8% 0.4 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.1 -238.4 -100.0% 0.0 -67.3 -100.0% 0.5 0.1 22.2% 0.6 

 Tribal

Marine Net 5.1 -243.3 -97.9% 0.0 -83.3 -100.0% 0.0 -17.2 -100.0% 4.9 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -1.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 21.3 -10.7 -33.5% 86.6 16.1 22.8% 0.5 0.0 -3.8% 109.8 

Tribal Subtotal 26.4 -254.1 -90.6% 86.6 -67.2 -43.7% 0.5 -18.3 -97.2% 114.7 

Total 26.5 -492.5 -94.9% 86.6 -134.5 -60.8% 1.0 -18.2 -94.6% 115.3 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 64 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-25. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change from

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number Baseline 

Chinook Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -14.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -15.

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -17.8 -100.0% 0.0 -8.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.9 -100.0% 0.0 -26.

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.

Freshwater Net 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 25.1 4.4 21.5% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 25.9 2.

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -19.7 -100.0% 25.1 -4.1 -14.0% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 25.9 -24.

Total 0.0 -34.2 -100.0% 25.1 -5.4 -17.7% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 25.9 -40.

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.1 -3.3 -96.7% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.5 0.1 22.2% 0.6 -4.

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -15.9 -100.0% 0.0 -16.7 -100.0% 0.0 -4.6 -100.0% 0.0 -36.

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 -0.

Freshwater Net 0.0 -5.6 -99.5% 14.5 0.6 4.5% 0.4 0.0 -4.5% 15.3 -4.

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -21.5 -99.9% 14.5 -16.1 -52.7% 0.4 -4.8 -93.2% 15.3 -41.

Total 0.1 -24.8 -99.4% 14.5 -17.4 -54.6% 0.9 -4.8 -84.7% 15.9 -46.

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -79.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -75.

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -82.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 -86.

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -13.

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -82.2 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 -100.

Total 0.0 -161.5 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 -175.

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -111.6 -100.0% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -109.

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -107.6 -100.0% 0.0 -4.2 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 -109.

Freshwater Net 0.0 -7.5 -100.0% 3.9 3.9 15257.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 4.1 -3.

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -115.1 -100.0% 3.9 -0.3 -6.9% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 4.1 -112.

Total 0.0 -226.8 -100.0% 3.9 -0.9 -19.3% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 4.1 -221.

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.6 -100.0% 0.0 -64.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -93.

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -24.9 -100.0% 0.0 -53.8 -100.0% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 0.0 -80.

Freshwater Net 0.3 -16.5 -98.0% 42.9 20.3 89.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 43.9 4.

Tribal Subtotal 0.3 -41.5 -99.2% 42.9 -33.5 -43.9% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 43.9 -75.

Total 0.3 -71.1 -99.5% 42.9 -97.5 -69.4% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 43.9 -169.

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 -0.

Freshwater Net 0.1 0.0 -9.2% 0.2 0.0 -0.5% 0.2 0.0 -1.6% 0.4 0.

Tribal Subtotal 0.1 -0.1 -59.6% 0.2 0.0 -1.6% 0.2 0.0 -18.8% 0.4 -0.

Total 0.1 -0.1 -59.6% 0.2 0.0 -1.6% 0.2 0.0 -18.8% 0.4 -0.

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.1 -238.4 -100.0% 0.0 -67.3 -100.0% 0.5 0.1 22.2% 0.6 -297.

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -248.5 -100.0% 0.0 -83.3 -100.0% 0.0 -17.2 -100.0% 0.0 -340.

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -1.0 -100.0% 0.0 -1.

Freshwater Net 0.4 -31.6 -98.7% 86.6 16.1 22.8% 0.5 0.0 -3.8% 89.6 -13.

Tribal Subtotal 0.4 -280.1 -99.8% 86.6 -67.2 -43.7% 0.5 -18.3 -97.2% 89.6 -355.

Total 0.5 -518.5 -99.9% 86.6 -134.5 -60.8% 1.0 -18.2 -94.6% 90.2 -653.

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* State

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 65 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-25. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Chang

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -14.6 -100.0% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -17.8 -100.0% 0.0 -8.5 -100.0% 0.0 -0.9 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 0.0 -20.7 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -19.7 -100.0% 0.0 -29.2 -100.0% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -34.2 -100.0% 0.0 -30.5 -100.0% 0.0 -1.8 -100.0% 0.0 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -3.4 -100.0% 0.0 -1.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -15.9 -100.0% 0.0 -16.7 -100.0% 0.0 -4.6 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -5.7 -100.0% 0.0 -13.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -21.5 -100.0% 0.0 -30.6 -100.0% 0.0 -5.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -25.0 -100.0% 0.0 -31.9 -100.0% 0.0 -5.6 -100.0% 0.0 

Sockeye Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -79.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -82.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -82.2 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -161.5 -100.0% 0.0 -13.2 -100.0% 0.0 -8.7 -100.0% 0.0 

Pink Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -111.6 -100.0% 0.0 -0.6 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -107.6 -100.0% 0.0 -4.2 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.0 -7.5 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

Tribal Subtotal 0.0 -115.1 -100.0% 0.0 -4.2 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Total 0.0 -226.8 -100.0% 0.0 -4.9 -100.0% 0.0 -0.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -29.6 -100.0% 0.0 -64.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -24.9 -100.0% 0.0 -53.8 -100.0% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.3 -16.5 -98.0% 10.7 -11.9 -52.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 11.2 

Tribal Subtotal 0.3 -41.5 -99.2% 10.7 -65.7 -86.0% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 11.2 

Total 0.3 -71.1 -99.5% 10.7 -129.7 -92.4% 0.0 -2.6 -100.0% 11.2 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -0.1 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 0.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.1 0.0 -9.2% 0.1 0.0 -22.0% 0.2 0.0 -1.8% 0.4 

Tribal Subtotal 0.1 -0.1 -59.6% 0.1 0.0 -22.9% 0.2 0.0 -19.0% 0.4 

Total 0.1 -0.1 -59.6% 0.1 0.0 -22.9% 0.2 0.0 -19.0% 0.4 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -238.5 -100.0% 0.0 -67.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.4 -100.0% 0.0 

 Tribal

Marine Net 0.0 -248.5 -100.0% 0.0 -83.3 -100.0% 0.0 -17.2 -100.0% 0.0 

Marine Troll 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 -1.0 -100.0% 0.0 

Freshwater Net 0.4 -31.6 -98.8% 10.9 -59.7 -84.6% 0.2 -0.4 -67.5% 11.6 

Tribal Subtotal 0.4 -280.1 -99.9% 10.9 -143.0 -92.9% 0.2 -18.6 -99.0% 11.6 

Total 0.4 -518.6 -99.9% 10.9 -210.3 -95.1% 0.2 -19.0 -99.1% 11.6 

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 66 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Specie Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $466,788 $47,523 $0 $533,805

 Tribal

Marine Net $570,920 $309,485 $27,809 $931,826

Marine Troll $0 $0 $25,101 $27,651

Freshwater Net $58,461 $749,176 $53 $801,495

Tribal Subtotal $629,382 $1,058,662 $52,963 $1,760,971

Total $1,096,169 $1,106,185 $52,963 $2,294,776

Coho

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $109,222 $47,940 $12,230 $174,909

 Tribal

Marine Net $506,229 $602,493 $137,231 $1,277,107

Marine Troll $0 $0 $5,532 $6,217

Freshwater Net $180,749 $498,898 $10,908 $695,328

Tribal Subtotal $686,979 $1,101,391 $153,672 $1,978,653

Total $796,201 $1,149,332 $165,903 $2,153,561

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $2,536,466 $0 $0 $2,632,440

 Tribal

Marine Net $2,629,194 $0 $257,057 $3,010,705

Freshwater Net $2,373 $477,167 $0 $472,288

Tribal Subtotal $2,631,567 $477,167 $257,057 $3,482,994

Total $5,168,033 $477,167 $257,057 $6,115,434

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $3,575,829 $23,534 $0 $3,790,438

 Tribal

Marine Net $3,446,602 $152,341 $6,595 $3,790,394

Freshwater Net $240,873 $929 $0 $254,673

Tribal Subtotal $3,687,474 $153,270 $6,595 $4,045,067

Total $7,263,304 $176,804 $6,595 $7,835,505

Chum

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $949,063 $2,311,477 $0 $3,243,513

 Tribal

Marine Net $798,800 $1,943,299 $78,408 $2,815,669

Freshwater Net $539,541 $817,262 $0 $1,357,582

Tribal Subtotal $1,338,342 $2,760,560 $78,408 $4,173,252

Total $2,287,405 $5,072,038 $78,408 $7,416,765

Steelhead

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 $0 $0

 Tribal

Marine Net $2,837 $74 $1,142 $4,324

Freshwater Net $2,276 $6,292 $5,386 $14,636

Tribal Subtotal $5,113 $6,366 $6,529 $18,960

Total $5,113 $6,366 $6,529 $18,960

Total

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $7,637,368 $2,430,475 $12,230 $10,375,105

 Tribal

Marine Net $7,954,583 $3,007,692 $508,244 $11,830,026

Marine Troll $0 $0 $30,633 $33,868

Freshwater Net $1,024,273 $2,549,724 $16,347 $3,596,002

Tribal Subtotal $8,978,856 $5,557,417 $555,224 $15,459,896

Total $16,616,225 $7,987,892 $567,454 $25,835,001

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-26. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in 

 commercial landings under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 67 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-26. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change 

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $43 -$466,745 -100.0% $0 -$47,523 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $45 

 Tribal

Marine Net $164,182 -$406,739 -71.2% $0 -$309,485 -100.0% $0 -$27,809 -100.0% $171,232 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$25,101 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $15,604 -$42,857 -73.3% $910,217 $161,040 21.5% $0 -$53 -100.0% $915,907 

Tribal Subtotal $179,786 -$449,596 -71.4% $910,217 -$148,445 -14.0% $0 -$52,963 -100.0% $1,087,140 

Total $179,829 -$916,340 -83.6% $910,217 -$195,968 -17.7% $0 -$52,963 -100.0% $1,087,185 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $3,576 -$105,646 -96.7% $0 -$47,940 -100.0% $14,941 $2,711 22.2% $20,268 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$506,229 -100.0% $0 -$602,493 -100.0% $0 -$137,231 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$5,532 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $212,576 $31,827 17.6% $521,361 $22,463 4.5% $10,413 -$495 -4.5% $750,227 

Tribal Subtotal $212,576 -$474,403 -69.1% $521,361 -$580,030 -52.7% $10,413 -$143,259 -93.2% $750,227 

Total $216,152 -$580,049 -72.9% $521,361 -$627,970 -54.6% $25,354 -$140,548 -84.7% $770,495 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,536,466 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,629,194 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$2,373 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$2,631,567 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$5,168,033 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$3,575,829 -100.0% $0 -$23,534 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$3,446,602 -100.0% $0 -$152,341 -100.0% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $432,646 $191,773 79.6% $142,675 $141,746 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $598,439 

Tribal Subtotal $432,646 -$3,254,829 -88.3% $142,675 -$10,595 -6.9% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $598,439 

Total $432,646 -$6,830,658 -94.0% $142,675 -$34,129 -19.3% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $598,439 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$949,063 -100.0% $0 -$2,311,477 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$798,800 -100.0% $0 -$1,943,299 -100.0% $0 -$78,408 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $18,062 -$521,479 -96.7% $1,549,864 $732,602 89.6% $18 $18 0.0% $1,535,920 

Tribal Subtotal $18,062 -$1,320,280 -98.7% $1,549,864 -$1,210,697 -43.9% $18 -$78,390 -100.0% $1,535,920 

Total $18,062 -$2,269,343 -99.2% $1,549,864 -$3,522,174 -69.4% $18 -$78,390 -100.0% $1,535,920 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,837 -100.0% $0 -$74 -100.0% $0 -$1,142 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $2,067 -$209 -9.2% $6,263 -$29 -0.5% $5,299 -$87 -1.6% $14,291 

Tribal Subtotal $2,067 -$3,047 -59.6% $6,263 -$103 -1.6% $5,299 -$1,229 -18.8% $14,291 

Total $2,067 -$3,047 -59.6% $6,263 -$103 -1.6% $5,299 -$1,229 -18.8% $14,291 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net $3,619 -$7,633,749 -100.0% $0 -$2,430,475 -100.0% $14,941 $2,711 22.2% $20,313 

 Tribal

Marine Net $164,182 -$7,790,402 -97.9% $0 -$3,007,692 -100.0% $0 -$508,244 -100.0% $171,232 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$30,633 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $680,955 -$343,318 -33.5% $3,130,380 $580,655 22.8% $15,731 -$616 -3.8% $3,814,784 

Tribal Subtotal $845,136 -$8,133,720 -90.6% $3,130,380 -$2,427,037 -43.7% $15,731 -$539,493 -97.2% $3,986,017 

Total $848,756 -$15,767,469 -94.9% $3,130,380 -$4,857,512 -60.8% $30,672 -$536,782 -94.6% $4,006,330 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 68 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-26. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change 

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $43 -$466,745 -100.0% $0 -$47,523 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $45 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$570,920 -100.0% $0 -$309,485 -100.0% $0 -$27,809 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$25,101 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$58,461 -100.0% $910,217 $161,040 21.5% $0 -$53 -100.0% $899,633 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$629,382 -100.0% $910,217 -$148,445 -14.0% $0 -$52,963 -100.0% $899,633 

Total $43 -$1,096,126 -100.0% $910,217 -$195,968 -17.7% $0 -$52,963 -100.0% $899,678 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $3,576 -$105,646 -96.7% $0 -$47,940 -100.0% $14,941 $2,711 22.2% $20,268 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$506,229 -100.0% $0 -$602,493 -100.0% $0 -$137,231 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$5,532 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $917 -$179,832 -99.5% $521,361 $22,463 4.5% $10,413 -$495 -4.5% $529,675 

Tribal Subtotal $917 -$686,062 -99.9% $521,361 -$580,030 -52.7% $10,413 -$143,259 -93.2% $529,675 

Total $4,493 -$791,707 -99.4% $521,361 -$627,970 -54.6% $25,354 -$140,548 -84.7% $549,943 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,536,466 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,629,194 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$2,373 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$2,631,567 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$5,168,033 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$3,575,829 -100.0% $0 -$23,534 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$3,446,602 -100.0% $0 -$152,341 -100.0% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$240,873 -100.0% $142,675 $141,746 15257.6% $0 $0 0.0% $142,675 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$3,687,474 -100.0% $142,675 -$10,595 -6.9% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $142,675 

Total $0 -$7,263,304 -100.0% $142,675 -$34,129 -19.3% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $142,675 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$949,063 -100.0% $0 -$2,311,477 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$798,800 -100.0% $0 -$1,943,299 -100.0% $0 -$78,408 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $10,559 -$528,982 -98.0% $1,549,864 $732,602 89.6% $18 $18 0.0% $1,528,167 

Tribal Subtotal $10,559 -$1,327,782 -99.2% $1,549,864 -$1,210,697 -43.9% $18 -$78,390 -100.0% $1,528,167 

Total $10,559 -$2,276,845 -99.5% $1,549,864 -$3,522,174 -69.4% $18 -$78,390 -100.0% $1,528,167 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,837 -100.0% $0 -$74 -100.0% $0 -$1,142 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $2,067 -$209 -9.2% $6,263 -$29 -0.5% $5,299 -$87 -1.6% $14,291 

Tribal Subtotal $2,067 -$3,047 -59.6% $6,263 -$103 -1.6% $5,299 -$1,229 -18.8% $14,291 

Total $2,067 -$3,047 -59.6% $6,263 -$103 -1.6% $5,299 -$1,229 -18.8% $14,291 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net $3,619 -$7,633,749 -100.0% $0 -$2,430,475 -100.0% $14,941 $2,711 22.2% $20,313 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$7,954,583 -100.0% $0 -$3,007,692 -100.0% $0 -$508,244 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$30,633 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $13,543 -$1,010,730 -98.7% $3,130,380 $580,655 22.8% $15,731 -$616 -3.8% $3,114,441 

Tribal Subtotal $13,543 -$8,965,313 -99.8% $3,130,380 -$2,427,037 -43.7% $15,731 -$539,493 -97.2% $3,114,441 

Total $17,163 -$16,599,062 -99.9% $3,130,380 -$4,857,512 -60.8% $30,672 -$536,782 -94.6% $3,134,754 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 69 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-26. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in commercial landings under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from Change 

Specie Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Number B

Chinook

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$466,788 -100.0% $0 -$47,523 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$570,920 -100.0% $0 -$309,485 -100.0% $0 -$27,809 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$25,101 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$58,461 -100.0% $0 -$749,176 -100.0% $0 -$53 -100.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$629,382 -100.0% $0 -$1,058,662 -100.0% $0 -$52,963 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$1,096,169 -100.0% $0 -$1,106,185 -100.0% $0 -$52,963 -100.0% $0 

Coho Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$109,222 -100.0% $0 -$47,940 -100.0% $0 -$12,230 -100.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$506,229 -100.0% $0 -$602,493 -100.0% $0 -$137,231 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$5,532 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$180,749 -100.0% $0 -$498,898 -100.0% $0 -$10,908 -100.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$686,979 -100.0% $0 -$1,101,391 -100.0% $0 -$153,672 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$796,201 -100.0% $0 -$1,149,332 -100.0% $0 -$165,903 -100.0% $0 

Sockeye

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,536,466 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,629,194 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$2,373 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$2,631,567 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$5,168,033 -100.0% $0 -$477,167 -100.0% $0 -$257,057 -100.0% $0 

Pink

 Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$3,575,829 -100.0% $0 -$23,534 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$3,446,602 -100.0% $0 -$152,341 -100.0% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $0 -$240,873 -100.0% $0 -$929 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

Tribal Subtotal $0 -$3,687,474 -100.0% $0 -$153,270 -100.0% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $0 

Total $0 -$7,263,304 -100.0% $0 -$176,804 -100.0% $0 -$6,595 -100.0% $0 

Chum Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$949,063 -100.0% $0 -$2,311,477 -100.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$798,800 -100.0% $0 -$1,943,299 -100.0% $0 -$78,408 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $10,559 -$528,982 -98.0% $387,434 -$429,828 -52.6% $18 $18 0.0% $390,209 

Tribal Subtotal $10,559 -$1,327,782 -99.2% $387,434 -$2,373,127 -86.0% $18 -$78,390 -100.0% $390,209 

Total $10,559 -$2,276,845 -99.5% $387,434 -$4,684,604 -92.4% $18 -$78,390 -100.0% $390,209 

Steelhead Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$2,837 -100.0% $0 -$74 -100.0% $0 -$1,142 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $2,067 -$209 -9.2% $4,911 -$1,381 -22.0% $5,291 -$96 -1.8% $12,929 

Tribal Subtotal $2,067 -$3,047 -59.6% $4,911 -$1,455 -22.9% $5,291 -$1,238 -19.0% $12,929 

Total $2,067 -$3,047 -59.6% $4,911 -$1,455 -22.9% $5,291 -$1,238 -19.0% $12,929 

Total Non-tribal

Marine Net $0 -$7,637,368 -100.0% $0 -$2,430,475 -100.0% $0 -$12,230 -100.0% $0 

 Tribal

Marine Net $0 -$7,954,583 -100.0% $0 -$3,007,692 -100.0% $0 -$508,244 -100.0% $0 

Marine Troll $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 -$30,633 -100.0% $0 

Freshwater Net $12,626 -$1,011,647 -98.8% $392,344 -$2,157,380 -84.6% $5,309 -$11,038 -67.5% $403,138 

Tribal Subtotal $12,626 -$8,966,230 -99.9% $392,344 -$5,165,072 -92.9% $5,309 -$549,915 -99.0% $403,138 

Total $12,626 -$16,603,598 -99.9% $392,344 -$7,595,547 -95.1% $5,309 -$562,145 -99.1% $403,138 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 70 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Angler Group/Sector Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Local Residents

Transportation 102.1 114.5 40.4 228.3

Food 127.0 126.4 33.4 305.9

Lodging 23.2 37.2 21.6 83.5

Boat Fuel 38.8 42.1 13.8 97.1

Party/Charter Fees 21.5 20.6 2.1 47.7

Access/Boat Launching 5.8 12.2 6.0 25.5

Equipment Rental 11.5 10.2 2.0 24.7

Bait and Ice 77.5 67.1 19.1 167.2

Total 407.4 430.3 138.4 979.9

Non-Local Residents

Transportation 23.5 12.7 88.4 101.9

Food 46.5 18.8 69.8 140.2

Lodging 15.6 8.4 64.8 80.9

Boat Fuel 10.7 4.7 21.0 33.2

Party/Charter Fees 15.0 7.6 28.5 55.0

Access/Boat Launching 0.8 0.9 9.2 11.2

Equipment Rental 3.8 1.6 6.5 11.3

Bait and Ice 20.0 6.3 14.9 39.6

Total 135.8 61.0 303.1 473.4

Non-residents of the State

Transportation 4.9 4.9 22.6 30.3

Food 7.9 6.2 14.1 33.3

Lodging 4.0 3.3 10.9 18.7

Boat Fuel 1.4 1.2 3.3 6.1

Party/Charter Fees 2.5 2.1 2.6 8.0

Access/Boat Launching 0.3 0.3 1.5 2.4

Equipment Rental 0.6 0.5 1.5 2.6

Bait and Ice 2.2 1.4 2.1 5.8

Total 23.7 19.8 58.6 107.2

Net Impact**

Transportation 130.5 132.1 151.4 360.5

Food 181.3 151.3 117.4 479.4

Lodging 42.8 48.8 97.3 183.1

Boat Fuel 50.9 48.0 38.1 136.4

Party/Charter Fees 39.0 30.4 33.2 110.7

Access/Boat Launching 6.9 13.5 16.7 39.2

Equipment Rental 15.8 12.3 10.0 38.7

Bait and Ice 99.7 74.8 36.2 212.5

Total 567.0 511.2 500.1 1,560.4

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. 

 For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. 

 The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-27. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by 

 changes in sport fishing trips under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 71 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-27. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in sport fishing trips under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group/Sector Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation 21.5 -80.5 -78.9% 20.3 -94.2 -82.3% 1.1 -39.3 -97.3% 

Food 30.8 -96.1 -75.7% 28.5 -97.9 -77.4% 1.4 -32.0 -95.8% 

Lodging 1.3 -22.0 -94.6% 1.2 -36.0 -96.9% 0.1 -21.6 -99.7% 

Boat Fuel 9.3 -29.5 -76.0% 9.3 -32.8 -77.9% 0.6 -13.3 -96.0% 

Party/Charter Fees 6.6 -15.0 -69.6% 7.3 -13.3 -64.6% 0.3 -1.8 -84.8% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -5.8 -100.0% 0.0 -12.2 -100.0% 0.0 -6.0 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 3.3 -8.2 -71.5% 3.1 -7.1 -69.3% 0.2 -1.8 -91.1% 

Bait and Ice 19.3 -58.2 -75.1% 15.9 -51.2 -76.4% 0.9 -18.2 -95.4% 

Total 92.0 -315.4 -77.4% 85.6 -344.7 -80.1% 4.5 -133.9 -96.8% 

Non-Local Residents

Transportation 5.1 -18.4 -78.1% 2.0 -10.8 -84.5% 0.9 -87.5 -99.0% 

Food 12.6 -33.9 -72.9% 4.7 -14.1 -74.8% 1.9 -67.9 -97.2% 

Lodging 3.3 -12.3 -78.7% 1.2 -7.2 -85.2% 0.6 -64.2 -99.1% 

Boat Fuel 2.9 -7.8 -72.9% 1.2 -3.5 -74.7% 0.6 -20.4 -97.2% 

Party/Charter Fees 3.9 -11.0 -73.7% 1.8 -5.9 -76.6% 0.7 -27.9 -97.7% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.9 -100.0% 0.0 -9.2 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 1.0 -2.8 -72.8% 0.4 -1.2 -74.4% 0.2 -6.3 -97.1% 

Bait and Ice 5.8 -14.2 -70.8% 2.0 -4.3 -68.8% 0.9 -14.0 -93.9% 

Total 34.8 -101.0 -74.4% 13.3 -47.7 -78.2% 5.8 -297.3 -98.1% 

Non-residents of the State

Transportation 0.3 -4.6 -93.3% 0.3 -4.6 -94.6% 0.1 -22.5 -99.7% 

Food 1.7 -6.2 -78.5% 1.3 -4.8 -78.5% 0.4 -13.8 -97.5% 

Lodging 0.7 -3.3 -81.8% 0.6 -2.7 -82.7% 0.2 -10.7 -98.4% 

Boat Fuel 0.3 -1.1 -78.4% 0.3 -0.9 -78.4% 0.1 -3.2 -97.5% 

Party/Charter Fees 0.7 -1.8 -73.2% 0.6 -1.5 -70.8% 0.1 -2.4 -94.4% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.5 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 0.1 -0.5 -80.9% 0.1 -0.4 -81.6% 0.0 -1.4 -98.2% 

Bait and Ice 0.6 -1.6 -73.2% 0.4 -1.0 -70.6% 0.1 -2.0 -94.3% 

Total 4.4 -19.3 -81.4% 3.5 -16.3 -82.2% 1.0 -57.6 -98.3% 

Net Impact**

Transportation 5.5 -23.0 -17.6% 2.2 -15.4 -11.6% 1.0 -110.0 -72.7% 

Food 14.3 -40.1 -22.1% 6.1 -18.9 -12.5% 2.3 -81.7 -69.6% 

Lodging 4.1 -15.5 -36.3% 1.8 -9.9 -20.2% 0.8 -74.9 -77.0% 

Boat Fuel 3.2 -8.9 -17.5% 1.4 -4.4 -9.2% 0.7 -23.6 -62.0% 

Party/Charter Fees 4.6 -12.8 -32.9% 2.4 -7.4 -24.2% 0.8 -30.3 -91.3% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -1.0 -14.9% 0.0 -1.3 -9.4% 0.0 -10.7 -63.9% 

Equipment Rental 1.1 -3.2 -20.3% 0.5 -1.6 -12.8% 0.2 -7.8 -78.0% 

Bait and Ice 6.4 -15.8 -15.8% 2.4 -5.3 -7.1% 1.0 -16.0 -44.3% 

Total 39.2 -120.3 -21.2% 16.8 -64.1 -12.5% 6.8 -354.9 -71.0% 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending.  For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending.  The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 72 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-27. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in sport fishing trips under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group/Sector Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation 12.2 -89.9 -88.1% 20.3 -94.2 -82.3% 0.4 -39.9 -98.9% 

Food 17.5 -109.5 -86.2% 28.5 -97.8 -77.4% 0.6 -32.8 -98.3% 

Lodging 0.7 -22.5 -96.9% 1.2 -36.0 -96.9% 0.0 -21.6 -99.9% 

Boat Fuel 5.3 -33.5 -86.4% 9.3 -32.8 -77.9% 0.2 -13.6 -98.4% 

Party/Charter Fees 3.7 -17.8 -82.8% 7.3 -13.3 -64.6% 0.1 -2.0 -93.9% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -5.8 -100.0% 0.0 -12.2 -100.0% 0.0 -6.0 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 1.9 -9.6 -83.9% 3.1 -7.1 -69.3% 0.1 -1.9 -96.5% 

Bait and Ice 10.9 -66.6 -85.9% 15.9 -51.2 -76.4% 0.3 -18.8 -98.2% 

Total 52.1 -355.3 -87.2% 85.6 -344.7 -80.1% 1.8 -136.6 -98.7% 

Non-Local Residents

Transportation 2.9 -20.6 -87.6% 2.0 -10.8 -84.5% 0.4 -88.0 -99.6% 

Food 7.1 -39.3 -84.7% 4.7 -14.1 -74.8% 0.8 -69.0 -98.9% 

Lodging 1.9 -13.7 -87.9% 1.2 -7.2 -85.2% 0.2 -64.5 -99.6% 

Boat Fuel 1.7 -9.1 -84.6% 1.2 -3.5 -74.7% 0.2 -20.8 -98.9% 

Party/Charter Fees 2.2 -12.8 -85.1% 1.8 -5.9 -76.6% 0.3 -28.2 -99.1% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.9 -100.0% 0.0 -9.2 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 0.6 -3.2 -84.6% 0.4 -1.2 -74.4% 0.1 -6.4 -98.8% 

Bait and Ice 3.3 -16.7 -83.4% 2.0 -4.3 -68.8% 0.4 -14.6 -97.6% 

Total 19.7 -116.1 -85.5% 13.3 -47.7 -78.2% 2.3 -300.8 -99.2% 

Non-residents of the State

Transportation 0.2 -4.7 -96.2% 0.3 -4.6 -94.6% 0.0 -22.6 -99.9% 

Food 1.0 -6.9 -87.8% 1.3 -4.8 -78.5% 0.1 -14.0 -99.0% 

Lodging 0.4 -3.6 -89.7% 0.6 -2.7 -82.7% 0.1 -10.8 -99.4% 

Boat Fuel 0.2 -1.2 -87.8% 0.3 -0.9 -78.4% 0.0 -3.3 -99.0% 

Party/Charter Fees 0.4 -2.1 -84.8% 0.6 -1.5 -70.8% 0.1 -2.5 -97.8% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.5 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 0.1 -0.5 -89.2% 0.1 -0.4 -81.6% 0.0 -1.5 -99.3% 

Bait and Ice 0.3 -1.8 -84.8% 0.4 -1.0 -70.6% 0.0 -2.1 -97.7% 

Total 2.5 -21.2 -89.5% 3.5 -16.3 -82.2% 0.4 -58.2 -99.3% 

Net Impact**

Transportation 3.1 -25.3 -19.4% 2.2 -15.4 -11.6% 0.4 -110.6 -73.1% 

Food 8.1 -46.2 -25.5% 6.1 -18.9 -12.5% 0.9 -83.0 -70.8% 

Lodging 2.3 -17.3 -40.4% 1.8 -9.9 -20.2% 0.3 -75.3 -77.5% 

Boat Fuel 1.8 -10.3 -20.3% 1.4 -4.4 -9.2% 0.3 -24.0 -63.0% 

Party/Charter Fees 2.6 -14.8 -38.1% 2.4 -7.4 -24.2% 0.3 -30.8 -92.7% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -1.0 -14.9% 0.0 -1.3 -9.4% 0.0 -10.7 -63.9% 

Equipment Rental 0.6 -3.7 -23.5% 0.5 -1.6 -12.8% 0.1 -7.9 -79.3% 

Bait and Ice 3.6 -18.5 -18.6% 2.4 -5.3 -7.1% 0.4 -16.7 -46.0% 

Total 22.2 -137.3 -24.2% 16.8 -64.1 -12.5% 2.7 -359.0 -71.8% 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending.  For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending.  The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 73 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-27. Total changes in employment (in full-time equivalent jobs) caused by changes in sport fishing trips under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group/Sector Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation 0.4 -101.7 -99.6% 0.4 -114.0 -99.6% 0.0 -40.4 -100.0% 

Food 0.6 -126.4 -99.6% 0.6 -125.8 -99.5% 0.0 -33.4 -99.9% 

Lodging 0.0 -23.2 -99.9% 0.0 -37.1 -99.9% 0.0 -21.6 -100.0% 

Boat Fuel 0.2 -38.6 -99.6% 0.2 -41.9 -99.5% 0.0 -13.8 -99.9% 

Party/Charter Fees 0.1 -21.4 -99.4% 0.2 -20.5 -99.3% 0.0 -2.1 -99.8% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -5.8 -100.0% 0.0 -12.2 -100.0% 0.0 -6.0 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 0.1 -11.4 -99.5% 0.1 -10.1 -99.4% 0.0 -2.0 -99.9% 

Bait and Ice 0.3 -77.1 -99.5% 0.3 -66.8 -99.5% 0.0 -19.1 -99.9% 

Total 1.7 -405.7 -99.6% 1.8 -428.5 -99.6% 0.1 -138.3 -99.9% 

Non-Local Residents

Transportation 0.1 -23.4 -99.6% 0.0 -12.7 -99.7% 0.0 -88.4 -100.0% 

Food 0.2 -46.2 -99.5% 0.1 -18.7 -99.5% 0.0 -69.8 -100.0% 

Lodging 0.1 -15.5 -99.6% 0.0 -8.4 -99.7% 0.0 -64.8 -100.0% 

Boat Fuel 0.1 -10.7 -99.5% 0.0 -4.7 -99.5% 0.0 -21.0 -100.0% 

Party/Charter Fees 0.1 -14.9 -99.5% 0.0 -7.6 -99.5% 0.0 -28.5 -100.0% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -0.8 -100.0% 0.0 -0.9 -100.0% 0.0 -9.2 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 0.0 -3.8 -99.5% 0.0 -1.6 -99.5% 0.0 -6.5 -100.0% 

Bait and Ice 0.1 -19.9 -99.5% 0.0 -6.2 -99.3% 0.0 -14.9 -99.9% 

Total 0.6 -135.2 -99.5% 0.3 -60.8 -99.5% 0.1 -303.0 -100.0% 

Non-residents of the State

Transportation 0.0 -4.9 -99.9% 0.0 -4.9 -99.9% 0.0 -22.6 -100.0% 

Food 0.0 -7.9 -99.6% 0.0 -6.1 -99.5% 0.0 -14.1 -100.0% 

Lodging 0.0 -4.0 -99.7% 0.0 -3.3 -99.6% 0.0 -10.9 -100.0% 

Boat Fuel 0.0 -1.4 -99.6% 0.0 -1.2 -99.5% 0.0 -3.3 -100.0% 

Party/Charter Fees 0.0 -2.4 -99.5% 0.0 -2.1 -99.4% 0.0 -2.6 -99.9% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -0.3 -100.0% 0.0 -1.5 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental 0.0 -0.6 -99.7% 0.0 -0.5 -99.6% 0.0 -1.5 -100.0% 

Bait and Ice 0.0 -2.2 -99.5% 0.0 -1.4 -99.4% 0.0 -2.1 -99.9% 

Total 0.1 -23.6 -99.7% 0.1 -19.8 -99.6% 0.0 -58.6 -100.0% 

Net Impact**

Transportation 0.1 -28.3 -21.7% 0.0 -17.6 -13.3% 0.0 -111.0 -73.3% 

Food 0.3 -54.1 -29.8% 0.1 -24.8 -16.4% 0.0 -83.9 -71.5% 

Lodging 0.1 -19.5 -45.6% 0.0 -11.7 -23.9% 0.0 -75.6 -77.8% 

Boat Fuel 0.1 -12.1 -23.7% 0.0 -5.8 -12.2% 0.0 -24.3 -63.7% 

Party/Charter Fees 0.1 -17.4 -44.5% 0.1 -9.7 -32.0% 0.0 -31.1 -93.7% 

ccess/Boat Launching 0.0 -1.0 -14.9% 0.0 -1.3 -9.4% 0.0 -10.7 -63.9% 

Equipment Rental 0.0 -4.3 -27.4% 0.0 -2.0 -16.7% 0.0 -8.0 -80.2% 

Bait and Ice 0.1 -22.1 -22.1% 0.0 -7.6 -10.2% 0.0 -17.0 -47.1% 

Total 0.7 -158.8 -28.0% 0.4 -80.5 -15.8% 0.1 -361.6 -72.3% 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending.  For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending.  The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 74 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries.

North SJF/ State

Angler Group/Sector Puget Sound SPS/SHC* NHC* Total

Local Residents

Transportation $3,601,273 $5,025,029 $1,170,252 $10,585,672

Food $3,451,797 $4,586,478 $733,296 $10,187,463

Lodging $739,805 $1,506,522 $564,722 $3,031,943

Boat Fuel $2,072,823 $2,670,191 $528,523 $5,707,453

Party/Charter Fees $486,618 $480,234 $43,181 $1,079,662

Access/Boat Launching $157,525 $367,628 $138,158 $732,568

Equipment Rental $477,333 $573,178 $58,258 $1,245,418

Bait and Ice $4,779,342 $5,580,193 $1,176,148 $12,029,420

Total $15,766,516 $20,789,453 $4,412,539 $44,599,598

Non-Local Residents

Transportation $829,774 $559,015 $2,561,019 $4,723,922

Food $1,262,850 $681,729 $1,533,127 $4,669,476

Lodging $496,792 $341,234 $1,691,898 $2,939,249

Boat Fuel $573,469 $296,596 $802,274 $1,949,691

Party/Charter Fees $338,476 $177,731 $588,697 $1,244,754

Access/Boat Launching $20,381 $28,234 $209,849 $323,180

Equipment Rental $157,739 $88,450 $192,479 $571,273

Bait and Ice $1,233,740 $520,688 $920,128 $2,849,477

Total $4,913,221 $2,693,678 $8,499,472 $19,271,021

Non-residents of the State

Transportation $173,744 $213,444 $655,103 $1,404,333

Food $214,382 $224,122 $310,621 $1,108,022

Lodging $127,754 $133,003 $283,815 $678,705

Boat Fuel $75,282 $75,583 $126,721 $359,954

Party/Charter Fees $55,496 $49,476 $53,445 $180,706

Access/Boat Launching $7,283 $9,984 $34,637 $70,327

Equipment Rental $23,815 $27,107 $43,472 $130,720

Bait and Ice $134,509 $115,439 $130,388 $417,401

Total $812,265 $848,159 $1,638,201 $4,350,169

Net Impact**

Transportation $4,604,790 $5,797,488 $4,386,375 $16,713,926

Food $4,929,029 $5,492,329 $2,577,044 $15,964,962

Lodging $1,364,351 $1,980,759 $2,540,435 $6,649,897

Boat Fuel $2,721,574 $3,042,370 $1,457,518 $8,017,098

Party/Charter Fees $880,590 $707,441 $685,323 $2,505,121

Access/Boat Launching $185,190 $405,846 $382,644 $1,126,075

Equipment Rental $658,887 $688,735 $294,210 $1,947,411

Bait and Ice $6,147,591 $6,216,320 $2,226,665 $15,296,298

Total $21,492,002 $24,331,289 $14,550,212 $68,220,788

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.

** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. 

For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. 

The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action/Status Quo

Table D-28. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in 

 sport fishing trips under the project alternatives.

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 75 December 2004
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-28. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in sport fishing trips under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group/Sector Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation $759,400 -$2,841,872 -78.9% $891,378 -$4,133,650 -82.3% $31,565 -$1,138,687 -97.3% $1,7

Food $837,984 -$2,613,813 -75.7% $1,035,084 -$3,551,394 -77.4% $30,556 -$702,740 -95.8% $2,1

Lodging $40,169 -$699,636 -94.6% $46,913 -$1,459,609 -96.9% $1,743 -$562,980 -99.7% $

Boat Fuel $497,875 -$1,574,949 -76.0% $591,200 -$2,078,991 -77.9% $21,204 -$507,319 -96.0% $1,1

Party/Charter Fees $147,941 -$338,677 -69.6% $170,037 -$310,197 -64.6% $6,559 -$36,621 -84.8% $3

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$157,525 -100.0% $0 -$367,628 -100.0% $0 -$138,158 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $135,909 -$341,424 -71.5% $176,048 -$397,131 -69.3% $5,174 -$53,085 -91.1% $3

Bait and Ice $1,190,251 -$3,589,091 -75.1% $1,319,145 -$4,261,048 -76.4% $53,900 -$1,122,249 -95.4% $2,6

Total $3,609,529 -$12,156,987 -77.1% $4,229,805 -$16,559,648 -79.7% $150,700 -$4,261,839 -96.6% $8,5

Non-Local Residents

Transportation $181,532 -$648,241 -78.1% $86,635 -$472,380 -84.5% $25,874 -$2,535,145 -99.0% $3

Food $342,033 -$920,817 -72.9% $171,774 -$509,956 -74.8% $42,766 -$1,490,361 -97.2% $6

Lodging $106,003 -$390,788 -78.7% $50,335 -$290,899 -85.2% $15,770 -$1,676,128 -99.1% $1

Boat Fuel $155,645 -$417,825 -72.9% $75,145 -$221,451 -74.7% $22,730 -$779,544 -97.2% $2

Party/Charter Fees $89,119 -$249,357 -73.7% $41,646 -$136,085 -76.6% $13,549 -$575,148 -97.7% $1

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$20,381 -100.0% $0 -$28,234 -100.0% $0 -$209,849 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $42,971 -$114,768 -72.8% $22,631 -$65,819 -74.4% $5,609 -$186,870 -97.1% $

Bait and Ice $360,536 -$873,204 -70.8% $162,462 -$358,226 -68.8% $55,985 -$864,144 -93.9% $6

Total $1,277,839 -$3,635,382 -74.0% $610,628 -$2,083,050 -77.3% $182,283 -$8,317,189 -97.9% $2,3

Non-residents of the State

Transportation $11,654 -$162,090 -93.3% $11,586 -$201,858 -94.6% $2,213 -$652,890 -99.7% $

Food $46,137 -$168,246 -78.5% $48,271 -$175,852 -78.5% $7,687 -$302,934 -97.5% $1

Lodging $23,236 -$104,518 -81.8% $22,986 -$110,017 -82.7% $4,606 -$279,208 -98.4% $

Boat Fuel $16,247 -$59,035 -78.4% $16,341 -$59,242 -78.4% $3,162 -$123,559 -97.5% $

Party/Charter Fees $14,851 -$40,646 -73.2% $14,458 -$35,018 -70.8% $3,009 -$50,436 -94.4% $

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$7,283 -100.0% $0 -$9,984 -100.0% $0 -$34,637 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $4,558 -$19,257 -80.9% $5,001 -$22,106 -81.6% $793 -$42,679 -98.2% $

Bait and Ice $36,113 -$98,396 -73.2% $33,901 -$81,538 -70.6% $7,473 -$122,915 -94.3% $

Total $152,794 -$659,471 -81.2% $152,543 -$695,615 -82.0% $28,944 -$1,609,258 -98.2% $4

Net Impact**

Transportation $193,186 -$810,332 -17.6% $98,222 -$674,238 -11.6% $28,087 -$3,188,035 -72.7% $

Food $388,169 -$1,089,063 -22.1% $220,044 -$685,807 -12.5% $50,454 -$1,793,294 -69.6% $1

Lodging $129,239 -$495,307 -36.3% $73,321 -$400,917 -20.2% $20,376 -$1,955,336 -77.0% $

Boat Fuel $171,892 -$476,859 -17.5% $91,486 -$280,693 -9.2% $25,892 -$903,103 -62.0% $

Party/Charter Fees $103,970 -$290,002 -32.9% $56,104 -$171,103 -24.2% $16,558 -$625,584 -91.3% $

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$27,665 -14.9% $0 -$38,218 -9.4% $0 -$244,486 -63.9% 

Equipment Rental $47,528 -$134,026 -20.3% $27,632 -$87,925 -12.8% $6,402 -$229,549 -78.0% $

Bait and Ice $396,649 -$971,600 -15.8% $196,363 -$439,764 -7.1% $63,457 -$987,059 -44.3% $

Total $1,430,633 -$4,294,853 -20.0% $763,171 -$2,778,665 -11.4% $211,227 -$9,926,446 -68.2% $4

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 2 - Escapement Goal Management at the Management Unit Level

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 76 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-28. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in sport fishing trips under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group/Sector Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation $430,246 -$3,171,026 -88.1% $891,399 -$4,133,630 -82.3% $12,600 -$1,157,653 -98.9% $1,3

Food $474,769 -$2,977,028 -86.2% $1,035,108 -$3,551,370 -77.4% $12,197 -$721,099 -98.3% $1,6

Lodging $22,758 -$717,047 -96.9% $46,914 -$1,459,608 -96.9% $696 -$564,027 -99.9% $

Boat Fuel $282,076 -$1,790,747 -86.4% $591,214 -$2,078,977 -77.9% $8,464 -$520,059 -98.4% $9

Party/Charter Fees $83,817 -$402,801 -82.8% $170,041 -$310,193 -64.6% $2,618 -$40,563 -93.9% $2

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$157,525 -100.0% $0 -$367,628 -100.0% $0 -$138,158 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $77,000 -$400,332 -83.9% $176,052 -$397,127 -69.3% $2,065 -$56,193 -96.5% $2

Bait and Ice $674,349 -$4,104,993 -85.9% $1,319,175 -$4,261,018 -76.4% $21,515 -$1,154,634 -98.2% $2,0

Total $2,045,016 -$13,721,500 -87.0% $4,229,903 -$16,559,549 -79.7% $60,154 -$4,352,386 -98.6% $6,7

Non-Local Residents

Transportation $102,848 -$726,926 -87.6% $86,635 -$472,380 -84.5% $10,323 -$2,550,696 -99.6% $2

Food $193,780 -$1,069,070 -84.7% $171,774 -$509,956 -74.8% $17,063 -$1,516,064 -98.9% $4

Lodging $60,057 -$436,735 -87.9% $50,335 -$290,899 -85.2% $6,292 -$1,685,606 -99.6% $1

Boat Fuel $88,181 -$485,288 -84.6% $75,145 -$221,451 -74.7% $9,069 -$793,205 -98.9% $1

Party/Charter Fees $50,491 -$287,985 -85.1% $41,646 -$136,085 -76.6% $5,406 -$583,291 -99.1% $1

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$20,381 -100.0% $0 -$28,234 -100.0% $0 -$209,849 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $24,345 -$133,394 -84.6% $22,631 -$65,819 -74.4% $2,238 -$190,241 -98.8% $

Bait and Ice $204,263 -$1,029,477 -83.4% $162,462 -$358,226 -68.8% $22,337 -$897,791 -97.6% $4

Total $723,965 -$4,189,255 -85.3% $610,628 -$2,083,050 -77.3% $72,728 -$8,426,744 -99.1% $1,5

Non-residents of the State

Transportation $6,603 -$167,141 -96.2% $11,586 -$201,858 -94.6% $882 -$654,221 -99.9% $

Food $26,141 -$188,242 -87.8% $48,271 -$175,852 -78.5% $3,064 -$307,557 -99.0% $

Lodging $13,165 -$114,589 -89.7% $22,986 -$110,017 -82.7% $1,836 -$281,978 -99.4% $

Boat Fuel $9,205 -$66,076 -87.8% $16,341 -$59,242 -78.4% $1,260 -$125,461 -99.0% $

Party/Charter Fees $8,414 -$47,082 -84.8% $14,458 -$35,018 -70.8% $1,199 -$52,245 -97.8% $

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$7,283 -100.0% $0 -$9,984 -100.0% $0 -$34,637 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $2,582 -$21,233 -89.2% $5,001 -$22,106 -81.6% $316 -$43,156 -99.3% 

Bait and Ice $20,461 -$114,048 -84.8% $33,901 -$81,538 -70.6% $2,979 -$127,409 -97.7% $

Total $86,571 -$725,694 -89.3% $152,543 -$695,615 -82.0% $11,537 -$1,626,664 -99.3% $2

Net Impact**

Transportation $109,451 -$894,067 -19.4% $98,222 -$674,238 -11.6% $11,206 -$3,204,917 -73.1% $

Food $219,921 -$1,257,312 -25.5% $220,044 -$685,807 -12.5% $20,127 -$1,823,621 -70.8% $

Lodging $73,222 -$551,324 -40.4% $73,321 -$400,917 -20.2% $8,128 -$1,967,584 -77.5% $

Boat Fuel $97,387 -$551,364 -20.3% $91,486 -$280,693 -9.2% $10,329 -$918,666 -63.0% $

Party/Charter Fees $58,905 -$335,067 -38.1% $56,104 -$171,103 -24.2% $6,605 -$635,537 -92.7% $

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$27,665 -14.9% $0 -$38,218 -9.4% $0 -$244,486 -63.9% 

Equipment Rental $26,928 -$154,626 -23.5% $27,632 -$87,925 -12.8% $2,554 -$233,397 -79.3% 

Bait and Ice $224,724 -$1,143,524 -18.6% $196,363 -$439,764 -7.1% $25,316 -$1,025,200 -46.0% $

Total $810,537 -$4,914,949 -22.9% $763,171 -$2,778,665 -11.4% $84,266 -$10,053,407 -69.1% $2

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 3 - Escapement Goal Management at the Population Level/Terminal Fisheries Only

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 77 
Appendix D - Technical Methods - Economics

Table D-28. Total changes in personal income (in 2002 dollars) caused by changes in sport fishing trips under the project alternatives.Scenario B: 2003 Abundance with maximum Canadian/Alaskan Pacific Salmon Treaty fisheries, continued.

Change from Change from Change from 

Angler Group/Sector Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline % Change Number Baseline (%) Numbe

Local Residents

Transportation $13,760 -$3,587,513 -99.6% $18,649 -$5,006,380 -99.6% $489 -$1,169,763 -100.0% $

Food $15,184 -$3,436,613 -99.6% $21,655 -$4,564,822 -99.5% $473 -$732,823 -99.9% $

Lodging $728 -$739,077 -99.9% $981 -$1,505,540 -99.9% $27 -$564,695 -100.0% 

Boat Fuel $9,021 -$2,063,802 -99.6% $12,369 -$2,657,822 -99.5% $329 -$528,194 -99.9% $

Party/Charter Fees $2,681 -$483,937 -99.4% $3,557 -$476,677 -99.3% $102 -$43,079 -99.8% 

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$157,525 -100.0% $0 -$367,628 -100.0% $0 -$138,158 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $2,463 -$474,870 -99.5% $3,683 -$569,495 -99.4% $80 -$58,178 -99.9% 

Bait and Ice $21,567 -$4,757,776 -99.5% $27,598 -$5,552,595 -99.5% $835 -$1,175,313 -99.9% $

Total $65,402 -$15,701,114 -99.6% $88,494 -$20,700,959 -99.6% $2,335 -$4,410,204 -99.9% $1

Non-Local Residents

Transportation $3,292 -$826,481 -99.6% $1,811 -$557,205 -99.7% $399 -$2,560,620 -100.0% 

Food $6,203 -$1,256,647 -99.5% $3,590 -$678,139 -99.5% $660 -$1,532,467 -100.0% $

Lodging $1,923 -$494,869 -99.6% $1,052 -$340,182 -99.7% $243 -$1,691,654 -100.0% 

Boat Fuel $2,823 -$570,646 -99.5% $1,571 -$295,025 -99.5% $351 -$801,923 -100.0% 

Party/Charter Fees $1,616 -$336,859 -99.5% $870 -$176,861 -99.5% $209 -$588,488 -100.0% 

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$20,381 -100.0% $0 -$28,234 -100.0% $0 -$209,849 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $779 -$156,960 -99.5% $473 -$87,977 -99.5% $87 -$192,392 -100.0% 

Bait and Ice $6,539 -$1,227,201 -99.5% $3,395 -$517,292 -99.3% $864 -$919,264 -99.9% $

Total $23,176 -$4,890,045 -99.5% $12,762 -$2,680,915 -99.5% $2,814 -$8,496,658 -100.0% $

Non-residents of the State

Transportation $213 -$173,531 -99.9% $244 -$213,200 -99.9% $34 -$655,070 -100.0% 

Food $843 -$213,540 -99.6% $1,017 -$223,106 -99.5% $117 -$310,504 -100.0% 

Lodging $424 -$127,329 -99.7% $484 -$132,519 -99.6% $70 -$283,745 -100.0% 

Boat Fuel $297 -$74,985 -99.6% $344 -$75,239 -99.5% $48 -$126,673 -100.0% 

Party/Charter Fees $271 -$55,225 -99.5% $305 -$49,171 -99.4% $46 -$53,399 -99.9% 

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$7,283 -100.0% $0 -$9,984 -100.0% $0 -$34,637 -100.0% 

Equipment Rental $83 -$23,732 -99.7% $105 -$27,002 -99.6% $12 -$43,460 -100.0% 

Bait and Ice $660 -$133,849 -99.5% $714 -$114,725 -99.4% $113 -$130,275 -99.9% 

Total $2,791 -$809,474 -99.7% $3,214 -$844,945 -99.6% $439 -$1,637,762 -100.0% 

Net Impact**

Transportation $3,505 -$1,000,012 -21.7% $2,055 -$770,405 -13.3% $433 -$3,215,690 -73.3% 

Food $7,046 -$1,470,186 -29.8% $4,607 -$901,245 -16.4% $777 -$1,842,971 -71.5% 

Lodging $2,347 -$622,199 -45.6% $1,536 -$472,701 -23.9% $313 -$1,975,399 -77.8% 

Boat Fuel $3,120 -$645,631 -23.7% $1,915 -$370,265 -12.2% $399 -$928,596 -63.7% 

Party/Charter Fees $1,888 -$392,084 -44.5% $1,175 -$226,032 -32.0% $255 -$641,887 -93.7% 

ccess/Boat Launching $0 -$27,665 -14.9% $0 -$38,218 -9.4% $0 -$244,486 -63.9% 

Equipment Rental $863 -$180,691 -27.4% $578 -$114,978 -16.7% $99 -$235,853 -80.2% 

Bait and Ice $7,199 -$1,361,050 -22.1% $4,110 -$632,017 -10.2% $978 -$1,049,538 -47.1% 

Total $25,967 -$5,699,519 -26.5% $15,976 -$3,525,860 -14.5% $3,253 -$10,134,420 -69.7% 

* SPS/SHC = South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal; SJF/NHC = Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal.** For Puget Sound regions, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-local and non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. For Washington, the net impact represents effects caused by changes in non-resident spending relative to baseline spending. The baseline includes local, non-local, and non-resident spending effects.

Alternative 4 - No Fishing

North Puget Sound SPS/SHC* SJF/NHC* 

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestResource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS D - 78 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 79 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

References 

Gentner, B., M. Price, S. Steinbeck. 2001. Marine angler expenditures in the Pacific Coast Region, 

2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-49. Silver Springs, MD. November 2001. 

ICF Technology Incorporated. 1988. Economic impacts and net economic values associated with nonIndian salmon and sturgeon fisheries. Prepared for the State of Washington Department of 

Community Development, Olympia, WA. Redmond, WA. 

McNair, Douglas. The William Douglas Company. January 2003. Personal communication with Tom 

Wegge, TCW Economics (one of the NEPA EIS authors), concerning the distribution of sport 

fishing trips in Puget Sound by mode of fishing. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2002. IMPLAN database for Washington state and counties. 

Stillwater, MN. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Draft programmatic environmental impact statement for 

Pacific salmon fisheries management off the coasts of Southeast Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and 

California, and in the Columbia River Basin. Seattle, WA. 

Olsen, D., J. Richards, R.D. Scott. 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia 

River Basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers, volume 1, number 1. Pages 44-56. 

Pattillo, Pat. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. December 20, 2003. Personal 

communication (telephone conversation) with Tom Wegge, TCW Economics (one of the NEPA 

EIS authors) concerning modes of sport fishing in Puget Sound.

The Research Group. 1991. Oregon angler survey and economic study, final report. Prepared for the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, OR. 

Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 80 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

ATTACHMENT A 

Background Data for the Affected Environment

Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 81 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-1. Ex-vessel value of salmon landed in Puget Sound ports between 1991 and 1998 (in thousands of nom

Major Port/County 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Blaine $2,382 $2,021 $2,898 $4,637 $960 $725 $1,595 Bellingham $8,668 $4,148 $7,507 $8,051 $2,805 $1,626 $5,417 

Whatcom County $11,050 $6,647 $10,924 $13,192 $3,862 $2,351 $7,011 

Friday Harbor $260 $369 $691 $146 $35 --1 $3 

San Juan County $260 $369 $691 $146 $35 --1 $6 

Anacortes $674 $281 $1,480 $891 $662 $236 $336 LaConner $3,298 $1,535 $1,251 $720 $84 $169 $361 

Skagit County $3,972 $1,816 $2,730 $1,611 $746 $405 $697 

Everett $1,206 $1,312 $2,100 $3,301 $708 $533 $1,670 

Snohomish County $1,206 $1,312 $2,100 $3,301 $708 $533 $1,670 

Seattle $4,657 $3,466 $2,195 $1,726 $1,186 $855 $1,136 

King County $4,657 $3,466 $2,195 $1,726 $1,186 $855 $1,136 

Tacoma $275 $946 $432 $689 $538 $409 $210 

Pierce County $275 $946 $432 $689 $538 $409 $210 

Olympia $208 $115 $118 $212 $114 $86 $26 

Thurston County $208 $115 $118 $212 $114 $86 $26 

Shelton $373 $297 $335 $602 $670 $579 $421 

Mason County $373 $297 $335 $602 $670 $579 $421 

Port Townsend $88 $73 $211 $112 $51 $84 $202 

Jefferson County $346 $299 $413 $898 $190 $84 $202 

Poulsbo $12 $24 $82 $22 $17 $43 $22 Bremerton $230 --1 --1 --1 --1 --1 $4 

Kitsap County $241 $282 $248 $281 $113 $146 $26 

Port Angeles $1,233 $535 $1,209 $1,631 $636 $332 $218 Neah Bay $1,592 $1,524 $1,196 $285 $418 $673 --1 

Clallam County $3,767 $2,982 $2,687 $2,053 $1,194 $1,129 $598 

REGIONAL TOTAL $26,355 $18,531 $22,873 $24,711 $9,356 $6,577 $12,003 Source: Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Community Descriptions (1999). Not reported for confidentiality reasons (fewer than 3 buyers). 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 82 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-2. Annual average catch (pounds landed) and ex-vessel value of salmon harvested in Puget Sound from 

thousands of pounds or thousands of nominal dollars). 

Species 

Chinook Chum Coho Pink Sockeye 

Year 

Pounds 

Landed 

Ex-Vessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

Ex-Vessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

Ex-Vessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

Ex-Vessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

Ex-Ve

Val

1991 2,008.3 $2,375.1 8,845.4 $4,776.6 3,446.8 $2,447.2 12,035.8 $2,407.2 10,248.1 $121992 1,646.0 $1,700.8 12,247.8 $5,634.0 2,197.7 $1,890.1 0.7 $0.2 3,410.4 $61993 1,145.7 $996.4 10,059.4 $6,236.8 1,057.4 $676.7 7,437.6 $1,190.0 15,099.2 $131994 1,118.9 $991.7 11,818.1 $3,190.9 2,131.9 $1,449.7 0.9 $0.2 10,317.6 $151995 923.4 $572.1 6,556.8 $1,901.5 1,340.5 $630.0 9,477.2 $1,611.1 2,323.6 $21996 963.2 $484.2 7,073.9 $1,202.6 760.4 $235.7 0.2 $0.0 1,887.8 $21997 1,049.3 $540.8 3,684.4 $1,215.9 793.6 $428.6 7,032.2 $1,265.8 7,674.1 $81998 692.2 $357.1 7,467.5 $1,120.1 778.7 $303.7 3.3 $2.2 3,014.9 $41999 1,121.8 $617.6 2,017.5 $605.2 505.4 $227.4 169.3 $25.4 114.9 $2000 980.5 $684.6 2,454.5 $883.6 1,699.7 $730.9 1.3 $1.2 3,052.8 $3

Annual Average 1,164.9 $932.0 7,222.5 $2,676.7 1,471.2 $902.0 3,615.9 $650.3 5,714.3 $7

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, License, and Fish Ticket database (personal communication with Doug M

Company, December 20, 2002). 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 83 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-3. Annual average commercial (tribal and non-tribal) harvest (pounds landed)1 of salmon in marine wat

marine catch area and species (1991 through 2000). 

Chinook Chum Coho Pink Socke

Marine Catch 

Areas 

 Average 

Annual Catch 

% of 

Total 

Species 

Catch 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

% of 

Total 

Species 

Catch 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

% of Total 

Species 

Catch 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

% of Total 

Species 

Catch 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

Area 4 31,545 3% 509 0% 23,544 2% 3,565 0% 6,693 Area 5 114,607 10% 298,755 4% 52,591 4% 36,360 1% 258,621 Area 6 33,315 3% 18,312 0% 22,146 2% 3,077 0% 19,725 Area 7 499,652 44% 831,927 12% 316,168 21% 3,343,213 93% 5,585,956 Area 8 128,526 11% 986,886 14% 330,982 22% 225,246 6% 213 Area 9 451 0% 12,990 0% 41,820 3% 208 0% 11 

Area 10 175,390 16% 1,170,576 16% 232,265 16% 1,179 0% 69,900 Area 11 4,446 0% 594.769 8% 49,090 3% 38 0% 0 Area 12 42,063 4% 3,124,520 44% 45,415 3% 367 0% 0 Area 13 98,867 9% 142,251 2% 357,652 24% 106 0% 0 

All Marine 1,128,862 100% 7,181,495 100% 1,471,673 100% 3,613,359 100% 5,941,119 

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, License, and Fish Ticket database (personal communication with Doug M

Company, December 20, 2002). 

Note: Conversion from number of fish to pound landed is based on average weight over the period of 1996 through 2000. 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 84 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-4. Average annual commercial (tribal and non-tribal) harvest (pounds landed) of salmon in freshwater a

catch area and species (1991 through 2000). 

Chinook Chum Coho Pink Sockey

Freshwater Catch 

Areas 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

% of 

Total 

Species 

Catch 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

% of Total 

Species 

Catch 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

% of Total 

Species 

Catch 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

% of Total 

Species 

Catch 

Average 

Annual 

Catch 

% 

Nooksack-Samish 27,823 10% 103,416 16% 89,360 20% 3,152 2% 300 

Skagit 19,888 7% 216,547 34% 35,496 8% 174,540 96% 645 

Stillaguamish 139 0% 34,582 5% 3,120 1% 2,220 1% - 

Snohomish 17 0% 11 0% 192 0% - 0% - 

Lk. Washington 0 0% - 0% 56 0% - 0% - 

Green-Duwamish 45,431 16% 31,597 5% 136,880 30% 32 0% 10 

Puyallup 47,195 15% 11,631 2% 157,888 35% 2,448 1% 5 

Nisqually 94,047 33% 140,010 22% 11,632 3% 40 0% 5 

S. Puget Sound 37,716 13% 14,841 2% 1,320 0% 12 0% - 

Mid-Hood Canal - 0% 64 0% 1,248 0% - 0% - 

Skokomish 17,191 6% 91,057 14% 2,632 1% 4 0% 0 

JDF Strait 1,096 0% 161 0% 9,672 2% 0 0% 0 

All Freshwater 285,533 100% 643,917 100% 449,496 100% 182,448 100% 965 

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, License and Fish Ticket database (personal communication with Doug M

Company, December 20, 2002. 

Note: Conversion from number of fish to pound landed is based on average weight over the period of 1996 through 2000. 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 85 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D.A-5. Number of licenses issued for commercial salmon fishing in Puget Sound between 

1991 and 2000. 1

Year Residents Non-Residents Total Issued2

1991 1,423 123 1,512 

1992 1,400 114 1,495 

1993 1,363 110 1,451 

1994 1,318 91 1,398 

1995 1,240 74 1,312 

1996 1,177 58 1,233 

1997 1,161 98 1,215 

1998 1,093 186 1,147 

1999 946 41 987 

2000 946 42 987 

Annual Average 1,207 94 1,274 

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, License and Fish Ticket database (personal communication 

with Lee Hoines, WDFW, January 17, 2002). 

1 Excludes licenses issued for salmon charters and guides. 

2 Total number of licenses issued does not equal the sum of resident and non-resident licenses issued. 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 86 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-6. Distribution of 2001 commercial non-tribal harvest (pounds landed) of salmon by marine catch area 

permit holder region of residence. 

Region where commercial fishing license holder resides 

Catch Area North Puget Sound 

South Puget 

Sound/Hood Canal 

Strait of Juan de 

Fuca/North Hood 

Canal Other Washington 

Marine Catch Area 4 0 0 0 Marine Catch Area 5 0 0 0 0 Marine Catch Area 6 5,709 7,002 25,573 0 Marine Catch Area 7 2,259,518 484,058 5,381 12,633 Marine Catch Area 8 744,015 555,855 3,802 5,186 Marine Catch Area 9 0 1,992 13,895 0 

Marine Catch Area 10 980,048 758,828 88,457 33,299 Marine Catch Area 11 370,964 1,411,350 0 16,826 Marine Catch Area 12 1,168,448 540,255 289,705 125,042 Marine Catch Area 13 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 5,528,702 3,759,340 426,813 192,986 

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, License and Fish Ticket database (personal communication w

WDFW, December 18, 2002). 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 87 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D.A-7. Distribution of 2001 commercial non-tribal harvest (pounds landed) of salmon by 

marine catch area and type of gear used. 

Pounds Landed by Gear Type 

Catch Area Gillnet Purse Seine Reef Net 

Total Pounds 

Landed 

Marine Catch Area 4 0 0 0 0 

Marine Catch Area 5 0 0 0 0 

Marine Catch Area 6 38,889 0 0 38,889 

Marine Catch Area 7 928,955 1,723,564 123,921 2,776,440 

Marine Catch Area 8 71,362 1,237,496 0 1,308,858 

Marine Catch Area 9 15,887 0 0 15,887 

Marine Catch Area 10 247,676 1,612,928 0 1,860,604 

Marine Catch Area 11 42,307 1,880,291 0 1,922,598 

Marine Catch Area 12 136,551 1,866,949 0 2,003,500 

Marine Catch Area 13 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 1,481,627 8,321,228 123,921 9,926,776 

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, License and Fish Ticket database (personal 

communication with Lee Hoines, WDFW, December 18, 2002). 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 88 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-8. Annual average catch (in thousands of pounds landed) and ex-vessel value (in thousands of nominal 

harvested by tribes in Puget Sound (1991 through 2000). 

Species 

Chinook Chum Coho Pink Sockeye Steelhead 

Year 

Pounds 

Landed 

ExVessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

ExVessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

ExVessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

ExVessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

ExVessel 

Value 

Pounds 

Landed 

E

Ve

V

1991 1277.0 $1,545.2 5103.2 $2,398.5 2271.5 $1,771.8 6940.8 $1,527.0 4516.1 $5,238.7 63.4 $1992 904.8 $1,122.0 7395.4 $3,327.9 1445.2 $1,300.7 0.388 $0.1 1651.7 $3,138.2 87.4 $1993 687.9 $763.6 4424.1 $2,300.5 682.3 $484.4 4297.7 $644.7 6990.6 $6,291.5 32.5 $1994 765.1 $749.8 7340.3 $1,908.5 2246.8 $1,572.8 0.776 $0.2 5062.7 $7,492.8 36.47 $1995 759.2 $675.7 3291.1 $888.6 1498.3 $824.1 3744.8 $636.6 1347.2 $741.0 39.1 $1996 759.1 $736.3 1826.2 $383.5 729.7 $357.6 0.125 $0.0 1641.2 $787.8 27.2 $1997 740.1 $577.3 1789.1 $518.8 591.6 $349.0 3484.4 $522.7 3475.2 $3,683.7 13.9 $1998 511.7 $378.7 1283.9 $256.8 826.9 $430.0 2.1 $0.5 1769.4 $2,601.0 34.6 $1999 847.6 $712.0 1022.1 $327.1 550.5 $346.8 187.1 $29.9 119.8 $146.2 13.3 $2000 762.1 $632.5 937.8 $384.5 2097.4 $1,027.7 1.76 $0.4 1732.1 $2,026.6 17.7 $

Annual Average 801.5 $789.3 3,441.3 $1,269.5 1,294.0 $846.5 1,866.0 $336.2 2,830.6 $3,214.7 36.6 $

Source: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, license and fish ticket database (personal communication with Phil Meyer, Meye

17, 2002). 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 89 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table D.A-9. Distribution of tribal commercial harvest (pounds landed) of salmon by marine catch 

area in 2001. 

Tribal Location 

Catch Area 

North Puget 

Sound 

South Puget 

Sound/Hood Canal 

Strait of Juan 

de Fuca/ North 

Hood Canal TOTAL 

Marine Catch Area 4 0 0 212,548 212,548 

Marine Catch Area 5 0 14,784 277,847 292,631 

Marine Catch Area 6 0 0 3,460 3,460 

Marine Catch Area 7 2,134,075 31,826 674 2,166,575 

Marine Catch Area 8 2,911,493 0 0 2,911,493 

Marine Catch Area 9 0 12,476 0 12,476 

Marine Catch Area 10 166,161 745,233 0 911,394 

Marine Catch Area 11 0 25,327 0 25,327 

Marine Catch Area 12 0 3,017,884 617 3,018,501 

Marine Catch Area 13 0 742,427 0 742,427 

Freshwater 598,815 2,245,648 74,152 2,918,615 

TOTAL 5,810,544 6,835,605 569,298 13,215,447 

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, License and Fish Ticket database (personal communication 

with Lee Hoines, WDFW, December 18, 2002). 
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 90 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-10. Number of sport fishing trips for salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound, by marine catch area (1991 t

Year Marine 

Catch 

Area 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

5 225,086 153,398 161,808 1,216 46,277 39,769 62,683 34,000 36 80,696 76,981 75,615 3,926 29,251 18,294 30,845 16,399 17 73,349 48,798 75,544 45,992 51,699 52,908 58,323 22,523 18 97,415 75,462 92,593 32,246 91,763 55,899 84,507 35,920 39 116,212 127,481 114,749 34,385 66,141 65,156 56,643 60,746 4

10 142,247 100,573 108,221 68,516 89,599 68,279 61,714 37,684 211 134,642 93,282 93,015 97,688 101,049 106,928 79,305 78,302 712 9,681 17,571 14,253 18,476 10,884 9,032 22,154 18,937 113 44,341 32,550 72,778 50,976 36,724 36,678 32,462 45,434 2

Grand Total 923,669 726,096 808,576 353,421 523,387 452,943 488,636 349,945 27

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sport Fish database (personal communication with Terrie Manning, WDFW
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 91 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-11. Annual sport catch of salmon by species in marine and freshwater areas of the Puget Sound (1991 th

Chinook Coho Chum Pink Sockeye 

Year Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwat

1991 90,566 2,693 252,361 5,942 3,646 5,937 217 18,142 217 1992 97,733 3,292 189,372 14,256 8,712 6,747 193 12 193 1993 80,166 11,076 135,974 22,736 5,846 4,933 1,043 69,132 1,043 1994 48,286 3,351 31,801 10,319 9,936 N/A 41 10 41 1995 91,799 6,045 78,675 11,256 6,717 5,294 165 112,926 165 1996 91,799 3,968 78,675 11,756 6,717 12,488 165 0 60 69,91997 72,069 4,045 85,139 14,358 12,394 5,799 60 16,603 262 1998 60,425 9,505 138,571 15,304 5,836 10,025 262 0 90 1999 37,598 8,161 34,781 11,475 7,302 4,505 35,067 11,287 54 2000 29,893 5,740 71,965 21,847 3,689 3,708 59 79 100 28,

Average 70,033 5,787 109,731 13,925 7,080 6,604 3,727 22,819 223 9,8Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sport Fish database (personal communication with Terrie Manning, WDFW
Appendix D – Technical Methods-Economics 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest D - 92 Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS Table D.A-12. Proportion of 2001 sport catch of salmon in Puget Sound marine waters by angler county of origin. 

Marine Catch Areas Region/County 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 

North Puget Sound 

Whatcom 1.11% 0.23% 35.16% 1.69% 1.46% 0.64% 0.12% 0.00% 

Skagit 0.74% 2.47% 24.68% 3.97% 0.81% 0.20% 0.02% 0.07% 

Snohomish 7.04% 1.93% 8.49% 68.62% 36.26% 17.54% 1.34% 3.05% 

Island 0.49% 5.95% 2.72% 6.03% 16.60% 0.25% 0.10% 0.00% 

San Juan 0.00% 0.00% 7.82% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.22% 

Subtotal 9.38% 10.58% 78.87% 80.36% 55.13% 18.63% 1.59% 3.35% 

South Puget Sound/South Hood Canal 

King 20.08% 5.02% 5.88% 12.25% 19.92% 47.76% 37.13% 18.59% 

Pierce 14.65% 2.70% 2.27% 1.07% 2.58% 3.13% 52.15% 16.58% 

Thurston 5.93% 1.16% 0.78% 0.78% 0.42% 0.14% 1.02% 13.68% 

Mason 2.65% 0.93% 0.33% 0.16% 0.37% 0.31% 0.15% 12.12% 

Kitsap 8.04% 2.78% 0.44% 0.35% 8.72% 24.12% 4.29% 19.41% 

Subtotal 51.34% 12.59% 9.71% 14.60% 32.00% 75.46% 94.74% 80.37% 

Strait of Juan de Fuca/North Hood Canal 

Clallam 14.61% 59.15% 1.05% 0.32% 1.02% 0.20% 0.17% 0.74% 

Jefferson 2.16% 8.49% 0.17% 0.03% 7.80% 0.08% 0.12% 5.06% 

Subtotal 16.77% 67.64% 1.22% 0.35% 8.82% 0.28% 0.30% 5.80% 

Other Washington 12.84% 3.71% 4.83% 1.82% 1.54% 2.43% 1.69% 6.99% Outside Washington 9.67% 5.48% 5.38% 2.87% 2.51% 3.19% 1.69% 3.49% 

TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 

Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sport Fish database (personal communication with Doug McNair, The 

December 16, 2002). 
ATTACHMENT B 

Economic Factors for Commercial Salmon Fishing 

Developed by The Research Group 

\\Sta4\HOPE (D)\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

The Research Group 

P.O. Box 813 

Corvallis, OR 97339 

Voice (541) 758-1432 / Facsimile (541) 758-1455 / Email shannon_davis@class.orednet.org 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Tom Wegge 

From: Hans Radtke and Shannon Davis 

Date: September 18, 2003 

Re: Economic Analysis Results for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Fishery Management 

Plan, Pertaining to Commercial Fisheries 

This memorandum describes our updated commercial fishing economic analysis results for the 

referenced project. Below, we provide definitions, explain data sources, and give details about 

modeling methods. The model has been specified and calibrated to a Year 2002 one-year time 

period. The model has also been applied to all salmon species harvested in the management plan 

catch area during that one year time period. We have tried to anticipate the intermediate 

economic factors necessary to apply to management plan fisheries response effects. Please let us 

know if the form and format is convenient and sufficient for its application. 

There are several tables attached to this memorandum. These tables and others are also 

contained in a computer file accompanying this memorandum. The printed tables are: 

Table 1: Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries Volume by Gear and Disposition in 2002 

Table 2: Average and Marginal Economic Impact Factors for Composite Product Forms by 

Species and Industry Component 

Table 3: Economic Impact Factors by Product Forms and Industry Component 

Table 4: Economic Contributions From Salmon Fisheries for Economic Regions and for the 

State 

Table 5: Revenue Distributions for Non-Tribal Vessels That Harvest and Processors That 

Purchase Puget Sound Salmon in 2002 

Figure 1: Landing Volume and Prices by Salmon Species for Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries 

in 1981 to 2002 

Figure 2: Economic Contribution From Puget Sound Commercial Salmon Fisheries in 1981 

to 2002 

An appendix to this memorandum contains detailed information about landing and catch area 

assignments 
D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Tom Wegge 

September 18, 2003 

Page 2 

Economic Impact Factors

The derived regional and state economic impact factors (coefficients and multipliers) are 

provided for making average and marginal impact calculations. The factors are used to calculate 

impacts measured by personal income, output,1 and employment.2 We have used the factors and 

2002 landing data (Table 1) as an example to show our modeling results. The factors (for 

example average economic impacts per landed round pound) would only apply to other historical 

landing periods if adjustments are made for real dollars and species ex-vessel value. The exvessel value would both depend on converting to a real dollar year using an index such as the 

GDP Implicit Price Deflator, and also for the changing real value received for the salmon 

species. For example, there has been a lot of volatility for egg prices in recent years. Egg prices 

for the catch area salmon have gone from $7.26 in 2000, to $4.35 in 2001, and $3.33 in 2002 

averaged over all species. There has been similar volatility in whole fish. It would have to be a 

stated assumption that the economic factors that are from a model calibrated to Year 2002 

applies to future years. 

The economic factors are provided for each salmon species and for sub-state economic regions 

for composite product forms (i.e. averaged over all product forms) and for special market 

product forms. For showing changes to the chinook and coho salmon fisheries, the factors are 

also provided for gear groups. The other salmon species from this catch area are landed with 

nets. The salmon fisheries singular product forms (Table 3) are: carcass sold fresh or frozen 

(approximately 94 percent of Puget Sound chinook catch area harvests are used for this product 

form), cured eggs for export (approximately 4 percent product form), and canned or smoked 

products (2 percent product form). The other species have different distribution. Unless there is 

specific reason to show economic impacts for different product forms, the composite factors in 

Table 2 should be used. 

Factors are expressed for direct, indirect, and induced effects. The definition we are using for 

direct effect is payments for vessel crews, processing workers, net income to vessel 

owners/operators, and net income to processor owners. The definition for indirect effects has 

two sources. The first source (called indirect labor) is payments from first round spending by 

vessel provisioners, processor suppliers, etc. to labor. The second source (called indirect 

 

1. Output impacts are sometimes of interest, but for policy decision making purposes, personal income and 

employment impacts are the more appropriate comparative statistics. 

2. Employment is calculated as a full/part time equivalent (FTE). Employment can include the relationship 

between license permit holders plus anticipated crew members. However, permit holders should be viewed as 

potential participants, not actual participants. Some permit holders may only make a few landings per year. 

This participation can be viewed as social interest but it does not provide calculations of actual annual jobs that 

may be generated. For example, in Oregon there are presently 1,200 troll permit holders. Of these, only about 

370 make any landings at all. And of those that make any landings, only about half of these generate more than 

about $30,000 per year in ex-vessel landings. Erroneously, we could describe the Oregon troll fishery as 

generating about 2,400 direct jobs (skipper and crew) with an additional amount for the "multiplier" effects. 

The social description is useful, but should not take the place of an economic description. 
D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Tom Wegge 

September 18, 2003 

Page 3 

provisioners) is payments from second round spending for labor. The induced effects are 

payments from all other rounds of spending. 

Chinook Salmon Fisheries User Groups

We did not find significant differences between non-treaty and treaty fisheries to justify user 

group specific factors. We reached this conclusion by reviewing ex-vessel prices paid to the user 

groups, reviewing vessel budgets with key representatives from tribal fishing groups, and talking 

to processor representatives. Prices averaged over seasons are about the same between the two 

user groups. Tribes have some early fishing seasons which fetched higher prices. However, 

lower prices received by tribal fisherman in later seasons tended to balance the effect. The tribal 

fishing group representatives agreed that the budgets generally patterned the harvesters that catch 

most of the tribal allocations. Processor representatives told us that salmon from the two user 

groups enter the same markets and have the same value added at the primary processing level. 

Sub-State Catch Areas and Economic Regions

The mapping of Puget Sound management plan catch areas and the ports where the catch is 

landed is shown in an attached appendix. The ports are grouped into three sub-state regions: 

Northern Puget Sound, Southern Puget Sound, and Coastal Washington North. The regions' 

geographic boundaries in relation to city and county boundaries are also shown in the appendix. 

The boundaries were chosen in consideration of fishing industry labor markets, location of ports 

where deliveries are received and primary processing occurs, ports where there is a likeness in 

fleet and vessel profiles, and other considerations. Nearly all of the landings from the Puget 

Sound management plan catch areas are accounted for in the selected regions. However, some 

are delivered elsewhere in the State. For this reason, the sum of the economic impacts from the 

regions will not equal the economic impacts to the State. There is a net import of salmon to the 

selected regions. The plan’s catch area harvests only represented about a third of the chinook 

salmon delivered in the region. Other harvest areas include the Pacific Ocean, deliveries hauled 

from the Columbia River, etc. 

Harvest Data

Data for the analysis is from the WDFW fish ticket system and salmon buyers and processors 

personal interviews. Fish tickets issued for salmon harvests have a declaration for disposition of 

the salmon. Most are declared for commercial purposes, but a large portion from treaty fisheries 

are declared “take-home.” According to WDFW data managers, most net caught, treaty salmon 

sold for their eggs are claimed as take-home for their final disposition. Take-home fish are 

assumed to provide the same impact as commercially sold fish. It is assumed that they are a 

substitute for other protein. The consumption of fish at home frees up funds to spend on other 
D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Tom Wegge 

September 18, 2003 

Page 4 

similar items. Ceremonial and subsistence, illegally caught fish, etc. are disregarded in our 

economic impact modeling results. It was necessary to interview the primary processors to 

determine the market product forms for the catch area salmon. 

Salmon landings are sometimes made head-on, gutted, and gilled, sometimes head-off and 

gutted, and other times in the whole (termed round). Salmon are generally delivered dressed in 

troll gear fisheries and in the round in net gear fisheries. Adjustments have been made in the 

modeling factors to always approximate the weight of fish in the round. Care needs to be used in 

making sure weight units for fish to be modeled are also in round pounds. The average weights 

per fish by species and the conversion factor between landed pounds and round pounds is shown 

in a table included in the computer file. 

Modeling factors are also expressed in terms of finish product pounds. Finish pounds are the 

product weight after processing. For example, a fillet, skin-on product is about 55 percent 

recovery from net caught chinook salmon round pounds. Salmon generating eggs has about a 

seven to eight percent recovery weight on females. Assuming half the fish are males, the 

recovery is four percent. The amount of recovery in percent is referenced in tables as “yield.”3

Ex-Vessel Prices

Example statewide landed prices for the catch area’s harvests are $0.70 per round pound for net 

caught chinook and $1.02 for troll caught chinook. A processor uses both the fish flesh and its 

eggs. The price for a fish’s weight assumes the egg value. The egg credit is generally $0.18 per 

round pound. This means that a fish round weight price is $0.52, plus the egg credit of $0.18, 

equals $0.70. As previously mentioned about a salmon’s declared disposition, sometimes a 

buyer only purchases the eggs and the carcass remains with the seller. In this case, an example 

price for net caught chinook eggs is about $1.89 per egg pound. There is some variation in 

prices seasonally and for different ports. It was assumed the annual, statewide prices applied to 

all regions for showing modeling results. 

Regional Economic Impact Modeling Methods

The 2000 IMPLAN database (latest version available) was used to construct a Fisheries 

Economic Assessment Model (FEAM) for the four geographic areas. The FEAM uses basic 

input/output relationships from IMPLAN. Custom fishing industry sectors are comprised of 

aggregated and disaggregated IMPLAN sectors. The input/output relationships for the custom 

sectors are then applied to spending patterns from the harvesting and processing components of 

 

3. South Puget Sound eggs exceed the backward calculations of delivered carcasses at an 8% yield for 50% 

females [(304,134 + 384,961 + 15,907) * 0.08 * 0.50 = 28,200]. A total of 40,926 pounds of eggs were landed, 

therefore it would be expected at least 1.02 million round pounds of carcasses would be landed. There was no 

attempt to resolve this data discrepancy. 
\\Sta4\HOPE (D)\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Tom Wegge 

September 18, 2003 

Page 5 

the fishing industry to show direct, indirect, and induced effects to local economies and the State. 

The FEAM has inputs of species landing weight, prices, product forms, and budgets for fishing 

industry businesses. Coefficients and multiplier factors based on landed weight were derived 

from FEAM outputs. The FEAM will generate total economic impact results, but the 

coefficients and multiplier factors can also be applied outside of the model for calculating 

economic impacts. 

The factors can be used outside of the FEAM for calculating the regional economic impacts for 

the different management plans' harvest alternatives. Care must be taken to use average per unit 

impact factors to calculate total economic contribution and marginal per unit impact factors to 

calculate changes to fisheries. The ratio of the former to the latter is about 0.89 for income, 

employment, and output. 

Modeling Results

Puget Sound catch area landings have decreased dramatically from the middle 1980's (Figure 1). 

Recent higher landings in 2001 and 2002 for chum salmon have reversed the total salmon 

volume declining trends. The other salmon species have stayed at lower levels. Ex-vessel prices 

have also declined during this period, due to large supplies of salmon in the marketplace. 

Significant proportions of these supplies are from farm origin. 

Harvest data is available by vessel for non-Indian harvesters (Table 4). The revenue distribution 

shows 77 percent of these vessels sell less than $30,000 in harvested fish. The proportion of the 

revenue from Puget Sound salmon fisheries is greater than 80 percent for these vessels. While 

most of the vessels are in the lower revenue categories, they only harvest 22 percent of fish 

resources taken by all vessels that participate in the Puget Sound salmon fisheries. The lower 

revenue vessel categories harvest 44 percent of the Puget Sound salmon. Processors that 

purchase Puget Sound salmon from non-treaty and/or treaty fisheries have a similarly skewed 

distribution (Table 4).4

 Sixty-nine percent of the processors have total purchases less than 

$100,000, while they are only utilizing five percent of total purchases. The lower purchase 

category processors buy 12 percent of the Puget Sound salmon. 

The regional and statewide economic impacts for Year 2002 salmon fisheries catch area harvests 

are shown in Table 5 and Figure 2. The Puget Sound management plan catch area’s chinook 

fisheries at the state level contributed $2.4 million in personal income, $3.2 million in output, 

and about 83 jobs (FTE). Economic contributions from all salmon fisheries in 2002 were $25.9 

million in personal income, $35.2 million in output, and 760 jobs (FTE). About 44 percent was 

in the south Puget Sound region, 43 percent in north Puget Sound, and 13 percent in coastal 

Washington north. 

 

4. Processor codes that show purchases from only one vessel are excluded from the analysis. These processor 

codes represent "across the dock" sales from vessels directly to the public. 

D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Appendix 

Landing and Catch Area Assignments 

The data analysis included aggregating ports-of-delivery to economic regions (port groups). The 

following table shows how individual ports were assigned: 

Economic 

Regions 

(Port Groups) 

Counties Landing Locations 

Nearby Harvest 

Data 

Statistical Area 

Northern 

Puget Sound 

Island, San Juan, 

Skagit, Snohomish, 

Whatcom 

Anacortes, Bellingham Bay, Blaine, Deer 

Harbor, Friday Harbor, La Conner, 

Marietta, Point Roberts 

WDFW 7, 8 

Southern 

Puget Sound 

King, Kitsap, 

Mason, Pierce, 

Thurston 

Bremerton, Brinnon, Coupeville, Everett, 

Olympia, Poulsbo, Quilcene, Seattle, 

Shelton, Stanwood, Tacoma, Whidby 

Island 

WDFW 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13 

Coastal 

Washington 

North 

Clallam, Jefferson Bay City, Copalis Beach, Hoh, Lapush, 

Moclips, Neah Bay, Port Angeles, Port 

Townsend, Queets, Sequim, Taholah 

WDFW 4B, 5, 6 

Landings from the following catch areas were used in the analysis. Only statistical areas with 

landings in 2002 are shown. 

Nearby Economic 

Region 

Statistical

Area Area Name 

2002 

Chinook Landings

(round_pounds) 

Coastal Washington North 4B TATOOSH - SAIL ROCK 15,965

Coastal Washington North 5 CLALLAM BAY 18,087

Northern Puget Sound 7 SAN JAUN ISLANDS 6,295

Northern Puget Sound 77B LOWER NOOKSACK RIVER 6,027

Northern Puget Sound 78C LOWER SKAGIT RIVER 4,512

Northern Puget Sound 78D UPPER SKAGIT RIVER 774

Northern Puget Sound 7A POINT ROBERTS 28,729

Northern Puget Sound 7B BELLINGHAM BAY 496,010

Northern Puget Sound 7C SAMISH BAY 122,298

Northern Puget Sound 7D LUMMI BAY 53

Northern Puget Sound 8 SKAGIT BAY 25

Northern Puget Sound 8A PORT SUSAN - PORT GARDNER 825

Northern Puget Sound 8D TULALIP BAY 68,352

Northern Puget Sound 9A PORT GAMBLE 18

Southern Puget Sound 10 SEATTLE 381

Southern Puget Sound 10A ELLIOTT BAY 24,104

Southern Puget Sound 10E EAST KITSAP 61,600

Southern Puget Sound 10F LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL 1,560

Southern Puget Sound 12A QUILCENE - DABOB BAY 54

Southern Puget Sound 12B CENTRAL HOOD CANAL 1,128

Southern Puget Sound 12C LOWER HOOD CANAL 272,053

Southern Puget Sound 13 FOX ISLAND 2,064

Southern Puget Sound 13A CARR INLET 13,324

Southern Puget Sound 13C CHAMBERS CREEK ESTUARY 7,384

Southern Puget Sound 13D CASE INLET - SQUAXIN ISLAND 44

Southern Puget Sound 13F BUDD INLET 415

Southern Puget Sound 80B GREEN - DUWAMISH 136,420

Southern Puget Sound 81B PUYALLUP RIVER 72,928

Southern Puget Sound 82G SKOKOMISH RIVER 34,783

Southern Puget Sound 83C MINTER CREEK 560

Southern Puget Sound 83D NISQUALLY RIVER 95,644

Southern Puget Sound 83F MCALISTER CREEK 4,335

Total 1,496,751
D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

The landings in the economic regions from the selected catch areas are as follows: 

Economic 

Region 

Port 

Codes Port Name 

2002 

Chinook Volume

(round_pounds) 

Northern Puget Sound 105 ANACORTES 6,238

Northern Puget Sound 110 BELLINGHAM BAY 591,393

Northern Puget Sound 115 BLAINE 13,808

Northern Puget Sound 135 FRIDAY HARBOR 15,412

Northern Puget Sound 140 LA CONNER 18,388

Southern Puget Sound 125 COUPEVILLE 3,110

Southern Puget Sound 130 EVERETT 52,034

Southern Puget Sound 143 WHIDBY ISLAND 1,639

Southern Puget Sound 155 OLYMPIA 7,440

Southern Puget Sound 169 POULSBO 13,373

Southern Puget Sound 170 SEATTLE 159,584

Southern Puget Sound 180 SHELTON 301,244

Southern Puget Sound 190 TACOMA 259,010

Coastal Washington North 150 NEAH BAY 14,488

Coastal Washington North 160 PORT ANGELES 9,886

Coastal Washington North 165 PORT TOWNSEND 7,444

Coastal Washington North 230 COPALIS BEACH 123

Other 22,137

Total 1,496,751

The chinook volume by catch area and the economic regions in which they were landed is as 

follows: 

 Landing Area 

Catch Area 

(Nearby Economic Region) 

Coastal 

Washington

North 

Southern 

Puget 

Sound 

Northern 

Puget 

Sound Other Total 

Coastal Washington North 24,338 408 9,306 34,052

Southern Puget Sound 3,167 78,777 645,239 6,735 733,918

Northern Puget Sound 4,436 718,249 6,096 728,781

Total 31,941 797,434 645,239 22,137 1,496,751
The statistical areas are shown on the following map: 
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries Volume by Gear and Disposition in 2002

Date: September 18, 2003

Report Table: 1

Landing Area Non-Treaty Treaty

(Economic Region) Volume Eggs Commercial Take-Home Eggs C&S/Other Total

CHINOOK

Net

North Puget Sound 78 258,414 359,892 15,800 1,070 5,552 382,314 

South Puget Sound 68 20,967 304,134 384,961 40,926 15,907 745,928 

Coastal Washington North - 3,131 11,888 20 - 123 12,031 

Regional Total 146 282,512 675,914 400,781 41,996 21,582 1,140,273 

Statewide 146 284,022 683,012 400,781 41,996 21,582 1,147,371 

Troll

North Puget Sound - - - - - - - 

South Puget Sound - - - 357 47 - 404 

Coastal Washington North - - 16,625 141 - - 16,766 

Regional Total - - 16,625 498 47 - 17,170 

Statewide - - 25,779 498 47 - 26,324 

All Gears

North Puget Sound 78 258,414 364,325 15,800 1,070 5,552 386,747 

South Puget Sound 68 20,967 316,434 402,535 40,973 16,457 776,399 

Coastal Washington North - 3,131 28,526 161 - 123 28,810 

Regional Total 146 282,512 709,285 418,496 42,043 22,132 1,191,956 

Statewide 146 284,022 729,912 418,496 42,043 22,132 1,212,583 

COHO

Net

North Puget Sound - 102,694 525,205 107,395 10,819 10,941 654,360 

South Puget Sound - 18,499 690,439 118,801 11,637 21,888 842,765 

Coastal Washington North 80 27,012 76,406 4,387 1,877 1,080 83,750 

Regional Total 80 148,205 1,292,050 230,583 24,333 33,909 1,580,875 

Statewide 80 148,205 1,292,737 230,583 24,333 33,909 1,581,562 

Troll

North Puget Sound - - - - - - - 

South Puget Sound - - - - - - - 

Coastal Washington North - - - - - - - 

Regional Total - - - - - - - 

Statewide - - 600 - - - 600 

All Gears

North Puget Sound - 102,694 550,809 113,736 12,373 11,142 688,060 

South Puget Sound - 18,499 690,439 119,726 11,637 21,888 843,690 

Coastal Washington North 80 27,012 76,409 4,387 1,877 1,080 83,753 

Regional Total 80 148,205 1,317,657 237,849 25,887 34,110 1,615,503 

Statewide 80 148,205 1,293,337 230,583 24,333 33,909 1,582,162 

CHUM

Net

North Puget Sound 1,302 3,315,789 1,322,109 1,538,917 127,050 42,273 3,030,349 

South Puget Sound 67 3,436,990 662,049 4,008,194 375,330 27,364 5,072,937 

Coastal Washington North - 2,906,175 11,571 100 - 76,767 88,438 

Regional Total 1,369 9,658,954 1,995,729 5,547,211 502,380 146,404 8,191,724 

Statewide 1,369 9,777,947 1,995,729 5,547,211 502,380 146,404 8,191,724 

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Landings
Landing Area Non-Treaty Treaty

(Economic Region) Volume Eggs Commercial Take-Home Eggs C&S/Other Total

PINK

Net

North Puget Sound - 21 14 3 - 160 177 

South Puget Sound - - 345 60 - 12 417 

Coastal Washington North - - 696 - - - 696 

Regional Total - 21 1,055 63 - 172 1,290 

Statewide - 21 1,055 63 - 172 1,290 

SOCKEYE

Net

North Puget Sound - 708,420 1,189,387 11,296 - 11,713 1,212,396 

South Puget Sound - 70,961 402,325 13,830 30 35,846 452,031 

Coastal Washington North - 8,507 383,872 3,239 - 319 387,430 

Regional Total - 787,888 1,975,584 28,365 30 47,878 2,051,857 

Statewide - 793,104 1,980,970 28,365 30 47,878 2,057,243 

STEELHEAD

Net

North Puget Sound - - - 1,068 - 152 1,220 

South Puget Sound - - 1,405 745 2 288 2,440 

Coastal Washington North - - 2,195 811 29 - 3,035 

Regional Total - - 3,600 2,624 31 440 6,695 

Statewide - - 3,600 2,624 31 440 6,695 

Notes: 1. Volume in round pound equivalents.

2. There was no attempt to resolve inconsistency for egg production. For example, it can be assumed 

 that the general egg take yield is 7% to 8% for females. If 40,926 pounds of eggs are being reported 

 as taken by chinook treaty net fisheries in southern Puget Sound, this would mean 1.02 million pounds 

 of treaty salmon carcasses should be reported as landed rather than the 0.69 million pounds.

3. Statewide landings will be more than the sum of the three regions because some landings are delivered 

 outside the regions.

Source: WDFW fish tickets database; extraction provided by NWIFC May 2003.

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Landings
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: Average and Marginal Economic Impact Factors for Composite Product Forms by Species and Industry ComponentDate: September 18, 2003Report Table: 2

Chinook Coho

Net Troll Net Troll Chum Net Pink Net 

Margins Processor Harvester Total Processor Harvester Total Processor Harvester Total Processor Harvester Total Processor Harvester Total Processor Harvester Total Pro

Washington 2002

Ex-vessel price (per round pound) $0.70 $1.02 $0.37 $0.41 $0.16 $0.48 Yield 80% 87% 80% 87% 80% 80% Ex-processor price (per finish pound) $1.68 $1.91 $1.26 $1.17 $0.97 $1.38 Ex-processor price (per round pound) $1.34 $1.66 $1.01 $1.02 $0.78 $1.10 Processor margin (per round pound) $0.64 $0.64 $0.64 $0.61 $0.62 $0.62 Personal income per pound Marginal state level $0.90 $1.01 $1.91 $0.87 $1.44 $2.31 $0.91 $0.49 $1.40 $0.85 $0.48 $1.33 $0.88 $0.16 $1.04 $0.90 $0.66 $1.56 

 Average state level $0.80 $0.90 $1.70 $0.77 $1.28 $2.06 $0.81 $0.43 $1.24 $0.76 $0.42 $1.18 $0.78 $0.15 $0.93 $0.80 $0.58 $1.38 

 Direct 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9%  Indirect 24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 24.9%  Labor 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5% 20.5%  Provisioners, suppliers, etc. 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%  Induced 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 30.2% 

Employment per million round pounds Marginal state level 29.1 25.8 54.9 25.0 41.5 66.4 26.1 14.0 40.2 24.4 13.7 38.2 25.2 4.7 30.0 25.8 18.9 44.7 

 

 Average state level 25.9 23.0 48.9 22.2 36.9 59.1 23.2 12.5 35.8 21.7 12.2 34.0 22.5 4.2 26.7 23.0 16.8 39.8 

 

 Direct 61.4% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4%  Indirect 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3%  Labor 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5%  Provisioners, suppliers, etc. 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%  Induced 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 22.4% 

Output per round pounds Marginal state level $1.20 $1.36 $2.56 $1.18 $1.96 $3.14 $1.21 $0.69 $1.90 $1.15 $0.72 $1.87 $1.18 $0.27 $1.45 $1.19 $0.90 $2.09 

 Average state level $1.07 $1.21 $2.28 $1.05 $1.74 $2.79 $1.08 $0.61 $1.69 $1.02 $0.64 $1.66 $1.05 $0.24 $1.29 $1.06 $0.80 $1.86 

 Direct 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8%  Indirect 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2%  Labor 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1%  Provisioners, suppliers, etc. 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1%  Induced 37.0% 37.0% 37.0% 37.0% 37.0% 37.0% 
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: Economic Impact Factors For Net Caught Salmon By Product Forms And Industry Component

Date: September 11, 2003

Report Table: 3

Chinook Product Form

Whole w/o Eggs Eggs Specialty Product

Processor Harvester Total Processor Harvester Total Processor Harvester Total

Washington 2002

Ex-vessel price (per round pound) $0.52 $1.85 $0.52

Yield 76% 90% 45%

Ex-processor price (per finish pound) $1.48 $4.20 $3.67

Ex-processor price (per round pound) $1.13 $3.78 $1.65

Processor margin (per round pound) $0.61 $1.93 $1.13

Personal income per round pounds

 Marginal state level $0.86 $0.54 $1.40 $2.72 $2.79 $5.51 $1.38 $0.53 $1.91

 Average state level $1.25 $4.90 $1.70

 Direct 44.9% 44.9% 44.9%

 Indirect 24.9% 24.9% 24.9%

 Labor 20.5% 20.5% 20.5%

 Provisioners, suppliers, etc. 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%

 Induced 30.2% 30.2% 30.2%

Employment per million round pounds

 Marginal state level 15.6 24.7 40.3 78.0 80.4 158.4 39.6 15.4 55.1 

 Average state level 13.9 22.0 35.9 69.5 71.5 141.0 35.2 13.7 49.0 

 Direct 61.4% 61.4% 61.4%

 Indirect 16.3% 16.3% 16.3%

 Labor 13.5% 13.5% 13.5%

 Provisioners, suppliers, etc. 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%

 Induced 22.4% 22.4% 22.4%

Output per round pounds

 Marginal state level $1.15 $0.73 $1.88 $3.63 $3.70 $7.33 $1.85 $0.72 $2.57

 Average state level $1.02 $0.65 $1.67 $3.23 $3.29 $6.52 $1.64 $0.64 $2.28

 Direct 30.8% 30.8% 30.8%

 Indirect 32.2% 32.2% 32.2%

 Labor 26.1% 26.1% 26.1%

 Provisioners, suppliers, etc. 6.1% 6.1% 6.1%

 Induced 37.0% 37.0% 37.0%

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Forms Fac
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: Puget Sound Salmon Vessel and Processor Profiles in 2002Date: September 18, 2003Report Table: 4

Revenue Distribution for Non-Tribal Vessels That Harvested Puget Sound Salmon in 2002

Total

Vessel's Count of Count Total Revenue Average Puget Sound Salmon Revenu

Total Revenue Vessels % Revenue % Revenue % of Vessel % of Total Average 

$0 to $500 18 7% 4,148 0.1% 230 99.8% 0.1% 230 

$501 to $5,000 87 35% 212,020 3.1% 2,437 98.5% 7.1% 2,401 

$5,001 to $30,000 88 35% 1,312,477 19.3% 14,915 81.8% 36.7% 12,201 

$30,001 to $50,000 26 10% 988,393 14.5% 38,015 78.1% 26.3% 29,675 

$50,001 to $100,000 19 8% 1,193,252 17.6% 62,803 32.9% 13.4% 20,636 

Over $100,000 14 6% 3,083,211 45.4% 15.5% 220,229 16.3% 

34,187

All vessels 252 100% 6,793,501 100.0% 26,958 43.1% 100.0% 11,623 

Notes: 1. Revenue is ex-vessel value received for selling harvests to processors or the public.Source: PacFIN July 2003 extraction.

Purchase Distribution for Processors that Purchase Puget Sound Salmon in 2002

Total

Processor's Count of Count Total Purchases Average Puget Sound Salmon Purchas

Total Purchases Processors % Purchases % Purchases % of Processor % of Total Average 

$0 to $5,000 21 22% 52,170 0.2% 2,484 56.4% 0.4% 1,402 

$5,001 to $30,000 27 28% 338,326 1.1% 12,531 67.8% 3.2% 8,492 

$30,001 to $100,000 19 20% 1,101,685 3.4% 57,983 54.9% 8.4% 31,849 

$100,001 to $1,000,000 22 23% 9,365,309 29.1% 425,696 47.6% 61.9% 202,714 

Over $1,000,000 8 8% 21,276,573 66.2% 8.8% 2,659,572 26.1% 

234,842

All processors 97 100% 32,134,063 100.0% 331,279 22.4% 100.0% 74,251 

Notes: 1. Purchases are ex-vessel value.  2. Excludes 38 processor codes that are vessels selling fish to the public.Source: PacFIN July 2003 extraction.

kc
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: Economic Contributions From Salmon Fisheries For Economic Regions And For State 

Date: September 18, 2003

Report Table: 5

Chinook

Treaty

Net

Non-Treaty Commercial Troll

Net Whole w/eggs Specialty Take-Home Eggs Commercial Total

North Puget Sound

Pounds landed 349,095 258,414 10,797 15,800 1,070 - 

Average impacts

Income 568,571 420,879 16,427 17,604 4,684 - 1,028,165 

Employment (FTE) 17.8 13.2 0.5 0.6 0.2 - 32.2 

Output 605,855 448,477 22,425 24,028 6,350 - 1,107,134 

South Puget Sound

Pounds landed 295,010 20,967 9,124 384,961 40,926 - 

Average impacts

Income 506,739 36,015 15,459 477,665 199,536 - 1,235,414 

Employment (FTE) 14.0 1.0 0.4 12.5 5.2 - 33.1 

Output 661,648 47,025 20,135 622,017 258,057 - 1,608,882 

Coastal Washington North

Pounds landed 11,531 3,131 357 20 - 16,625 

Average impacts

Income 17,857 4,849 501 21 - 31,072 54,300 

Employment (FTE) 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 1.1 1.8 

Output 20,936 5,685 670 28 - 36,991 64,309 

Regional Total

Pounds landed 655,637 282,512 20,277 400,781 41,996 16,625 

Average impacts

Income 1,093,168 461,743 32,387 495,290 204,220 31,072 2,317,879 

Employment (FTE) 32.4 14.3 1.0 13.1 5.4 1.1 67.2 

Output 1,288,440 501,187 43,230 646,072 264,407 36,991 2,780,326 

State

Pounds landed 662,522 284,022 20,490 400,781 41,996 25,779 

Average impacts

Income 1,126,221 482,809 34,920 500,188 205,944 52,999 2,403,081 

Employment (FTE) 32.4 13.9 1.0 14.4 5.9 15.2 82.8 

Output 1,509,489 647,116 46,783 669,993 273,969 72,042 3,219,392 

Notes: 1. Treaty commercial net and troll harvests include effects from 98%

 of fish with product form whole, fresh. About 2% is lower grade and purchased

 for a product going to specialty markets. About 75% of net fish provide a marketable

 egg product during a fishing season. Because there is generally no differentiation in 

 ex-vessel price, commercial net fisheries uses a with eggs economic impact factor.

2. Take-home assumes commercial use without eggs.

3. A small amount of eggs landed in the non-treaty net fishery, and a small amount

 of take-homes and eggs in the treaty troll fishery is not included in the analysis.

 It is assumed C&S, and seizures do not have commercial value.

4. Eggs are delivered with most carcasses declared take-homes. There is an

 unresolved discrepancy between assumed egg yield and carcass pounds. 

5. Region economic analysis totals will not equal state because of "trade leakage" from 

 economies. Also, there are some harvests in the management plan regions, but landed 

 in areas outside of the region. These landings are included at the state level calculations.

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Results
Coho

Treaty

Net

Non-Treaty Commercial Troll

Net Whole w/eggs Specialty Take-Home Eggs Commercial Total

North Puget Sound

Pounds landed 528,777 102,694 22,032 113,736 12,373 - 

Average impacts

Income 630,619 122,473 16,507 62,037 53,185 - 884,821 

Employment (FTE) 19.7 3.8 0.5 2.0 1.7 - 27.8 

Output 682,386 132,527 22,533 84,664 72,126 - 994,236 

South Puget Sound

Pounds landed 662,821 18,499 27,618 119,726 11,637 - 

Average impacts

Income 831,775 23,214 23,044 72,726 55,707 - 1,006,466 

Employment (FTE) 23.0 0.6 0.6 1.9 1.5 - 27.6 

Output 1,103,134 30,788 30,011 94,694 72,075 - 1,330,701 

Coastal Washington North

Pounds landed 73,353 27,012 3,056 4,387 1,877 - 

Average impacts

Income 82,258 30,291 2,114 2,209 7,448 - 124,320 

Employment (FTE) 2.8 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 - 4.2 

Output 97,273 35,821 2,829 2,955 9,901 - 148,778 

Regional Total

Pounds landed 1,264,951 148,205 52,706 237,849 25,887 - 

Average impacts

Income 1,544,651 175,979 41,665 136,972 116,340 - 2,015,607 

Employment (FTE) 45.5 5.5 1.2 4.0 3.5 - 59.7 

Output 1,882,793 199,135 55,372 182,313 154,102 - 2,473,715 

State

Pounds landed 1,241,604 148,205 51,733 230,583 24,333 600 

Average impacts

Income 1,543,910 184,290 43,417 140,880 117,161 709 2,030,366 

Employment (FTE) 44.4 5.3 1.2 4.1 3.4 0.2 58.6 

Output 2,095,146 250,089 58,162 188,685 155,926 996 2,749,004 

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Results
Chum

Treaty

Net

Non-Treaty Commercial Troll

Net Whole w/eggs Specialty Take-Home Eggs Commercial Total

North Puget Sound

Pounds landed 1,295,667 3,315,789 26,442 1,538,917 127,050 

Average impacts

Income 1,164,675 2,980,563 9,309 397,155 828,775 5,380,477 

Employment (FTE) 36.4 93.1 0.3 12.9 27.0 169.7 

Output 1,268,458 3,246,157 12,708 542,086 1,112,970 6,182,379 

South Puget Sound

Pounds landed 648,808 3,436,990 13,241 4,008,194 375,330 

Average impacts

Income 617,860 3,273,046 5,191 1,151,981 2,726,633 7,774,710 

Employment (FTE) 17.1 90.5 0.1 30.2 71.4 209.3 

Output 819,964 4,343,668 6,761 1,500,143 3,493,437 10,163,973 

Coastal Washington North

Pounds landed 11,340 2,906,175 231 100 - 

Average impacts

Income 9,386 2,405,441 75 24 - 2,414,926 

Employment (FTE) 0.3 81.3 0.0 0.0 - 81.6 

Output 11,303 2,896,875 101 32 - 2,908,311 

Regional Total

Pounds landed 1,955,814 9,658,954 39,915 5,547,211 502,380 

Average impacts

Income 1,791,921 8,659,049 14,575 1,549,160 3,555,408 15,570,113 

Employment (FTE) 53.8 264.9 0.4 43.1 98.4 460.6 

Output 2,099,725 10,486,701 19,570 2,042,261 4,606,407 19,254,663 

State

Pounds landed 1,955,814 9,777,947 39,915 5,547,211 502,380 

Average impacts

Income 1,817,057 9,084,240 15,740 1,603,581 3,670,840 16,191,459 

Employment (FTE) 52.3 261.2 0.5 46.1 105.6 465.6 

Output 2,517,549 12,586,297 21,087 2,148,009 4,837,819 22,110,762 

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Results
Pink

Treaty

Net

Non-Treaty Commercial Troll

Net Whole w/eggs Specialty Take-Home Eggs Commercial Total

North Puget Sound

Pounds landed 14 21 0 3 - 

Average impacts

Income 18 27 0 - - 46 

Employment (FTE) 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 

Output 19 30 0 - - 50 

South Puget Sound

Pounds landed 338 - 7 60 - 

Average impacts

Income 466 - 8 - - 475 

Employment (FTE) 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 

Output 617 - 11 - - 628 

Coastal Washington North

Pounds landed 682 - 14 - - 

Average impacts

Income 856 - 14 - - 870 

Employment (FTE) 0.0 - 0.0 - - 0.0 

Output 1,008 - 19 - - 1,027 

Regional Total

Pounds landed 1,034 21 21 63 - 

Average impacts

Income 1,340 27 23 - - 1,391 

Employment (FTE) 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 

Output 1,644 30 31 - - 1,704 

State

Pounds landed 1,034 21 21 63 - 

Average impacts

Income 1,431 29 26 - - 1,486 

Employment (FTE) 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 

Output 1,926 39 35 - - 2,001 

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Results
Sockeye

Treaty

Net

Non-Treaty Commercial Troll

Net Whole w/eggs Specialty Take-Home Eggs Commercial Total

North Puget Sound

Pounds landed 1,165,599 708,420 23,788 11,296 - 

Average impacts

Income 2,157,757 1,311,427 34,798 - - 3,503,982 

Employment (FTE) 67.4 41.0 1.1 - - 109.5 

Output 2,271,870 1,380,781 47,373 - - 3,700,024 

South Puget Sound

Pounds landed 394,279 70,961 8,047 13,830 30 

Average impacts

Income 768,488 138,310 13,109 - - 919,907 

Employment (FTE) 21.2 3.8 0.3 - - 25.4 

Output 993,069 178,729 17,026 - - 1,188,825 

Coastal Washington North

Pounds landed 376,195 8,507 7,677 3,239 - 

Average impacts

Income 659,582 14,915 10,368 - - 684,865 

Employment (FTE) 22.3 0.5 0.4 - - 23.2 

Output 766,722 17,338 13,836 - - 797,896 

Regional Total

Pounds landed 1,936,072 787,888 39,512 28,365 30 

Average impacts

Income 3,585,827 1,464,653 58,274 - - 5,108,754 

Employment (FTE) 111.0 45.3 1.9 - - 158.1 

Output 4,031,661 1,576,849 78,235 - - 5,686,745 

State

Pounds landed 1,941,351 793,104 39,619 28,365 30 

Average impacts

Income 3,723,063 1,520,991 64,919 - - 5,308,973 

Employment (FTE) 107.1 43.7 1.9 - - 152.7 

Output 4,969,799 2,030,322 86,735 - - 7,086,856 

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Results
Steelhead

Treaty

Net

Non-Treaty Commercial Troll

Net Whole w/eggs Specialty Take-Home Eggs Commercial Total

North Puget Sound

Pounds landed - - - 1,068 - 

Average impacts

Income - - - - - - 

Employment (FTE) - - - - - - 

Output - - - - - - 

South Puget Sound

Pounds landed 1,377 - 28 745 2 

Average impacts

Income 1,899 - 35 - - 1,934 

Employment (FTE) 0.1 - 0.0 - - 0.1 

Output 2,512 - 45 - - 2,557 

Coastal Washington North

Pounds landed 2,151 - 44 811 29 

Average impacts

Income 2,699 - 45 - - 2,744 

Employment (FTE) 0.1 - 0.0 - - 0.1 

Output 3,178 - 60 - - 3,238 

Regional Total

Pounds landed 3,528 - 72 2,624 31 

Average impacts

Income 4,599 - 79 - - 4,678 

Employment (FTE) 0.1 - 0.0 - - 0.1 

Output 5,690 - 105 - - 5,795 

State

Pounds landed 3,528 - 72 2,624 31 

Average impacts

Income 4,884 - 89 - - 4,973 

Employment (FTE) 0.1 - 0.0 - - 0.1 

Output 6,574 - 120 - - 6,693 

D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Results
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: Statewide Historical Landings From Puget Sound

Date: September 18, 2003

Report Figure: 1

Landing Volume From Puget Sound Commercial Salmon Fisheries in 1981 to 2002

Price of Salmon From Puget Sound Commercial Fisheries in 1981 to 2002

Notes: 1. Price adjusted to 2002 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator developed by 

the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Source: PacFIN January and July 2003 extractions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002

Volume (Millions of Round Pounds)

Pink

Steelhead

Sockeye

Chum

Chinook

Coho

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002

Price (Real 2002 Dollars Per Round Pound)

Chinook Troll

Chinook Net

Coho Troll

Coho Net

Chum Net

Pink Net

Steelhead Net

Sockeye Net

kco D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Figure 1
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: Economic Contributions From Salmon Fisheries For State 

Date: September 18, 2003

Report Figure: 2

Economic Contribution From Puget Sound Commercial 

Salmon Fishing to Washington State's Economy in 2002

Notes: 1. Economic contribution measured by personal income adjusted to 2002 dollars using 

the GDP implicit price deflator developed by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Economic contribution is at the state level.

2. Economic contribution includes direct, indirect, and induced impacts (multiplier effect) 

on the economy.

Economic Contribution From Puget Sound Commercial 

Salmon Fishing to the Puget Sound Economy in 2002

Notes: 1. Economic contribution measured by personal income adjusted to 2002 dollars using 

the GDP implicit price deflator developed by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Economic contribution is at the local level economy.

2. Economic contribution includes direct, indirect, and induced impacts (multiplier effect) 

on the economy.

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

Chinook Coho Chum Pink Sockeye Steelhead

Personal Income (Millions of Dollars)

Troll Commercial

Treaty Net Eggs

Treaty Net Take-Home

Treaty Net Commercial

Specialty

Treaty Net Commercial

Whole w/eggs

Non-Treaty Net

Total personal income: 

 $25.9 million

Total output: 

 $35.2 million

Total jobs: 760

North Puget Sound

43%

South Puget 

Sound

44%

Coastal 

Washington North

13%

Total personal income: 

 $25.0 million

Total output: 

 $30.2 million

Total jobs: 746

kco D:\Temp\PSchinook-commercial.xls Figure 2
ATTACHMENT C 

Net Economic Value Factors for Commercial Fishing 

Developed by Meyer Resources, Inc. 

 Net Economic Value for Commercial Salmon Fishing in Puget Sound and the 

 Strait of Juan de Fuca 

I. Background and Available Method. 

 Economists paid particular attention to requisite procedures for net economic valuation 

of commercial salmon fishing in the Pacific Northwest – and more generally – from the 

late 1960’s and early 1970’s1 through the early 1980’s – where procedural consensus was 

summed up in the U.S. Water Resources Council’s Principles and Guidelines (hereafter 

P&G)2. The principles established over this period have been generally followed in 

applied economic analysis of impacts from federal projects to the present day. These 

principles are: 

• Net economic value is the appropriate measure of economic impact from a 

national accounting perspective. Net economic impact for commercial fishing is 

to be determined by the change in ex-vessel value of harvest under each project 

alternative, minus the associated change in cost3

. This principal also holds for fish 

processing. 

• Excess fleet capacity may have an important effect on estimating actual changes 

in costs associated with alternative fishing plans. 

The excess capacity that will normally exist will make it difficult to obtain a 

proper estimate of changes in cost associated with changes in harvests. In 

some instances, idle boats will be available and the only additional costs will 

be operating costs. In other instances, vessels that are operating will be able to 

harvest the extra catch without significant change in variable costs.4

• Any employment of otherwise unemployed labor resources is to be treated as a 

net economic benefit, not a cost, in net economic impact accounting. 

Conceptually, any employment, anywhere in the Nation, of otherwise 

unemployed or underemployed resources that results from a project represents 

a valid NED (net economic development) benefit.5

In applied terms, this requirement instructs that costs associated with labor, taken 

from a labor pool that is otherwise substantially and persistently unemployed, 

should not be deducted from net economic value. 

 

1

 i.e. Idaho Cooperative Fishery Unit, A Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, on 

 Workshops in Fishery Economics at Moscow, Idaho, and Madison, Wisconsin, University of Idaho, 

 1973. 

2

 U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

 Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, D.C., U.S. Superintendent 

 of Documents. 

3 Supra at 90. 4 Supra.

5 Supra at 93. 
2

Net economic value associated with producers’ and consumers’ surplus can also be 

calculated at retail levels. However, no contemporary region-specific data is available 

to support such assessment. Meyer Resources, Inc. and Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 

used earlier national data to develop estimates of retailer producer surplus6 along the 

Pacific Coast. In 1976, Brown, Douglas, Johnston and Wahle estimated consumer 

surplus at retail for Columbia River Salmon7

. The present analysis does not 

incorporate such retail-level estimates. This convention reduces the absolute net 

economic estimate for each Alternative considered, but does not alter the comparative 

ranking of the Alternatives. 

II. Comparing Net Economic Value from Impacts of Change with Status 

Quo Circumstances. 

 The framework of Alternatives considered by this EA/EIS incorporates one choice –

Alternative 1 – based on estimates of “no change in present fishery management 

planning”, essentially a theoretical representation of status quo. Since methods discussed 

in the preceding section measure the net economic impacts from change, they cannot be 

directly used for Alternative 1 – but must be adjusted to consider status quo. 

The central issue concerning net economic evaluation of the present circumstances of 

salmon harvesters stems from the common property characteristics of the salmon 

fishery8. As early as 1955, it was noted that where access of harvesters to fisheries was 

unrestrained, the fishing fleet would tend to expand as long as some fishers made profits 

– driving net economic returns for the fleet as a whole toward zero9. 

Economic dialogue on this issue in the 1960’s and 70’s focussed on the extent to which 

fishery planning was “intentionally inefficient”10 in order to meet social objectives – such 

as well-being of fishing communities - as well as economic efficiency goals. But 

economists cautioned that if benefits associated with social goals were to be included in 

economic calculus, there would need to be a system regulating the number of salmon 

harvesters in place – where, at least in a general sense, tradeoffs between economic and 

social objectives actually occurred. A gathering of fishery economic specialists, brought 

 

6

 i.e. Meyer Resources, Inc., 1985. The Economic Value of Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis, Chinook 

 Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and Steelhead Trout, Salmon gairdneri, of the Sacramento 

 and San Joaquin River Systems. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game Administrative 

 Report 85-03. Biosystems Analysis, Inc., 1988. A Bioeconomic Model for Evaluation of Flow Changes 

 Affecting Chinook Salmon, Agriculture and Power: Economic Sub-Model. Sausalito, CA: A Report 

 to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Meyer Resources, Inc., 1997. Northwest Tribal Values on the 

 Land. 1997. Davis, CA: A Report to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 7

 Brown, William G., D.M. Larson, R.S. Johnston and R.J. Wahle, 1976. Improved Economic Evaluation 

 of Commercially and Sport-Caught Salmon and Steelhead of the Columbia River. Corvallis: 

 University of Oregon State Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 463. 8

 A common property resource is a resource held by public trustees, as opposed to private owners. 

9

 H. Scott Gordon, 1955. “The Economic Theory of a Common Property Resource; The Fishery”, in, 

 Journal of Political Economy, LXIII, Apr. 10 Defined in the salmon context as “too many vessels harvesting too few fish” to achieve maximum 

 economic returns per vessel. 
3

together by NMFS, identified this framework during review of U.S. Water Resources 

Council Guidelines in 1973. 

 It might be argued that the cost of the inefficiencies associated with the current 

over-capitalization of the (fishing) industry is a choice by society, and that if society 

were to choose, there could be substantial net economic rent generated. However, 

there is still no possibility that anyone can capture this potential net economic rent 

until institutional changes in the market system are made. If these institutional 

changes are made, there will be important regional effects and “social effects” (i.e. 

displacement of families, change in the nature of fishing ports, etc.). Since these 

changes have not been made, one might assume that the value of these “social 

effects” is at least equal to the net economic rent that could be generated from the 

fishery.11

Crutchfield (1962) had already recommended that net benefits associated with salmon 

harvesting be calculated as the maximum net economic rent attainable if the fishery were 

operated by a non-discriminating sole owner12. But explicit access management plans to 

govern salmon fleet size only began in 1969, in British Columbia – and did not follow in 

the United States for another decade or more. 

Crutchfield’s 1962 recommendation may have been prescient. It is clear today that 

determination of the number of vessels that are allowed access to commercial harvest 

openings in waters off the State of Washington receive continuing attention by salmon 

management authorities. It is equally clear that dialogue concerning access to salmon 

fisheries considers trade-offs between economic efficiency and the well being of fishing 

families, communities and ports on an ongoing basis. 

Consequently, assessment of net economic value associated with the Alternative 1 

management status quo in this EA/EIS will consider two indicators of net economic 

status: i) present-day average net economic returns evident in the salmon fishery – 

without consideration of benefit trade-offs with family and/or community goals; ii) net 

economic returns from present fishing activities plus “potential economic rent” forgone 

to achieve family, community or fishing port objectives. We will term the first indicator 

net economic efficiency returns, and the second indicator net socio-economic returns. 

III. Empirical Evidence 

1. Salmon Fishing 

In order to implement net economic value analyses at the salmon fishing level, it is 

necessary to obtain relevant data with respect to levels of salmon harvest, revenue 

associated with stipulated harvest levels, associated fishing costs and the characteristics 

of employment/ unemployment in the labor pool from which fishers are drawn. 

 

11 Idaho Cooperative Fishery Unit, Supra at 10. 12 Crutchfield, James. 1962. “Valuation of Fishery Resources”, in, Land Economics, 38: 145-154. 
4

For this EIS, estimates of salmon harvest under each alternative were provided by the 

fishery modeling group – and converted to weight of harvest in pounds using data from 

the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s LIFT database. Harvest poundage was 

then converted to dollars of revenue, using average prices from the LIFT database. 

Empirical information with respect to changes in salmon net economic value, as harvest 

levels change is less systematically available. Major empirical enquiries were conducted 

by Barclay and Morley (1977)13, Oregon State University (1978)14, Petry (1979)15 and 

Jear (1980)16. More recent studies concerning net economic changes in fishery harvest 

values have essentially summarized earlier studies, and made “expert recommendations” 

based on those data – but have introduced little further contemporary empirical 

evidence17. 

Cost and earnings analyses of Pacific Northwest fisheries have been conducted over the 

years. Canada Fisheries and Oceans periodically release financial data for the adjacent 

Canadian salmon fleet – with data from 1994 the most recent18. A more recent data 

release from Fisheries Economic Assessment Model (FEAM) by the Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council is currently pending19. Such cost and earnings information will be 

utilized in this report to provide net economic efficiency returns for Alternative 1, status 

quo. These data are also of assistance in developing net economic impact estimates for 

Alternatives 2 through 4 – although they do not address net economic impacts from 

changed salmon harvest levels directly. Characteristics of the salmon fleet of Washington 

State and British Columbia are similar. We will utilize the Canada Fisheries and Oceans 

data for this analysis – and update it as feasible when FEAM data becomes fully 

available. 

 

13 Barclay, J.C. and R.W. Morley, 1977. Estimation of Commercial Fishery Benefits and Costs for the 

 National Income Account. Vancouver: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 14 Oregon State University, 1978, Socio-Economics of the Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California 

 Coho and Chinook Salmon Industry, 2 Vols. Corvallis: A Report to the Pacific Fishery Management 

 Council. 

15 Petry, G.H., 1979. Pacific Northwest Salmon and Steelhead Fishery Report—The Economic Status 

 of the Oregon and Washington Non-Indian Salmon Gillnet and Troll Fishery, 2 Vols. Pullman: 

 Washington State University. 

16 Jear, L. 1980. Second Draft of Commercial Fishery Benefits and Costs Data (1976-1978). Vancouver: 

 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 

17 i.e. Meyer, Philip A., 1982. Net Economic Values for Salmon and Steelhead from the Columbia 

 River System. Portland: National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS 

 F/NWR – 3; Rettig, Bruce and B. McCarl, 1984, “Potential and Actual Benefits from Commercial 

 Fishing Activities” in, NMFS Workshop. Seattle: National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical 

 Memorandum F/FWR-8; Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1988. Supra: Radke, Hans D., S.W. Davis and R.L. 

 Johnson, 1999. Anadromous Fish Economic Analysis: Lower Snake River Juvenile Migration 

 Feasibility Study. Corvallis: Prepared for Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation and the U.S. 

 Army Corps of Engineers. 

18 Gislason, Gordon. 1997. The BC Fishing Fleet: Financial Returns for 1991 and 1994. Vancouver: 

 Canada Fisheries and Oceans. 

19 Pacific Fisheries Management Council, 2003. Fisheries Economic Assessment Model. Portland: 

 forthcoming. 
5

2. Salmon Processing 

Empirical information from which to calculate net economic impacts on salmon 

processors from altered salmon harvests is less available than for fishermen. Few 

economists have asked questions concerning whether processor infrastructure changes at 

all – and if so, by what proportion – as the amount of salmon landed changes. Rather, 

economists have tended to use FEAM-type average data, or other specific survey-based 

findings to estimate value added by processing and associated status quo net economic 

efficiency returns for processors. Principal among these studies are: Oregon State 

University (1978), Petry (1979), Penn (1980)20, Clarkson Gordon, (1983)21, Biosystems 

Analysis (1988), Kearney/Centaur (1988)22 and Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

(2003). 

These studies, and associated data, will be employed in the present EIS to estimate net 

economic returns to salmon processors under each alternative. 

IV. A Framework for Net Economic Valuation of Impacts in the Present EIS. 

1. The Magnitude of Change in Harvest 

 As noted, the magnitude of change in harvest is an important determinant of associated 

change in harvest costs. For small adjustments in harvest, associated fishing costs may 

change little, if at all. For more substantial adjustments, capital may remain fixed, but 

variable costs associated with harvesting can be expected to rise (for harvest increases) or 

fall (for harvest decreases). As harvest increases/decreases further, fishing capital may be 

expected to increase (for gains) or decline (for losses). 

Alternative 2 (Escapement Goal Management) and Alternative 3 (No Action/No 

Authorized Take) forecast non-tribal salmon harvest levels declining to near zero. On this 

basis, impact on non-tribal fishers will be estimated at the net economic efficiency level 

and the net socio-economic returns level. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce tribal harvests substantially, but do not eliminate them. Given 

the material and cultural importance of salmon fishing to the tribes, this assessment of net 

economic returns to tribal fishers will assume that the fishing power of tribal vessels and 

set nets remains near present levels – and that variable cost changes with reduction in 

harvest. 

 

20 Penn, E. 1980. Cost Analysis of Fish Price Margins, 1972-1977, at Different Production and 

 Distribution Levels. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 21 Clarkson Gordon, 1983. Summary of the British Columbia Fish Processing Industry. Vancouver: A 

 Report to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 22 Kearney/Centaur, 1988. Development of Value Added, Margin and Expenditures for Marine 

 Fishery Products. Washington, D.C.: A Report for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
6

2. Characteristics of the Labor Pool for Fishers. 

The US Water Resources Council’s P&G (1983) established criteria to decide whether or 

not payments to labor should be treated as a benefit in net benefit estimation. 

Benefits from use of otherwise unemployed or underemployed labor resources 

may be recognized as a project benefit if the area has substantial and persistent 

unemployment... . Substantial and persistent unemployment exists in an area 

when: 

(1) the current rate of unemployment, as determined by appropriate annual 

statistics for the most recent 12 consecutive months, is 6 percent or more 

and has averaged at least 6 percent for the qualifying time periods specified 

in paragraph (2) and 

(2) the annual average rate of unemployment has been at least: (i) 50 percent 

above the national average for three of the preceding four calendar years, or 

(ii) 75 percent above the national average for one of the preceding two 

calendar years. 23 

The P&G further identifies that such unemployed labor must be available to fishing, and 

specific to the area in question24. 

Data concerning unemployment for the ten counties constituting the area of impact for 

this EA/EIS fall within the range of U.S. unemployment25. They do not rise to the 

standard required by the P&G for crediting of labor costs as benefits. Consequently, 

estimates of net economic efficiency and net socio-economic returns for non-tribal fishers 

will treat payments to labor as costs. 

Unemployment rates for affected tribes are much higher – ranging from a 2001 low of 26 

percent (Lummi) to a high of 78 percent (Sauk-Suiattle)26. These levels exceed the 

standard for substantial and persistent unemployment establish by the U.S. Water 

Resources Council. Consequently, payments to tribal fishers will be excluded from 

variable costs in tribal net economic benefit calculations. 

3. Selection of Net Economic Value Coefficients for the Present Analysis. 

Fishing level coefficients utilize 1994 cost and earnings data for salmon gill-netters and 

trollers from Gislason, 1997 (Table 1). 

 

23 U.S. Water Resources Council. Supra at 93. 24 Supra. 25 i.e. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2003. Census 2000. Summary File 3, Table P43. 26 U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2003. Indian Population and Labor Force Report: 2001. pp. 9 & 18. 

 Also see same publication for preceding years. 
7

 Table 1 

 Estimated Average Annual Revenue and Costs For Salmon Gill-netters and 

Trollers 

 Revenue/Cost Element Revenue/Cost ($) Percent of Total Revenue 

Annual Revenue Per Vessel 51,460 100% 

Fixed Cost 10,460 20 

Capital Cost 6,060 12 

Variable Cost: 

• Crew & Skipper 

• Fuel/Food/Other 

 24,520 

o 19,240 

o 5,280 

 48 

o 38 

o 10 

Net Return to Investment 10,420 20% 

Source: Gislason, 1997. Exhibit B3. 

Selection of non-tribal fishing coefficients for Alternative 1 (No Change) follow 

discussion from prior sections - and employs the Gislason data to estimate for net 

economic efficiency - and the 90 percent “maximum net economic rent” recommendation 

from Crutchfield, Krol and Phinney (1965)27 and Richards (1968)28 to estimate for net 

socio-economic return. 

Selection of non-tribal fishing level coefficients for Alternatives 2 and 3 use the same as 

for Alternative 129. 

Tribal net economic efficiency for Alternative 1 is determined as the sum of net fishing 

return (20% of gross fishing revenue in Table 1) plus the labor share of fishing costs 

(38% of gross fishing revenue), previously termed the substantial and persistent 

unemployment credit. This results in a 58 percent net economic efficiency coefficient for 

tribal fishers under Alternative 1. 

Radke et al. (1999) suggest net economic impacts from declines in harvests for surviving 

commercial fisheries be valued at 90 percent of ex-vessel value30. Determination of 

fishing level coefficients for surviving tribal fisheries under Alternatives 2 and 3 adjust 

the Radke et al. (1999) 90 percent number by the substantial and persistent 

unemployment credit discussed in prior Section IV.2. To obtain this estimate, we again 

note from Table 1 that the labor component of fishing cost is 38% - and credit the 

 

27 Crutchfield, J.A., K.B. Krol and L.A. Phinney, 1995. On Economic Evaluation of Washington State 

 Department of Fisheries Controlled Natural-Rearing Program for Coho Salmon. U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service Contract No. 14-17-007-246. 

28 Richards, Jack A., 1968. An Economic Evaluation of Columbia River Anadromous Programs. PhD. 

 Thesis. Corvallis: Oregon State University. 

29 Recalling earlier discussion, our net economic efficiency convention is based on the premise that non- 

 tribal commercial harvests are almost entirely lost under A2 and A3. Should fishery experts conclude 

 otherwise, a higher 90 percent net economic impact coefficient, recommended by Radke et al. (1999), 

 would be appropriate. 

30 Radke et al. Supra at IV-17. 
8

suggested 90 percent marginal cost component from Radke et al. accordingly, to obtain 

an adjusted net economic coefficient for tribal fishers of 94 percent31. 

Processing coefficients were developed in two steps. First, Oregon State University 

(1978) identified value mark-ups from salmon fishing to processing levels for Puget 

Sound of between 84 percent and 113 percent, depending on assumptions used. We 

employ a mark-up of 100 percent here. Second, Penn (1980) estimated variable 

processing costs at 48 to 50 percent of processing value added. We assume no reduction 

in processor fixed cost – and utilize a processor net value coefficient of 50% of value 

added. 

Compounding assumed value mark-up and net value percentage, the net economic value 

coefficient is calculated as a percentage of gross landed value. It is additive to estimates 

of net economic value at the fishing level. 

Resultant fishing and processing level net economic value coefficients are displayed in 

Table 2. 

 Table 2 

 Net Economic Value Coefficients* – Puget Sound Chinook Salmon EIS 

 Alternative Measure Non-Tribal Tribal 

Fishing: A1 : net economic 

 efficiency 

: net socio- 

 economic return 

 20% 

 90% 

 58% 

 94% 

Fishing: A2 & A3 : net economic value 20% and 90% 94% 

Fish Processing – 

All Alternatives 

: net economic value 50% 50% 

* Coefficients are expressed as a percent of gross landed value of salmon. 

 

31 Tribal fishing net economic return = 1 – [marginal cost] + labour credit] = 1 – .10 + (.10)(.38) = 94%. 
ATTACHMENT D 

Net Economic Value Factors for Commercial Salmon Fishing 

Developed by The Research Group 

D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

The Research Group 

P.O. Box 813 

Corvallis, OR 97339 

Voice (541) 758-1432 / Facsimile (541) 758-1455 / Email shannon_davis@class.orednet.org 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Tom Wegge, TCW Economics 

From: Hans Radtke and Shannon Davis 

Date: October 21, 2003 

Re: Puget Sound Chinook Resource Harvest Management Plan EIS - Issues/Questions 

Concerning Net Economic Values for Commercial Fishing 

You asked us about using net economic value (NEV) in the evaluation of harvest management 

alternatives for the Puget Sound Chinook Resource Harvest Management EIS. Phil Meyer 

recently prepared a document (report titled "Net Economic Value for Commercial Salmon 

Fishing in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca," received October 16, 2003) that 

addresses this topic. Because Phil cited our work on the Snake River (The Research Group, 

Anadromous Fish Economic Analysis, prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla 

Walla District for use in the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study, 

June 1999) as a key information source, you requested our thoughts on several issues. More 

specifically, you asked us to address four questions based on consideration of the following. 

A. Review of Phil's most recent version of his NEV write-up. 

We reviewed Phil Meyer's report and found his discussion very thorough and informative.1

 

There are three key points in his report that we would like to address: size of consumer surplus, 

labor market considerations, and components of producer surplus. 

Because of the variety of substitutes available and the price leadership that aquaculture has 

taken, we expect, as was pointed out by Phil, no calculable net value due to consumers' 

willingness to pay higher prices. Only in very rare niche market cases, such as customer loyalty 

for Indian caught salmon products, may a case for consumer surplus be made. 

The argument that because unemployment rates in tribal areas are high, crew share (or labor 

costs) should be counted as a benefit, is reasonable and in line with recommendations made by 

the Water Resources Council. 

Phil reiterates our argument for using 50 percent of the ex-vessel value primary processor margin 

as an indication of the processing component for producer surplus.2

 We have argued in the past 

that primary processing should be included because of several factors. Primary processing 

usually takes place in proximity to harvesting. Also, trolling includes partial processing, while 

most net fishing lands the catch in the round, and includes tendering. It is for these reasons that 

the use of a comparable product is reasonable in calculating NEV. 

 

1. One exception is that Phil should spell Hans Radtke's name correctly. 

2. Phil should qualify his writing that the primary processing component is 50 percent of the processor margin and 

not 50 percent of the ex-vessel value. 
D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Tom Wegge 

October 21, 2003 

Page 2 

We argue that primary processing will only take place if processors cover their variable costs 

plus a "contribution margin" that includes plant overhead and profits. We argue that 50 percent 

of this "contribution margin" of $0.40 per finished pound is a reasonable estimate. This is based 

on a finished product weight. The finished product weight, compared to landed weight, will vary 

according to yields for various products from the purchased fish. 

B. The expected changes in the commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead by tribal and 

non-tribal fishers. 

We separated management actions into harvest incremental changes where fleet overcapacity 

probably exists and large harvest changes where capital costs for gear etc. would have to be 

incurred (or lost). The incremental changes would not include changes in fixed costs, whereas 

the large harvest changes would include increases (decreases) in investments. 

C. Our understanding of commercial fishing operations in Puget Sound. 

We have been involved in modeling fisheries in Washington (and throughout the Pacific Ocean 

rim) for over 20 years. The original version of the Fisheries Economic Assessment Model 

included a major input from William Jensen, part of the family that owned and operated 

Washington Crab Producers. More recently, The Research Group completed a study, "Tribal 

Salmon Fisheries Marketing Opportunities" for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

dated June 2003. As part of this study, we interviewed several key members of Northwest tribal 

fisheries on harvesting, processing, and marketing of tribal harvested salmon. As part of this 

study, we concluded, based on discussions with key members, that the harvesting and processing 

of tribal and non-tribal caught fish are basically similar. The only difference may be the makeup of the fleet. Tribal harvesting includes more small operations. 

Fish ticket data sources can be used to differentiate vessel types for non-treaty fisheries. 

However, tickets issued within treaty fisheries do not identify unique vessels. We have relied on 

a fish ticket database to explain vessel types for non-treaty fisheries and the before mentioned 

study to estimate the fleet mix for treaty harvesters. The following table shows our estimates. 

The cost-earnings budgets for these vessel types are from the FEAM developed for the current 

study. 

Vessel Mix 

Vessel Type Treaty Non-Treaty 

Salmon Troller-Crabber 10% 15% 

Part-time Salmon Troller 10% 20% 

Salmon Netter 35% 30% 

Small General Fisher 45% 35% 

We have assumed Year 2002 salmon species prices as shown in the following table. 

Salmon Species/Gears 

Troll 

Coho 

Troll 

Chinook 

Net 

Coho 

Net 

Chinook 

Net 

Chum 

Net Pink/ 

Steelhead 

Net 

Sockeye 

Ex-vessel price $0.41 $1.02 $0.37 $0.70 $0.16 $0.48 $0.85 
D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Tom Wegge 

October 21, 2003 

Page 3 

D. Our experience with calculating NEV for commercial salmon fishing with production 

from the Columbia River and elsewhere. 

Most of our original work on commercial fishing was in building regional economic impact 

models for fisheries along the West Coast and in Alaska. Because those models included 

budgets for harvesters and processors, we have also been asked to develop NEV estimates for 

several studies. Some examples: 

• In the 1990's, we were asked by the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop comparable 

NEV estimates between species and geographic areas.1 Our method for estimating was 

reviewed by Jim Critchfield (University of Washington) and James Wilen (University of 

California, Davis), who found the methodology reasonable. The results were never 

published because negotiations between Canada and the U.S. are always ongoing. 

• We have prepared NEV estimates for the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) 

for recreational and commercial fishing. We have concluded that, in very general terms 

across many vessel types, a 0.7 rate (inclusive of a 0.5 harvest and 0.2 primary processing 

rate) of ex-vessel value is a reasonable NEV estimate. Our methods were reviewed by 

the PFMC Science and Statistical Committee. 

• Our NEV analysis for the Lower Snake River Juvenile Migration Feasibility Study was 

reviewed by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Independent Economic 

Analysis Board (IEAB). 

Based on the above background, we addressed the following questions and calculated NEV on a 

per round pound basis at single year annual prices for salmon species harvested in the Puget 

Sound catch areas. Our estimates are shown in the enclosed tables. The ratio of NEV to exvessel value would change if there were a different fleet mix or different prices are assumed. 

(1) Given the estimated changes in the commercial harvest of salmon and steelhead, what 

factors would you recommend using for estimating the NEV change in the management 

alternatives? Please explain your rationale, including the effect (if any) that the 

redistribution of harvest has on your recommendation. 

Harvest capacity is over subscribed for current salmon fisheries. Small incremental changes to 

fisheries will not result in additional capital costs to ramp up or down for the small changes. 

Therefore, we recommend a ratio estimate excluding fixed costs for management alternatives 

that have incremental harvest changes. In situations where there might be under capacity, we 

recommend that half of a vessel's fixed cost share of annual revenues be included in the 

calculation of NEV. Where management actions cause large decreases in harvests, the same 

fixed costs can be considered as investment losses. 

 

1. We worked with Gary Morishima on this project. 
D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Tom Wegge 

October 21, 2003 

Page 4 

(2) Do you recommend using different factors for estimating changes in tribal and non-tribal 

fisheries? Please explain your rationale. 

Based on Phil Meyer's paper in which he argues that tribal unemployment is much higher than in 

the general economy, and in line with the Water Resources Council recommendation that in 

areas of high unemployment labor costs should be included as a benefit, in these cases we have 

added harvest labor cost as part of the NEV estimate. 

(3) Do the factors recommended above include NEV for processing? If so, please indicate 

how you accounted for this component. If not, what do you recommend for estimating 

NEV for processing? 

The factors include estimates of NEV for primary processing. As stated above, it is primary 

processing that supplies a marketable and comparable product. The gutting, skinning, icing, and 

boxing are required to move the product from the harvesting area. This component of the NEV 

is listed under the processor line of the enclosed tables. It includes half of the contribution 

margin, which covers general plant overhead and profits. Because processor workers are less 

skilled and are drawn from larger labor market areas, we do not recommend the labor costs from 

this component of producer surplus be credited back as a benefit. 

(4) Do the NEV factors that you recommend take into account potential losses in capital 

investments (e.g., boats and equipment) associated with reductions in harvest, especially 

under the no fishing alternative? Please explain. 

In both cases of large changes to harvests, we would expect investments in capital equipment to 

change. We would not expect there are alternative fisheries for existing boats and equipment in 

a period of declining harvest opportunities. 

Summary

The range of NEV to ex-vessel value ratios is shown on the following figure. The ratios are 

specific to the fleet mix and ex-vessel prices. Because of this, the recommended ratios are 

somewhat different from the very general 0.7 rate of ex-vessel value that was used in the Snake 

River feasibility study. Those rules were developed based on a different set of harvesters and exvessel prices. 

The fleet mix changes NEV because different vessel types have different variable and fixed 

costs. Prices change NEV because the primary processing "contribution margin" tends to stay 

fairly constant at the $0.40 rate. As the ex-vessel price decreases, the NEV to ex-vessel value 

ratio will increase. 

While we bring more detail to our estimates, we would conclude that our recommendations for 

NEV factors are generally consistent with the estimates described by Phil Meyer. 
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: NEV to ex-vessel value ratio

Date: October 22, 2003

Range of NEV to Ex-Vessel Value Ratio

Notes: 1. The range is across landed species and vessel types.

2. The ratio will be different for other assumptions of fleet mix and ex-vessel salmon prices.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Large harvest

changes

Incremental changes Large harvest

changes

Incremental changes

Persistent Unemployment Full Employment

NEV ÷ Ex-vessel Value

High

Average

Low

D:\Data\Excel\PSchinooNEV.xls NEV graph
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: NEV by species/gear for treaty and non-treaty

Filter: Treaty Vessel Mix

Date: October 22, 2003

Fixed Net

Vessel Share of Revenue Variable Costs Costs Income

Vessel Type Mix Labor Other Total Share Share

Salmon Troller-Crabber 10% 39.0% 28.9% 67.9% 12.0% 20.1%

Part-time Salmon Troller 10% 39.0% 12.6% 51.6% 20.4% 27.9%

Salmon Netter 35% 39.0% 49.1% 88.1% 19.4% -7.5%

Small General Fisher 45% 39.0% 24.3% 63.3% 39.3% -2.6%

Weighted Total 100% 39.0% 32.3% 71.3% 27.7% 1.0%

Reveue Variable Labor Fixed Fixed Net Net

(Ex-vessel Cost Variable Cost Labor Cost Cost Income Income

Species price) Share Portion Share Portion Share Portion Share Portion

Troll coho $0.41 71.3% $0.29 39.0% $0.16 27.7% $0.11 1.0% $0.00

Troll chinook $1.02 71.3% $0.73 39.0% $0.40 27.7% $0.28 1.0% $0.01

Net coho $0.37 71.3% $0.26 39.0% $0.14 27.7% $0.10 1.0% $0.00

Net chinook $0.70 71.3% $0.50 39.0% $0.27 27.7% $0.19 1.0% $0.01

Net chum $0.16 71.3% $0.11 39.0% $0.06 27.7% $0.04 1.0% $0.00

Net pink/steelhead $0.48 71.3% $0.34 39.0% $0.19 27.7% $0.13 1.0% $0.00

Net sockeye $0.85 71.3% $0.61 39.0% $0.33 27.7% $0.24 1.0% $0.01

Net pink/

Vessel Troll coho Troll chinook Net coho Net chinook Net chum steelhead Net sockeye

Revenue (ex-vessel price) $0.41 $1.02 $0.37 $0.70 $0.16 $0.48 $0.85

Variable $0.29 $0.73 $0.26 $0.50 $0.11 34.2% $0.61

Labor costs $0.16 $0.40 $0.14 $0.27 $0.06 $0.19 $0.33

1/2 fixed costs $0.06 $0.14 $0.05 $0.10 $0.02 $0.07 $0.12

Net income $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01

Processor

Yield 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80

Contribution margin (finish) $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40

Contribution margin (round) $0.35 $0.35 $0.32 $0.32 $0.32 $0.32 $0.32

1/2 margin is net income $0.17 $0.17 $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 Full employment, over capacity

NEV

NEV w/o labor, w/o fixed $0.29 $0.47 $0.27 $0.36 $0.21 $0.30 $0.40 Full employment, over capacity

NEV w/o labor, w fixed $0.23 $0.33 $0.21 $0.26 $0.18 $0.23 $0.29 Full employment, under capacity

NEV w labor, w/o fixed $0.45 $0.86 $0.41 $0.63 $0.27 $0.49 $0.74 Persistent unemployment, over capacity

NEV w labor, w fixed $0.39 $0.72 $0.36 $0.54 $0.25 $0.42 $0.62 Persistent unemployment, under capacity

Net pink/

Ex-vessel price ratio Troll coho Troll chinook Net coho Net chinook Net chum steelhead Net sockeye

Large harvest changes 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 0.9 0.7

Incremental changes 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.7 1.0 0.9

D:\Data\Excel\PSchinooNEV.xls Treaty Model
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: NEV by species/gear for treaty and non-treaty

Filter: Non-treaty Vessel Mix

Date: October 22, 2003

Fixed Net

Vessel Share of Revenue Variable Costs Costs Income

Vessel Type Mix Labor Other Total Share Share

Salmon Troller-Crabber 15% 39.0% 28.9% 67.9% 12.0% 20.1%

Part-time Salmon Troller 20% 39.0% 12.6% 51.6% 20.4% 27.9%

Salmon Netter 30% 39.0% 49.1% 88.1% 19.4% -7.5%

Small General Fisher 35% 39.0% 24.3% 63.3% 39.3% -2.6%

Weighted Total 100% 39.0% 30.1% 69.1% 25.5% 5.4%

Reveue Variable Labor 1/2 Fixed Fixed Net Net

(Ex-vessel Cost Variable Cost Labor Cost Cost Income Income

Species price) Share Portion Share Portion Share Portion Share Portion

Troll coho $0.41 69.1% $0.28 39.0% $0.16 12.7% $0.05 5.4% $0.02

Troll chinook $1.02 69.1% $0.70 39.0% $0.40 12.7% $0.13 5.4% $0.06

Net coho $0.37 69.1% $0.26 39.0% $0.14 12.7% $0.05 5.4% $0.02

Net chinook $0.70 69.1% $0.48 39.0% $0.27 12.7% $0.09 5.4% $0.04

Net chum $0.16 69.1% $0.11 39.0% $0.06 12.7% $0.02 5.4% $0.01

Net pink/steelhead $0.48 69.1% $0.33 39.0% $0.19 12.7% $0.06 5.4% $0.03

Net sockeye $0.85 69.1% $0.59 39.0% $0.33 12.7% $0.11 5.4% $0.05

Net pink/

Vessel Troll coho Troll chinook Net coho Net chinook Net chum steelhead Net sockeye

Revenue (ex-vessel price) $0.41 $1.02 $0.37 $0.70 $0.16 $0.48 $0.85

Variable $0.28 $0.70 $0.26 $0.48 $0.11 33.2% $0.59

Labor costs $0.16 $0.40 $0.14 $0.27 $0.06 $0.19 $0.33

1/2 fixed costs $0.05 $0.13 $0.05 $0.09 $0.02 $0.06 $0.11

Net income $0.02 $0.06 $0.02 $0.04 $0.01 $0.03 $0.05

Processor

Yield 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80

Contribution margin (finish) $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40

Contribution margin (round) $0.35 $0.35 $0.32 $0.32 $0.32 $0.32 $0.32

1/2 margin is net income $0.17 $0.17 $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 Full employment, over capacity

NEV

NEV w/o labor, w/o fixed $0.30 $0.49 $0.27 $0.38 $0.21 $0.31 $0.42 Full employment, over capacity

NEV w/o labor, w fixed $0.25 $0.36 $0.23 $0.29 $0.19 $0.25 $0.31 Full employment, under capacity

NEV w labor, w/o fixed $0.46 $0.89 $0.42 $0.65 $0.27 $0.50 $0.75 Persistent unemployment, over capacity

NEV w labor, w fixed $0.41 $0.76 $0.37 $0.56 $0.25 $0.43 $0.65 Persistent unemployment, under capacity

Net pink/

Ex-vessel value ratio Troll coho Troll chinook Net coho Net chinook Net chum steelhead Net sockeye

Large harvest changes 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.4

Incremental changes 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.6 0.5

D:\Data\Excel\PSchinooNEV.xls Non-treaty Model

ATTACHMENT E 

Economic Factors for Salmon Sport Fishing 

Developed by The Research Group 

D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

The Research Group 

P.O. Box 813 

Corvallis, OR 97339 

Voice (541) 758-1432 / Facsimile (541) 758-1455 / Email shannon_davis@class.orednet.org 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Tom Wegge 

From: Hans Radtke and Shannon Davis 

Date: September 18, 2003 

Re: Economic Analysis Results for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Fishery Management 

Plan, Pertaining to Recreational Fisheries 

This memorandum describes our recreational economic analysis results for the referenced 

project. They are contained in an attached Excel workbook. In regards to methods, recreational 

models are pretty straightforward: trips * spending per trip * multipliers = economic 

contribution. The hard part, of course, is acquiring data for each of these terms. We have 

discussed the IMPLAN and FEAM approach for getting multipliers in another memorandum to 

you, so we will not duplicate that discussion here. 

We have used Gentner (2001) numbers for trips and spending per trip in the model. Gentner's 

publication describes a MRFSS economic add-on survey's results. The survey was administered 

in Year 2000. Gentner’s trips are for saltwater fisheries at the statewide level when trip purposes 

include salmon and all other species. Gentner also reports trips by whether the angler’s 

residence is within or outside Washington. We have adjusted the statewide numbers to regions 

using angler trips from RecFIN, which are available at the county level. RecFIN does not 

provide trips by residency, so we have kept Gentner’s proportion of resident anglers. We assume 

NOAA Fisheries will supply the actual trips and angler counts by residency for the state and 

subregions, but we needed some numbers to test the model’s application. 

We have also used Gentner for calculating the economic effects from angler counts that generate 

the trips. It will not be necessary to use angler counts for small changes to trips, but it would be 

necessary if an EIS alternative calls for substantial reduction or increase in fisheries. Finding 

angler counts and their residence is more problematic because RecFIN does not provide these 

tallies directly. We can help suggest methods for finding these counts, such as maybe using 

some factor based on annual average effort per angler. 

The recreation model uses statewide average spending per trip at the statewide level and substate regions. The multipliers are specific to the sub-state region. The multipliers and results are 

for three contribution measurements: personal income, output, and jobs (FTE). Notice we have 

also calculated jobs at the state level using BEA earnings per job to compare to jobs calculated 

from IMPLAN custom multipliers. They were within 10 percent, so we feel pretty good about 

using the IMPLAN custom multipliers. 
D:\Data\Documents\swd\PugetSoundChinookPro&Cor.doc 

Tom Wegge 

September 18, 2003 

Page 2 

Total trip related NEV is calculated using benefit transfer approach. We have used Olsen (1990) 

ocean trip tables updated to current dollars, but can use other studies as necessary. 

The results show there was $71.7 million (2002 dollars) in personal income contributed to the 

State's economy in 2000. The output and jobs (FTE) were $177.7 million and 1,848, 

respectively. About 82 percent was from resident anglers and 18 percent from non-resident 

anglers (Figure 1). Puget Sound fishing contributed $59.2 million personal income, $144.2 

million output, and 1,570 jobs (FTE). The share of the economic contribution by sub-state 

regions was 58 percent south Puget Sound, 32 percent north Puget Sound, and 10 percent coastal 

Washington north. 

Let me know if you have comments so I can incorporate them into the model for its easy 

application. 
Project: NWIFC Puget Sound Chinook Management EIS

Statement: Recreational Model

Date: September 16, 2003

Report: Figure 1

Economic Contribution From Recreational Saltwater 

Fishing Effort to the Washington State Economy in 2000

Notes: 1. Economic contribution measured by personal income adjusted to 2002 dollars using 

the GDP implicit price deflator developed by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Economic contribution is at the state level.

2. Economic contribution includes direct, indirect, and induced impacts (multiplier effect) 

on the economy.

3. Year 2000 effort and per trip spending from Gentner et al., Marine Angler Expenditures

in the Pacific Coast Region, 2000, National Marine Fisheries Service, November 2001. 

Economic Contribution From Recreational Saltwater 

Fishing Effort to the Puget Sound Economy in 2000

Notes: 1. Economic contribution measured by personal income adjusted to 2002 dollars using 

the GDP implicit price deflator developed by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Economic contribution is at the local level economy.

2. Economic contribution includes direct, indirect, and induced impacts (multiplier effect) 

on the economy.

3. Year 2000 effort and per trip spending from Gentner et al., Marine Angler Expenditures

in the Pacific Coast Region, 2000, National Marine Fisheries Service, November 2001, 

allocated to regions using Year 2000 trips from RecFIN.

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Resident Non-Resident

Personal Income (Millions of Dollars)

 Shore 

Private/Rental Boat

Party/Charter

Total Resident and Non-Resident

 Income: $71.7 million

 Output: $177.7 million

 Jobs: 1,848

82%

18%

North Puget Sound

32%

South Puget 

Sound

58%

Coastal 

Washington North

10%

Total personal income: 

 $59.2 million

Total output: 

 $144.2 million

Total jobs: 1,570

kco D:\Data\Excel\PSchinook-recreation.xls figures

 

 

APPENDIX E 

Technical Methods - 

Environmental Justice 

Appendix E − Technical Methods - Environmental Justice 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest E - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

APPENDIX E – TECHNICAL METHODS: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Data Sources and Calculations Associated with Section 4.7. Sources and calculations underlying 

data appearing in Section 4.7 are generally described here. 

Data Sources: 

Annual tribal data on number of fish harvested in the tribal commercial fishery within the action area, 

weight of that tribal catch and average price obtained by tribal fishermen – displayed in Table 4.7-1 by 

salmonid species – was obtained from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission database. 

Data on average fish sizes and prices, 1996 through 2001, used for estimating revenue associated with 

each alternative, was provided by The William Douglas Company, based on information from the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Other data sources are as cited in appropriate tables. 

Table 4.7-1 Tribal salmon fishing revenue for the action area – 17 fishing tribes. 

Revenue estimates were obtained by multiplying the number of pounds of each species caught by the 

tribes by the appropriate average price per pound for each year – 1999 through 2001. 

Table 4.7-2 Selected data for potentially affected tribes. 

These data were extracted from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. 

Table 4.7-3 Relative mortality for tribal peoples compared to residents of Washington State. 

These data are extracted from a 1994 report of the Portland Area Indian Health Care Service. 

Table 4.7-4 Estimated tribal salmon harvested annually under Alternative 1, Scenario B. 

These data are taken from Tables C3-1 through C3-68 in Appendix C3, developed by the Biological 

Team. 

Table 4.7-5 Estimated annual tribal salmon revenue, by species − Alternative 1, Scenario B. 

Using 1996−2001 average prices and fish sizes from The William Douglas Company/Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife: 
Appendix E − Technical Methods - Environmental Justice 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest E - 2 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Step 1: Estimated numbers of each species of salmon harvested under Alternative 1 (Table 4.7-4) were 

multiplied by their average size to obtain estimated pounds of each species caught by the tribes under 

Alternative 1. 

Step 2: Estimated pounds of each species caught under Alternative 1 (Step1) were then multiplied by 

average annual price per pound for each species to obtain estimated annual tribal salmon revenue, by 

species, under management Alternative 1. 

Table 4.7-6 Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 1, Scenarios A, C, or 

D. 

The same procedure was used as that used to develop Table 4.7-4. 

Estimated impacts to tribal fishing revenue under Alternative 1 for Scenarios A, C, or D, reported in the 

Section 4.7.1 narrative, were developed using the procedure previously described for Table 4.7-5. 

Table 4.7-7 Number of tribal salmon caught annually under Alternative 2, Scenario B. 

The same procedure was used as that used to develop Table 4.7-4. 

Estimated impacts to tribal fishing revenue under Alternative 2, reported in the Section 4.7.2 narrative, 

were developed using the procedure previously described for Table 4.7-5. 

Table 4.7-8 Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 2, Scenarios A, C, or 

D. 

The same procedure was used as that used to develop Table 4.7-4. 

Estimated impacts to tribal fishing revenue under Alternative 2 for Scenarios A, C or D, reported in the 

Section 4.7.2 narrative, were developed using the procedure previously described for Table 4.7-5. 

Table 4.7-9 Estimated tribal salmon numbers harvested annually under Alternative 3, Scenario 

B. 

The same procedure was used as that used to develop Table 4.7-4. 

Estimated impacts to tribal fishing revenue under Alternative 3, reported in the Section 4.7.3 narrative, 

were developed using the procedure described for Table 4.7-5. 
Appendix E − Technical Methods - Environmental Justice 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest E - 3 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

Table 4.7-10 Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 3, Scenarios A, C, or 

D. 

The same procedure was used as that used to develop Table 4.7-4. 

Estimated impacts to tribal fishing revenue under Alternative 3 for Scenarios A, C or D, reported in the 

Section 4.7.3 narrative, were developed using the procedure previously described for Table 4.7-5. 

Table 4.7-11 Estimated tribal salmon numbers harvested annually under Alternative 4, Scenario 

B. 

The same procedure was used as that used to develop Table 4.7-4. 

Estimated impacts to tribal fishing revenue under Alternative 4, reported in the Section 4.7.4 narrative, 

were developed using the procedure described for Table 4.7-5. 

Table 4.7-12 Predicted tribal harvests of chinook salmon under Alternative 4, Scenarios A, C, or 

D. 

The same procedure was used as that used to develop Table 4.7-4. 

Estimated impacts to tribal fishing revenue under Alternative 4 for Scenarios A, C, or D, reported in the 

Section 4.7.3 narrative, were developed using the procedure previously described for Table 4.7-5. 

 

 

APPENDIX F 

Applicable Laws, Treaties, 

Licenses and Permits 

Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 1 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

APPENDIX F: APPLICABLE LAWS, TREATIES, LICENSES AND PERMITS

Federal Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Pacific Salmon Treaty

The Pacific Salmon Treaty was established March 17, 1985 between Canada and the United States to

establish a framework for managing salmon populations either originating from one county and

intercepted by the other, or affecting the management or the biology of the populations of the other

country. The principles of the Treaty are to “1) prevent overfishing and to provide for optimum

production, and 2) provide for each part to receive Benefits equivalent to the production of salmon

originating in its waters.” Fisheries are managed according to terms specified in the annexes to the

Treaty to meet international conservation and allocation objectives agreed to by the two countries. In

developing these objectives, the Treaty requires the two countries to take into account 1) ways to

reduce interceptions; 2) avoiding, in most cases, the undue disruption of existing fisheries; and, 3) the

annual variability in the abundances of the populations.

The Treaty called for the establishment of the Pacific Salmon Commission, comprised of

representatives of both countries, which oversees implementation of the Treaty. The Pacific Salmon

Commission does not regulate salmon fisheries, but provides regulatory and technical advice to the two

countries. Regulation of the fisheries is the responsibility of the two countries.

Most relevant to this Environmental Assessment is the June 30, 1999, Agreement (Annex 4), which

stipulates management goals and measures for important chinook and coho populations that are taken

in Southeast Alaska and Canada and off the U.S. Pacific Coast. Included among these populations are

several listed chinook Evolutionarily Significant Units. The new agreement establishes an abundancebased chinook management regime for the populations and fisheries subject to the Pacific Salmon

Treaty. This regime will be in effect from 1999 through 2008.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C 1531 et seq. (ESA) provides broad

protection for fish, wildlife, and plant species that are listed as threatened or endangered, and the

conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. Responsibility for implementing the ESA is

shared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)(for terrestrial and freshwater species) and

NMFS (for most marine species and anadromous fish). The ESA provides for the conservation of

species which have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 2 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

throughout all or a significant portion of their range. “Species” is defined the ESA as a species, a

subspecies, or, or vertebrates only, a distinct population segment. NMFS has determined that a Pacific

salmon stock will be considered a distinct population segment, and hence a “species” under the ESA, if

it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species.

Section 4 of the ESA prohibits the consideration of economic impacts in making species listing

decisions. NMFS is required to make a listing decision based solely on the best scientific and

commercial data available. However, under section 4, NMFS must consider economic impacts when

designating critical habitat necessary for the continued survival of the species. After a species is listed,

a recovery plan is prepared which identifies conservation measures to help the species recover.

Section 4(d) of the ESA requires the Secretary to adopt those regulations he deems necessary for the

conservation of the species. The July 10, 2000 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound chinook under which the

proposed action was provided to NMFS for consideration adopts those regulations necessary for the

conservation of Puget Sound chinook. Fishing activities which are conducted in compliance with a

resource management plans approved by NMFS are exempt from take prohibitions on listed Puget

Sound chinook.

Section 7 of the ESA outlines the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve listed

species and designated critical habitat, and requires all Federal agencies to consult with NMFS (or

USFWS) concerning the potential effects of their actions on any listed species. Section 7(a)(1) requires

federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(2) requires federal

agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to

jeopardize endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

designated critical habitat. The determination that NMFS must make on the resource management plan

constitutes a federal action and so requires consultation under section 7 of the Act.

If a proposed action is “likely to adversely affect” a listed species or its critical habitat, then formal

consultation under section 7(a)(2) must be undertaken. Formal consultation concludes with NMFS’

issuing a biological opinion. If the biological opinion concludes that the proposed action is likely to

“jeopardize” the continued existence of the listed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of designated critical habitat, then NMFS may develop reasonable and prudent

alternatives in order to avoid these outcomes.
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 3 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

U.S. v. Washington

Five treaties ratified by the United States and various Washington Tribes between 1854 and 1856

guaranteed Tribes fishing rights in common with citizens of the Territory. These are the treaties of

Medicine Creek, Quinault, Neah Bay, Point Elliott, and Point-No-Point. Findings of United States v.

Washington, see 384 F. Supp. 312, commonly referred to as the Boldt Decision (United States District

Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma District 1974) clarified these treaties with

regard to allocation of salmon harvests between Tribal and non-Tribal fishers, holding that Tribes are

entitled to a 50 percent share of the harvestable run of fish. Hoh v. Baldridge, 522 F. Supp. 683 (United

States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma District 1981), established the

principle that where annual fishery management plans might affect an individual Tribe, the plans must

take into account returns to individual streams, thus establishing a key management principle of riverby-river or run-by-run management. The Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, and the framework

management plan adopted under Hoh v. Baldridge established principles governing the management of

shared salmon resources and established the principle of co-management whereby Tribes are equal comanagers with the State and represent themselves in the regional and international management

forums.

In general, the court held the following:

• The State must seek to regulate Tribes by the least restrictive means consistent with necessary

conservation measures.

• The Tribes must be afforded a fair opportunity to take their fair portion of fish from each run by

reasonable means.

• The States may regulate accustomed Tribal fishing stations only where the interests of

conservationi

 are justified.

The Puget Sound treaty tribes co-manage Puget Sound fisheries with the state of Washington, and

participate with tribes from California, Oregon and other Washington areas in managing fisheries under

the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

Executive Order 13084 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments

This Executive Order was signed on May 14, 1998 November 6, 2000, and published May 19, 1998

November 9, 2000 (63 65 F R 27655 67249). Its purpose is to establish regular and meaningful

consultation and collaboration with Indian Tribal governments in the development of federal regulatory

practices that significantly or uniquely affect their communities; to reduce the imposition on unfunded

mandates on Indian Tribal governments; and to streamline the application process for and increase the
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 4 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

availability of waivers to Indian Tribal governments. This Executive Order requires federal agencies to

have an effective process to involve and consult with representatives of Indian Tribal governments in

developing regulatory policies and it prohibits regulations that impose substantial direct compliance

costs on Indian Tribal communities.

Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the principal federal statute that provides for the management of U.S.

marine fisheries. Originally enacted as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 (Public

Law 94-265), this law was arguably the most significant fisheries legislation in U.S. history. It has been

amended periodically since 1976; most recently in 1996, by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law

104-297). The basic concepts of the Magnuson-Stevens Act have not changed and include the

following:

• The biological conservation of a fishery resource has priority over its use.

• Conservation and management decision making must be based on the best available scientific

information, which should include social, economic, and ecological factors along with biological

factors.

• The needs of fishery resource users vary across the nation, and public participation in the policy

making process should be maximized.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act (as amended in 1996) included the following policy statement regarding

the nation’s fisheries (16 U.S.C. 1801, Sec. 2[c]):

POLICY  It is further declared to be the policy of the Congress in this Act to:

1) Maintain without change the existing territorial or other ocean jurisdiction of the United States

for all purposes other than the conservation and management of fishery resources, as provided for

in this Act.

2) Authorize no impediment to, or interference with, recognized legitimate uses of the high seas,

except as necessary for the conservation and management of fishery resources, as provided for in

this Act.

3) Assure that the national fishery conservation and management program utilizes, and is based

upon, the best scientific information available; involves, and is responsive to the needs of,

interested and affected states and citizens; considers efficiency; draws upon federal, state, and

academic capabilities in carrying out research, administration, management, and enforcement;

considers the effects of fishing on immature fish and encourages development of practical
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 5 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

measures that minimize bycatch and avoid unnecessary waste of fish; and is workable and

effective.

4) Permit foreign fishing consistent with the provisions of this Act.

5) Support and encourage active United States efforts to obtain internationally acceptable

agreements which provide for effective conservation and management of fishery resources, and

to secure agreements to regulate fishing by vessels or persons beyond the exclusive economic

zones of any nation.

6) Foster and maintain the diversity of fisheries in the United States.

7) Ensure that the fishery resources adjacent to a Pacific Insular Area, including resident or

migratory populations within the exclusive economic zone adjacent to such areas, be explored,

developed, conserved, and managed for the benefit of the people of such area and of the United

States.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also established ten National Standards that serve as the overarching

objectives for fishery conservation and management (16 U.S.C. 1851, Sec. 301[a].):

IN GENERAL  Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation promulgated to

implement any such plan, pursuant to this title shall be consistent with the following national standards

for fishery conservation and management:

1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a

continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information

available.

3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its

range, and interrelated populations of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.

4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different

states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United

States fishermen, such allocation shall be a) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; b)

reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and c) carried out in such manner that no

particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 6 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the

utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its

sole purpose.

6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among,

and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.

7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid

unnecessary duplication.

8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of

this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished populations), take

into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to a) provide for

the sustained participation of such communities, and b) to the extent practicable, minimize

adverse economic impacts on such communities.

9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, a) minimize bycatch and

b) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.

10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of

human life at sea.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also mandates the Secretary of Commerce to develop advisory guidelines

to assist in fishery management plan development. These guidelines serve primarily to interpret and aid

compliance with the national standards (codified at 50 CFR Part 600, and most recently revised on

May 1, 1998 [63 FR 24212]).

Marine Mammal Protection Act

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), as amended through 1996,

establishes a federal responsibility to conserve marine mammals; management responsibility for

cetaceans (whales) and pinnipeds (seals) other than walrus is vested with NMFS. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service is responsible for all other marine mammals in Alaska including sea otter, walrus, and

polar bear. Congress found that certain species and population populations of marine mammals are or

may be in danger of extinction or depletion due to human activities. Congress also declared that marine

mammals are resources of great international significance, and they should be protected and

encouraged to develop to the greatest extent feasible commensurate with sound resource management

policies.
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 7 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

The Marine Mammal Protection Act’s primary management objective is to maintain the health and

stability of the marine ecosystem, with a goal of obtaining an optimum sustainable population of

marine mammals within the carrying capacity of the habitat. The Marine Mammal Protection Act is

intended to work in concert with the provisions of the ESA. The Secretary of Commerce is required to

give full consideration to all factors regarding regulations applicable to the “take” of marine mammals,

including the conservation, development, and use of fishery resources, and the economic and

technological feasibility of implementing the regulations. If a fishery affects a marine mammal

population, then the potential effects of the fishery must be analyzed in the appropriate Environmental

Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, and the managing jurisdiction or NMFS may be

requested to consider regulations to mitigate adverse effects.

The Puget Sound salmon fisheries are considered Category II or Category III fisheries depending on

gear type. Puget Sound non-treaty salmon drift gillnet fisheries are classified as Category II fisheries,

primarily for their interactions with Harbor porpoises, Harbor seals and Dall’s porpoise. A Category II

rating indicates an occasional likelihood of serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals,

according to the annual list of fisheries published in the Federal Register (67 FR 2410). Washington

salmon troll, beach seine, purse seine, reef net and charter boat fisheries are classified as Category III,

indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals.

Participants in Category II fisheries register with state or federal permit systems and NMFS is tasked

with developing take reduction plans for Category 1 and II fisheries.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act became law on January 1, 1970. It was designed to ensure that

federal agencies made decisions fully informed about the impacts of their actions on the human and

natural environment, to reduce those impacts where possible and to promote research and

understanding of the environment. This Environmental Assessment is intended to meet the National

Environmental Policy Act requirements that apply to the proposed action.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 was designed to end the commercial trade of migratory birds

and their feathers that, by the early years of the 20th century, had diminished populations of many

native bird species. The Act states that it is unlawful to take, kill, or possess migratory birds and their

parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) and is a shared agreement between the United States,

Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia to protect a common migratory bird resource. The Migratory Bird

Treaty Act prohibits the directed take of seabirds, but the incidental take of seabirds does occur.
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 8 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

This Executive Order was signed February 11, 1994 (59 FR 7630). It requires Federal agencies to

identify and address “as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income

populations...”(section 1-101). The Executive Order specifically requires the inclusion of Native

American communities in the analysis of these effects. The Executive Order directs federal agencies to

develop agency-specific environmental justice strategies that identify the types of actions that may or

have raised environmental justice issues and possible approaches to address such concerns, as

appropriate (section 1-103). These strategies should:

1) Promote enforcement of health and environmental laws in these communities.

2) Improve research, data collection and data analysis of environmental and human health risks,

particularly with regard to exposure of these communities to environmental hazards (section 3-3),

whenever practicable and appropriate.

3) Assess subsistence consumption of fish, vegetation, or wildlife whenever practicable and

appropriate (section 4-401).

4) Effective public participation and access to information so that all sectors of the community have

the opportunity and information to participate in the NEPA process in a meaningful way to the

extent feasible (section 5-5).

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was signed March 10, 1934 and has been amended several

times, the most recent of which was July 9, 1965. Its purpose is to provide assistance to, and cooperate

with, federal, state, and public or private agencies and organizations in the development, protection,

rearing, and stocking of all species of wildlife, resources thereof, and their habitat, in controlling losses

of the same from disease or other causes, in minimizing damages from overabundant species, in

1. Providing public shooting and fishing areas, including easements across public lands for access

thereto, and in carrying out other measures necessary to effectuate the purposes of said sections

2. Making surveys and investigations of the wildlife of the public domain, including lands and

waters or interests therein acquired or controlled by any agency of the United States

3. Accepting donations of land and contributions of funds in furtherance of the purposes of said

sections.
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 9 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, commonly referred to as the

Northwest Forest Plan (NFP)

Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning

Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl is commonly referred to as the Northwest

Forest Plan (NFP), adopted in 1994. The NFP is an integrated, comprehensive design for ecosystem

management, inter-governmental and public collaboration, and rural community economic assistance

for federal forests in western Oregon, Washington, and northern California. The management

direction of the NFP consists of extensive standards and guidelines, including land allocations that

comprise a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy. Aquatic conservation strategy objectives

outlined in the NFP (Attachment A of the NFP) include, but are not limited to: “Maintain and restore

the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure

protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely

adapted;” and, “Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and

wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological,

physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and

migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.”

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries

This Executive Order was signed June 7, 1995, and published June 9, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 111).

Its purpose is to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational

fishing opportunities nationwide. It states the following:

• Federal agencies, in cooperation with States and Tribes, are to improve the quantity, function,

sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational

fishing opportunities.

• A National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council is to be established.

• A comprehensive Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan is to be developed.

• All Federal agencies are to work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries

and their respective responsibilities under the ESA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

NMFS will develop a joint agency policy to ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA

between and within the two agencies, promote collaboration with other federal, state, and tribal

fisheries managers, and to improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the

requirements of the ESA.

• The role of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council is to be expanded.
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 10 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was originally enacted in 1972 and amended with major

provisions by legislation in 1977, 1981, and 1987. It is commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act.

The principal objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the nation’s waters. The Clean Water Act also establishes a national policy on technologybased effluent standards and discharge water quality standards.

Coastal Zone Management Act

The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) is designed to encourage and assist states

in developing coastal management programs, to coordinate state activities, and to safeguard regional

and national interests in the coastal zone. Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires

that any federal activity affecting the land or water uses or natural resources of a state’s coastal zone be

consistent with the state’s approved coastal management program, to the maximum extent practicable.

A proposed fishery management action that requires a fishery management plan amendment or

implementing regulations must be assessed to determine whether it directly affects the coastal zone of a

state with an approved coastal zone management program. If so, NMFS must provide the state agency

having coastal zone management responsibility with a consistency determination for review at least 90

days before final NMFS action.

National Marine Sanctuaries Act

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended by the Oceans Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-587)

and the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104- 283), requires the

government identify and designate those marine areas determined to be “of special national

significance”(16 U.S.C. 1431 ET.SEQ. as amended by Public Law 104-283). Management plans are

developed for each marine sanctuary in consultation with affected governments, tribes, and the public.

The plans are to provide for the conservation and management of the sanctuaries and include

provisions for research, public education and compatible resource use.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001

Section 515 directs the Office of Budget and Management to issue government-wide guidelines that

“provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality,

objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by

federal agencies.” The Office of Management and Budget in turn issued guidelines that required federal

agencies to 1) develop their own guidelines; 2) provide a process for people to ask for and obtain
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 11 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

corrected information that is found not to comply with section 515 or agency guidelines; and 3) keep

track of the complaints about the accuracy of information and how they were handled.

Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference with Civil Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights

This Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a “takings” implication assessment for any action that

may affect the use of any real or personal property. Prohibiting specific types of fishing gear could be

considered a “taking” under this Executive Order.

State Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

State of Washington, Chapter 36.70A RCW Growth Management – Planning by Selected

Counties and Cities

State of Washington, Chapter 36.70A RCW Growth Management – Planning by Selected Counties and

Cities, commonly referred to as the Growth Management Act (GMA), was adopted by the State of

Washington in 1990. Under GMA, growth projected for the State by the Office of Fiscal Management

is allocated to counties, which then develop plans to address the projected population increases and

associated needs for services. Cities of a certain size and/or growth rate are required to prepare

comprehensive land use plans under the GMA to guide both zoning and development within the

jurisdictional boundaries of the plans. GMA provides a framework for regional coordination. Counties

planning under the GMA are required to adopt county-wide planning policies and to establish urban

growth areas (UGAs). Local comprehensive plans must include the following elements: land use;

housing; capital facilities; utilities; transportation; and, for counties, a rural element. Shoreline master

program policies are also an element of local comprehensive plans. GMA establishes the primacy of

the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is the starting point for any planning process and the

centerpiece of local planning. Development regulations must be consistent with comprehensive plans.

State agencies are required to comply with comprehensive plans and development regulations of

jurisdictions planning under GMA.

Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA)

The SMA was adopted in Washington in 1972 with the goal of “prevent[ing] the inherent harm in an

uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines.” The provisions of this law are

designed to guide the development of the shoreline lands in a manner that will promote and enhance

the public interest. The law expresses the public concern for protection against adverse effects to public

health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the aquatic life of the waters.
Appendix F – Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest F - 12 December 2004

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS

Washington Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)

Washington Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), was

adopted by the state of Washington in 1974. The Washington Forest Practices Board was established in

1975 by the Legislature under the State Forest Practices Act. By law, the board is charged with

establishing rules to protect the State’s natural resources while maintaining a viable timber industry.

Those rules, as embodied in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), specifically consider the

effects of various forest practices on fish, wildlife and water quality, as well as on capital

improvements of the state or of its political subdivisions. A forest practice is defined as an activity

carried out on forest land that relates to growing, harvesting or processing timber. Some examples

include: logging, thinning, road construction, brush control, fertilization, and land conversions. Forest

practice rules involving water quality protection must be approved by the Washington Department of

Ecology.

Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2020 Strategy

VISION 2020 is the long-range growth management, economic, and transportation strategy for the

central Puget Sound region encompassing King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The strategy

combines a public commitment to a growth management vision with the transportation investments and

programs and economic strategy necessary to support that vision. VISION 2020 identifies the policies

and key actions necessary to implement the overall strategy.

The vision is for “diverse, economically and environmentally healthy communities framed by open

space and connected by a high-quality multimodal transportation system that provides effective

mobility for people and goods.” The VISION 2020 strategy for managing growth, the economy, and

transportation contains the following eight parts: urban growth areas; contiguous and orderly

development; regional capital facilities; housing; rural areas; open space, resource protection, and

critical areas; economics; and transportation. Together, these eight parts constitute the Multi-county

Policies for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and meet the multi-county planning

requirements of Washington’s Growth Management Act.

 

i

 In this context, conservation is defined as those measures that are reasonable and necessary to the perpetuation

of a particular run or species of fish.
 

 

APPENDIX G 

Plant and Animal 

Database Searches 

Appendix G – Plant and Animal Database Searches 

Puget Sound Chinook Harvest G - 1 December 2004 

Resource Management Plan NEPA Final EIS 

APPENDIX G – PLANT AND ANIMAL DATABASE SEARCHES 

Appendix G lists the threatened or endangered plant and animal species likely to occur within the Puget 

Sound Action Area: 

PLANTS 

No threatened or endangered plant species were identified within the Puget Sound Action Area. 

ANIMALS 

Marine Mammals

Humpback Whales1

 (E) Megaptera novaeangliae NMFS 

Steller Sea Lion1

 (T) Eumetopias jubatus NMFS 

Marine Turtles

Leatherback Sea Turtle1

 (E) Dermochalys coriacea NMFS 

Birds

Bald Eagle2

 (T) Haliaeetus leucocephalus USFWS 

Marbled Murrelet2

 (T) Brachyramphus marmoratus USFWS 

Brown Pelican2

 (E) Pelecanus occidentalis USFWS 

Fish

Bull Trout2

 (T) Salvelinus confluentus USFWS 

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Puget Sound Chinook ESU3

 (T) 

Lower Columbia River Chinook3

 (T) 

Upper Willamette Spring-run Chinook3

 (T) 

Snake River Fall-run Chinook3

 (T) 

Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta NMFS 

Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum3

 (T) 

Columbia River Chum3

 (T) 

 

1

 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Endangered and threatened marine mammals and sea turtles under the 

jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that may occur within Puget Sound. Internetaccessible species list, at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1seals/marmamlist.html. Web site accessed April 14, 2003. 2

 Berg, Ken. Manager, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 

24, 2002. Personal communication, letter to Species List Requester (W.L. Robinson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, NMFS) in response to a request for a species list for those species listed by USFWS likely to 

occur within the Puget Sound Action Area. 

3

 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Endangered Species Act – Reinitiated Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Opinion Effects of Pacific Coast Ocean and Puget Sound Salmon Fisheries during the 200-2001 

annual regulation cycle. April 28, 2000. 101 pages. 

 

 

APPENDIX H 

Consultation and Coordination 



National Marine Fisheries Service 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

Page 1 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat 

Consultation

ACTION AGENCIES: NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

SPECIES/ESU AFFECTED: Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation / 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation: 

Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest 

Management Component - ESA section 4(d) Decision / 

Determination 

CONSULTATION BY: NMFS Northwest Region (NWR) 

 Sustainable Fisheries Division (SFD) 

 Consultation number: 2004/00731 

This is NMFS’ ESA section 7 consultation and EFH consultation on a proposed Federal action. 

The proposed Federal action has three components (sub-actions), which the action agencies have 

chosen to coordinate as a package for these consultations. 

The primary Federal sub-action is: 

(1) NMFS’ proposed determination as to whether a resource management plan (the Puget Sound 

Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management Component) adequately 

addresses the criteria in its salmon and steelhead ESA section 4(d) regulations (50 CFR 

223.203) (hereafter referred to as the ESA 4(d) Rule). 

Two other Federal sub-actions evaluated in these consultations include: 

(2) The proposed BIA funding of Puget Sound tribes’ management, enforcement, and monitoring 

projects in support of the resource management plan; and 

(3) the proposed authorization of fisheries by the USFWS, as party to the Hood Canal Salmon 

Management Plan (Point No Point Treaty Council et al. 1986), that are consistent with the 

implementation of the resource management plan, as approved under the ESA 4(d) Rule. 

ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion ................................................................ 4 

1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4 

1.2 Consultation History........................................................................................................... 5 

1.3 Description of the Proposed Action................................................................................... 7 

1.4 Action Area........................................................................................................................ 14 

1.5 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat...................................................................... 14 

1.6 Environmental Baseline ................................................................................................... 18 

1.7 Effects of the Proposed Action......................................................................................... 21 

1.8 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 22 

1.9 Integration and Synthesis of Effects................................................................................ 24 

1.10 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 38 

2.0 Incidental Take Statement................................................................................................... 38 

3.0 Conservation Recommendation........................................................................................... 38 

4.0 Re-initiation of Consultation................................................................................................ 39 

5.0 References.............................................................................................................................. 41 

6.0 Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation ........................................... 44 

6.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 44 

6.2 Identification of Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................... 45 

6.3 Proposed Action and Action Area................................................................................... 45 

6.4 Effects of the Proposed Action......................................................................................... 46 

6.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 47 

6.6 EFH Conservation Recommendation ............................................................................. 47 

6.7 Statutory Response Requirement.................................................................................... 47 

6.8 Consultation Renewal....................................................................................................... 48 

7.0 References.............................................................................................................................. 48 

8.0 Data Quality Act Documentation and Pre-Dissemination Review................................... 48 

8.1 Utility.................................................................................................................................. 48 

8.2 Integrity ............................................................................................................................. 49

8.3 Objectivity ......................................................................................................................... 49 
Page 4 

1.0 ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion 

This document constitutes NMFS’ biological opinion under section 7 of the ESA for the 

following sub-actions proposed by the NMFS, BIA and the USFWS: 

(1) The proposed NMFS determination as to whether a resource management plan satisfies the 

criteria outlined in the ESA 4(d) Rule; 

(2) The proposed BIA funding of Puget Sound tribes’ management, enforcement, and monitoring 

projects in support of the resource management plan as approved under the ESA 4(d) Rule; 

and 

(3) The proposed USFWS authorization of fisheries, as party to the Hood Canal Salmon 

Management Plan (Point No Point Treaty Council et al. 1986), that are consistent with the 

implementation of the resource management plan as approved under the ESA 4(d) Rule. 

NMFS is grouping these three proposed Federal sub-actions in this consultation pursuant to 50 

CFR 402.14 (b) because they are similar actions occurring within the same geographical area. 

The impacts associated the latter two Federal sub-actions are considered fully in the proposed 

NMFS determination. There would be no other environmental effects associated with the latter 

two Federal sub-actions that are not contemplated and evaluated in the proposed NMFS 

determination. 

1.1 Introduction 

This Biological Opinion considers impacts of the proposed action on Puget Sound chinook 

salmon listed under the ESA. Other species of listed anadromous salmonids occur in the Pacific 

Northwest, but for several reasons, summarized below, the proposed Federal actions are not 

expected to have an effect on these other species. 

 

On March 24, 1999, NMFS listed the Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit1

 (ESU) as a threatened species under the ESA (64 FR 14308). 

The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook 

salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound from the Elwha River, eastward. 

Major river systems within the ESU supporting chinook salmon populations include the 

Nooksack, Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Cedar, Duwamish-Green, White, Puyallup, 

Nisqually, Skokomish, Mid-Hood Canal, Dungeness, and Elwha Rivers. Chinook salmon (and 

their progeny) from the following hatchery stocks are also currently listed under the ESA: 

 

1 An Evolutionarily Significant Unit or “ESU” is a collection of one or more Pacific salmon populations 

that share similar genetic, ecological, and life history traits but differ in important ways from salmon in 

other ESUs. Salmon ESUs are considered to be "distinct population segments" under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 5

Kendall Creek; North Fork Stillaguamish River; White River; Dungeness River; and Elwha 

River. 

On July 10, 2000, NMFS issued the ESA 4(d) Rule establishing take prohibitions for 14 salmon 

and steelhead ESUs, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6); 

July 10, 2000, 65 FR 42422). The ESA 4(d) Rule provided limits on the application of the take 

prohibitions, i.e., take prohibitions would not apply to the plans and activities set out in the rule 

if those plans and activities met the rule's criteria. One of those limits (Limit 6) applies to joint 

tribal and state resource management plans. 

On March 18, 2004, the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (PSTT) and the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) submitted a jointly developed resource management plan to NMFS, 

Northwest Regional Office. The resource management plan, titled the “Puget Sound 

Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management Component,” dated March 1, 

2004 (hereafter referred to as the RMP), provides the framework within which the tribal and 

state jurisdictions would jointly manage all salmon and gillnet steelhead fisheries that might 

impact listed chinook salmon within the greater Puget Sound area. The PSTT and WDFW 

(jointly hereafter referred to as co-managers) propose that the RMP be in effect for six years, 

from May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2010. 

NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of its Proposed 

Evaluation and Pending Determination (PEPD) on the RMP for public review and comment on 

April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19975). The comment period closed on May 17, 2004. Several of the 

comments were addressed and reflected in NMFS’ final Evaluation and Recommended 

Determination (ERD). The co-managers made no modifications to the RMP based on public 

comments received on NMFS’ PEPD. 

1.2 Consultation History 

NMFS has considered the effects of Puget Sound salmon fisheries on listed Puget Sound chinook 

salmon in several other ESA section 7 consultations or ESA 4(d) Rule determinations completed 

in recent years. These consultations and determinations were: 

(1) An April 28, 2000, biological opinion titled “Effects of Pacific Coast Ocean and Puget Sound 

Salmon Fisheries During the 2000-2001 Annual Regulatory Cycle” that was effective from 

May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001. 

(2) A biological opinion titled “Endangered Species Act - Reinitiated Section 7 ConsultationBiological Opinion - Approval of the Pacific Salmon Treaty by the U.S. Department of State 

and Management of the Southeast Alaska Salmon Fisheries Subject to the Pacific Salmon 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 6

Treaty.” Completed November 18, 1999, this biological opinion is effective through 

December 31, 2010. 

(3) A September 14, 2001, biological opinion titled “Programs Administered by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and Activities Authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Supporting 

Tribal Salmon Fisheries Affecting Listed Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer-run 

chum salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units” was effective through April 30, 2003. 

(4) The ESA 4(d) Rule determination completed on April 27, 2002, and titled “Joint State Tribal 

Resource Management Plan Provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

and the Puget Sound Tribes for Salmon Fisheries Affecting Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

Under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule - Determination Memorandum”. NMFS’ ESA 4(d) Rule 

determination for the subject plan was effective through April 30, 2003. 

(5) The ESA 4(d) Rule determination completed on May 19, 2003, and titled “Joint Tribal and 

State Resource Management Plan (RMP) submitted under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule by 

the Puget Sound Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for salmon 

fisheries and steelhead net fisheries affecting Puget Sound chinook salmon - Determination 

Memorandum”. NMFS’ ESA 4(d) Rule determination for the subject plan was effective 

through April 30, 2004. 

(6) An April 29, 2004, biological opinion titled “Effects of the Pacific Coast salmon harvest plan 

and U.S. Fraser Panel fisheries on the Puget Sound chinook and lower Columbia River 

Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units” is effective until revoked. 

(7) A June 10, 2004, biological opinion titled “Effects of Programs Administered by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs supporting tribal salmon fisheries management in Puget Sound and Puget 

Sound salmon fishing activities authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services during the 

2004 fishing season” is effective through April 30, 2005. 

On April 27, 2001, NMFS issued a Limit 6 determination under the ESA 4(d) Rule on a resource 

management plan considering fishery management activities impacting listed Hood Canal 

summer-run chum salmon, limiting the application of the ESA section 9 take prohibitions for 

those fisheries operating consistent with the resource management plan (June 12, 2001, 66 FR 

31600). 

The effects of Puget Sound salmon fisheries on the Snake River fall chinook salmon, Snake 

River spring/summer chinook salmon, and Snake River sockeye salmon, Sacramento River 

winter chinook salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal coho salmon, Central 

California Coastal coho salmon, Oregon Coastal natural coho salmon, Central Valley spring-run 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 7

chinook salmon, California coastal chinook salmon, lower Columbia River chinook salmon, 

upper Willamette River chinook salmon, upper Columbia River spring chinook salmon, 

Columbia River chum salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Ozette Lake sockeye 

salmon, and ten steelhead ESUs have been considered for ESA compliance through completion 

of other long-term biological opinions or the ESA 4(d) Rule evaluation and determination 

processes. These ESUs will therefore not be discussed further in this Biological Opinion. 

1.3 Description of the Proposed Action 

The primary Federal action is NMFS’ proposal to issue a determination as to whether the RMP 

provided by the co-managers adequately addresses the requirements of Limit 6 under the ESA 

4(d) Rule. NMFS is including two other proposed Federal actions as sub-actions in this 

consultation pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14 (b) because all are similar actions within a given 

geographical area. The duration of NMFS’ determination for these Federal actions will extend 

through April 30, 2010, unless changed during any re-initiation (see Re-initiation of 

Consultation section, below). The following are the three proposed Federal actions that will be 

analyzed in this consultation: 

(1) NMFS’ ESA 4(d) Rule Determination Regarding the RMP: 

NMFS proposes to issue a decision that the RMP adequately addresses the requirements of Limit 

6 under the ESA 4(d) Rule. As mentioned earlier, a biological opinion issued by NMFS on June 

10, 2004, titled “Effects of Programs Administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs supporting 

tribal salmon fisheries management in Puget Sound and Puget Sound salmon fishing activities 

authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services during the 2004 fishing season,” is effective 

through April 30, 2005. Therefore, NMFS’ evaluation and determination of the RMP under the 

ESA 4(d) Rule will address only from May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2010 of the proposed 

duration of the RMP. 

The RMP does not include the specific details of the annual fishing regime, i.e., where and when 

fisheries occur; what gear will be used; or how harvest is allocated among gear, areas, or 

fishermen. However, the RMP does provide the management objectives against which the comanagers will develop their action-specific fishing regimes to protect listed Puget Sound 

chinook salmon. Therefore, NMFS anticipates evaluating each year’s proposed fishery 

management for consistency with the RMP’s objectives, after cooperative discussion with the 

co-managers. 

Management objectives specified in the RMP account for fisheries-related mortality throughout 

the migratory range of Puget Sound chinook salmon, from Oregon to Southeast Alaska. The 

RMP implements limits to the cumulative directed and incidental fishery-related mortality to 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 8

each population or management unit included within the listed Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

ESU. The RMP’s limits on the cumulative fishery-related mortality are expressed as: a 

rebuilding exploitation rate; an upper management threshold; a low abundance threshold; and a 

critical exploitation rate ceiling (see Table 2 in the ERD document). The following is a brief 

description of these RMP limits: 

Rebuilding Exploitation Rate: The RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates are outlined in Table 2 

in the ERD document. The co-managers define exploitation rate as the “[t]otal mortality in a 

fishery or aggregate of fisheries expressed as the proportion of the sum of total mortality plus 

escapement” (page 63 of the RMP). The co-managers propose that the RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rate for the individual management units would improve the viability status of the 

population or populations within that management unit. The co-managers’ intent is to manage 

fisheries such that harvest rates remain below each management unit’s rebuilding exploitation 

rate (page 13 of the RMP). The co-managers used several methods to derive the RMP’s 

rebuilding exploitation rates, which are explained in more detail within the RMP. 

NMFS also established rebuilding exploitation rates for nine individual populations within the 

ESU and for the Nooksack Management Unit, which is discussed in more detail in the ERD. For 

individual populations, NMFS has determined that exploitation rates at or below NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rates will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of rebuilding that 

population, assuming current environmental conditions and based on specific risk criteria. The 

method used by NMFS to derive the rebuilding exploitation rates is described in a document 

titled “Viable Risk Assessment Procedure” (NMFS 2000a). 

The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates are not the same as the RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rates. The co-managers’ rebuilding exploitation rates are management-unit-based. 

Some of the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates are based on the same risk criteria as those used 

by NMFS, but other rebuilding exploitation rates proposed in the RMP are based on observed 

minimum exploitation rates or on harvest ceilings set by the Pacific Salmon Treaty. In addition, 

NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates are designed to include all fishery-related mortality 

throughout the migratory range of Puget Sound chinook salmon. The RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rates define allowable harvest rates for either total, southern United States (SUS) 

fisheries, or for pre-terminal southern United States (PT SUS) fisheries only. The RMP’s 

rebuilding exploitation rates may therefore not be directly comparable to NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rates. 

The SUS fishery is defined in the RMP as all fisheries occurring south of the border with Canada 

that may harvest listed Puget Sound chinook salmon. In addition to chinook salmon taken within 

the grater Puget Sound area, chinook salmon harvests encompassed within SUS fisheries would 

also include listed chinook salmon that may be taken in fisheries off the coast of Washington, 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 9

Oregon, and northern California. The SUS fishery includes both pre-terminal and terminal area 

SUS fisheries. The co-managers define a pre-terminal fishery as a “fishery that harvests 

significant numbers of fish from more than one region of origin” (page 65 of the RMP). The comanagers define a terminal fishery as a “fishery, usually operating in an area adjacent to or in the 

mouth of a river, which harvests primarily fish from the local region of origin, but may include 

more than one management unit. Non-local stocks may be present, particularly in marine 

terminal areas” (page 65 of the RMP). The terminal SUS fisheries will vary by management unit 

and may occur in freshwater and marine areas. 

Calculating a rebuilding exploitation rate ideally requires knowledge of a spawner-recruit 

relationship based on escapement, age composition, coded-wire tag distribution, environmental 

parameters, and an estimate of management error (N. Sands, NMFS, Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center (NWFSC), pers. com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, March 5, 2003). These types of data 

are available for several management units. The co-managers calculated rebuilding exploitation 

rates using this method for the Skagit Summer/Fall, Skagit Spring, Stillaguamish, and 

Snohomish chinook salmon Management Units. 

The co-managers’ expectations are that application of the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates 

will: (1) result in escapement levels that are less than the point of instability2

 no more than five 

percent more often than if no harvest had occurred over 25 to 40 years3; and (2) lead to a high (at 

least 80 percent) probability that spawning escapements will increase in 25 or 40 years to a 

specified (upper) threshold, or that the percentage of escapements less than the RMP’s low 

abundance threshold at the end of 25 or 40 years will differ from a no-harvest regime by less 

than 10 percent (pages 13 and 14 of the RMP). Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of 

the RMP provides details on the methods the co-managers used to develop the RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rates, which are based on a spawner-recruit relationship, where data were available. 

The data required to calculate a spawner-recruit relationship is not yet available for most Puget 

Sound chinook salmon populations. For the Lake Washington, Skokomish, and Mid-Hood Canal 

Management Units, the co-managers generally established the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation 

rate at the lowest level of exploitation rates observed in the late 1990s (approximately 15 percent 

pre-terminal SUS). Overall, implementation of these lower exploitation rate levels by the co-

 

2 The co-managers define the point of instability as “that level of population abundance (i.e., spawning 

escapement) that incurs substantial risk to genetic integrity, or exposes the stock to depensatory 

mortality factors” (page 65 of the RMP). 

3 Based on co-manager’s expertise and explained in more detail in Appendix A: Management Unit Status 

Profiles of the RMP. The RMP uses a 25-year projection for the Stillaguamish and Snohomish 

Management Units in development of the proposed rebuilding exploitation rate. The co-managers used 

a 40-year projection for the Skagit Summer/Fall and Skagit Spring Management Units. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 10

managers has contributed to stable to increasing spawning escapement trends for populations 

within these management units. 

Impacts associated with terminal fisheries would not be included in the pre-terminal SUS 

exploitation rate limits set for some Management Units. In response, and similar to recent years, 

the co-managers propose that terminal area fisheries in the Lake Washington and Mid-Hood 

Canal Management Units be limited by maximum allowable exploitation rates of less than 5 

percent. Under the implementation of the RMP, the Skokomish chinook Management Unit’s 

terminal area fisheries would be managed for an escapement objective. The achievement of the 

Skokomish Management Unit’s chinook salmon escapement objective would dictate the 

maximum allowable terminal area exploitation rate in a given year. 

Terminal area fishery impacts are very low or non-existent for the Dungeness, Elwha, and 

Western Strait of Juan de Fuca chinook Management Units. Under the proposed RMP, a 

rebuilding exploitation rate of 10 percent for SUS fisheries would be applied for these three 

management units. The SUS fisheries limited by the 10 percent rate would include both preterminal and terminal area SUS fisheries. Thus, impacts associated with Alaska or Canadian 

fisheries would not be included in this SUS fishery exploitation rate limitation. 

Upper Management Threshold: Table 2 in the ERD document outlines the RMP’s upper 

management thresholds. The co-managers define the upper management threshold as the 

“escapement level associated with optimum productivity (i.e. maximum sustainable harvest...)” 

(page 12 of the RMP). The co-managers calculated the RMP’s upper management threshold 

assuming current habitat conditions (page 13 of the RMP). The upper management thresholds 

proposed in the RMP equate to upper escapement thresholds and defined as targets by the comanagers for each management unit.

The RMP’s annual management strategy depends on whether a harvestable surplus is forecast. A 

management unit is considered to have a harvestable surplus if the spawning escapement is 

expected to exceed its upper management threshold (page 12 of the RMP). The RMP prohibits 

directed harvest on listed populations of Puget Sound chinook salmon unless they are shown to 

have a harvestable surplus. In other words, if a management unit does not have a harvestable 

surplus, then all harvest-related mortality on chinook salmon in SUS fisheries would be limited 

to incidental impacts only (page 32 of the RMP). 

With an exception, the RMP states that the “projected exploitation rate for management units 

with no harvestable surplus [and above their lower abundance threshold] would not be allowed 

to exceed their rebuilding exploitation rate ceiling” (page 33 of the RMP). The exception to this 

limit is associated with the chinook salmon harvest in Canadian fisheries, which were approved 

under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. For those management units affected by Canadian fisheries, in 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 11

some years the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling, rather than the rebuilding exploitation 

rate ceiling, may be applied as the restraining limit on Puget Sound fisheries. In such instances, 

the total exploitation rate in that year would exceed the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rate (see 

discussion of the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling below). 

The technical basis for the RMP’s establishment of upper management thresholds varies among 

management units (see footnotes on Table 12, page 43 of the RMP). For populations with 

sufficient information, the co-managers derived upper management thresholds using such 

methods as standard spawner-recruit calculations (Ricker 1975), empirical observations of 

relative escapement levels and catches, or Monte Carlo simulations that buffer for error and 

variability (Hayman 2003). The methods selected for use in deriving thresholds for each 

management unit are described in Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of the RMP. 

Low Abundance Threshold: Table 2 in the ERD document presents the RMP’s proposed low 

abundance thresholds. The co-managers define the low abundance threshold as a “spawning 

escapement level, set intentionally above the point of biological instability, which triggers 

extraordinary fisheries conservation measures to minimize fishery related impacts and increase 

spawning escapement” (page 63 of the RMP). 

For specific application in managing fisheries affecting each management unit, the co-managers 

further defined the low abundance threshold as either: (1) the lowest escapement with a greater 

than one return per spawner ratio; (2) the forecasted escapement for which there is an 

“acceptably low” probability that the observed escapement will be below the point of instability 

(page 15 of the RMP); or (3) in cases where specific data were lacking, the co-managers 

“derived the RMP’s low abundance threshold ”in accordance with scientific literature [such as 

the generic guidelines found in the Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) paper (NMFS 2000b) or 

more subjectively, at an annual escapement of 200 to 1,000 fish” (page 15 in the RMP). The 

method chosen by the co-managers depended on the quality and quantity of population-specific 

data available (see Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of the RMP). 

Critical Exploitation Rate Ceiling: The co-managers established a critical exploitation rate 

ceiling for all management units with a low abundance threshold (see Table 2 in the ERD 

document). For most management units, the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling imposes an 

upper limit on SUS exploitation rates when spawning escapement for a management unit is 

projected to fall below its low abundance threshold, or if impacts in Canadian fisheries make it 

difficult or impossible to achieve the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rate. The RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rate, the upper management threshold, and the low abundance threshold discussed 

above are primarily biologically-driven objectives. The RMP’s proposed critical exploitation rate 

ceilings are primarily driven by policy considerations.
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 12

The co-managers propose that the critical exploitation rate ceiling, when imposed on SUS 

fisheries, would result “in a significant reduction in incidental impacts on listed chinook 

salmon,” while providing “minimally acceptable access” to non-listed salmon species, including 

non-listed hatchery chinook salmon, for which harvestable surpluses have been identified (page 

15 of the RMP). A general description of these minimal fisheries, as proposed by the comanagers, is outlined in Appendix C: Minimum Fisheries Regime of the RMP. 

For the majority of the management units, the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceilings are 

defined as an exploitation rate ceiling for the all SUS fisheries. For the Lake Washington, Green, 

Puyallup, Nisqually, Mid-Hood Canal and Skokomish Management Units, the RMP’s critical 

exploitation rate ceiling applies only to pre-terminal area SUS fisheries. For these units, the comanagers outline additional terminal area fishery management conservation measures that may 

be considered (Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles and Appendix C: Minimum 

Fisheries Regime of the RMP). 

The RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceilings were established by the co-managers after policy 

consideration of “recent fisheries regimes that responded to critical status for some management 

units” (page 17 of the RMP). The co-managers’ position is that if further resource protection is 

necessary, it must be found by reducing exploitation rates in mixed-stock fisheries in Alaska and 

Canada, improving habitat conditions, and/or providing hatchery supplementation where 

necessary and appropriate (page 16 of the RMP). However, where analysis can demonstrate that 

additional conservation measures in fisheries would contribute substantially to recovery of a 

management unit, the co-managers may, at their discretion, and in concert with other specific 

habitat and enhancement actions, implement them (page 34 of the RMP). 

Harvest in some coastal fisheries in British Columbia, Canada, has increased recently, 

approaching the limits agreed to by the United States under Annex IV, Chapter 3, of the Pacific 

Salmon Treaty. Increased impacts on Puget Sound chinook salmon associated with Canadian 

fisheries may contribute to total exploitation rates that exceed the proposed RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rate. During preseason planning, if the total exploitation rate for a management unit 

is projected to exceed the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rate for a given management unit, the 

co-managers propose to constrain their fisheries such that either the RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rate is not exceeded or the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling is not exceeded. 

The RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling, in this circumstance, would constrain SUS fisheries 

to the same degree as if the abundance were below the low abundance threshold (page 35 of the 

RMP). Modeling exercises by the co-managers demonstrate the potential for the total 

exploitation rate to exceed the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rate in several management units 

with the proposed duration of the RMP. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 13

The co-managers, independently and jointly, conduct a variety of research and monitoring 

programs. The RMP includes implementation, monitoring, and evaluation procedures designed 

to ensure fisheries are consistent with the RMP’s management objectives. Chapter 7 of the RMP 

describes these procedures, which assess the effectiveness of the management actions in 

achieving the RMP management objectives. These programs also assess the validity of the 

assumptions used to derive management objectives. Information collected through these 

activities will be used in conjunction with proposed fisheries performance indicators to assess 

the effectiveness of the RMP in meeting its stated objectives. 

(2) BIA Funding of Tribal Management, Enforcement, and Monitoring Projects: 

The BIA proposes to fund Puget Sound tribes’ management, enforcement, and monitoring 

projects in support of the RMP. Only project funding that may impact listed Puget Sound 

chinook salmon through April 30, 2010, is considered in this consultation. The co-managers 

manage Puget Sound fisheries pursuant to the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (PSSMP), 

which establishes guidelines for management of all marine and freshwater salmon fisheries from 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca eastward. The PSSMP was adopted by court order as a sub-proceeding 

related to U.S. v. Washington Civ. No. C70-9213 (W.D. Wash.) (see 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. 

Wash. 1974)). Puget Sound fisheries harvest all five salmon species. The BIA provides funding 

to the Puget Sound tribes to support the salmon fishery management programs conducted under 

the PSSMP. Because the programs that would be funded by the BIA are described in the RMP, 

NMFS’ analysis of the RMP already considers the effects of the proposed funding by the BIA. 

(3) USFWS Authorization of Fisheries Proposed in the RMP: 

The USFWS proposes to authorize fisheries that are consistent with the implementation of the 

RMP, as approved under the ESA 4(d) Rule. Only fisheries that may impact listed Puget Sound 

chinook salmon through April 30, 2010, are considered in this consultation. The USFWS, the 

State of Washington, and the treaty tribes within the Hood Canal, are parties to the Hood Canal 

Salmon Management Plan (HCSMP). The HCSMP is a regional management plan, which 

stipulates orders related to the PSSMP. All salmon species originating in Hood Canal, including 

listed chinook salmon, are managed under the HCSMP. Any change in management objectives 

under the HCSMP requires authorization by the USFWS, as a party to the plan. Because USFWS 

would consider for authorization only those fisheries consistent with the RMP, the analysis of 

the RMP includes and fully represents effects of the USFWS action under the HCSMP. 

Each of these three actions requires consultation with NMFS because the Federal agency 

(NMFS, BIA, or USFWS) is funding or authorizing actions that may adversely affect listed 

salmon (section 7(a)(2) of the ESA). 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 14

1.4 Action Area

The action area for this Biological Opinion (referred hereafter as the Puget Sound Action Area) 

encompasses the area included in the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, as well as the western 

portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca within the United States (see Figure 1 in the ERD). 

1.5 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat

Species Affected: With respect to salmonids, only impacts on listed Puget Sound chinook 

salmon are addressed in this Biological Opinion. However, leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys 

coriacea), Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), and humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) are also listed under the ESA under NMFS’ jurisdiction, and these species may 

occur in Puget Sound. Leatherback sea turtles use of inland Washington waters is accidental at 

best; and therefore, this species is unlikely to interact with Puget Sound salmon fisheries (B. 

Norberg, NMFS, per. comm. with S. Bishop, NMFS, May 6, 2004). The Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) requires all commercial fisheries to be placed in one of three 

categories, based on the relative frequency of incidental serious injuries and mortalities of 

marine mammals in each fishery. Every year, NMFS reviews and revises its list of fisheries 

based on new information. These categories are: 

(1) Category I designates fisheries with frequent serious marine mammal injuries and mortalities 

incidental to commercial fishing; 

(2) Category II designates fisheries with occasional serious marine mammal injuries and 

mortalities; and 

(3) Category III designates fisheries with a remote likelihood or no known serious marine 

mammal injuries or mortalities. 

For 2003, only the Washington Puget Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery has been designated by 

NMFS as a Category II fisheries (68 FR 41725, July 15, 2003). All other Puget Sound salmon 

fisheries were identified as meeting the Category III designation. No ESA-listed marine mammal 

species were documented to have been killed or caught and released in any salmon fishery in 

Puget Sound (68 FR 1414, January 10, 2003). Therefore, because these fisheries are not likely to 

adversely affect ESA-listed marine mammals, effects on listed marine mammals will not be 

discussed further in this Biological Opinion. 

Current Status: For the reasons stated above, the remainder of this Biological Opinion will be 

restricted to addressing the effects of the proposed Federal actions on Puget Sound chinook 

salmon. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 15

On March 24, 1999, NMFS listed Puget Sound chinook salmon, both naturally-produced and 

selected artificially propagated populations, as a threatened species (64 FR 14308, March 24, 

1999). The ESU encompasses all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from rivers 

and streams flowing into Puget Sound, including the Straits of Juan de Fuca from the Elwha 

River eastward, and rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound, and 

the Strait of Georgia in Washington. NMFS also listed chinook salmon and their progeny from 

the following hatchery stocks because they were considered essential to the recovery of the ESU: 

Kendall Creek; North Fork Stillaguamish River; White River; Dungeness River; and Elwha 

River. 

Since the 1999 listing, NMFS has conducted a series of reviews of the status of West Coast 

populations of Pacific salmon and steelhead with respect to the ESA (West Coast Salmon 

Biological Review Team 2003). This ESU status review updates were undertaken to allow 

consideration of new data that accumulated over the various time periods since the last updates 

and to address issues raised in recent court cases regarding the ESA status of hatchery fish and 

resident (non-anadromous) populations. By statute, ESA listing determinations must take into 

consideration not only the best scientific information available, but also those efforts being made 

to protect the species. As in the past, the Biological Review Team (BRT) used a risk-matrix 

method to quantify risks in different categories within each ESU. In the current review, the 

method was modified to reflect the four major criteria identified in the VSP document 

(McElhany et al. 2000): abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. 

Based on the criterion of self-sustainability, the majority BRT conclusion was that the Puget 

Sound Chinook Salmon ESU was “likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.” The 

current status of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU is threatened. The term threatened 

species is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 

Abundance and Distribution: The March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308) listing determination and 

supporting species status reviews (NMFS 1998a; NMFS 1998b), along with subsequent status 

reviews (West Coast Salmon Biological Review Team 2003), provides relevant and recent 

information regarding the ESU’s distribution, trend, and status. As reported by NMFS (1998b), 

based on the estimated total Puget Sound commercial catch extrapolated from cannery pack 

statistics in 1908 (when both ocean harvest and hatchery production were negligible), Bledsoe et 

al. (1989) proposed an historical abundance of 670,000 chinook salmon in this ESU. This 

estimate of historical Puget Sound chinook salmon population size should be viewed cautiously. 

The statistic on which this estimate is based, the 1908 Puget Sound cannery pack, probably 

included an unknown proportion of fish landed at Puget Sound ports that originated from areas 

outside of Puget Sound. It is also likely that the cannery pack that year represented only a 

portion of the total catch. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 16

The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT) has completed a preliminary analysis of the 

population structure of chinook salmon within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The TRT 

is an independent scientific body convened by NMFS to develop technical delisting criteria and 

guidance for salmon recovery planning in Puget Sound. 

The proposed RMP’s delineation of populations within the ESU is the same as those 

preliminarily recognized by the Puget Sound TRT. The TRT reviewed several sources of 

information in deriving the preliminarily recognized delineations. These sources of information 

include geography, migration rates, genetic attributes, patterns of life history and phenotypic 

characteristics, population dynamics, and environmental and habitat characteristics of potential 

populations (NMFS 2004b). The TRT has identified 22 demographically independent 

populations within the ESU, representing the primary historical spawning areas of chinook 

salmon (PSTRT 2003). Recent year annual escapement estimates for chinook populations within 

the ESU are provided in Table 6 of the ERD document.

To assist in analyzing the impacts of the co-managers’ proposed fisheries management actions, 

the RMP categorizes each chinook salmon population according to the population’s life history 

and production characteristics. The co-managers used this method to assign populations to one of 

three possible watershed based categories: 

Category 1 - Category 1 watersheds are areas where populations are genetically unique and 

indigenous to Puget Sound. Maintaining genetic diversity and integrity, and achieving 

abundance levels for long-term sustainability are the highest priorities for these populations. The 

management objective for Category 1 populations is to protect and recover these indigenous 

populations. The intent is to rebuild and manage for natural production. The co-managers 

propose to manage fisheries to meet interim escapement goals and/or the rebuilding exploitation 

rates for Category 1 populations based on the co-managers’ understanding of natural chinook 

salmon production requirements for each population. The co-managers designated 17 of the 22 

populations within the ESU as Category 1 (see Table 7 in the ERD document). 

The status of Category 1 populations within the ESU varies. Some populations have fallen to 

such low levels that the ability to maintain their genetic diversity may be at risk. In some cases, 

lacking hatchery operations, populations would likely decline to very low levels or go extinct. In 

one case at least, the number of hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally may be a concern, in 

part because it may be masking the ability to evaluate the actual productivity of the naturalorigin population. Other populations are more robust and the abundance levels are above what is 

needed to sustain genetic diversity, but often not at levels that will sustain maximum yield. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 17

Category 2 - Category 2 watersheds are areas where indigenous populations are believed to no 

longer exist, but where sustainable wild populations existed historically. The co-managers 

believe that self-sustaining natural production is possible in Category 2 watersheds given 

suitable or productive habitat. Five Category 2 populations within the ESU have been identified 

by the co-managers (see Table 7 in the ERD document). 

Category 2 populations are primarily found in southern Puget Sound and Hood Canal where 

hatchery production has been used extensively to mitigate for natural production lost to habitat 

degradation. Historically, these areas were managed for hatchery production. Consequently, in 

many of these systems, hatchery and natural fish are currently indistinguishable on the spawning 

grounds. In the future, on-going mass marking programs implemented at regional hatcheries will 

provide a means to distinguish between hatchery-origin and natural-origin adult chinook salmon 

upon return to their watersheds of origin. Given degraded habitat conditions within these 

watersheds, the co-managers’ goal of harvest management is to provide sufficient escapement to 

the spawning grounds to increase natural productivity. Future decisions regarding the form and 

timing of recovery efforts in these watersheds will dictate the kinds of harvest actions that may 

be necessary and appropriate. 

The co-managers have assigned populations to Category 2 based on current information. 

Ongoing monitoring and studies may identify remnant indigenous populations, which if found, 

may cause the population to be reassigned to Category 1. Decisions by the TRT about roles of 

these populations in the ESU may also require the populations to be re-categorized. The RMP 

includes monitoring and evaluation elements that will assist the TRT in these decisions. 

Additionally, the co-managers recognize that there is ongoing work by the TRT and other 

resource agencies or organizations that may also affect future harvest actions. 

Category 3 - Category 3 watersheds are where populations are generally found in small 

tributaries that may now have some natural spawning, but never historically had independent, 

self-sustaining populations of chinook salmon. Consistent with the TRT guidance, these small 

tributary spawning aggregations characteristic of Category 3 watersheds do not meet criteria 

necessary for the aggregations to be identified as independent populations. Several Category 3 

watersheds were identified in the 2001 RMP (PSIT and WDFW 2001). However, similar to the 

2003 RMP (PSIT and WDFW 2003), the proposed RMP evaluated in this Biological Opinion 

does not identify or establish management objectives for any Category 3 watersheds. Instead, 

this RMP focuses on management of populations in Category 1 and Category 2 watersheds. 

These watersheds harbor all of the 22 chinook salmon independent populations delineated as 

extant by the Puget Sound TRT 

Chinook salmon population escapement trends were also considered by NMFS in evaluating and 

determining the extinction risk status of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. Declining 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 18

escapement trends for most chinook salmon populations in the region helped lead NMFS to list 

the ESU as a threatened species in March, 1999. A general post-listing assessment of each 

population’s escapement trend as either decreasing, remaining stable or increasing since the time 

of listing can be made by comparing the 1999 to 2002 average escapement with the 1990 to 1998 

average escapement (see Table 8 in the ERD document). The following system was used to 

determine the trend of the populations: 

Increasing - The trend of a population was considered increasing if the difference in the 1999 to 

2002 average escapement was greater then 10 percent above the pre-listing 1990 to 1998 average 

escapement; 

Decreasing - The trend of a population was considered decreasing if the difference in the 1999 to 

2002 average escapement was less then 10 percent below the pre-listing 1990 to 1998 average 

escapement; and 

Stable - The trend of a population was considered stable if the difference in the 1999 to 2002 

average escapement was within 10 percent of the pre-listing 1990 to 1998 average escapement. 

Based on criteria described above, all populations were determined to have a stable (six 

populations) to increasing (16 populations) trend in escapement (see Table 9 in the ERD 

document. 

1.6 Environmental Baseline

Environmental baselines for biological opinions are defined by regulation at 50 CFR 402.02, 

which states that an environmental baseline is the physical result of all past and present state, 

Federal, and private activities in the action area along with the anticipated impacts of all 

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA. The environmental baseline for this Biological Opinion 

is therefore the result of the impacts that many activities (summarized below) have had on the 

likelihood for the survival and recovery of Puget Sound chinook salmon. 

In general, a wide variety of factors have contributed to the decline of chinook salmon 

populations in the Puget Sound area. In some cases, activities identified at the time of listing as 

factors for decline have received increasing attention, and their effects are being reduced. 

However, the most pervasive risks to improved status of listed salmon require long and difficult 

efforts to correct, and many actions geared towards reducing likelihood of extinction still require 

relatively long periods of time for their positive effects to become noticeable. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 19

Human-Induced Habitat Degradation: Although some types of fishing gear used in the marine 

environment, such as bottom trawls, are known to have habitat impacts, these gears are not used 

in the salmon fisheries considered here. Bishop and Morgan (1996), identified a variety of 

habitat issues for streams in the range of this ESU resulting from urbanization, forest, and 

agricultural practices including (1) changes in flow regime (all basins), (2) sedimentation (all 

basins), (3) high temperatures (Dungeness, Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Skagit, Snohomish, and 

Stillaguamish Rivers), (4) streambed instability (most basins), (5) estuarine loss (most basins), 

(6) loss of large woody debris (Elwha, Snohomish, and White Rivers), (7) loss of pool habitat 

(Nooksack, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers), and (8) blockage or passage problems 

associated with dams or other structures (Cedar, Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Snohomish, and 

White Rivers). The above activities and habitat modifications have greatly degraded extensive 

areas of salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the Puget Sound. 

NMFS has not completely analyzed the role of habitat loss and degradation in contributing to the 

decline of Puget Sound salmon, and how recovery of the ESU might benefit from any proposed 

protective or restoration strategies. Specifically, NMFS is unable at this time to quantify 

improvements in salmon survival productivity that should result from improvements in habitat 

conditions. It is reasonable to expect, however, that improvements in land management on state, 

Federal, and private land within the Puget Sound will result in improved overall survival for 

listed chinook salmon considered in this Biological Opinion. 

Hatcheries: Fall-, summer-, and spring-run chinook salmon stocks are artificially propagated 

through 42 programs in Puget Sound. Currently, the majority of chinook salmon hatchery 

programs produce fall-run (also called summer/fall) stocks for fisheries harvest augmentation 

purposes. Captive broodstock and supplementation programs implemented as conservation 

measures to recover early returning chinook salmon operate in the White River (Appleby and 

Keown 1994) and the Dungeness River watersheds (Smith and Sele 1995). Conservationdirected supplementation programs currently exist for spring-run chinook salmon on North Fork 

Nooksack River and for summer-run chinook salmon on the North Fork Stillaguamish and 

Elwha Rivers (Fuss and Ashbrook 1995; NMFS 1998a ). 

Hatchery-origin fish may potentially pose risks to naturally-produced salmon and steelhead in 

four primary ways: (1) ecological effects, (2) genetic effects, (3) harvest effects, and (4) masking 

effects (NMFS 2000c). Ecologically, hatchery fish can prey upon, displace, and compete with 

wild fish for food and rearing space as juveniles. These risks to natural-origin fish may be 

highest in freshwater areas after the hatchery-origin juvenile fish are released. The risk of effects 

on the natural-origin fish likely diminish as the hatchery fish disperse seaward downstream. If 

carrying fish disease pathogens, released hatchery fish may transmit those pathogens to naturalorigin fish when the fish intermingle in natural areas. If present in the hatchery, fish disease 

pathogens may also be transmitted to natural-origin fish rearing downstream of hatcheries in 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 20

hatchery effluent. Hatchery fish can potentially affect the genetic composition of native fish that 

are genetically dissimilar by interbreeding with them. 

There is currently a shift occurring in hatchery management from augmenting harvest to 

restoring, maintaining and conserving natural populations of anadromous salmonids (NMFS 

2002b). Within the last decade, hatchery programs have responded to the ESA listings and the 

continuing declines in natural populations by shifting to conservation programs (Flagg and Nash 

1999). The goals of conservation programs are to restore and maintain natural populations. The 

change to conservation-type hatchery programs has followed a general call for hatchery reform 

within the Pacific Northwest. The changes proposed are to ensure that existing natural salmonid 

populations are preserved, and that hatchery-induced genetic and ecological effects on natural 

populations are minimized.

Hatchery programs in the Pacific Northwest are in the process of phasing out use of dissimilar 

broodstocks, such as out-of-basin or out-of-ESU stocks, replacing them with fish derived from, 

or more compatible with, locally adapted populations. Producing fish that are better suited for 

survival in the wild is now an explicit objective of many salmon hatchery programs. Hatchery 

programs are also incorporating improved production techniques, such as NATURES-type 

rearing protocols4

 and limits on the duration of conservation hatchery programs. 

Harvest: In the past, fisheries in Puget Sound were generally not managed in a manner 

appropriate for the conservation of naturally spawning chinook salmon populations. Fisheries 

exploitation rates were in most cases too high in light of the declining productivity of natural 

chinook salmon stocks. Additionally, high exploitation rates directed at hatchery stocks caused 

many natural stocks to fail to meet natural escapement goals in some years. 

The co-managers implemented several strategies to manage fisheries to reduce harvest impacts 

in recent years and to implement harvest objectives that are consistent with the underlying 

production of the natural population. Time and area closures are implemented to reduce catches 

of weak stocks and to reduce chinook by-catch in other fisheries. Other regulations, such as size 

limits, bag limits, and requirements for the use of barbless hooks in all recreational fisheries are 

also used. 

 

4 A fundamental assumption is that improved rearing technology will reduce environmentally induced 

physiological and behavioral deficiencies presently associated with cultured salmonids. Enriched 

(NATURES) rearing environments hold promise for improving hatchery rearing technology. 

NATURES-type rearing protocols includes a combination of underwater feed-delivery systems, 

submerged structure, overhead shade cover, and gravel substrates, which have been demonstrated in 

most studies to improve instream survival of chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) smolts during seaward 

migrations. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 21

Natural Conditions: The declines in fish populations in Puget Sound in the 1980s and into the 

1990s may reflect broad-scale shifts in natural limiting conditions, such as increased predator 

abundances and decreased food resources in ocean rearing areas. NMFS has noted that predation 

by marine mammals has increased as marine mammal numbers, especially harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) increase on the Pacific Coast (NMFS 

1998a). In addition to predation by marine mammals, Fresh (1997) reported that 33 fish species 

and 13 bird species are predators of juvenile and adult salmon, particularly during freshwater 

rearing and migration stages. 

Changes in climate and ocean conditions happen on several different time scales and have had a 

profound influence on distributions and abundances of marine and anadromous fishes. Recent 

evidence suggests that marine survival among salmonids fluctuates in response to 20- to 30-year 

cycles of climatic conditions and ocean productivity. Although recent climatic conditions appear 

to be within the range of historical conditions, the risks associated with climatic changes are 

probably exacerbated by human activities (Lawson 1993). 

Scientific Research: Puget Sound chinook salmon, like other ESA-listed fish, are the subject of 

scientific research and monitoring activities. Most biological opinions issued by NMFS have 

conditions requiring specific monitoring, evaluation, and research projects to gather information 

to aid the preservation and recovery of listed fish. 

The impacts of these research activities pose both benefits and risks to the listed species. In the 

short-term, a limited number of fish are harassed and even killed in the course of scientific 

research; however, these activities have a great potential to benefit to ESA-listed species in the 

long-term. Most importantly, the information gained during research and monitoring activities 

will assist in planning for the recovery of listed species. 

1.7 Effects of the Proposed Action

In its biological opinions, NMFS analyzes the effects of proposed Federal actions, as defined in 

50 CFR 402.02, to determine whether the actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of the affected listed ESUs or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. NMFS considers the estimated level of injury or mortality attributable to the 

collective effects of the action and any cumulative effects and then determines the impact on 

species abundance and distribution. NMFS also evaluates whether the action directly or 

indirectly is likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for listed species. 

The co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS, have modeled the anticipated impacts of the 

implementation of the RMP. Table 3 in the ERD document indicates the anticipated range of 

exploitation rates and anticipated escapements for Puget Sound chinook salmon over the 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 22

duration of the RMP implementation period. Two variables were used in the modeling the effects 

of future fisheries to provide these anticipated ranges of exploitation rates and anticipated 

escapements. These variables were abundance of returning salmon and impacts associated with 

Canadian fisheries. These variables are discussed in more detail in the ERD. 

No critical habitat is designated for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. Therefore, the 

proposed Federal sub-actions will not directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify this 

ESU’s critical habitat. However, in the absence of designated critical habitat for Puget Sound 

chinook salmon, it is still pertinent to evaluate the effects of the proposed action on the listed 

species’ habitat to determine whether those actions are likely to jeopardize the species’ 

continued existence. As described in the attached NMFS’ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation, fisheries consistent with 

the RMP are not expected to adversely affect EFH for Pacific salmon. 

1.8 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects, defined in 50 CFR 402, include the effects of future state, tribal, local, or 

private actions not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the 

action area of the Federal action subject to this consultation. Future Federal actions that are 

unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate 

consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. Non-Federal actions that require authorization 

under other sections of the ESA, and not included here, will be considered in separate section 7 

consultations. Non-Federal actions such as actions taken by state, tribal and local governments 

will likely to be in the form of legislation, administrative rules or policy initiatives. Government 

and private actions may include changes in land and water uses, including ownership and 

intensity, any of which could impact listed species or their habitat. Government actions are 

subject to political, legislative and fiscal uncertainties. These realities, added to the geographic 

scope of the action area which encompasses numerous government entities exercising various 

authorities and the many private landholdings, make any analysis of cumulative effects difficult 

and speculative. 

Representative State Actions - The Washington state government is cooperating with other 

governments to increase environmental protection for listed salmon ESUs through development 

and implementation of habitat restoration, hatchery and harvest reform, and water resource 

management actions. The following list of major efforts and programs, described in the Summer 

Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative (WDFW and PNPTC 2000), are directed at or are 

contributing to the recovery of Puget Sound chinook salmon: 

• Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program 

• Wild Stock Restoration Initiative 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 23 

• Joint Wild Salmonid Policy 

• Hood Canal Coordinating Council 

• Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office 

• Conservation Commission Watershed Limiting Factors Analyses 

• Salmon Recovery Lead Entities 

• Salmon Recovery Funding Board 

• Forest and Fish Report 

• Growth Management Act 

There are other proposals, rules, policies, initiatives, and government processes that help 

conserve marine resources in the Puget Sound, improve the habitat of listed species, and assist in 

recovery planning. As with the above state initiatives, these programs could benefit the listed 

species if implemented and sustained. 

In the past, Washington State’s economy was heavily dependent on natural resources, with 

intense resource extraction activity. Changes have occurred in the last decade, and the region is 

likely to continue with less large scale resource extraction, more targeted extraction methods, 

and substantial growth in other economic sectors. Growth in new businesses is creating 

urbanization pressures and has contributed to population growth and movement in the Puget 

Sound area, a trend likely to continue for the next few decades. Such trends will place greater 

demands in the action area for electricity, water and build-able land; will affect water quality 

directly and indirectly; and will increase the need for transportation, communication and other 

infrastructure development. These impacts will affect habitat features, such as water quality and 

quantity, which are important to the survival and recovery of the listed species. The overall 

effect on listed salmon survival and productivity is likely to be negative, unless carefully planned 

for and mitigated through the initiatives and measures described above. 

Local Actions: Local governments will be faced with similar but more direct pressures from 

population increases and attendant activities. There will be demands for intensified development 

in rural areas as well as increased demands for water, municipal infrastructure and other 

resources. The reaction of local governments to such pressures is difficult to assess at this time 

without certainty in policy and funding. In the past, local governments in the action area 

generally have accommodated additional growth in ways that adversely affected listed fish 

habitat, allowing for development to destroy wetlands, stream-banks, estuarine shorelines, and 

other areas critical to listed species. 

Some local government programs, if submitted for consideration, may qualify for a limit under 

the ESA section 4(d) rule, which is designed to conserve listed species. Local governments also 

may participate in regional watershed health programs, although political will and funding will 

determine participation and therefore the effect of such actions on listed species. Overall, 

without comprehensive and cohesive beneficial programs and the sustained application of such 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 24 

programs, it is likely that local actions will have few measurable positive effects on listed species 

and their habitat, and may even contribute to further degradation. 

Tribal Actions: Tribal governments participate in cooperative efforts involving watershed and 

basin planning designed to improve fish habitat and are expected to continue to do so. The 

results from changes in tribal forest and agriculture practices, water resource allocations, and 

land uses are difficult to assess for the same reasons discussed under State and Local Actions. 

The earlier discussions related to growth impacts apply also to tribal government actions. Tribal 

governments will need to apply comprehensive and beneficial natural resource programs to areas 

under their jurisdiction to produce measurable positive effects for listed species and their habitat. 

Private Actions: The effects of private actions on ESA-listed resources are the most uncertain. 

Private landowners may convert current use of their lands, or they may intensify or diminish 

current uses. Individual landowners may voluntarily initiate actions to improve environmental 

conditions, or they may abandon or resist any improvement efforts. Their actions may be 

compelled by new laws, or may result from growth and economic pressures. Changes in 

ownership patterns will have unknown impacts. 

Summary: Non-federal actions are likely to continue affecting listed species. The cumulative 

effects of these actions are difficult to analyze considering the geographic landscape of the action 

area for this Biological Opinion, the uncertainties associated with government and private 

actions, and the changing economies of the region. Whether effects associated with these actions 

will increase or decrease is a matter of speculation; however, based on the trends identified in 

this section, the adverse cumulative effects on listed salmon are likely to increase. Although 

Tribal, state, and local governments have developed plans and initiatives to benefit listed fish, 

they must be applied and sustained in a comprehensive way before NMFS can consider them 

“reasonably foreseeable” in its analysis of cumulative effects. 

1.9 Integration and Synthesis of Effects 

The Puget Sound TRT is in the process of developing recommended recovery biological criteria 

for listed salmonids in the Puget Sound region. The TRT has prepared a draft document that 

includes general guidelines for assessing recovery efforts across individual populations within 

Puget Sound and determining whether they are sufficient for delisting and recovery of the listed 

ESU (NMFS 2002a). The preliminary delisting and recovery criteria recommendation provided 

by the TRT (see Chapter 3 in NMFS 2002a) have been used to assist in the evaluation of the 

harvest management strategy of the RMP. 

Although component populations contribute fundamentally to the structure and diversity of the 

ESU, it is the ESU, not an individual population, which is the listed species under the ESA. The 

TRT is charged with identifying the biological characteristics of a recovered ESU as part of 

developing delisting and recovery criteria. These biological characteristics are based on the 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 25 

collective viability of the individual populations, their characteristics, and their distributions 

throughout the ESU. 

The geographical distribution of viable populations across the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

ESU is important for the ESU’s recovery (NMFS 2002a). The TRT has identified five 

geographic regions (see Figure 7 in the ERD) within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU 

based on similarities in hydrographic, biogeographic, and geologic characteristics, which also 

correspond to regions where groups of populations could be affected similarly by catastrophes 

(volcanic events, earthquakes, oil spills, etc.). An ESU with well-distributed viable populations 

avoids the situation where populations succumb to the same catastrophic risk(s), allows for a 

greater potential source of diverse populations for recovery in a variety of environments (i.e., 

greater options for recovery), and will increase the likelihood of the ESU’s survival in response 

to rapid environmental changes, such as an volcanic event. Geographically diverse populations 

in different regions also distribute the ecological and ecosystem services provided by salmon 

across the ESU. 

The TRT recommends that an ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to four 

viable chinook salmon populations in each of the five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region (NMFS 2002a). An ESU-wide recovery scenario should also include within 

each of these geographic regions one or more viable populations from each major genetic and 

life history group historically present within that geographic region (NMFS 2002a). While 

changes in harvest alone cannot recover the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, NMFS can use 

the preliminary TRT guidance for assistance in evaluating whether the proposed RMP would 

impede recovery and survival of the ESU. 

The following risk assessment is presented in two stages. In the first stage, a potential area of 

concern or risk is identified by region. In the second stage, the likelihood of that concern or risk 

occurring is evaluated. The assessment in the second stage also considers the practical influence 

harvest may have on the potential concern or risk. 

Estimated impacts from the fisheries proposed by the RMP will vary by region, consistent with 

population-specific management objectives specified in the RMP. In the ERD, NMFS evaluated 

the RMP’s impacts on individual populations. Consistent with the TRT’s guidance to assess 

ESU-wide effects, the following is an evaluation of the estimated impacts on the ESU, by region, 

from the fisheries proposed by the RMP: 

Georgia Strait Region – Chinook salmon originating from the Georgia Strait Region are distinct 

from other Puget Sound chinook salmon in their genetic attributes, life history traits, and habitat 

characteristics (PSTRT 2003). There are two populations within the Georgia Strait Region: the 

North Fork Nooksack River and the South Fork Nooksack River populations (see Figure 7 in the 

ERD). Both populations are designated as Category 1 populations (see Table 7 in the ERD). 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 26 

Straying between the two populations was historically low, as supported by available genetic 

data, but straying may have increased in recent years (PSTRT 2003). The more recent straying 

observations may be partially due to an increase in hatchery production. This potential source of 

straying may have been reduced by the co-managers with the implementation of a 50 percent 

reduction in on-station hatchery releases from Kendall Creek Hatchery (T. Scott, WDFW, e-mail 

to K. Schultz, NMFS, March 22, 2004). Habitat differences between the two populations exist, 

but are subtle (PSTRT 2003). 

In the ERD, NMFS has evaluated the RMP’s impacts on individual populations and identified an 

elevated level of risks to the North Fork Nooksack River and South Fork Nooksack River 

populations, when compared to NMFS’ standards. A summary of the risk analysis for these two 

populations follows. A more detailed analysis of risks to these populations is provided in the 

ERD. 

Nooksack River Populations - The North Fork Nooksack River natural-origin population has 

exhibited an increasing escapement trend since listing (see Table 9 in the ERD). However, the 

estimated 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 180 natural-origin spawners for the North Fork 

Nooksack River population is below the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish (see Table 

8 in the ERD). The South Fork Nooksack River natural-origin population has also exhibited an 

increasing escapement trend since listing (see Table 9 in the ERD). The 1999 to 2002 average 

escapement of 249 natural-origin spawners for the South Fork Nooksack River population is 

slightly above the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish (see Table 8 in the ERD). 

In NMFS’ preliminary findings, the broodstock used for the Kendall Creek Hatchery program, 

located on the North Fork Nooksack River, retains the genetic characteristics of the original, 

donor, wild population and is considered essential for the survival and recovery of the ESU. 

When including Kendall Creek hatchery-origin fish, an average aggregate escapement of 3,438 

natural spawners in the North Fork Nooksack River has been observed since listing (see Table 

10 in the ERD). Adult fish produced by the Kendall Creek Hatchery program and migrating with 

the natural-origin fish are expected to buffer harvest-induced genetic and demographic risks to 

the natural-origin North Fork Nooksack River population (see discussion on pages 28 and 29 in 

the ERD). 

Increased escapement of natural-origin fish into the Nooksack River in recent years may be due, 

in part, to harvest reductions. However, the abundance trend in the natural-origin returns 

suggests that, although escapement may be stable or even trend upward toward or above the 

optimum level associated with current habitat condition, natural-origin recruitment will not 

increase much beyond that level unless constraints limiting marine, freshwater, and estuary 

survival are alleviated. Augmentation of these natural-origin spawners on the natural spawning 

areas of the North Fork Nooksack River, with the addition of hatchery-origin spawners, will 

continue to test the natural production potential of the system at higher escapement levels. The 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 27 

escapement of hatchery-origin fish may also benefit the natural-origin production by capitalizing 

on favorable survival conditions in some years. 

For the Nooksack Management Unit, the anticipated range of total exploitation rates is 20 to 26 

percent. The most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 25 percent (see Table 14 in 

the ERD). Similar to recent years, the largest proportion of the total exploitation rate is expected 

to be accounted for by the Canadian fisheries (see Table 4 in the ERD). The SUS exploitation 

rate on the Nooksack River populations is not anticipated to exceed 7 percent under the proposed 

RMP (see Table 3 in the ERD). Even if the entire SUS exploitation rate on Nooksack River 

populations of 7 percent was eliminated, the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate of 12 

percent for the Nooksack Management Unit would still not be achieved. 

NMFS has evaluated the elevated risks to the Nooksack Management Unit associated with the 

SUS fisheries proposed in the RMP, using the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate as the 

standard for comparison. With the modeled Canadian fisheries, and assuming 2003 abundance, a 

7 percent SUS fishery exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations would lead to a 2 

percentage point decrease in the probability of rebuilt populations in 25 years under current 

conditions. Modeling also suggests that the application of a 7 percent SUS fishery exploitation 

rate would result in a 14 percentage point increase in the probability that the populations will fall 

below the critical level during that same 25-year period (see Table 16 in the ERD). 

Similar to recent years, it is likely that the vast majority of the SUS fishery harvest impacts on 

the Nooksack Management Unit populations under the RMP would occur in treaty Indian 

fisheries. Since 2001, the majority of the SUS harvest on the Nooksack Management Unit has 

occurred in tribal fisheries. In recognition of tribal management authority and the Federal 

government’s trust responsibility to the tribes, NMFS is committed to considering their judgment 

and expertise regarding the conservation of trust resources. Consistent with this commitment and 

as a matter of policy, NMFS has sought, where there is appropriate tribal management, to work 

with tribal managers to provide limited tribal fishery opportunities, so long as the risk to the 

population remains within acceptable limits. 

Trends in the escapement of natural-origin Nooksack early chinook salmon populations are 

increasing. The additional contributions of hatchery origin spawners to the natural spawning 

areas are anticipated to reduce catastrophic and demographic risks to the North Fork Nooksack 

population. In addition, the Kendall Creek hatchery-origin chinook salmon shares the ecological 

and genetic characteristics of the natural origin spawners. Information suggests that past harvest 

constraints have had limited effect on increasing the escapement of returning natural-origin fish. 

The magnitude of Canadian harvest is expected to significantly exceed the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations. However, the SUS exploitation 

rate on the Nooksack River populations is not anticipated to exceed 7 percent. NMFS considers 

the tribes’ management authority, judgment, and expertise regarding conservation of trust 

resources. Taking all these factors into account, NMFS concludes that the implementation of the 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 28 

RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2010, will adequately protect chinook salmon 

populations in the Georgia Straight Region.

 

North Puget Sound Region – The largest river systems in Puget Sound are found within the 

North Puget Sound Region. There are ten chinook salmon populations delineated by the TRT 

within the North Puget Sound Region (see Figure 7 in the ERD). NMFS has determined that the 

RMP will contribute to the rebuilding of seven of the ten populations (70 percent) within this 

region. NMFS has identified a potential elevated level of risk under the RMP for three of these 

ten populations, as assessed through a comparison of likely exploitation rate ranges for these 

populations under the RMP with their NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates. These three 

populations are the lower Sauk River and lower Skagit River populations in the Skagit 

Summer/Fall Management Unit, and the Skykomish River population in the Snohomish 

Management Unit. A summary of the risk analysis for these three populations follows, but a 

more detailed analysis is provided in the ERD. 

Lower Skagit River Population: The lower Skagit River population is classified as a Category 1 

population (see Table 7 in the ERD). The population has shown an increasing escapement trend 

since listing (see Table 9 in the ERD). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 2,944 fish has 

been above the NMFS-derived viable threshold of 2,182 fish for the lower Skagit River 

population (see Table 8 in the ERD). The anticipated escapement under the implementation of 

the RMP for the lower Skagit River population is 1,182 fish (see Table 5 in the ERD). This level 

of escapement is well above the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 251 fish for the lower Skagit 

River population. 

The anticipated total exploitation rate under the implementation of the RMP for the lower Skagit 

River population would range between 48 and 56 percent. The most likely total exploitation rate 

within this range would be 55 percent (see Table 14 in the ERD). The upper end of the range of 

anticipated total exploitation rates exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate of 49 

percent for this population. Similar to recent years, it is anticipated that Canadian fisheries will 

account for the substantial portion of the anticipated total exploitation rate on this population 

under the implementation of the RMP (see Table 4 in the ERD). 

The anticipated range of exploitation rates for the SUS fisheries for the lower Skagit River 

population is 16 to 18 percent (see Table 3 in the ERD). The most likely exploitation rate for the 

SUS fisheries within this range is 16 percent (see Table 5 in the ERD). Through modeling, 

NMFS assessed the increased risk to the lower Skagit River population associated with the SUS 

fisheries proposed in the RMP. With the modeled Canadian fisheries and abundance similar to 

2003 levels, a 16 percent SUS exploitation rate would result in a 26 percentage point decrease in 

the probability of a rebuilt population in 25 years under current conditions. This modeling also 

indicates that there is no change in the probability that the population will fall below the critical 

level during that same 25-year period (see Table 16 in the ERD). 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 29 

Lower Sauk River Population: The lower Sauk River chinook salmon population is classified as 

a Category 1 population (see Table 7 in the ERD). The population has exhibited an increasing 

escapement trend since listing (see Table 9 in the ERD). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement 

of 721 fish has been above the NMFS-derived viable threshold of 681 fish for the lower Sauk 

River population (see Table 8 in the ERD). The most likely escapement resulting from the 

implementation of the RMP for the lower Sauk River population is 588 fish (see Table 5 in the 

ERD). This level of escapement is above the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish defined 

for the for the lower Sauk River population (see Table 8 in the ERD). 

Total exploitation rates on the lower Sauk River population under the implementation of the 

RMP on the lower Sauk River population are expected to range between 48 and 56 percent. The 

most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 55 percent (see Table 14 in the ERD). The 

upper end of the range of anticipated total exploitation rates exceeds the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rate for this population of 51 percent. A lack of data prevented NMFS 

from determining the level of increased risk for to the lower Sauk River population in the event 

that the total exploitation rate exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. The 

effects of the implementation of the RMP on the lower Sauk River population are assumed to be 

similar to those identified for the lower Skagit River population as discussed above. 

Skykomish River Population: The Skykomish River chinook salmon population is classified as a 

Category 1 population (see Table 7 in the ERD). The population has exhibited an increasing 

escapement trend since listing (see Table 9 in the ERD). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement 

of 2,118 fish for the Skykomish River population has been above the NMFS-derived critical 

threshold of 1,650 fish, but below the NMFS-derived viable threshold of 3,500 fish (see Table 8 

in the ERD). The estimated escapement for the Skykomish River population that is most likely to 

result from the implementation of the RMP is 2,385 fish (see Table 5 in the ERD). 

The total exploitation rate of 22 percent that is most likely to result from the implementation of 

the RMP would exceed the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the Skykomish River 

population by 5 percentage points (see Table 19 in the ERD). The anticipated harvest impacts on 

the populations within the Snohomish Management Unit include those from Canadian fisheries 

(see Table 4 in the ERD). The management of Canadian fisheries is outside the jurisdiction of 

the co-managers. However, the co-managers do have jurisdiction over fisheries occurring within 

the SUS areas. For the Snohomish Management Unit, the anticipated range of exploitation rates 

for the SUS fisheries is 13 to 14 percent (see Table 3 in the ERD). The most likely exploitation 

rate within in this range is 13 percent (see Table 5 in the ERD). 

Through modeling, NMFS identified the increased level of risk that may be associated with the 

SUS fisheries exploitation rates proposed in the RMP, when compared to the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rate. Under the mostly likely scenario, a 13 percent SUS exploitation rate 

for the Skykomish River population will result in a 14 percentage point decrease in the 

probability of a rebuilt population in 25 years under current conditions. Modeling also suggests 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 30 

that the implementation of the RMP will result in a 3 percentage point increase in the probability 

that the population will fall below the critical level during that same 25-year period (see Table 

16 in the ERD). 

The TRT recommends that any ESU-wide recovery scenario include at least two to four viable 

chinook salmon populations in each of the five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. NMFS’ assessment is that the RMP will contribute to rebuilding for seven of 

the ten populations within the North Puget Sound Region. The life history and run timing 

characteristics of the three populations identified as having an elevated level of risk for 

rebuilding (the lower Sauk River, the lower Skagit River, and the Skykomish River populations), 

are similar to the seven other populations in the region (see Table 7 in the ERD). Two of these 

three “at risk” populations are currently above their identified viable thresholds, and all three 

populations have an increasing trend in escapement since listing. Therefore, NMFS concludes 

that the RMP’s management objectives are adequately protective of the geographic distribution, 

life history characteristics, and diversity of populations within the North Puget Sound Region of 

the ESU. 

South Puget Sound Region – There are six populations delineated by the Puget Sound TRT 

within the South Puget Sound Region (see Figure 7 in the ERD). Genetically, most of the present 

spawning aggregations in the South Puget Sound Region are similar, likely reflecting the 

extensive influence of transplanted stock hatchery releases, primarily from the Green River 

population (PSTRT 2003). The TRT found that life history and genetic variations were not 

useful in determining populations within the South Puget Sound Region. Most chinook salmon 

in the South Puget Sound Region have similar life history traits. 

In the ERD, NMFS found that the proposed RMP is anticipated to contribute to the stabilization 

or rebuilding of all populations within this region5

. However, NMFS has identified a concern for 

two South Puget Sound Region populations due primarily to anticipated low abundance under 

the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010. A summary of the 

concerns for these two populations follows, but a more detailed analysis is provided in the ERD. 

Cedar River and Sammamish River Populations: The Lake Washington Management Unit 

includes two populations; the Cedar River (Category 1) and the Sammamish River (Category 2) 

populations. The 1999 to 2002 four-year average escapements of 385 fish for the Cedar River 

population and 373 fish for the Sammamish River population are above the identified critical 

thresholds. The four-year average escapement of 385 fish for the Cedar River population is 

 

5

 With the level of escapement for the Duwamish-Green River population anticipated to continue to 

exceed the NMFS-derived viable threshold, the level of risk to this population associated with the 

implementation of the RMP is consistent with NMFS’ standards. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 31 

below the RMP’s upper management threshold for the population of 1,200 fish (see Table 8 in 

the ERD). The RMP proposes no upper management threshold for the Sammamish River 

population. 

Since listing, the trend in escapement to the Cedar River has been stable, while the escapement 

to the Sammamish River population has exhibited an increasing trend (see Table 9 in the ERD). 

However, it is noted that the total escapement estimates for the Cedar River, as presented in 

Table 6 in the ERD, are based on an expansion of a live fish counts. Expansions of redd counts 

in the Cedar River suggest that this historical expansion of the live counts may be a conservative 

estimate of the total escapement. Additionally, the escapement estimates for the Sammamish 

River population do not include escapement into the Upper Cottage Lake or Issaquah Creeks. 

Therefore, although the escapement information used in this evaluation is believed to be 

representative of trends, the escapement estimates are considered a conservative estimate of the 

total escapement. A direct comparison of the Cedar River and Sammamish River escapements 

with the VSP generic guidance for a critical threshold of 200 fish should be considered 

conservative, as the total escapements for these two systems are likely greater than those 

depicted in Table 6 in the ERD. 

Since 1998, the estimated natural escapement levels for both populations within the Lake 

Washington Management Unit have exceeded the VSP generic guidance for a critical threshold 

of 200 fish, but have remained well below the guidance for a viable threshold of 1,250 fish. 

Escapements into the Cedar River and the Sammamish River tributaries resulting from the 

implementation of the RMP are anticipated to range from 214 to 305 fish each (see Table 3 in 

the ERD). The most likely escapement for each population within this range is 295 fish (see 

Table 5 in the ERD). 

Harvest impact modeling for the Lake Washington Management Unit indicates that the comanagers will continue to meet or exceed the critical threshold of 200 natural spawners for both 

populations within the management unit under the implementation of the RMP. However, given 

that the range of anticipated escapements approaches the critical thresholds for each population, 

and considering the volatility in escapement observed for these populations in the past, NMFS is 

concerned that these populations could experience very low abundance in the next several years, 

below the critical thresholds. However, there is a substantial contribution of stray hatcheryorigin fish to the natural escapement in the Sammamish River tributaries. The Sammamish River 

population (Category 2 population) is not genetically distinct from these straying hatchery-origin 

fish. These hatchery-origin fish may lessen demographic concerns that may arise regarding low 

escapement for that population. 

In the ERD, NMFS expressed concern for the Sammamish River population because the RMP 

provides no low abundance threshold for managing harvest impacts on the population. The comanagers propose that protective measures imposed to safeguard the Cedar River population, 

which include management constraints that would be applied when the population falls below its 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 32 

low abundance threshold, will also incidentally benefit the Sammamish River population. The 

co-managers’ argument is compelling because the Cedar River and Sammamish River 

populations are both affected by the same terminal area fisheries. NMFS agrees that it is 

reasonable to expect that terminal conservation management measures directed at migrating fish 

returning to the Cedar River would also benefit fish returning to the Sammamish River. 

Limiting factors to chinook salmon survival and productivity in the Lake Washington basin are 

being addressed by improving fish passage conditions at the Ballard Locks, and restoration of 

anadromous fish access to 17 miles of the Cedar River above the Landsburg Dam. While these 

improvements will likely enhance spatial structure and productivity, there remain highly altered 

conditions in the Lake Washington basin and at the Ballard Locks that are daunting to juvenile 

salmon survival and emigration, and adult immigration. 

The TRT recommends that an ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to four 

viable chinook salmon populations in each of five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. Despite potential risks that the Cedar River and Sammamish River 

populations may experience under the harvest management plan from May 1, 2005 through April 

2010, the RMP is still expected to provide sufficient protection for four of the six populations in 

the South Puget Sound Region. The concerns for the Cedar River and Sammamish River 

populations do not represent much risk to the region. Identifying these two populations as a 

concern is considered a precautionary approach, as information suggests that the escapements 

estimated for these systems are likely conservative. NMFS believes that the RMP’s management 

objectives are adequately protective of the geographic distribution, life history characteristics, 

and genetic diversity of the populations within the South Puget Sound Region of the ESU.

Hood Canal Region – Primarily because of their geographic isolation from other basins of the 

ESU, the TRT concluded that chinook salmon spawning historically in Hood Canal streams were 

independent from other chinook salmon spawning aggregations in the Puget Sound region 

(PSTRT 2003). There are two populations within the Hood Canal Region: the Skokomish River 

and the Mid-Hood Canal rivers populations (see Figure 7 in the ERD). Both populations are 

classified as a Category 2 population (see Table 7 in the ERD). Watersheds harboring Category 2 

chinook salmon populations are areas where indigenous populations of the species are believed 

to no longer exist, but where sustainable wild populations existed historically and where habitat 

could still support such populations. 

In the ERD, NMFS has identified a potential concern for harvest impacts on the spatial structure 

of the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population. This concern is heightened because of the low 

abundance in two of the individual rivers. A summary of the concerns for the Mid-Hood Canal 

rivers population follows, but a more detailed analysis is provided in the ERD. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 33 

Mid-Hood Canal Rivers Population: The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 404 fish for the 

Mid-Hood Canal rivers population is only slightly above the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 

400 fish for the population (see Table 9 in the ERD). The Mid-Hood Canal rivers population has 

exhibited an increasing escapement trend since the time of listing (see Table 9 in the ERD). 

However, low levels of escapements in the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit are anticipated to 

continue under the implementation of the RMP. The range of anticipated spawning escapements 

into the rivers of the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP 

from May 1, 2005 through April 2010 is expected to range from is 344 to 531 fish (see Table 3 

in the ERD). The most likely escapement within this range is 504 fish (see Table 5 in the ERD). 

The Mid-Hood Canal rivers population includes spawning aggregations in the Hamma Hamma, 

Duckabush, and the Dosewallips Rivers. Most harvest impacts on this population occur in mixed 

stock areas outside of the Hood Canal region. The effects of these mixed stock fisheries on the 

three components of the population are variable and unpredictable. It is therefore difficult for the 

co-managers to impose differential harvest effects on the individual spawning aggregate 

components in order to adjust spawning distribution among the rivers. In 2002, the natural 

escapement of 95 spawners into the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit fell well below the VSP 

guidance for a critical threshold of 200 fish for this population. Total annual spawning 

escapements below 40 fish have been observed in recent years in each of the Duckabush and 

Dosewallips Rivers. 

For the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit, the anticipated range of total exploitation rates that 

would result from the implementation of the RMP is 26 to 34 percent. The most likely total 

exploitation rate within this range is 32 percent (see Table 14 in the ERD). Similar to the more 

northern chinook salmon management units discussed above, Canadian fisheries are expected to 

accounts for a substantial proportion of the total exploitation rate on this population (see Table 4 

in the ERD). The most likely SUS exploitation rate anticipated under the implementation of the 

RMP is 13 percent. 

Escapement into the individual systems has varied, with the spawning aggregation in the Hamma 

Hamma River representing the majority of the total Mid-Hood Canal rivers population 

abundance in recent years (see Table 6 in the ERD). Adult returns resulting from the WDFWadministered Hamma Hamma River supplementation program, which relies partially on 

broodstock returning to the river, has likely contributed substantially to the Mid-Hood Canal 

rivers population’s increasing abundance trend (see Table 12 in the ERD). 

The hatchery-origin adult fish that are progeny of broodstock collected from the Hamma Hamma 

River may buffer demographic risks to the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population in the short term, 

particularly to the component of the population spawning in the Hamma Hamma River. The 

general characteristics of the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population, including life history and run 

timing, are also found in the Skokomish River population (see Figure 7 in the ERD), the only 

other population within the region. Genetically similar stocks are also sustained by several 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 34 

hatchery facilities in the Hood Canal area and in hatcheries in the South Puget Sound Region 

where the Green River-lineage are naturally or artificially sustained. 

As mentioned in the ERD, the co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS, have modeled 

escapement results under a no Puget Sound fishery alternative. The most likely escapement for 

this management unit under the “no fishery” scenario is 527 fish, as discussed in more detail in 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement. With no Puget Sound fisheries, anticipated 

escapement into the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population would increase by only 23 fish, spread 

among the three component natural spawning rivers. Given the observed proportions of recent 

year escapements into the individual river systems comprising the Mid-Hood Canal Management 

Unit (see Table 12 in the ERD), the most likely increase in escapement into the Duckabush and 

Dosewallips Rivers will be only three and two fish, respectively. Based on modeling, further 

decreases in the proposed SUS fisheries-related impacts would have little effect on the 

persistence of the spawning aggregations in the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers. 

The TRT recommends that an ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to four 

viable chinook salmon populations in each of five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. NMFS concludes the RMP’s management objectives are adequately 

protective of the geographic, life history, and diversity of the populations within the Hood Canal 

Region of the ESU. This conclusion takes into consideration that the hatchery-origin production 

may buffer demographic risks associated with the RMP to the Mid-Hood Canal rivers 

population. Additionally, the genetic similarity between the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population 

and populations within the Skokomish River and the South Puget Sound Region, which could 

serve as reserves, was also a factor. However, the primary reasons for the recommendation are 

the total abundance status of the population, the increasing escapement trend observed for the 

population, the annual monitoring and evaluation actions outlined in the RMP (discussed in the 

ERD), and the likelihood that further decrease in the SUS fisheries-related impacts would have 

limited beneficial effects. 

Strait of Juan de Fuca Region - The TRT delineated two populations within the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca Region: the Dungeness River and the Elwha River populations (see Figure 7 in the ERD). 

Both populations are classified as Category 1 populations (see Table 7 in the ERD). Although 

the TRT identified only two historically extant populations within the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Region, important components of the historical diversity within the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Region may have been lost (PSTRT 2003). 

Genetically, the chinook salmon in the Elwha River are very distinct from other Puget Sound 

populations (see Figure 5a in PSTRT 2003). Chinook salmon in the Dungeness River are also 

genetically distinct from other populations in Puget Sound and appear intermediate in their 

characteristics between eastern Puget Sound and the Elwha River populations (PSTRT 2003). 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 35 

Habitat differences also exist between the Dungeness and Elwha River basins and other Puget 

Sound watersheds (PSTRT 2003). 

Bases on the analysis provided above and in the ERD, NMFS finds that the RMP provides 

sufficient protection for the Elwha River population. However, NMFS has identified a 

heightened level of concern for the Dungeness River population, primarily because of the current 

status and the annual anticipated escapement resulting from the implementation of the RMP is 

expected to approach the VSP-derived critical threshold of 200 for the population. A summary of 

the risk analysis for the Dungeness River population follows, but a more detailed analysis is 

provided in the ERD. 

Dungeness River Population: Since listing, the average escapements of 345 fish for the 

Dungeness River population has been above the VSP generic guidance for a critical threshold of 

200 fish for this population, but below the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 500 fish. The 

Dungeness River population has exhibited an increasing escapement trend since listing (see 

Table 9 in the ERD). Modeling of the Dungeness Management Unit indicates that the comanagers would continue to meet or exceed the critical threshold of 200 natural spawners under 

the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010. The range of 

escapements to the Dungeness River under the implementation of the RMP is expected to be 231 

to 356 fish (see Table 3 in the ERD). The most likely escapement within this range is 336 fish 

(see Table 5 in the ERD). The range of anticipated escapements is below the RMP’s low 

abundance threshold of 500 fish and approaches the VSP generic guidance for a critical 

threshold of 200 fish for this population. 

The co-managers, in cooperation with federal agencies and private-sector conservation groups, 

have implemented a captive brood stock program to rehabilitate chinook salmon runs in the 

Dungeness River. Juvenile and adult fish produced through the hatchery program on the 

Dungeness River are listed with the natural-origin fish under the ESA. The primary goal of the 

supplementation and an associated fishery restriction program is to increase the number of fish 

spawning naturally in the river, while maintaining the generic characteristics of the existing 

broodstock. 

Although there are no fishery harvest distribution estimates for the Dungeness Management 

Unit, in the adjacent Elwha Management Unit, it is estimated that the Alaskan and Canadian 

harvests have represented, on average, almost 80 percent of the total fishery impacts. A similar 

Alaskan and Canadian harvest distribution is likely for the Dungeness River population. Through 

modeling, the estimated range of exploitation rates that may be anticipated for the Dungeness 

Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010 

is 22 to 29 percent. The most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 27 percent (see 

Table 14 in the ERD). However, the anticipated SUS exploitation rate for this population is very 

small; the SUS fisheries exploitation rate on this population is most likely to be 5 percent (see 

Table 5 in the ERD). 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 36 

The co-managers will review the status of populations within the ESU annually. The comanagers, in cooperation with NMFS, will use this information to assess whether impacts on 

listed fish are as expected. When a population is anticipated to fall below its low abundance 

threshold, the co-managers have committed to consider additional actions when application of 

the RMP is not sufficiently protective in a given year, and when such additional actions would 

benefit the stocks. 

NMFS concludes that the RMP would provide sufficient protection for the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Region populations. This conclusion takes into consideration that the conservation hatchery 

program operating in the Dungeness River buffers the demographic risk to the Dungeness River 

population. This conclusion also considers the status and increasing escapement trend of the 

populations within this region, annual monitoring and evaluation outlined in the RMP (which is 

discussed in the ERD), the small anticipated SUS exploitation rate of less than five percent, and 

the likelihood that any further decrease in the SUS fisheries-related impacts would have limited 

beneficial effects on these populations. As discussed above and in the ERD, NMFS finds that the 

RMP’s management objectives would be adequately protective of the geographic distribution, 

life history characteristics, and genetic diversity of populations within the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Region of the ESU. 

ESU Summary - The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, not the component, individual 

populations, is the primary focus of NMFS’ evaluation of the impacts of the RMP under the 

ESA. In conducting this evaluation, NMFS takes into account the recommendations of the TRT, 

which is charged with identifying the biological characteristics of a recovered ESU as part of 

developing delisting and recovery criteria. As noted earlier, the TRT’s preliminary 

recommendation is that any ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to four 

viable chinook salmon populations in each of five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. Biological criteria outlined in the ESA 4(d) Rule, NMFS’ other mandates 

under the Endangered Species Act, and federal trust responsibilities to treaty Indian tribes will 

also be considered in developing NMFS’ evaluation and resultant determination for the RMP. 

NMFS concludes that the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2010, 

will adequately protect chinook salmon populations in the Georgia Straight Region based 

primarily on the increasing trends of the natural-origin populations, the additional contributions 

of hatchery-origin spawners to the natural spawning areas, and the low anticipated SUS 

exploitation rate. Additionally, NMFS’ conclusion is based on information suggesting that past 

harvest constraints have had limited effect on increasing escapement of returning natural-origin 

fish, when compared with the return of hatchery-origin fish, and taking into consideration 

NMFS’ treaty responsibility. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 37 

NMFS has determined that implementation of the proposed RMP will contribute to rebuilding 

for seven of the ten populations within the North Puget Sound Region. The life history and run 

timing characteristics of the three populations identified as having an elevated level of risk for 

rebuilding, are represented by the seven other populations in the region. Escapements for two of 

three “at risk” populations are currently above their identified viable thresholds, and all three 

populations have shown an increasing trend in escapement since listing. Therefore, NMFS 

concludes that the RMP’s management objectives would be adequately protective of the 

geographic distribution, life history characteristics, and genetic diversity of the populations 

within the North Puget Sound Region of the ESU. 

Through its evaluation, NMFS expects that the proposed RMP would contribute to the 

stabilization or rebuilding of all populations within the South Puget Sound Region. Specific 

harvest impacts identified for two populations within the region, the Cedar River and 

Sammamish River populations, do not rise to a level that might represent a substantial risk to 

chinook salmon population rebuilding and recovery in the region when all populations are 

considered. Highlighting harvest impact concerns for these two populations is considered 

precautionary. Therefore, NMFS concludes that the RMP’s management objectives are 

adequately protective of the geographic distribution, life history characteristics, and genetic 

diversity of the populations within the South Puget Sound Region of the ESU. 

The RMP’s management objectives are adequately protective of the geographic distribution, life 

history traits, and genetic diversity of the populations within the Hood Canal Region of the ESU. 

This conclusion is based on the production of the hatchery-origin fish that share the ecological 

and genetic traits of the natural-origin population, the status and increasing escapement trends of 

the two component populations, the annual monitoring and evaluation actions applied in the 

RMP to track population status and harvest impacts, the likelihood that further decrease in the 

SUS fisheries-related impacts would have limited effects on the persistence of the Mid-Hood 

Canal rivers population within this region, and the genetic similarity between the Mid-Hood 

Canal rivers population and populations within the Skokomish River and the South Puget Sound 

Region. 

NMFS concludes that the RMP will also provide adequate protection for chinook salmon 

originating from the Strait of Juan de Fuca Region. This conclusion is based on the status and 

increasing escapement trends of the populations, the annual monitoring and evaluation actions 

outlined in the RMP, the low anticipated SUS exploitation rates, the likelihood that any further 

decrease in the SUS fisheries-related impacts would have limited beneficial effects on the 

persistence of these two populations, and on consideration that the hatchery-origin fish produced 

for conservation purposes in the two watersheds within this region share the ecological and 

genetic traits of the natural-origin populations. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 38 

1.10 Conclusion 

Based on these conclusions and the analysis presented in previous sections, NMFS finds that the 

RMP’s management objectives, in combination with other ongoing habitat and hatchery efforts, 

would provide adequate protection for each of the five regions of the ESU. Therefore, NMFS 

concludes that the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005, through April 2010, would not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 

No critical habitat is designated for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 

2.0 Incidental Take Statement 

With NMFS’ approval of the RMP, the ESA take prohibitions will not apply to activities 

conducted pursuant to the RMP. Therefore, the proposed Federal actions, including the approval 

of the RMP under the ESA 4(d) Rule are not subject to take prohibitions. Accordingly, no 

incidental take statement has been prepared. 

3.0 Conservation Recommendation 

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and 

endangered species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. NMFS believes the following 

conservation recommendations are consistent with these obligations, and therefore should be 

implemented by the BIA and USFWS. 

(1) The BIA, USFWS, and NMFS, in collaboration with the affected states and tribes, should 

evaluate the ability of the listed Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU to survive over the 

longer term (past the duration of the RMP) and recover, given the totality of impacts 

affecting the ESU during all phases of the salmonid’s life cycle, including freshwater, 

estuarine, and ocean life stages. For this effort, the BIA and USFWS should collaborate with 

the affected co-managers to evaluate available life cycle models or initiate the development 

of life cycle models where needed. 

(2) The BIA, USFWS, and NMFS, in collaboration with the affected states and tribes, should 

evaluate possible improvement in gear technologies and fishing techniques that would reduce 

mortality of listed species. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 39 

(3) The BIA, USFWS, and NMFS, in collaboration with the affected states and tribes, should 

continue to evaluate the feasibility of selective and non-retention fishing techniques in 

commercial and recreational fisheries to reduce impacts on listed species without 

compromising data quality used to manage fisheries. 

(4) The BIA, USFWS, and NMFS, in collaboration with the affected states and tribes, should 

continue to improve the quality of information gathered on ocean rearing and migration 

patterns to improve the understanding of the utilization and importance of these areas to 

listed ESUs. 

(5) The BIA, USFWS, and NMFS, in collaboration with the affected states and tribes, should 

continue to evaluate the potential selective effects of fishing on the size, sex composition, or 

age composition of salmon populations. 

4.0 Re-initiation of Consultation 

This concludes formal consultation on the NMFS, BIA, and USFWS sub-actions as they relate to 

the RMP and the Puget Sound chinook ESU. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, re-initiation of 

formal consultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over 

the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: 

(1) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat 

in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 

(2) the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed 

species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion; or 

(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified 

action. 

In making its no jeopardy conclusion, NMFS recognizes the co-managers’ adaptive management 

process outlined in the RMP. Consistent with an adaptive management approach, a change in the 

exploitation rate or rates proposed in the RMP will not be considered grounds to re-initiate this 

consultation as long as the change in the exploitation rate or rates are within the risk criteria 

NMFS used in its evaluation (page 25 of the ERD). The risk criteria are those used by NMFS to 

derive the rebuilding exploitation rates (e.g., Did the percentage of escapements less than the 

critical threshold value increase by less than five percentage points relative to the no-fishing 

baseline and either (b) Does the escapement at the end of the 25-year simulation exceed the 

viable threshold at least 80 percent of the time or (c) Does the percentage of escapements less 

than the viable threshold at the end of the 25-year simulation differ from the no-fishing baseline 

by less than 10 percentage points). Additionally, a change in the escapement goal or goals 

proposed in the RMP will not be considered grounds to re-initiate this consultation as long as the 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 40 

change in the escapement goal or goals are based on the best estimates of the productivity and 

capacity of the system. Prior to determining whether re-initiation is necessary, NMFS will 

review the change in the exploitation rate or escapement goal and document its findings. 

 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 41 

5.0 References

Appleby, A., and K. Keown. 1994. History of White River spring chinook broodstocking and 

captive rearing efforts. Wash. Dep. Fish Wildl., 53 p. (Available from Washington Dept. 

of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091.) 

Bishop, S., and A. Morgan (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural chinook 

salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State. Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA. 105pp. 

Bledsoe, L.J., D.A. Somerton, and C.M. Lynde. 1989. The Puget Sound runs of salmon: An 

examination of the changes in run size since 1896. In C. D. Levings, L. B. Holtby, and 

M. A. Henderson (editors), Proceedings of the National Workshop on Effects of Habitat 

Alteration on Salmonid Stocks, May 6-8, 1987, Nanaimo, B.C., p. 50-61. Can. Spec. 

Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 105. 

Flagg, T.A., and C.E. Nash (editors). 1999. A Conceptual Framework for Conservation Hatchery 

Strategies for Pacific Salmonids. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFSNWFSC-38, 54 p. 

Fresh, K.L. 1997. The role of competition and predation in the decline of Pacific salmon and 

steelhead, p. 245-275. In Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman (eds.) Pacific 

Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, Chapman and Hall, New York 

City, NY. 

Fuss, H.J., and C. Ashbrook. 1995. Hatchery operation plans and performance summaries. 

Volume I (2). Puget Sound. Annual Report. Washington Department of Fish Wild., 

Assessment and Develop. Div., Olympia. (Available from Washington Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091.) 

Hayman, B. 2003. Calculation of management thresholds for Skagit summer/fall and spring 

chinook. Skagit System Cooperative Salmon Recovery Technical Report No. 03-1. 

Skagit System Cooperative, La Conner, Washington. 

Lawson, P.W. 1993. Cycles in ocean productivity, trends in habitat quality, and the restoration of 

salmon runs in Oregon. Fisheries 18(8):6-10. 

Marshall, A.R., C. Smith, R. Brix, W. Dammers, J. Hymer, and L. LaVoy. 1995. Genetic 

diversity units and major ancestral lineages for chinook salmon in Washington. In C. 

Busack and J. B. Shaklee (eds.), Genetic diversity units and major ancestral lineages of 

salmonid fishes in Washington, p. 111-173. Wash. Dep. Fish Wildl. Tech. Rep. RAD 95-
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 42 

02. (Available from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capital Way N., 

Olympia WA 98501-1091.) 

 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998a. Status review of chinook salmon from 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443p. 

NMFS. 1998b. Conclusions Regarding the Updated Status of Puget Sound, Lower Columbia 

River, Upper Willamette River, and Upper Columbia River Spring-run ESUs of West 

Coast Chinook Salmon. December 23, 1998. NW Sci. Center, U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NMFS, Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS. 2000a. A risk assessment procedure for evaluating harvest mortality of Pacific 

salmonids. Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Northwest Region. May 30, 2000, 33p 

NMFS. 2002a. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines for the delisting and recovery of the 

Puget Sound chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Puget Sound Technical 

Recovery Team. April 30, 2002. 17p. 

NMFS. 2002b. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation on Operation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and Funding by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) of Hood Canal 

Summer Chum Salmon Artificial Propagation Programs Affecting Listed Hood Canal 

Summer Chum Salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 282p.. 

NMFS. 2004b. Independent populations of chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound, Puget 

Sound Technical Recovery Team, Final Draft, dated January 18, 2004. 61p. 

Point No Point Treaty Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. 1986. Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan. 

PSIT (Puget Sound Indian Tribes) and WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 

2001. Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management 

Component. March 23, 2001. 47p. plus appendices. 

PSIT and WDFW. 2003. Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest 

Management Component. February 19, 2003. 239p. including appendices. 

PSTRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery). 2003. Independent populations of chinook salmon in 

Puget Sound. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. Public final draft dated July 22, 

2003. 61p. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 43 

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. 

Bulletin 191. Fisheries Research Board Canada, Ottawa. 

Smith, C.J., and B. Sele. 1995. Stock assessment. In C.J. Smith and P. Wampler (eds.), 

Dungeness River Chinook Salmon Rebuilding Project Progress Report 1992-1993, p. 4-

14. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091.) 

West Coast Salmon Biological Review Team. 2003. Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of 

West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA. July 2003. 33p. plus attachments. 

WDFW and PNPTC (PNPTC). 2000. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative: An 

implementation plan to recovery summer chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de 

Fuca Region. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia, Washington. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 44 

6.0 Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 

This is NMFS’ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 

consultation on its determination for the RMP over the next five years, from May 1, 2005, 

through April 30, 2010, as described in the above ESA section 7 consultation. 

6.1 Background 

The MSA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), 

established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species 

regulated under a Federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to the MSA: 

Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all actions, or proposed actions, authorized, 

funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH (Section 305 (b)(2)); 

NMFS must provide conservation recommendations for any Federal or State action that 

would adversely affect EFH (Section 305(b)(4)(A)); 

Federal agencies must provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS within 30 days 

after receiving EFH conservation recommendations. The response must include a 

description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the 

impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with NMFS’ 

EFH conservation recommendations, the Federal agency must explain its reasons for not 

following the recommendations (Section 305(b)(4)(B)). 

EFH means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity (MSA Section 3). For the purpose of interpreting this definition of EFH: 

Waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties 

that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; 

substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated 

biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery 

and the managed species= contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and Aspawning, breeding, 

feeding, or growth to maturity@ covers a species' full life cycle (50 CFR 600.10). Adverse effect 

means any impact which reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may include direct (e.g., 

contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species 

fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic 

consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). 

EFH consultation with NMFS is required for any Federal agency actions that may adversely 

affect EFH, including actions that occur outside EFH, such as certain upstream and upslope 

activities. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 45 

The objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed action would 

adversely affect designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, 

or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on EFH. 

6.2 Identification of Essential Fish Habitat 

Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH 

for three species of federally-managed Pacific salmon: chinook salmon; and coho salmon; and 

Puget Sound pink salmon (PFMC 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those 

streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to 

salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas upstream of certain 

impassable man-made barriers (as identified by the PFMC 1999), and longstanding, naturallyimpassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred years). Detailed 

descriptions and identifications of EFH for salmon are found in Appendix A to Amendment 14 

to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). Assessment of potential adverse effects on these 

species= EFH from the proposed action is based, in part, on this information. 

6.3 Proposed Action and Action Area 

The proposed action and action area are detailed above in the above Biological Opinion. The 

action area for this EFH consultation is the area defined by the RMP, Washington waters from 

the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca at Cape Flattery, eastward. The primary Federal subaction is the NMFS proposal to issue a determination as to whether the RMP submitted by the 

co-managers meets the requirements of Limit 6 under the ESA 4(d) Rule. The action area 

includes habitats that have been designated as EFH for various life-history stages of Puget Sound 

chinook salmon. 

NMFS is including two other proposed Federal actions in this consultation because they are 

similar actions within a given geographical area. The duration of all of the proposed Federal 

actions is through April 30, 2010. The three proposed actions are summarized here, and are 

described in more detail in the above Biological Opinion. 

(1) The proposed NMFS determination as to whether the RMP adequately addresses the criteria 

outlined in the ESA 4(d) Rule. Management objectives specified in the RMP account for 

fisheries-related mortality throughout the migratory range of Puget Sound chinook salmon, 

from Oregon to Southeast Alaska. 

(2) The proposed BIA funding of Puget Sound tribes’ management, enforcement, and monitoring 

projects in support of the RMP. Only the funding of projects that may impact listed Puget 

Sound chinook salmon through April 30, 2010, are considered in this consultation. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 46 

(3) The proposed USFWS authorization of fisheries, as a party to the Hood Canal Management 

Plan (Point No Point Treaty Council et al. 1986), that is consistent with the implementation 

of the RMP, as approved under the ESA 4(d) Rule. Only fisheries that may impact listed 

Puget Sound chinook salmon through April 30, 2010, are considered in this consultation. 

6.4 Effects of the Proposed Action 

The harvest-related activities of the proposed actions considered in this consultation involve 

boats using hook-and-line gear and commercial net gear. The use of these gears affects the water 

column and the shallower estuarine and freshwater substrates, rather than the deeper water, 

offshore habitats. The PFMC assessed the effects of fishing on salmon EFH and provided 

recommended conservation measures in Appendix A to Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast 

Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). 

The PFMC identified five types of impact on EFH: (1) gear effects; (2) harvest of prey species 

by commercial fisheries; (3) removal of salmon carcasses; (4) redd or juvenile fish disturbance; 

and (5) fishing vessel operation on habitat. Of the five types of impact on EFH identified by the 

PFMC for fisheries, the concern regarding gear-substrate interactions, removal of salmon 

carcasses, redd or juvenile fish disturbance and fishing vessel operation on habitat are also 

potential concerns for the salmon fisheries in Puget Sound. 

(1) Gear effects and fishing vessel operation (4): Possible fishery-related impacts on riparian 

vegetation and habitat would occur primarily through bank fishing, movement of boats and 

gear to the water, and other stream side usages. The types of salmon fishing gear that are 

used in Puget Sound salmon fisheries in general actively avoid contact with the substrate 

because of the resultant interference with fishing and potential loss of gear. In addition, the 

proposed fishery implementation plan includes actions that would minimize these impacts, 

such as area closures. Also these effects would occur to some degree through implementation 

of fisheries or activities other than the Puget Sound salmon fisheries, i.e., recreational 

boating and marine species fisheries. Construction activities directly related to salmon 

fisheries are limited to maintenance and repair of existing facilities (such as boat launches), 

and are not expected to result in any additional impacts on riparian habitats because of the 

proposed salmon fisheries. The facilities used in association with the fisheries are essentially 

all in place. Therefore, the proposed fisheries would have a negligible additional impact on 

the physical environment. 

(2) Removal of salmon carcasses: The PFMC conservation recommendation to address the 

concern regarding removal of salmon carcasses was to manage for maximum sustainable 

spawner escapement and implementation of management measures to prevent over-fishing. 

Both of these conservation measures are basic principles of the RMP. Therefore, 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 47 

management measures to minimize the effects of salmon carcass removal on EFH are an 

integral component of the management of the proposed fisheries. 

(3) Redd or juvenile fish disturbance: Trampling of redds during fishing has the potential to 

cause high mortality of salmonids. Boat operation can result in stranding and mortality 

related to pressure changes in juveniles (PFMC 1999). The PFMC report recommended 

angler education and the closer of key spawning areas during the time that eggs and juvenile 

salmon were present. Salmon fisheries are closed or fishing activities do not occur in 

freshwater areas in Hood Canal, North Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca during 

peak spawning, rearing and out-migration periods (S. Theisfeld, WDFW and T. Johnson, 

WDFW, per. comm. with S. Bishop, NMFS, May 12, 2004). Notices are posted near fishing 

access areas by WDFW and the Washington Parks Department, and news releases are 

distributed by WDFW before each fishing season explaining responsible fishing behavior, 

including avoidance of spawning areas and damage to riparian areas (T. Johnson, WDFW 

per, comm. with S. Bishop, NMFS, May 12, 2004). The Puyallup and White River in South 

Puget Sound are closed to salmon fishing through much of chinook salmon migration and 

spawning. These management measures should minimize redd or juvenile fish disturbance 

due to conduct of the proposed Puget Sound salmon fisheries. 

The fisheries consistent with the implementation of the RMP would have a negligible impact on 

the physical environment. 

6.5 Conclusion 

For the reason discussed above, NMFS concludes that the proposed Federal action would not 

adversely affect designated EFH for chinook salmon or for other fish species for which EFH has 

been designated. 

6.6 EFH Conservation Recommendation 

Pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MSA, NMFS is required to provide EFH conservation 

recommendations to Federal agencies regarding actions which may adversely affect EFH. 

However, because NMFS concluded that the proposed Puget Sound salmon fisheries would not 

adversely affect the EFH, no conservation recommendations are needed. 

6.7 Statutory Response Requirement 

Because there are no conservation recommendations, there are no statutory response 

requirements. 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 48 

6.8 Consultation Renewal 

The NMFS must reinitiate EFH consultation if the proposed actions are substantially revised in a 

way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the 

basis for NMFS= EFH conservation recommendations (50 CFR Section 600.920(k)). 

7.0 References 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1999. Appendix A to Amendment 14 to the 

Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, 

Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Portland, 

Oregon. 146pp. 

Point No Point Treaty Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. 1986. Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan. 

8.0 Data Quality Act Documentation and Pre-Dissemination Review

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 

106-554) (“Data Quality Act”) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a 

document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the Biological Opinion and 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultations addresses these DQA 

components, documents compliance with the Data Quality Act, and certifies that this Biological 

Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultations have undergone predissemination review. 

 

8.1 Utility: Consultation by Federal agencies with NMFS is required under section 7 of the ESA 

whenever a Federal agency approves funds or carries out an action that might affect a listed 

species. This consultation was required under the ESA to determine whether the implementation 

of the RMP’s proposed Puget Sound salmon fisheries would appreciably reduce chinook salmon 

population survival and recovery, jeopardizing, the affected ESU before the BIA could proceed 

with administration of tribal fishery management programs or the USFWS could approve fishing 

activities involving the proposed Puget Sound salmon fisheries. Supplying copies of the 

document to the management agencies provides them with the documentation that NMFS has 

determined that the proposed fisheries will not jeopardize the continued existence of the affected 

ESUs. Providing copies to WDFW and the NWIFC is consistent with their roles as fishery 

managers for the affected ESUs and with NMFS’ obligations under Secretarial Order 3206 

(Department of Interior Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act). 
ESA Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Puget Sound Harvest RMP – December, 2004 

Page 49 

8.2 Integrity: This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NOAA 

Fisheries in accordance with relevant information technology security policies and standards set 

out in Appendix III, “Security of Automated Information Resources,” Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security 

Reform Act. 

8.3 Objectivity:

Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan. 

 

Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and 

unbiased, and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They 

adhere to published standards including the NOAA Fisheries ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA 

Regulations, 50 CFR 402.01 et seq., and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) implementing regulations regarding Essential Fish Habitat, 50 CFR 

600.920(j). 

Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available 

information, as referenced in the literature cited section. The analyses in this biological 

opinion/EFH consultation contain more background on information sources and quality. 

Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly referenced, 

consistent with standard scientific referencing style. 

Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NOAA Fisheries staff with training in ESA 

and MSA implementation, and reviewed in accordance with Northwest Region ESA quality 

control and assurance processes. 

Evaluation of and Recommended Determination 

on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), 

Pursuant to the Salmon and Steelhead 4(d) Rule 

Evaluation of and Recommended Determination 

on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), 

Pursuant to the Salmon and Steelhead 4(d) Rule 

TITLE OF RMP: Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: 

Harvest Management Component 

RMP PROVIDED BY: Puget Sound Treaty Tribes, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

FISHERIES: Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, and Puget Sound salmon 

fisheries and steelhead net fisheries potentially impacting listed 

Puget Sound chinook salmon 

EVOLUTIONARILY 

SIGNIFICANT UNIT

AFFECTED: Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

NWR TRACKING NUMBER: 2003/01616

DATE: December 15, 2004 

Introduction: 

On March 24, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Puget Sound 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) as a threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (64 FR 14308). The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit1

 (ESU) includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from 

rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound from the Elwha River, eastward. Major river 

systems within the ESU supporting chinook salmon populations include the Nooksack, Skagit, 

Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Cedar, Duwamish-Green, White, Puyallup, Nisqually, Skokomish, 

Mid-Hood Canal, Dungeness, and Elwha Rivers. Chinook salmon (and their progeny) from the 

following hatchery stocks are also currently listed under the ESA: Kendall Creek (North Fork 

Nooksack River); North Fork Stillaguamish River; White River; Dungeness River; and Elwha 

River. 

On July 10, 2000, NMFS issued a rule under section 4(d) of the ESA (referred hereafter as the 

ESA 4(d) Rule), establishing take prohibitions for 14 salmon and steelhead ESUs, including the 

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6); July 10, 2000, 65 FR 42422). The 

ESA 4(d) Rule provided limits on the application of the take prohibitions, i.e., take prohibitions 

would not apply to the plans and activities set out in the rule if those plans and activities met the 

 

1

 An Evolutionarily Significant Unit or “ESU” is a collection of one or more Pacific salmon populations 

that share similar genetic, ecological, and life history traits but differ in important ways from salmon in 

other ESUs. Salmon ESUs are considered to be "distinct population segments" under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

2 

rule's criteria. One of those limits (Limit 6) applies to joint tribal and state resource management 

plans. 

On March 18, 2004, the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (PSTT) and the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provided a jointly developed resource management plan to NMFS, 

Northwest Regional Office. The resource management plan, titled the “Puget Sound 

Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management Component,” dated March 1, 

2004 (hereafter referred to as the RMP), provides the framework within which the tribal and state 

jurisdictions would jointly manage all salmon and gillnet steelhead fisheries that may impact 

listed chinook salmon within the greater Puget Sound area. The greater Puget Sound area 

consists of the State of Washington waters from the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca at Cape 

Flattery, eastward. 

The co-managers propose that the resource management plan be in effect for six years, from May 

1, 2004, through April 30, 2010. However, a biological opinion issued by NMFS on June 10, 

2004, titled “Effects of Programs Administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs supporting tribal 

salmon fisheries management in Puget Sound and Puget Sound salmon fishing activities 

authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services during the 2004 fishing season”, is effective 

through April 30, 2005 (2004a). Therefore, NMFS’ evaluation and determination under the ESA 

4(d) Rule will only address May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2010 of the proposed duration of the RMP. 

Recommended Pending Determination: 

It is the recommended determination of NMFS Northwest Region’s Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, that implementing the resource management plan, titled the “Puget Sound 

Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management Component,” from May 1, 

2005 to April 30, 2010, would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of 

the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The Sustainable Fisheries Division recommends that the 

Regional Administrator determine that the RMP adequately addresses the criteria established for 

Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule for the listed Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. If the Regional 

Administrator so determines, the take prohibitions would not apply to fisheries implemented in 

accordance with the RMP. The discussion of the biological analysis underlying this 

recommended determination follows. 

Evaluation: 

The ESA 4(d) Rule for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU states that the prohibitions of 

paragraph (a) of the rule (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) do not apply to actions taken in compliance with 

a resource management plan jointly developed by the States of Washington, Oregon and/or Idaho 

and the Tribes, provided that: (1) The Secretary has determined pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 

(referred to as the Tribal ESA 4(d) Rule) and the government-to-government processes therein 

that implementing and enforcing the joint tribal/state plan will not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of affected threatened ESUs; and (2) in making the 

determination for a resource management plan submitted under Limit 6, the Secretary of 

Commerce has taken comment on how any fishery management plan addresses the criteria 

described under Limit 4 (Sec. 223.203(b)(4)) of the ESA 4(d) Rule (50 C.F.R. 223.203(b)(6)). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

3 

Regarding the first element, NMFS consulted with the PSTT during the development of the RMP 

through government-to-government meetings. Consistent with legally enforceable tribal rights 

and with the Secretary of Commerce’s tribal trust responsibilities, NMFS provided technical 

assistance, exchanged information, and discussed what is needed to provide for the conservation 

of listed species with the PSTT. 

Regarding the second element, as required in section (b)(6)(iii) of the ESA 4(d) Rule, the RMP 

must adequately address eleven criteria under Limit 4 section (b)(4)(i). The criteria under Limit 4 

section (b)(4)(i) are outlined in Table 1. 

Table 1. Description of the eleven criteria for an RMP under Limit 4 section (b)(4)(i), and the 

page on which the evaluation of the RMP on each criterion starts within this document. 

 

Criterion Section Description 

Evaluation of 

the RMP on the 

criterion 

starts on page: 

1 Section 

(b)(4)(i) 

Clearly defines its intended scope and area of impact. 4 

2 Section 

(b)(4)(i) 

Sets forth the management objectives and the performance 

indicators for the plan. 

4 

3 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(A) 

Defines populations within affected Evolutionarily Significant 

Units, taking into account: spatial and temporal distribution, 

genetic and phenotypic diversity, and other appropriate 

identifiably unique biological and life history traits. 

19 

4 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(B) 

Uses the concepts of ‘‘viable’’ and ‘‘critical’’ salmonid 

population thresholds, consistent with concepts in the Viable 

Salmonid Populations (VSP) paper (NMFS 2000b) 

24 

5 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(C) 

Sets escapement objectives or maximum exploitation rates for 

each management unit or population based on its status, and 

assures that those rates or objectives are not exceeded. 

47 

6 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(D) 

Displays a biologically based rationale demonstrating that the 

harvest management strategy will not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of the Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit in the wild, over the entire period of time the 

proposed harvest management strategy affects the population, 

including effects reasonably certain to occur after the proposed 

actions cease. 

66 

7 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(E) 

Includes effective (a) monitoring and (b) evaluation programs to 

assess compliance, effectiveness, and parameter validation. 

79 

8 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(F) 

Provides for (a) evaluating monitoring data; and (b) making any 

revisions of assumptions, management strategies, or objectives 

that data show are needed. 

81 

9 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(G) 

Provides for (a) effective enforcement, (b) education, (c) 

coordination among involved jurisdictions. 

83 

10 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(H) 

Includes restrictions on resident and anadromous species fisheries 

that minimize any take of listed species, including time, size, gear, 

and area restrictions. 

84 

11 Section 

(b)(4)(i)(I) 

Is consistent with other plans and conditions established within 

any Federal court proceeding with continuing jurisdiction over 

tribal harvest allocations. 

85 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

4 

This evaluation will address each of the criteria separately, in the order as provided in the ESA 

4(d) Rule. Some criteria require NMFS to evaluate the RMP’s impacts on individual populations. 

However, the ESU, not the individual populations within the ESU, is the listed entity under the 

ESA. Evaluation of the estimated aggregate impacts on the ESU, resulting from the 

implementation of the RMP, will occur when addressing criterion 6. 

The following is the Sustainable Fisheries Division’s evaluation of the RMP’s adequacy in 

addressing the eleven criteria specified in Limit 4, section (b)(4) of the ESA 4(d) Rule for the 

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 

(1) Section (b)(4)(i) Clearly defines its intended scope and area of impact.

The Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management Component 

clearly defines the intended scope of the fisheries management regime and its rather broad area 

of impact. The RMP guides the implementation of salmon fisheries and steelhead net fisheries 

under the co-managers’ jurisdiction that may affect Puget Sound chinook salmon in Washington 

waters from the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca at Cape Flattery, eastward. This geographic 

scope (referred hereafter as the Puget Sound Action Area) encompasses the area included in the 

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, as well as the western portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

within the United States (Figure 1). NMFS evaluated the RMP for implementation during the 

next five fishing seasons, encompassing annual fishing seasons from May 1, 2005, through April 

30, 2010. 

(2) Section (b)(4)(i) Sets forth the management objectives and the performance indicators 

for the plan.

The RMP’s stated objective is to ensure that “fishery-related mortality will not impede 

rebuilding of natural Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, to levels that will sustain 

fisheries, enable ecological functions, and are consistent with treaty-reserved fishing rights” (see 

page 3 of the RMP). 

The guiding principles of the RMP are listed on pages 3 and 4 and include: (1) conserve the 

productivity, abundance, and diversity of all populations within the Puget Sound Chinook 

Salmon ESU; (2) manage for risk and uncertainty; (3) meet the ESA jeopardy standards; (4) 

provide opportunity to harvest surplus production from other species and populations; (5) 

account for all sources of fishery-related mortality (including non-landed mortality); (6) follow 

the principles of the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (PSSMP 1985) and other legal 

mandates pursuant to U.S. v. Washington (384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974)); (7) achieve the 

guidelines on allocations of harvest and conservation objectives that are defined in the 1999 

Annex IV, Chapter 3, Chinook Salmon of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST 1999); and, (8) protect 

Indian treaty rights. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

5 

Figure 1. Puget Sound Action Area, which includes the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and the western portion of the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca in the United States. 

The RMP contains biologically-based management objectives that are generally expressed in 

terms of population-specific exploitation rates or escapement goals. In general, fisheries are 

managed to achieve these biological objectives, but there is a base level, referred to as the 

minimum fisheries regime, which the fisheries would not go below. A minimum fisheries regime 

is triggered by population-specific low abundance thresholds. From the co-managers’ 

perspective, the RMP strikes a balance between biological and policy objectives by addressing 

conservation concerns “while still allowing a reasonable harvest of non-listed salmon” (page 17 

of the RMP). 

Performance Indicators: 

The RMP provides a framework for fisheries management measures affecting 23 chinook salmon 

populations. Twenty-two populations are within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, and one 

population (the Hoko River) is located in the western portion of Strait of Juan de Fuca (Figure 2). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

6 

Figure 2. Location of the RMP’s salmon populations and management units within the Puget 

Sound Action Area. One salmon population identified in the RMP, the Hoko River 

(23), is not within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 

The populations within the ESU are consistent with those defined by the Puget Sound Technical 

Recovery Team (TRT)2

. For harvest management purposes, the RMP distributes the 23 

populations among the 15 management units (Table 2). The RMP defines a management unit as 

a “stock or group of stocks which are aggregated for the purpose of achieving a management 

objective” (page 64 of the RMP). Six of the fifteen management units contain more than one 

 

2 The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT) is an independent scientific body convened by 

NMFS to develop technical delisting criteria and guidance for salmon delisting in Puget Sound.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

7 

population, as defined by the co-managers. These populations are annually monitored by the comanagers, and their status will be used as the performance indicators for the RMP. 

Sources of mortality for listed chinook salmon include fish killed incidentally in fisheries 

directed at unlisted chinook salmon or species, and fish taken in fisheries directed at listed 

chinook salmon. However, the co-managers foresee that “nearly all of the anticipated harvestrelated mortality to natural [listed] Puget Sound chinook [salmon, under the implementation of 

the RMP,] will be incidental to fisheries directed at other stocks or species” (page 5 of the RMP). 

The RMP proposes the implementation of restrictions to the cumulative directed and incidental 

fishery-related mortality to each Puget Sound chinook salmon population or management unit. 

The RMP’s restrictions to the cumulative fishery-related mortality are expressed as: (1) a 

rebuilding exploitation rate; (2) an upper management threshold; (3) a low abundance threshold; 

and (4) a critical exploitation rate ceiling (Table 2). The following is a brief description of these 

RMP’s limits: 

(1) Rebuilding Exploitation Rate 

The RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates are outlined in Table 2. The co-managers define 

exploitation rate as the “[t]otal mortality in a fishery or aggregate of fisheries expressed as the 

proportion of the sum of total mortality plus escapement” (page 63 of the RMP). The comanagers’ management objectives and tools have been evolving since the early 1990s in response to 

the declining status of Puget Sound salmon populations (page 6 of the RMP). When compared to 

pre-1990 management objectives, the co-managers propose that the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation 

rate for the individual management units would improve the viable status of the chinook salmon 

population or populations within that management unit. The intent of the co-managers is to not 

exceed the management unit’s rebuilding exploitation rate (see page 1 of the RMP). The comanagers used several methods to derive the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates. 

NMFS also established rebuilding exploitation rates for nine individual populations within the 

ESU and for the Nooksack Management Unit, which will be discussed in more detail later in this 

document. For individual populations, NMFS has determined that exploitation rates at or below 

NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

rebuilding that population, assuming current environmental conditions based on specific risk 

criteria. The method used by NMFS to derive the rebuilding exploitation rates is described in a 

document titled “A risk assessment procedure for evaluating harvest mortality of Pacific 

salmonids,” dated May 30, 2000 (NMFS 2000a). This evaluation will include comparing the 

anticipated exploitation rates with the implementation of the RMP against NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rates. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

8 

Table 2. The RMP’s management objectives (rebuilding exploitation rate, upper management threshold, low a

and the critical exploitation rate ceiling), by management units and populations. 

Management Unit Population 1

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate 2

Upper 

Management 

Threshold 

Low 

Abundance 

Threshold 

Nooksack 

North Fork Nooksack River South Fork Nooksack River 

- - - 

4,000 2,000 2,000 

- 

1,000 3

1,000 3

Skagit Summer/Fall Upper Skagit River 

Lower Sauk River Lower Skagit River 

50% 

- - - 

14,500 

8,434 1,926 4,140 

4,800 2,200 

400 900 

Skagit Spring 

Upper Sauk River Suiattle River Upper Cascade River 

38% 

- - - 

2,000 

986 574 440 

576 130 170 170 

Stillaguamish 

North Fork Stillaguamish River South Fork Stillaguamish River 

25% 

- - 

900 600 300 

650 3

500 3

- 

Snohomish 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

21% 

- - 

4,600 3,600 1,000 

2,800 

1,745 3

521 3

Lake Washington 

Cedar River Sammamish River 7

15% PT SUS 

- - 

- 

1,200 

- 

- 

200 3

- 

Green Duwamish-Green River 15% PT SUS 5,800 1,800 White River White River 20% 1,000 200 Puyallup Puyallup River 

 (South Prairie Creek Index Area) 

50% 

- 

- 

500 

500 

- 

Nisqually Nisqually River - 1,100 - Skokomish Skokomish River 15% PT SUS 3,650 5 1,300 6 Mid-Hood Canal Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 15% PT SUS 750 400 Dungeness Dungeness River 10% SUS 925 500 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

9 

Elwha Elwha River 10% SUS 2,900 1,000 Western Strait of Juan de Fuca Hoko River 10% SUS 950 500 

1 Populations are consistent with the populations preliminarily recognized by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The Western Strait of Juan de Fuca Management Unit is not within the Puget Sou

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). 

2 Exploitation rates are expressed as either total, southern United States (SUS), or pre-terminal southern United States (P

fishery includes all fisheries south of the border with Canada that may harvest listed Puget Sound chinook salmon. Thincludes both pre-terminal SUS and terminal SUS fisheries. The co-managers define a pre-terminal fishery as a “fishe

significant numbers of fish from more than one region of origin” (page 65 of the RMP). The co-managers define a term

“fishery, usually operating in an area adjacent to or in the mouth of a river, which harvests primarily fish from the loc

but may include more than one management unit” (page 65 of the RMP). The terminal SUS fisheries will vary by manmay occur in freshwater and marine areas. 

3 These thresholds are designated as representing natural-origin spawners by the co-managers. A natural-origin spawner 

spawning salmon that has spent essentially all of its life-cycle in the wild and whose parents spawned in the wild. “Na

spawner” is synonymous with “wild fish” in the RMP. “Natural spawner” is any naturally spawning salmon (hatchery 

4 The Nisqually Management Unit is managed to achieve a 1,100 natural spawner escapement goal. 5 Skokomish Management Unit’s upper escapement goal of 3,650 spawners is composed of 1,650 natural-origin spawne

hatchery-return spawners. If the recruit abundance is insufficient for the upper escapement goal to be met, or regardle

escapement, if the naturally spawning component of the Skokomish River population is expected to fall below 1,200 s

hatchery component is expected to result in less than 1,000 spawners, additional terminal fishery management measur

with a lower escapement objective of meeting or exceeding the 1,200 naturally spawning fish (see page 175 of the RM

6 Skokomish Management Unit’s low abundance threshold of 1,300 spawners is composed of 800 natural-origin spawne

return spawners. 

7 Usually referred to as the “north Lake Washington tributaries population” in the RMP. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

10 

The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates for individual chinook salmon populations may 

not be the same as the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates. The co-managers’ rebuilding 

exploitation rates are management unit based, which may contain more then one chinook salmon 

population. Some of the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates are based on the same risk criteria 

as those used by NMFS. However, other RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates are based on 

observed minimum exploitation rates or on harvest ceilings set by the Pacific Salmon Treaty. In 

addition, NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates are for all fishery-related mortality 

throughout the migratory range of Puget Sound chinook salmon. The RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rates are in terms of either total, southern United States (SUS), or pre-terminal 

southern United States (PT SUS) and may not be directly comparable to NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rates. 

The SUS fishery includes all fisheries south of the border with Canada that may harvest listed 

Puget Sound chinook salmon. This would include listed chinook salmon that are taken in 

fisheries off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and northern California. The SUS fishery includes 

both pre-terminal SUS and terminal SUS fisheries. The co-managers define a pre-terminal 

fishery as a “fishery that harvests significant numbers of fish from more than one region of 

origin” (page 65 of the RMP). The co-managers define a terminal fishery as a “fishery, usually 

operating in an area adjacent to or in the mouth of a river, which harvests primarily fish from the 

local region of origin, but may include more than one management unit. Non-local stocks may be 

present, particularly in marine terminal areas” (page 65 of the RMP). The terminal SUS fisheries 

will vary by management unit and may occur in freshwater and marine areas. 

Calculating a rebuilding exploitation rate ideally requires knowledge of a spawner-recruit 

relationship based on escapement, age composition, coded-wire tag distribution, environmental 

parameters, and management error (N. Sands, NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

(NWFSC), pers. com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, March 5, 2003). These types of data are available 

for several management units. The co-managers calculated the rebuilding exploitation rates using 

this method for the Skagit Summer/Fall, Skagit Spring, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish 

Management Units. 

The co-managers’ expectations are that application of these RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates 

will: (1) result in escapement levels that are less than the point of instability3

 no more than five 

percent more often than if no harvest had occurred over 25 or 40 years4

; and (2) lead to a high (at 

least 80 percent) probability that spawning escapements will increase in 25 or 40 years to a 

specified (upper) threshold, or that the percentage of escapements less than the RMP’s low 

abundance threshold at the end of 25 or 40 years will differ from a no-harvest regime by less 

than 10 percent (pages 13 and 14 of the RMP). Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of 

 

3

 The co-managers define the point of instability as “that level of population abundance (i.e., spawning 

escapement) that incurs substantial risk to genetic integrity, or exposes the stock to depensatory 

mortality factors” (page 65 of the RMP). 

4

 Based on co-manager’s expertise and explained in more detail in Appendix A: Management Unit Status 

Profiles of the RMP. The RMP uses a 25-year projection for the Stillaguamish and Snohomish 

Management Units in development of the proposed rebuilding exploitation rate. The co-managers used 

a 40-year projection for the Skagit Summer/Fall and Skagit Spring Management Units. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

11 

the RMP provides details on the methods the co-managers used to develop the RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rates, which are based on a spawner-recruit relationship. 

The data required to calculate a spawner-recruit relationship is not yet available for most Puget 

Sound chinook salmon populations. For the data-poor Lake Washington, Skokomish, and MidHood Canal Management Units, the co-managers generally established the RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rate at the lowest level of exploitation rates observed in the late 1990s 

(approximately 15 percent pre-terminal SUS). Overall, implementation of these lower 

exploitation rate levels by the co-managers has contributed to stable to increasing spawning 

escapement trends for populations within these management units. 

Impacts associated with terminal fisheries would not be included in a pre-terminal SUS 

exploitation rate. Similar to recent years, the co-managers propose that the terminal fisheries in 

the Lake Washington and Mid-Hood Canal Management Units would have an exploitation rate 

of less than 5 percent. With the implementation of the RMP, the Skokomish Management Unit’s 

terminal fisheries would be managed for a series of escapement objectives. The achievement of 

Skokomish Management Unit’s escapement objectives would dictate the appropriate terminal 

exploitation rate. 

Terminal fishery impacts are very low or non-existent in the Dungeness, Elwha, and Western 

Strait of Juan de Fuca Management Units. With the implementation of the RMP, the comanagers propose a rebuilding exploitation rate for these three management units of 10 percent 

SUS. The SUS fisheries include both pre-terminal SUS and terminal SUS fisheries. Thus, 

impacts associated with Alaska or Canadian fisheries would not be included in this SUS fishery 

exploitation rate limitation. 

(2) Upper Management Threshold 

Table 2 outlines the proposed RMP’s upper management thresholds. The co-managers define the 

upper management threshold as the “escapement level associated with optimum productivity (i.e. 

maximum sustainable harvest........)” (page 12 of the RMP). The co-managers calculated the 

RMP’s upper management threshold under current habitat conditions (page 13 of the RMP). The 

upper management thresholds proposed in the RMP equates to the upper escapement thresholds. 

The RMP’s annual management strategy depends on whether a harvestable surplus is forecast. A 

management unit is considered to have a harvestable surplus if the spawning escapement is 

expected to exceed its upper management threshold (page 12 of the RMP). The RMP prohibits 

directed harvest on listed populations of Puget Sound chinook salmon unless they have 

harvestable surplus. In other words, if a management unit does not have a harvestable surplus, 

then harvest-related mortality would be constrained to incidental impacts (see page 32 of the 

RMP). 

With an exception, the RMP states that the “projected exploitation rate for management units 

with no harvestable surplus [and above their lower abundance threshold] will not be allowed to 

exceed their rebuilding exploitation rate ceiling” (see page 33 of the RMP). The exception is 

associated with the chinook salmon harvest in Canadian fisheries, which were approved under 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

12 

the Pacific Salmon Treaty. For those management units affected by Canadian fisheries, in some 

years the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling may be the restraining limit on Puget Sound 

fisheries, with the total exploitation rate in that year exceeding the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation 

rate (see discussion of the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling below). 

The technical basis for the RMP’s upper management thresholds varies among management 

units (see footnotes on Table 12, page 43 of the RMP). For populations with sufficient 

information, the co-managers derived upper management thresholds using such methods as 

standard spawner-recruit calculations (Ricker 1975), empirical observations of relative 

escapement levels and catches, or Monte Carlo simulations that buffer for error and variability 

(Hayman 2003). The method used by the co-managers in establishing the upper management 

threshold for each management unit is described in Appendix A: Management Unit Status 

Profiles of the RMP. 

(3) Low Abundance Threshold 

Table 2 provides the RMP’s proposed low abundance thresholds. The co-managers define the 

low abundance threshold as a “spawning escapement level, set intentionally above the point of 

biological instability, which triggers extraordinary fisheries conservation measures to minimize 

fishery related impacts and increase spawning escapement” (page 63 of the RMP). 

The co-managers defined the RMP’s low abundance thresholds as: (1) the lowest escapement 

with a greater than one return per spawner ratio; (2) the forecasted escapement for which there is 

“acceptably low” probability that the observed escapement will be below the point of instability 

(see page 15 of the RMP); or (3) in cases where specific data were lacking, the co-managers 

derived the RMP’s low abundance threshold ”in accordance with scientific literature [such as the 

generic guidelines found in the Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) paper (NMFS 2000b)] or 

more subjectively, at annual escapement of 200 to 1,000” (see page 15 in the RMP). The method 

chosen by the co-managers depended on the quality and quantity of population-specific data 

available (see Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of the RMP). 

(4) Critical Exploitation Rate Ceiling 

The co-managers established a critical exploitation rate ceiling for all management units with a 

low abundance threshold (see Table 2). For most management units, the RMP’s critical 

exploitation rate ceiling imposes an upper limit on SUS exploitation rates when spawning 

escapement for a management unit is projected to fall below its low abundance threshold or if 

Canadian fisheries make it difficult or impossible to achieve the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation 

rate. The RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rate, the upper management threshold, and the low 

abundance threshold discussed above are primarily biologically-driven objectives. The RMP’s 

critical exploitation rate ceilings are primarily driven by policy consideration. 

The co-managers propose that the critical exploitation rate ceiling, when imposed on SUS 

fisheries, would result “in a significant reduction in incidental impacts on listed chinook 

salmon,” while providing “minimally acceptable access” to non-listed salmon species, including 

non-listed hatchery chinook salmon, for which harvestable surpluses have been identified (see 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

13 

page 15 of the RMP). The RMP provides a general description of the fisheries, which represents 

the lowest level of fishing mortality on listed chinook salmon proposed by the co-managers. A 

description of these minimal fisheries is outlined in Appendix C: Minimum Fisheries Regime of 

the RMP. 

For the majority of the management units, the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceilings are 

defined as an exploitation rate ceiling for the all SUS fisheries. For the Lake Washington, Green, 

Puyallup, Nisqually, Mid-Hood Canal and Skokomish Management Units, the RMP’s critical 

exploitation rate ceiling applies only to the pre-terminal SUS fisheries. For these units, the comanagers outline additional terminal fishery management conservation measures that may be 

considered (Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles and Appendix C: Minimum Fisheries 

Regime of the RMP). 

The RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceilings were established by the co-managers, after policy 

consideration of “recent fisheries regimes that responded to critical status for some management 

units” (see page 17 of the RMP). The co-managers’ position is that if further resource protection 

is necessary, it must be found by reducing exploitation rates in mixed-stock fisheries in Alaska 

and Canada, improving habitat conditions, and/or providing artificial supplementation where 

necessary and appropriate (see page 16 of the RMP). However, where analysis can demonstrate 

that additional conservation measures in fisheries would contribute substantially to recovery of a 

management unit, the co-managers may, at their discretion, and in concert with other specific 

habitat and enhancement actions, implement them (see page 34 of the RMP). 

Harvest in some coastal fisheries in British Columbia, Canada has increased recently, 

approaching the limits agreed to by the United States under Annex IV, Chapter 3 of the Pacific 

Salmon Treaty. Increased impacts on Puget Sound chinook salmon associated with Canadian 

fisheries may contribute to the total exploitation rates exceeding the proposed RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rate. During preseason planning, if the total exploitation rate for a management unit 

is projected to exceed the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rate for a given management unit, the 

co-managers propose to constrain their fisheries such that either the RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rate is not exceeded or the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling is not exceeded. 

The RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling, in this circumstance, would constrain SUS fisheries 

to the same degree as if the abundance were below the low abundance threshold (see page 35 of 

the RMP). Modeling exercises by the co-managers demonstrate the potential for the total 

exploitation rate to exceed the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rate in several management units 

during the duration of the proposed RMP. 

Anticipated impacts under the implementation of the RMP: 

The co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS, have modeled the anticipated impacts under the 

implementation of the RMP. Appendix A of this evaluation contains the individual model run 

results. Table 3 provides the anticipated range of exploitation rates and anticipated escapements 

for Puget Sound chinook salmon under the implementation of the RMP. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

14 

Table 3. Anticipated range of the annual total exploitation rates, southern United States (SUS) 

exploitation rates, and escapements for Puget Sound chinook salmon by management 

unit under the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010. 

Unless otherwise noted, exploitation rates and escapements are for natural fish. 

Management 

Unit 

Range of 

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rates 

Range of 

Anticipated 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rates 

Range of 

Anticipated 

Pre-terminal 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rates 

Range of 

Anticipated 

Escapements 

Nooksack (early) 1 20 to 26% 7% 2 to 3% 252 to 388

Skagit Summer/Fall 48 to 56% 16 to 18% 2 8 to 9% 7,551 to 11,633

Skagit Spring 23 to 28% 14 to 15% 12 to 13% 1,270 to 1,921

Stillaguamish 1

 17 to 20% 11 to 12% 10 to 11% 1,584 to 2,322

Snohomish 1 19 to 23% 13 to 14% 11 to 12% 3,399 to 5,073

Lake Washington 31 to 38% 20 to 23% 9 to 10% 428 to 610

Duwamish-Green 49 to 63% 36 to 51% 9 to 10% 5,800 EG 3

White 20% 17 to 19% 8 to 9% 1,011 to 1,468

Puyallup 49 to 50% 35 to 39% 9 to 10% 1,798 to 2,419

Nisqually 64 to 76% 53 to 68% 24 to 26% 1,100 EG 3

Skokomish 45 to 63% 26 to 50% 12 to 13% 1,200 EG 3

Mid-Hood Canal 26 to 34% 12 to 13% 12 to 13% 344 to 531

Dungeness 22 to 29% 5% 4 to 5% 231 to 356

Elwha 22 to 30% 5% 4 to 5% 1,395 to 2,125

1

 Based on natural-origin fish. 

2

 Based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and 

abundance. Anomalous age structure and the presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 make the 

estimates of exploitation rates used in this modeling a likely overestimate of the harvest impacts. 

The SUS exploitation rates are more likely to be similar to recent years, 6 to 18 percent 

exploitation rates. 

3

 Management units are managed by the co-managers to achieve natural spawner escapement 

goals (EGs). 

Two variables were used in the modeling of the future fisheries to provide these anticipated 

ranges of exploitation rates and anticipated escapements. These variables were abundance of 

returning salmon and impacts associated with the level of Canadian fisheries. 

Abundance Variable - The modeled salmon abundance in 2003 was used to estimate the upper 

end of the annual abundance returns under the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 

through April 2010. A 30 percent reduction from the 2003 abundance was used to represent the 

lower range of modeled returns. This range of modeled abundance is considered conservative. 

Given the general trend of stable to increasing abundance, which will be discussed later in this 

document, it is likely that if the actual abundance in the next five years falls outside this range, 

the actual abundance would most likely be greater. Of these two abundance scenarios, the most 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

15 

likely abundance to occur under the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 

2010 is the abundance at the 2003 level. 

Canadian Fisheries Variable - Depending on the management unit, Canadian fisheries on 

average, can account for the majority of the total fishery-related mortality (Table 4). The 

proportion of fishery-related mortality on individual populations within the ESU by Canadian 

fisheries has ranged from 4.5 percent for the population in the White River Management Unit to 

75.7 percent for populations in the Nooksack Management Unit. The management of Canadian 

fisheries is outside the jurisdiction of the co-managers. 

Table 4. The average distribution of fishery-related mortality for the management seasons 1996 

to 2000, by management unit (Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) 2003). Canadian 

fisheries, on average, have accounted for over 50 percent of the fishery-related 

mortality in the Nooksack, Skagit Spring, Stillaguamish, and Elwha Management 

Units. 

Management Unit Alaska British 

Columbia, 

Canada 

Washington 

Troll 

Puget 

Sound 

Net 

Washington 

Recreational 

Nooksack 1.6% 75.7% 1.5% 3.0% 18.3% 

Skagit Summer/Fall 1 2.3% 43.0% 1.8% 40.2% 12.7% 

Skagit Spring 1.0% 51.4% 1.2% 7.1% 39.2% 

Stillaguamish 17.8% 50.3% 0.3% 2.6% 29.1% 

Snohomish 1.7% 23.2% 6.2% 54.8% 14.1% 

Lake Washington - - - - - 

Green 2.1% 30.1% 9.4% 23.7% 37.7% 

White 0.0% 4.5% 0.6% 3.5% 91.4% 

Puyallup - - - - - 

Nisqually 0.5% 14.5% 2.6% 44.9% 37.6% 

Skokomish 1.7% 37.4% 9.0% 7.2% 44.7% 

Mid-Hood Canal - - - - - 

Dungeness - - - - - 

Elwha 2

 16.2% 58.8% 1.9% 0.8% 22.3% 

1 Samish River. 

2

 The 1993 to 1997 average distribution of fishery-related mortality for the Elwha River was obtained 

from Table 3, page 185 of the RMP. 

The level of Canadian fisheries is an important consideration in anticipating potential impacts 

into the future. In recent years, Canadian fisheries have not harvested chinook salmon at levels 

allowed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty due to internal Canadian conservation issues. These 

conservation concerns primarily pertain to depressed west coast Vancouver Island chinook 

salmon and Thompson River coho salmon populations (NMFS 2003a). 

Under the implementation of the RMP, it is unclear if Canadian conservation actions will 

continue or if impacts will increase to maximum levels allowed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

In modeling the Canadian fisheries, the impacts similar to fisheries in 2003 were used to 

represent the lower range of anticipated impacts. Maximum harvest levels allowed under the 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

16 

Pacific Salmon Treaty were modeled to represent the upper range of impacts associated with 

Canadian fisheries. This proposed evaluation used the modeling based on the maximum harvest 

levels under the Pacific Salmon Treaty as the most likely to occur within this range. 

Table 5 provides the most likely exploitation rate and escapement numbers within modeled 

forecasts for Puget Sound chinook salmon by management unit or population under the RMP. 

However, some caution must be exercised in using the results from this forecast modeling. For 

example, the 2003 fishery was used to model impacts for future fisheries. In 2003, the Skagit 

River chinook salmon return had an anomalously high estimated percentage of age-2 and age-3 

fish. Age-2 and age-3 contribute little to natural spawning escapement in the Skagit River (B. 

Hayman, Skagit River System Cooperative, e-mail to S. Bishop, NMFS, January 28, 2004). 

Therefore, the estimated exploitation rate of 48 percent in 2003 is likely an overestimate of the 

actual exploitation rate experienced by the individual brood years present in that year. An 

exploitation rate of 36 percent is estimated for the individual brood years represented in 2003, 12 

percentage points less than what was used in the modeling (B. Hayman, Skagit River System 

Cooperative, e-mail to S. Bishop, NMFS, January 28, 2004). In addition, 2003 was a high return 

year in the two-year pink salmon high-low abundance cycle. A higher exploitation rate on 

chinook salmon would be expected, when compared to low abundance pink salmon years. 

Incidental harvest of chinook salmon occurs in pink salmon directed fisheries. 

Through forecast modeling, using 2003 as a base year, the anticipated range of the SUS 

exploitation rates is 16 to 18 percent for the Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit (see Table 3). 

The actual SUS exploitation rates under the implementation of the RMP for the Skagit 

Summer/Fall Management Unit would most likely remain within what has been seen in recent 

years (B. Hayman, Skagit River System Cooperative, e-mail to S. Bishop, NMFS, January 28, 

2004). The SUS exploitation rates on this management unit have ranged from 6 to 18 percent 

since 1999, with an average exploitation rate of 12 percent. The average exploitation rate of 12 

percent is 4 percentage points less than the modeled exploitation rate assumed under the 

implementation of the RMP for the Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit. Modeling results for 

this management unit, as depicted in Table 3 and Table 5, should be considered conservative, 

with the actual future exploitation rates likely less. 

The co-managers will provide annual fishing-related mortality information as well as 

information on escapement for all populations identified in the RMP. The co-managers and 

NMFS will continue to evaluate the status and trends of populations, which may lead 

modification of the co-managers’ proposed management of the fisheries. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

17 

Table 5. The most likely total exploitation rates, southern United States (SUS) exploitation rates, and escapem

the modeled forecasts under the implementation of the RMP by Puget Sound chinook salmon managpopulation. 

Management Unit 

Population 

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Pre-terminal 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipa

Escapem

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack South Fork Nooksack 

25% 

- - 

7% 

- - 

2 % 

- - 

365 164 201 

Skagit Summer/Fall 2

Natural Spawners: Upper Skagit River Lower Sauk River Lower Skagit River 

55% 

- - - 

16% 

- - - 

8% 

- - - 

11,02

9,258 

588 

1,182 

Skagit Spring Natural Spawners: 

Upper Sauk River Suiattle River Upper Cascade River 

27% 

- - - 

14% 

- - - 

13% 

- - - 

1,845 

683 621 539 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River S.F. Stillaguamish River 

19% 

- - 

11% 

- - 

10% 

- - 

2,281 1,860 

421 

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

22% 

- - 

13% 

- - 

11% 

- - 

4,901 2,385 2,516 

Lake Washington Natural Spawners: 

Cedar River Sammamish River 

35% 

- - 

20% 

- - 

10% 

- - 

588 294 294 

Green Natural Spawners: 

Duwamish-Green River 63% 47% 10% 5,800 E

White Natural Spawners: 

White River 20% 18% 9% 1,459 

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 50% 35% 10% 2,419 

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

18 

Nisqually River 76% 65% 26% 1,100 E

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 63% 44% 12% 1,200 E

Mid-Hood Canal Natural Spawners: 

Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 32% 13% 12% 504 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 27% 5% 4% 336 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 

Elwha River 27% 5% 4% 2,031 

1 A general description of these minimal fisheries, as proposed by the co-managers, is outlined in Appendix C: Minimum F

the RMP.

2 Information presented is based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and ab

Anomalous age structure and the presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 make the estimates of exploitation rates used likely overestimate of the harvest impacts. The SUS exploitation rates are more likely to be similar to recent rears, 6 to 1

exploitation rates. 

3 These management units are managed by the co-managers to achieve a natural spawner escapement goal or “EG.” 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

19 

(3) Section (b)(4)(i)(A) Defines populations within affected Evolutionarily Significant Units, 

taking into account: spatial and temporal distribution, genetic and phenotypic diversity, 

and other appropriate identifiably unique biological and life history traits. 

The TRT, in cooperation with the co-managers, has completed a preliminary analysis to identify 

populations of chinook salmon within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (PSTRT 2003). 

The RMP’s delineation of populations within the ESU is the same as those preliminarily 

recognized by the Puget Sound TRT. The TRT reviewed several sources of information in 

deriving the preliminarily recognized delineations. These sources of information include 

geography, migration rates, genetic attributes, patterns of life history and phenotypic 

characteristics, population dynamics, and environmental and habitat characteristics of potential 

populations (NMFS 2004b). The TRT has identified 22 demographically independent 

populations within the ESU, representing the primary historical spawning areas of chinook 

salmon (PSTRT 2003). The annual escapement of populations within the ESU since 1990 is 

provided in Table 6. 

To assist the co-managers in analyzing the impacts of their management actions, the RMP 

categorizes each chinook salmon population according to the population’s life history and 

production characteristics. The co-managers used this method to assign populations to one of 

three possible watershed based categories. A description of Category 1, Category 2, and 

Category 3 watersheds follows: 

Category 1 - Category 1 watersheds are areas where populations are genetically unique and 

indigenous to Puget Sound. Maintaining genetic diversity and integrity, and achieving abundance 

levels for long-term sustainability are the highest priorities for these populations. The 

management objective for Category 1 populations is to protect and recover these indigenous 

populations. The intent is to rebuild and manage for natural production. The co-managers 

propose to manage fisheries to meet interim escapement goals and/or the rebuilding exploitation 

rates for Category 1 populations based on the co-managers’ understanding of natural chinook 

salmon production requirements for each population. The co-managers designated 17 of the 22 

populations within the ESU as Category 1 (Table 7). 

The status of Category 1 populations within the ESU varies. Some populations have fallen to 

such low levels that the ability to maintain their genetic diversity may be at risk. In some cases, 

lacking hatchery operations, populations would likely decline to very low levels or go extinct. In 

one case at least, the number of hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally may be a concern, in part 

because it may be masking the ability to evaluate the actual productivity of the natural-origin 

population. Other populations are more robust and the abundance levels are above what is 

needed to sustain genetic diversity, but often not at levels that will sustain maximum yield. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

20 

Table 6. Natural-origin or natural escapement for Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, 1990 to 2002. 

Management Unit 

Population 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack South Fork Nooksack 

142 

6 

136 

444 

87 

357 

403 345 

58 

444 285 159 

113 

26 87 

421 175 246 

353 210 143 

223 121 102 

128 

39 89 

255 

91 

164 

Skagit Summer/Fall 

Natural Spawners: Upper Skagit River 1

Lower Sauk River 1

Lower Skagit River 1

16,792 11,793 

1,294 3,705 

5,824 3,656 

658 

1,510 

7,348 5,548 

469 

1,331 

5,801 4,654 

205 942 

5,549 4,565 

100 884 

6,877 5,948 

263 666 

10,613 

7,989 1,103 1,521 

4,872 4,168 

295 409 

14,609 11,761 

460 

2,388 

4,924 3,586 

295 

1,043 

Skagit Spring 

Natural Spawners: Upper Sauk River 1

Suiattle River 1Upper Cascade River 1

1,511 

557 685 269 

1,346 

747 464 135 

986 580 201 205 

783 323 292 168 

470 130 167 173 

855 190 440 225 

1,051 

408 435 208 

1,041 

305 428 308 

1,086 

290 473 323 

471 180 208 

83 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River S.F. Stillaguamish River 

701 434 267 

1,279 

978 301 

716 422 294 

725 380 345 

743 456 287 

654 431 223 

935 684 251 

839 613 226 

863 615 248 

767 514 253 

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

3,662 2,551 1,111 

2,447 1,951 

496 

2,242 1,642 

600 

3,190 

942 

2,248 

2,039 1,478 

561 

1,252 1,144 

108 

2,379 1,719 

660 

3,517 1,696 1,821 

2,919 1,500 1,419 

2,430 1,382 1,048 

Lake Washington 

Natural Spawners: Cedar River 1, 2

Sammamish River 3

787 469 318 

661 508 153 

790 525 265 

245 156 

89 

888 452 436 

930 681 249 

336 303 

33 

294 227 

67 

697 432 265 

778 241 537 

Green River Natural Spawners: 

Duwamish-Green River 7,035 10,548 5,267 2,476 4,078 7,939 6,026 9,967 7,300 6 9,100 6 

White River Natural Spawners: 

White River 275 194 406 409 392 605 628 402 316 553 

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 4

S. Prairie Creek Index Area 4

3,515 

- 

1,702 

- 

3,034 1,999 

- 

1,328 

798 

2,344 1,408 

2,111 1,268 

1,110 

667 

1,711 1,028 

1,988 1,430 

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 

Nisqually River 994 953 106 1,655 1,730 817 606 340 834 1,399 

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 642 1,719 825 960 657 1,398 995 452 1,177 6 1,692 6 

Mid-Hood Canal 

Natural Spawners Mid-Hood Canal Rivers: Hamma Hamma River 5

Duckabush River 5Dosewallips River 5

- 

35 10 

1 

86 30 14 42 

96 52 

3 

41 

112 

28 17 67 

384 

78 

9 

297 

103 

25 

2 

76 

- 

11 13 

- 

- - - - 

287 172 

57 58 

762 557 151 

54 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 310 163 158 43 65 163 183 50 110 75 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

21 

Elwha River 6, 7 2,956 3,361 1,222 1,562 1,216 1,150 1,608 2,517 2,358 1,602 

ESU Total 39,964 29,240 26,284 19,457 20,887 25,610 27,773 26,380 36,238 27,326 3

1 The majority are natural-origin spawner. 2 The escapement estimates for the Cedar River are based on an expansion of a live count of fish. However, Cedar River re

that this expansion of the live count may be a conservative estimate of the total escapement (P. Hage, Muckleshoot Tribe

Bishop, NMFS, February 10, 2004). 

3 Does not include escapement into the Upper Cottage Lake Creek, which has been surveyed since 1998. Surveys of the Up

Creek have exceeded 100 fish (S. Foley, WDFW, pers. com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, February 19, 2004). Escapement couinclude spawners in Issaquah Creek, which are believed to be primarily Issaquah Hatchery returns (N. Sands, NMFS, e-m

NMFS, February 26, 2004). Therefore, escapement information presented is a conservative estimate of the total Sammampopulation’s escapement. 

4 The area surveyed for the South Prairie Creek index increased from 1.5 to 12.5 stream miles in 1994. Escapement results 

were provided by W. Beattie, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), on January 31, 2004. 

5 Escapement information obtained from the RMP. 6 Escapement information provided by W. Beattie, NWIFC, on February 4, 2004. 7 Escapement is considered in-river gross escapement plus hatchery voluntary escapement minus pre-spawning mortality. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

22 

Table 7. The RMP’s assigned categories and run timing of the chinook salmon 

populations within the ESU. 

RMP’s 

Management Unit 

RMP’s 

Populations 

RMP’s 

Assigned 

Population

Category 

Run Timing 

Nooksack North Fork Nooksack River 

South Fork Nooksack River 

1 

1 

Early 

Early 

Skagit Summer/Fall Upper Skagit River 

Lower Sauk River 

Lower Skagit River 

1 

1 

1 

Summer 

Summer 

Fall 

Skagit 

Spring 

Upper Sauk River 

Suiattle River 

Upper Cascade River 

1 

1 

1 

Spring 

Spring 

Spring 

Stillaguamish North Fork Stillaguamish River 

South Fork Stillaguamish River

1 

1 

Summer 

Fall 

Snohomish Skykomish River 

Snoqualmie River 

1 

1 

Summer 

Fall 

Lake Washington Cedar River 

Sammamish River 

1 

2 

Fall 

Fall 

Green Duwamish-Green River 1 Fall 

White White River 1 Spring 

Puyallup Puyallup River 2 Fall 

Nisqually Nisqually River 2 Fall 

Skokomish Skokomish River 2 Fall 

Mid-Hood Canal Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 2 Fall 

Dungeness Dungeness River 1 Summer 

Elwha Elwha River 1 Summer 

Category 2 - Category 2 watersheds are areas where indigenous populations are believed to no 

longer exist, but where sustainable wild populations existed historically. The co-managers 

believe that self-sustaining natural production is possible in Category 2 watersheds given suitable 

or productive habitat. Five Category 2 populations within the ESU have been identified by the 

co-managers (Table 7). 

Category 2 populations are primarily found in southern Puget Sound and Hood Canal where 

hatchery production has been used extensively to mitigate for natural production lost to habitat 

degradation. Historically, these areas were managed for hatchery production. Consequently, in 

many of these systems, hatchery and natural fish are currently indistinguishable on the spawning 

grounds. In the future, on-going mass marking programs implemented at regional hatcheries will 

provide a means to distinguish between hatchery-origin and natural-origin adult chinook salmon 

on the spawning grounds. Given degraded habitat conditions within these watersheds, the comanagers’ goal of harvest management is to provide sufficient escapement to the spawning 

grounds to increase natural productivity. Future decisions regarding the form and timing of 

recovery efforts in these watersheds will dictate the kinds of harvest actions that may be 

necessary and appropriate. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

23 

The co-managers have assigned populations to Category 2 based on current information. 

Ongoing monitoring and studies may identify remnant indigenous populations, which if found, 

may cause the population to be reassigned to Category 1. Decisions by the TRT about roles of 

these populations in the ESU may also require the populations to be re-categorized. The RMP 

includes monitoring and evaluation elements that will assist the TRT in these decisions. 

Additionally, the co-managers recognize that there is ongoing work by the TRT and other 

resource agencies or organizations that may also affect future harvest actions. 

Category 3 - Category 3 watersheds are where spawning chinook salmon are generally found in 

small tributaries that may now have some natural spawning, but never historically had 

independent, self-sustaining populations of chinook salmon. Chinook salmon in these watersheds 

are probably hatchery strays or progeny from hatchery strays. Consistent with the TRT guidance, 

these small tributary spawning aggregations characteristic of Category 3 watersheds do not meet 

the current definition of an independent population. Therefore, the TRT has not identified any 

populations in these watersheds as part of the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU. Several 

Category 3 watersheds were identified in the 2001 RMP by the co-managers to characterize the 

chinook salmon spawning (PSIT and WDFW 2001). However, similar to the 2003 RMP (PSIT 

and WDFW 2003), the RMP does not identify or establish management objectives for any 

Category 3 watersheds, but focuses on Category 1 and Category 2 watersheds where the 

spawning aggregates meet the criteria for all of the extant independent populations identified by 

the TRT. NMFS’ assessment only considers those populations the TRT has identified in the 

Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU (Category 1 and Category 2), and therefore will consider the 

effects of the proposed fisheries in Category 3 watersheds only to the extent they affect the 

populations identified by the TRT. 

There are two main reasons why naturally spawning chinook salmon may not be designated as 

an independent population. First, spawning adults are known to occur intermittently in certain 

streams, spawning in the tens to hundreds in some years and none in others. A plausible 

biological explanation for intermittent occurrence of chinook salmon in some streams is that 

those adults are part of a larger independent population that uses the spawning habitat only 

during years of high abundance or favorable habitat conditions (NMFS 2004b). While these 

areas may not contain independent populations, the TRT may conclude that fish and habitat 

outside independent population boundaries may be important for the viability of the ESU (NMFS 

2001). Second, in streams currently containing chinook salmon but which never historically 

supported naturally spawning chinook salmon, the natural spawning chinook salmon present may 

be of hatchery origin (NMFS 2004b). As additional information is gained in some of these 

systems, one or more populations may be identified and assigned to Category 1 or Category 2 by 

the co-managers. 

In the RMP, the Nooksack, Skagit Summer/Fall, Skagit Spring, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and 

Lake Washington Management Units include multiple populations. The co-managers aggregated 

populations within these management units for several reasons: (1) information is currently 

insufficient to derive population-specific objectives; (2) there is no information suggesting the 

populations are exploited unequally in mixed-population fisheries, and none of the populations 

have discrete extreme terminal areas where they could be harvested independently; (3) the 

populations have similar migration timing, catch distribution and productivity such that harvest 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

24 

objectives should also be similar; or (4) objectives have been derived for each population, and 

the management unit as a whole is managed to achieve the most constraining population 

objective. NMFS’ evaluation took into consideration the adequacy of the RMP’s population(s) 

structure of the management units in determining whether the RMP would not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU. 

(4) Section (b)(4)(i)(B) Uses the concepts of ‘‘viable’’ and ‘‘critical’’ salmonid population 

thresholds, consistent with concepts in the Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) paper 

(NMFS 2000b).

The regulations in the ESA 4(d) Rule require that the RMP must use the concepts of “viable” and 

“critical” thresholds in a manner so that fishery management actions: (1) recognize significant 

differences in risk associated with viable and critical population threshold states; and (2) respond 

accordingly to minimize long-term risks to population persistence. The RMP defines its own 

upper management and low abundance thresholds, but these are readily comparable to the viable 

and critical thresholds. Given considerations of actions in the other “Hs” (Habitat, Hatchery, and 

Hydropower), harvest actions that impact populations that are currently at or above their viable 

thresholds must maintain the population or management unit at or above that level. Fishingrelated mortality on populations above critical levels but not at viable levels (as demonstrated 

with a high degree of confidence) must not appreciably slow rebuilding to viable function. 

Fishing-related mortality to populations functioning at or below their critical thresholds must not 

appreciably increase genetic and demographic risks facing the population and must be designed 

to permit achievement of viable functions, unless the RMP demonstrates the likelihood of 

survival and recovery of the entire ESU in the wild would not be appreciably reduced by greater 

risks to an individual population. 

As required by the ESA 4(d) Rule, the harvest regime specified by the co-managers in the RMP 

takes into account the different risks facing a population depending on the status of the 

population: above the upper management threshold; below the upper management threshold but 

above a low abundance threshold, as defined by the RMP; or below the defined low abundance 

threshold. In most cases, the co-managers have set the low abundance threshold intentionally 

above what would be defined by the VSP paper as the critical threshold under current conditions. 

After taking into account uncertainty, the critical threshold is defined as a point under current 

conditions below which: (1) depensatory processes are likely to reduce the population below 

replacement; (2) the population is at risk from inbreeding depression or fixation of deleterious 

mutations; or (3) productivity variation due to demographic stochasticity becomes a substantial 

source of risk (see page 15 of NMFS 2000b). A viable population is defined as: (1) a population 

large enough to have a high probability of surviving environmental variation of the patterns and 

magnitudes observed in the past and expected in the future; (2) a population with sufficient 

abundance for compensatory processes to provide resilience to environmental and anthropogenic 

perturbation; (3) a population sufficiently large to maintain its genetic diversity over the long 

term; and (4) a population sufficiently abundant to provide important ecological functions 

throughout its life-cycle (see page 14 of NMFS 2000b). Population status evaluations should take 

uncertainty regarding abundance into account.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

25 

However, viable and critical thresholds in the context of this evaluation are a level of spawning 

escapement associated with rebuilding to recovery, consistent with current environmental 

conditions. For most populations, these thresholds are well below the escapement levels 

associated with recovery, but achieving these goals under current conditions is a necessary step 

to eventual recovery when habitat and other conditions are more favorable. Survival and 

recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU will depend, over the long term, on necessary 

actions in other sectors, especially habitat actions, and not on harvest actions alone. There is an 

on going recovery planning effort for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. Completion of the 

recovery plan and decisions regarding the form and timing of recovery efforts described in the 

recovery plan will determine the kinds of harvest actions that may be necessary and appropriate 

in the future. Absent that guidance at the time of this writing, NMFS must evaluate the proposed 

harvest actions by examining the impacts of harvest within the current context. Therefore, NMFS 

has evaluated the future performance of populations in the ESU under recent productivity 

conditions; i.e., assuming that the impact of hatchery and habitat management actions remain as 

they are now. 

NMFS has completed a comprehensive analysis to derive viable and critical thresholds for a 

subset of Puget Sound chinook salmon populations under current habitat and environmental 

conditions (Table 8). A more detailed description of the process NMFS used in deriving these 

population-specific viable and critical thresholds is presented in Appendix C: Technical Methods 

- Derivation of Chinook Management Objectives and Fishery Impact Modeling Methods of the 

environmental impact statement on the proposed determination of this RMP (Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management 

Plan). The NMFS-derived viable and critical thresholds were used to develop rebuilding 

exploitation rates for these same populations. NMFS developed the critical thresholds after 

consideration of genetic, demographic, and spatial risk factors for each population. NMFS’ 

rebuilding exploitation rate was derived by using a simulation model to identify an exploitation 

rate that meets specific criteria related to both survival and recovery, given the specified 

thresholds and estimated spawner/recruit parameters (NMFS 2000a). 

The simulation used the population-specific threshold levels to identify a rebuilding exploitation 

rate that met the following criteria: (a) Did the percentage of escapements less than the critical 

threshold value increase by less than five percentage points relative to the baseline and either (b) 

Does the escapement at the end of the 25-year simulation exceed the viable threshold at least 80 

percent of the time or (c) Does the percentage of escapements less than the viable threshold at 

the end of the 25-year simulation differ from the no-fishing baseline by less than 10 percentage 

points. These criteria are similar, or identical, to the criteria used by the co-managers in 

developing several of the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates. See Appendix C: Technical 

Methods - Derivation of Chinook Management Objectives and Fishery Impact Modeling 

Methods of the FEIS on the proposed determination for additional information on how NMFS 

developed its rebuilding exploitation rates (page 24 of the FEIS). 

Table 8 compares the RMP’s low abundance (lower) and upper management (upper) thresholds 

with the NMFS-derived critical (lower) and viable (upper) thresholds. For populations lacking 

the NMFS-derived critical and viable population thresholds, generic guidance from the VSP 

paper or available analyses of habitat capacity (such as using Ecosystems Diagnosis and 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

26 

Treatment methodology) have been used to assist NMFS in evaluating the proposed RMP’s 

thresholds. 

Generic guidance from the VSP paper suggests that effective population sizes of less than 500 to 

5,000 fish per generation are at increased risk (NMFS 2000b). The population size range per 

generation was converted to an annual spawner abundance range of 125 to 1,250 fish by dividing 

by four, which is the approximate generation length for Puget Sound chinook salmon. The VSP 

generic guidance for a critical threshold of 200 fish has been used to evaluate the RMP’s 

proposed thresholds for populations lacking the NMFS-derived critical thresholds. 

The VSP paper also suggests that effective population sizes of 5,000 to 16,700 fish are robust 

against most sources of risk (NMFS 2000b). Using the same average generation length of four 

years, the annual spawner range would be 1,250 to 4,175 spawners. Where the actual viable 

thresholds fall within these ranges depends on the characteristics of the populations themselves. 

The viable threshold of 1,250 fish, or when available, the analyses of habitat capacity have been 

used to evaluate populations lacking the NMFS-derived viable thresholds. The co-managers have 

completed several habitat studies for select systems within the ESU. These studies estimate the 

chinook salmon production potential of those systems under current conditions. When available, 

NMFS used the results from these studies to assess the risk of the thresholds in the RMP for 

those management units that lack the NMFS-derived viable thresholds. 

These VSP-derived thresholds offer only general guidance as to what generally represents points 

of stability or instability. Some population may be fairly robust at very low abundances, while 

other populations in large river systems may become unstable at higher abundances depending 

on resource location and spawner density. However, without population-specific information, 

NMFS believes these generic guidelines offer the best available information. 

The use of the threshold concept by the RMP is required by the ESA 4(d) Rule. A population 

will be identified in this proposed evaluation as having a potential increased level of risk5 when 

the abundance of that population does not meet its critical threshold. In this evaluation, 

populations with abundance slightly above the critical threshold will also be highlighted and 

identified as of a population of concern. Additional discussion of the populations identified with 

an increased level of risk or concern, in regards to the likelihood of survival and recovery of the 

ESU, will be provided in Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

The trend in escapement was also considered in evaluating the population’s status. In March 

1999, the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU was listed as a threatened species under the ESA. 

A general post-listing assessment of each population’s escapement trend as either decreasing, 

remaining stable or increasing can be made by comparing the 1999 to 2002 average escapement 

with the 1990 to 1998 average escapement (Table 8). The following system was used to 

determine the trend of the populations: 

 

5 When compared to populations at or above its critical threshold.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

27 

Increasing - The trend of a population was considered increasing if the difference in the 1999 to 

2002 average escapement was greater than 10 percent above the pre-listing 1990 to 1998 average 

escapement; 

Decreasing - The trend of a population was considered decreasing if the difference in the 1999 to 

2002 average escapement was less than 10 percent below the pre-listing 1990 to 1998 average 

escapement; and 

Stable - The trend of a population was considered stable if the difference in the 1999 to 2002 

average escapement was within 10 percent the pre-listing 1990 to 1998 average escapement. 

One of the criteria for Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule is that harvest actions that impact 

populations at or above their viable thresholds must maintain the population or management unit 

at or above that level (50 C.F.R. 223.203(b)(4)(i)(B)). Nine of the twenty-two Puget Sound 

Chinook Salmon ESU populations are above their respective viable thresholds (Table 9). Based 

on the method described above, all populations above their respective viable thresholds have a 

stable (two populations) to increasing (seven populations) trend in escapement (Table 9). 

Overall, along with other on-going habitat and hatchery programs, the results of harvest actions 

since the ESA listing of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU appears to be maintaining these 

populations above the viable threshold levels as required by the ESA 4(d) Rule. 

Another criterion for Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule is that fishing-related mortality on 

populations above critical levels, but not at viable levels (as demonstrated with a high degree of 

confidence), must not appreciably slow achievement to viable function. Twelve populations are 

above their respective critical levels, but below their respective viable levels (Table 9). Of these, 

four populations have a stable escapement trend and eight populations have an increasing 

escapement trend (Table 9). Overall, along with other on-going habitat and hatchery programs, 

the results of harvest actions since the ESA listing of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU 

appears to have not appreciably slowed achievement to viable function for these populations, as 

required by the ESA 4(d) Rule. 

The criterion for populations at or below their critical thresholds is that fishing-related mortality 

on the population must not appreciably increase genetic and demographic risks facing the 

population, and does not preclude achievement of viable functions, unless the RMP demonstrates 

the likelihood of survival and recovery of the entire ESU in the wild would not be appreciably 

reduced by greater risks to an individual population. Only one population in the ESU, the North 

Fork Nooksack River population, is considered to be below its critical threshold (Table 9). A 

discussion concerning the status of the North Fork Nooksack River population follows. 

North Fork Nooksack River Population - The 1999 to 2002 four-year average natural-origin 

spawning escapement for the North Fork Nooksack River population, which includes the Middle 

Fork Nooksack River, is 180 fish. The four-year average abundance of the North Fork Nooksack 

River population falls below the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish. The North Fork 

Nooksack River natural-origin population has an increasing escapement trend since listing 

(Table 9). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

28 

Table 8. Recent average annual escapement levels compared with the RMP’s and the NMFSderived lower and upper thresholds for Puget Sound chinook salmon management units 

and individual populations. 

Management 

Unit 

Population 

1990 to 

1998 

Average 

Escapement 

1999 to 

2002 

Average 

Escapement 

RMP’s 

Threshold 

Lower Upper 

NMFS-derived 

Thresholds 

Lower 1

 Upper 2

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack 

South Fork Nooksack 

297 

144 

153 

429 

180 

249 

- 

1,000 

1,000 

4,000 

2,000 

2,000 

400 

200 

200 

500 

- 

- 

Skagit 

Summer/Fall 

Natural Spawners: 

Upper Skagit River 

Lower Sauk River 

Lower Skagit River 

8,698 

6,676 

539 

1,484 

13,810 

10,144 

721 

2,944 

4,800 

2,200 

400 

900 

14,500 

8,434 

1,926 

4,140 

- 

967 

200 

251 

- 

7,454 

681 

2,182 

Skagit 

Spring 

Natural Spawners: 

Upper Sauk River 

Suiattle River 

Upper Cascade River 

1,014 

392 

398 

224 

1,075 

364 

380 

330 

576 

130 

170 

170 

2,000 

986 

574 

440 

- 

130 

170 

170 

- 

330 

400 

- 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River 

S.F. Stillaguamish River 

828 

557 

271 

980 

697 

283 

650 

500 

- 

900 

600 

300 

- 

300 

200 

- 

552 

300 

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River 

Snoqualmie River 

2,627 

1,625 

1,003 

3,936 

2,118 

1,818 

2,800 

1,745 

521 

4,600 

3,600 

1,000 

- 

1,650 

400 

- 

3,500 

- 

Lake Washington Natural Spawners: 

Cedar River 

Sammamish River 

624 

417 

208 

767 

385 

373 

- 

200 

- 

- 

1,200 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Green River Natural Spawners: 

Duwamish-Green River 6,737 9,299 1,800 5,800 835 5,523 

White River Natural Spawners: 

White River 403 1,220 200 1,000 - - 

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 

 South Prairie Cr. Index Area 

2,173 

1,032 

1,672 

1,029 

500 

- 

- 

500 

- - 

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 

Nisqually River 893 1,318 - 1,100 - - 

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 981 1,503 1,300 3 3,650 4 - - 

Mid-Hood Canal Natural Spawners: 

Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 178 404 400 750 - - 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 138 345 500 925 - - 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 

Elwha River 1,994 2,009 1,000 2,900 - - 

1

 Critical threshold under current habitat and environmental conditions. 2

 Viable thresholds under current habitat and environmental conditions 3

 Skokomish Management Unit’s critical escapement threshold of 1,300 spawners is composed of 800 natural-origin spawners 

and 500 hatchery-return spawners. 4

 Skokomish Management Unit’s escapement goal of 3,650 spawners is composed of 1,650 natural-origin spawners and 2,000 

hatchery-return spawners. If the recruit abundance is insufficient for the goal to be met, OR regardless of the total 

escapement, the naturally spawning component of the Skokomish River population is expected to fall below 1,200 

spawners, or the hatchery component is expected to result in less than 1,000 spawners, additional terminal fishery 

management measures will be taken, with the objective of meeting or exceeding the 1,200 naturally spawning levels (see 

page 175 of the RMP). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

29 

Table 9. Post-listing threshold classification and escapement trend since listing for Puget Sound 

chinook salmon populations. 

Classification 1 Management Unit Population 

Percent 

Difference 

Since Listing 2

Trend 

Since Listing 3

Since listing, the 

average 

escapement is 

above the upper 

threshold: 

Skagit Summer/Fall: 

Skagit Spring 

Stillaguamish 

Snohomish 

Green River 

Puyallup 

Nisqually 

Upper Skagit River 

Lower Sauk River 

Lower Skagit River 

Upper Sauk River 

N.F. Stillaguamish River 4

Snoqualmie River 4

Duwamish-Green River 

Puyallup River 

S. Prairie Creek Index Area 5

Nisqually River 

52% 

34% 

98% 

-7% 

25% 

81% 

38% 

0% 

48% 

Increasing 

Increasing 

Increasing 

Stable 

Increasing 

Increasing 

Increasing 

Stable 

Increasing 

Since listing, the 

average 

escapement is 

above the lower 

threshold but 

below the upper 

threshold: 

Nooksack 

Skagit Spring: 

Stillaguamish 

Snohomish 

Lake Washington: 

White River 

Skokomish

Mid-Hood Canal 

Dungeness 

Elwha 

S. F. Nooksack River 4 

Suiattle River 

Upper Cascade River 

S.F. Stillaguamish River 4

Skykomish River 4

Cedar River 

Sammamish River 

White River 

Skokomish River: 

Natural Spawners 

Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 

Dungeness River 

Elwha River 

63% 

-5% 

48% 

5% 

30% 

-8% 

79% 

203% 

53% 

127% 

149% 

1% 

Increasing 

Stable 

Increasing 

Stable 

Increasing 

Stable 

Increasing 

Increasing 

Increasing 

Increasing 

Increasing 

Stable 

Since listing, the 

average 

escapement is 

below the lower 

threshold: 

Nooksack N. F. Nooksack River 4 25% Increasing 

1

 The thresholds used in the classification were either the NMFS-derived critical and viable population thresholds 

under current conditions or thresholds derived using the VSP guidance for critical and viable levels. 2

 The percent difference in the post-listing 1999 to 2002 average escapement when compared to the pre-listing 1990 

to 1998 average escapement. 3 The trend of a population was considered increasing if the 1999 to 2002 average escapement was 10 percent or 

greater than the 1990 to 1998 average escapement. The trend of a population was considered decreasing if the 1999 

to 2002 average escapement was 10 percent or less than the 1990 to 1998 average escapement. The trend of a 

population was considered stable if the 1999 to 2002 average escapement was within 10 percent of the 1990 to 

1998 average escapement. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

30 

Footnote to Table 9 continued: 

4 Natural-origin spawners. 

5 NMFS assumed that the escapement trend for the South Prairie Creek and Wilkeson Creek (jointly referred to as the 

South Prairie index area) are representative of the escapement trend for the entire Puyallup River population. It is 

believed that the South Prairie index area provides a more accurate trend in the escapement for the Puyallup River 

because it is the only area in the Puyallup River for which spawners or redds can be consistently counted (W. 

Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to K. Schultz, NMFS, January 31, 2004). Additionally, available information suggests that 

South Prairie Creek contains the highest quality spawning habitat in the system. Confidence in the South Prairie 

index area escapement estimates improved when the area surveyed increased from 1.5 to 12.5 stream miles in 

1994. Surveys consistently identified substantial numbers of spawners in the mainstem Puyallup River, Carbon 

Creek, and other tributaries. However, total escapement estimates into the Puyallup River system is considered 

unreliable at this time. 

Chinook salmon produced through the Kendall Creek Hatchery program, located on the North 

Fork Nooksack River, is also listed under the ESA, as they were considered essential for the 

recovery of the ESU. Production from Kendall Creek Hatchery contributes extensively to the 

annual return abundance of the North Fork Nooksack River population. If escapement of the 

hatchery-origin fish to the natural spawning grounds is considered, the 1999 to 2002 four-year 

average spawning escapement is 3,438 fish for the North Fork Nooksack River (Table 10). 

Table 10. Natural-origin and natural spawners, North Fork Nooksack River, 1999 to 2002. 

Management Unit 

North Fork Nooksack 

River Population 1999 2000 2001 2002 

1999 to 2002 

Average 

Nooksack 

Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Natural Spawners 1

 91

911

159

1,365

250

4,057

221 

7,419 

180 

3,438 

1

 Natural spawners include first generation hatchery-origin adults that spawn in natural spawning areas. 

Genetic analysis of natural origin and Kendall Creek Hatchery-origin spring chinook salmon 

indicate that there are no significant differences between the natural and hatchery populations, 

and that they are one distinct stock (Young and Shaklee 2002). Additionally, the co-managers are 

applying operational techniques that decrease the likelihood for divergence of the hatchery 

population from the extant natural population. Adult fish production resulting from the Kendall 

Creek hatchery program buffers genetic and demographic risks to the North Fork Nooksack 

River population. Therefore, at this time, NMFS concludes that the RMP does not appreciably 

increase genetic and demographic risks facing this population, as required by the ESA 4(d) Rule, 

for a population below their critical level. Discussion of this population’s status, in regards to the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU, is in the Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

In addition to the discussions of the status of the populations, the ESA 4(d) Rule requires a risk 

analysis of the populations under the implementation of the RMP. The VSP document (NMFS 

2000b) describes four key parameters for evaluating the status of salmonid populations. These 

parameters are: (1) population size (abundance); (2) population growth rate (productivity); (3) 

spatial structure; and (4) diversity. Below is an evaluation of how the RMP addresses these four 

VSP parameters for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

31 

(1) Population Size 

To analyze risks posed by the RMP on Puget Sound chinook salmon population’s size or 

abundance, anticipated escapement results under the implementation of the RMP are compared 

with NMFS’ standards of a critical (lower) and viable (upper) thresholds. 

Lower Thresholds: 

Table 2 provides the proposed RMP’s low abundance thresholds. NMFS has derived critical 

thresholds for 13 populations. The NMFS-derived critical thresholds ranged from 170 to 1,650 

fish (see Table 8). For those populations for which the RMP identifies a corresponding low 

abundance threshold, the RMP’s thresholds are either the same, or more commonly, greater than 

the NMFS-derived population-specific critical thresholds. For these populations with NMFSderived critical thresholds, the corresponding RMP’s proposed low abundance thresholds are 

consistent with NMFS’ standards. 

There are nine populations for which NMFS has yet to derive a critical threshold (see Table 8). 

The proposed RMP’s low abundance thresholds for these nine populations exceed the minimum 

VSP generic guidance of 200 annual spawners. For these nine populations, the RMP’s proposed 

low abundance thresholds are consistent with the VSP guidance for a critical threshold. 

However, for two populations, the RMP does not propose a low abundance threshold to use in a 

comparison with NMFS’ standards. For the Stillaguamish Management Unit, NMFS has derived 

a critical threshold for both populations. The RMP did not establish a low abundance threshold 

for one of these populations, the South Fork Stillaguamish River population (see Table 8). The 

RMP also provides no low abundance threshold for the Sammamish River population (see Table 

2). The following is a risk analysis associated with the lack of a low abundance threshold in the 

RMP for the South Fork Stillaguamish River and Sammamish River populations. 

South Fork Stillaguamish River - The Stillaguamish Management Unit includes two populations: 

the North Fork Stillaguamish River and the South Fork Stillaguamish River populations. Both 

populations are classified as a Category 1 watershed population (see Table 7). The RMP 

establishes a low abundance threshold for the Stillaguamish Management Unit of 650 fish, and a 

low abundance threshold for the North Fork Stillaguamish River population of 500 fish (see 

Table 2). Both low abundance thresholds are based on natural-origin spawners. However, the 

RMP provides no low abundance threshold for the South Fork Stillaguamish River population, 

citing that there is very little information concerning the productivity of this population (page 

134 of the RMP). 

The 1999 to 2002 four-year average of 697 fish for the North Fork Stillaguamish River 

population is above the NMFS-derived viable threshold (see Table 8). Since listing, the 

escapement trend of the North Fork Stillaguamish River population is considered increasing (see 

Table 9). The escapement trend for the South Fork Stillaguamish River population is considered 

stable (see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 four-year average of 283 fish for the South Fork 

Stillaguamish River population is above the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish but 

below the NMFS-derived viable threshold of 300 fish (see Table 8). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

32 

Recent (1999 to 2002) natural-origin escapement observations for these two systems were used 

to estimate the South Fork Stillaguamish River population escapement when the population nears 

the management unit’s proposed low abundance threshold of 650 fish. On average, escapement 

into the South Fork Stillaguamish River was 28.9 percent of the total natural-origin escapement 

in the Stillaguamish River (Table 11). At natural-origin escapements approaching the RMP’s low 

abundance threshold of 650 natural-origin fish for this management unit, assuming similar 

proportions to recent escapement observations, the natural-origin escapement into to the South 

Fork Stillaguamish River population would be 188 fish (28.9 percent of 650). 

Table 11. Recent range and average natural-origin escapements for the two 

populations within the Stillaguamish Management Unit. 

1999 to 2002 Escapement 

Population: Range Average Percent 

N. F. Stillaguamish River 514 to 884 697 71.1% 

S. F. Stillaguamish River 253 to 353 283 28.9% 

Total 980 100% 

An escapement of 188 fish is slightly below the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish for 

the South Fork Stillaguamish River population, suggesting a potential elevated level of risk for 

South Fork Stillaguamish River population under the implementation of the RMP. However, this 

potential elevated level of risk would only occur when the returning abundance approaches the 

RMP’s low abundance threshold of 650 fish for this management unit. Actual impacts on the 

South Fork Stillaguamish River population, associated with the implementation of the RMP, will 

depend on the returning abundance in the next five years, from May 1, 2005 through April 2010, 

the remaining duration of the proposed RMP. 

The anticipated returns to the Stillaguamish Management Unit are well above the 650 fish 

RMP’s low abundance threshold. The range of anticipated escapements to the Stillaguamish 

Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP is 1,584 to 2,322 fish. The range of 

anticipated escapements to the South Fork Stillaguamish River population under the 

implementation of the RMP is 293 to 429 fish (see Appendix A of this evaluation). The most 

likely South Fork Stillaguamish River escapement under the implementation of the RMP is 421 

fish (see Table 5). The most likely escapement to the South Fork Stillaguamish River exceeds the 

NMFS-derived viable threshold of 300 fish. Therefore, it is unlikely the level of risk to the South 

Fork Stillaguamish River population will increase in the next five years, from May 1, 2005 

through April 2010, when compared to NMFS’ standards, resulting directly from the lack of a 

low abundance threshold in the RMP. 

Sammamish River - The Lake Washington Management Unit contains two chinook salmon 

populations; the Cedar River (Category 1) and the Sammamish River (Category 2) populations 

(see Table 7). The RMP’s low abundance threshold for the Cedar River population is 200 

chinook salmon. Total escapement estimates for the Cedar River population are based on an 

expansion of a live count of fish. However, Cedar River redd counts suggests that this expansion 

of the live count may be a conservative estimate of the total escapement (P. Hage, Muckleshoot 

Tribe, e-mail to S. Bishop, NMFS, February 10, 2004). Therefore, a direct comparison of Cedar 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

33 

River escapements, based on an expansion of a live count, with the VSP generic guidance for a 

critical threshold of 200 fish should be considered conservative, as the total escapements are 

likely greater. 

The RMP contains no low abundance thresholds for the Sammamish River population. The 

status of Sammamish River population natural production is not well understood. The 

contribution of non-listed hatchery-origin chinook salmon to the natural spawning escapement in 

the Sammamish River has not been quantified in the past, although mass marking of Issaquah 

Creek Hatchery production will enable this in the future (W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to K. 

Schultz, NMFS, January 31, 2004). However, as evidenced by its Category 2 classification, 

hatchery contribution to the Sammamish River population is believed to be high. Since listing, 

the trend for the Sammamish River population’s escapement is considered increasing (see Table 

9). 

Escapement estimates presented in Table 6 for the Sammamish River population do not include 

escapement into the Upper Cottage Lake Creek. The Upper Cottage Lake Creek has only been 

surveyed since 1998, preventing a longer term trend analysis. Annual salmon count surveys of 

the Upper Cottage Lake Creek have exceeded 200 fish in recent years (see Table 2, page 154 of 

the RMP). Additionally, Sammamish River escapement counts presented in Table 6 do not 

include spawners in Issaquah Creek, which are believed to be primarily Issaquah Hatchery 

returns (N. Sands, NMFS, e-mail to S. Bishop, NMFS, February 26, 2004). Therefore, although 

the escapement information present in Table 6 is believed to be representative of this 

population’s abundance trend, the escapement estimates are to be considered a minimum 

estimate of the total Sammamish River population’s escapement. As with the Cedar River 

population, a direct comparison of Sammamish River escapements with the VSP generic 

guidance for a critical threshold of 200 fish should be considered conservative, as the total 

escapements are likely greater. 

The range of anticipated escapements to the Sammamish River under the implementation of the 

RMP is 214 to 305 fish (see Table 3). These estimates are based upon the spawner index 

database, and since that database represents a minimum estimate, and excludes fish in tributaries 

and reaches that are not included in the index, these estimates are assumed to be minimums. The 

most likely escapement for the Sammamish River population under the implementation of the 

RMP is a minimum of 294 fish (see Table 5). The most likely escapement for the Sammamish 

River population is above the VSP guidance of 200 fish for a critical threshold. Concerns do 

exist for this population, given that the range of anticipated escapements approaches the VSPderived critical threshold. However, it is recognized that the actual total escapements into these 

systems will probably be greater given the conservative nature of the estimates. Additional 

discussion of the increased concern for this population’s status, in regards to the likelihood of 

survival and recovery of the ESU, will be provided in Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

Upper Thresholds: 

The RMP’s upper management thresholds for the various management units or populations range 

from 300 to 14,500 fish (see Table 2). NMFS has independently derived viable thresholds for 

nine individual populations and one management unit ranging from 300 to 7,454 fish (see Table 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

34 

8). NMFS used the RMP’s upper management thresholds as a proxy for viable thresholds. For 

those populations for which the RMP identifies a corresponding upper management threshold, 

the RMP’s thresholds are the same, or more commonly, greater than the NMFS-derived viable 

thresholds. For these populations, the RMP’s upper management thresholds are consistent with 

NMFS’ standards. 

For populations which NMFS has yet to derive a viable threshold, the proposed RMP’s upper 

management threshold exceeds the VSP generic guidance for a viable population of 1,250 fish 

for three populations (Cedar River6

, Skokomish River, and Elwha River). For these three 

populations, the levels of risk associated with the implementation of the proposed upper 

management thresholds are consistent with NMFS’ standards. 

For five populations without NMFS-derived viable thresholds (upper Cascade River, Snoqualmie 

River, White River, Nisqually River, and the Dungeness River), the proposed RMP’s upper 

management threshold is less than a viable threshold that would be established using the VSP 

generic guidance. However, the RMP’s upper management threshold for each of these 

populations is based on habitat studies or modeling results which suggests that each proposed 

threshold is consistent with the current capacity and productivity of the system. For these five 

populations, the levels of risk associated with the implementation of the proposed upper 

management thresholds are consistent with NMFS’ standards. 

For two of the remaining three populations without NMFS-derived viable thresholds 

(Sammamish River and Mid-Hood Canal rivers populations), the ranges of anticipated 

escapements over the next five years, from May 1, 2005 through April 2010, are very low, well 

below the proposed RMP’s upper management threshold. Escapement levels are not expected to 

exceed the proposed upper management threshold under the implementation of the RMP (see 

Table 5 and Table 8). Therefore, it is unlikely that an elevated level of risk from harvest impacts 

on these two populations will result directly from the implementation of the proposed upper 

management thresholds in the RMP. However, the low levels of anticipated escapements for 

these two populations do raise concerns, which will be addressed later in this document. 

The RMP proposes an upper management threshold of 500 fish for the remaining population 

without a NMFS-derived viable threshold, the Puyallup River population. The co-managers’ 

threshold is based on escapement levels for the South Prairie Creek index area. The co-managers 

propose that by achieving an escapement to South Prairie Creek index area of at least 500 fish, 

viable natural production for the entire system would be assured (see page 166 of the RMP). The 

anticipated range of escapements to the Puyallup River under the implementation of the RMP is 

1,798 to 2,419 fish (see Table 3). Since the entire range of anticipated escapements exceeds the 

VSP generic guidance of 1,250 fish, the level of risk for the Puyallup River population 

associated with the implementation of the proposed RMP’s upper management thresholds are 

consistent with NMFS’ standards. 

 

6

 Given the conservative nature of the Cedar River escapement estimates, the RMP’s upper management 

threshold of 1,200 fish for this population is considered to meet the VSP guidance of 1,250. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

35 

In summary of the upper management thresholds proposed by the co-managers in the RMP, most 

Puget Sound chinook salmon populations meet or exceed the NMFS-derived or VSP-derived 

viable thresholds. For several populations, the anticipated abundance levels over the next five 

years, from May 1, 2005 through April 2010, make the application of the RMP’s upper 

thresholds very unlikely. Therefore the levels of risk associated under the implementation of the 

RMP’s upper management thresholds are consistent with NMFS’ standards. 

(2) Productivity 

Harvest management objectives must be appropriate for the habitat capacity and productivity 

requirements of individual populations. The RMP provides no explicit management objectives 

for productivity. The exploitation rates, upper management thresholds, escapement goals, and the 

low abundance thresholds are based, when feasible, on current survival and productivity rates, 

with adjustments to account for data uncertainty and management imprecision. 

Productivity is generally understood to be the ratio of the abundance of juvenile or adult 

produced in one generation to the abundance of their parent spawners. Productivity is primarily 

driven by habitat quantity, quality, and reproductive fitness. All watersheds in Puget Sound have 

degraded habitat from a variety of causes, including logging, road building, agriculture, 

urbanization, flood control and hydropower. The degree to which each of these causes 

contributes to the decline in habitat quality or quantity varies from watershed to watershed. 

Another aspect of habitat quality is the level of marine-derived nutrients introduced into an 

ecosystem by eggs deposited by spawning salmon and by decaying salmon carcasses. This can 

be influenced in part, by fisheries, since they will have a negative effect on escapement. The 

RMP addresses the role of adult salmon in nutrient re-cycling in Appendix D: Role of Salmon in 

Nutrient Enrichment of Fluvial Systems of the RMP. Marine-derived nutrients are a source of 

food for juvenile salmonids, invertebrates, and provide basic nutrients to the ecosystems (Larkin 

and Slaney 1996; Gresh et al. 2000; Murota 2003; Wipfli et al. 1998). However, nutrient 

dynamics in aquatic systems is very complex (Polis et al. 1997; Bisson and Bilby 1998; Murphy 

1998; Naiman et al. 2000). The importance of salmon nutrient re-cycling within a given aquatic 

ecosystem remains very poorly understood and is dependent on numerous site-specific factors. 

These factors include: the species of salmon; spawning density; spawning location; stream 

discharge regimes in the area; stream habitat complexity; basin geology; light; temperature; and 

ecosystem community structure. 

 

The role of returning adult chinook salmon as a means of re-cycling nutrients into a freshwater 

ecosystem must be examined in the context of the limitations of current research on the subject, 

chinook salmon life history, and chinook salmon abundance relative to the generally more 

abundant escapement of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), and 

chum salmon (O. keta) in the larger river systems that typically support the Puget Sound chinook 

salmon populations. Additionally, while the limited available research suggests that salmonderived nutrients can benefit coho salmon, sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and cutthroat trout (O. 

clarki) populations, data and technical tools establishing or quantifying the relationship between 

marine-derived nutrients and chinook salmon are not available. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

36 

Chinook salmon populations in Puget Sound typically exhibit a relatively short freshwater 

residence, at least when compared with coho salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead. It is not 

known if newly emerged chinook salmon fry actively feed on chinook salmon carcasses, or if 

chinook salmon carcasses are retained for a sufficient period in the freshwater ecosystem to 

allow direct consumption by emerging fry, especially in the larger river systems which support 

chinook salmon. The larger river systems in the action area generally exhibit peak winter flow 

events which may flush the chinook salmon carcasses from the freshwater ecosystem prior to the 

emergence of juvenile chinook salmon.

The benefits of marine derived nutrients for juvenile chinook salmon may be more fully realized 

in estuaries (Simenstad 1997), where most chinook salmon rear for a critical period prior to 

migrating seaward. However, even less is known about the role of marine-derived nutrients in 

estuaries. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that carcass nutrient limitation, as it may 

affect secondary production of prey species or direct enhancement of food supply, currently 

exerts a key limit on the productivity of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Action Area. 

 

The co-managers propose to continue monitoring and the evaluation of the fisheries as required 

in the RMP. Based on information they obtain and that may be provided by other resource 

managers, the co-managers may revise the management objective in future plans, reflecting 

changes in environmental conditions and scientific understanding of carcass nutrient limitation. 

The intent of the co-managers is to increase spawning escapement in concert with the recovery 

of the system’s productivity and capacity resulting from habitat restoration efforts. Under this 

approach, the co-managers will annually provide sufficient escapement to enable each 

management unit to generate maximum surplus under progressively improving habitat 

conditions. The RMP’s harvest strategy will complement concurrent efforts to restore and protect 

habitat, improve hatchery management practices, and mitigate the impacts of hydroelectric 

operations. In addition, spawner recruit functions used to derive many of the RMP’s objectives 

express the impacts of all the factors that influence productivity, including nutrient input. 

However, changes in productivity will be exceedingly difficult to attribute to changes in nutrient 

input relative to other environmental responses. 

Natural Factors 

Changes in the abundance of salmonid populations are substantially affected by changes in the 

freshwater and marine environments. For example, large scale climatic regimes, such as El NiΖo, 

affect changes in ocean productivity. Much of the Pacific coast was subject to a series of very 

dry years during the first part of the 1990s. In more recent years, severe flooding has adversely 

affected some stocks. 

Salmon are exposed to high rates of natural predation, particularly during freshwater rearing and 

migration stages. Ocean predation may also contribute to natural mortality, although the levels of 

predation are largely unknown. In general, salmonids are prey for pelagic fishes, birds, and 

marine mammals, including harbor seals, sea lions, and killer whales. There have been recent 

concerns that rebounding seal and sea lion populations, following their protection under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, has resulted in substantial mortality for salmonids. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

37 

Recent evidence suggests that marine survival of salmon species fluctuates in response to 20 to 

30 year long periods of either above or below average survival that is driven by long-term cycles 

of climatic conditions and ocean productivity (Cramer et al. 1999). This phenomenon has been 

referred to as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Mantua et al. 1997). Ocean conditions that affect 

the productivity of Puget Sound salmonid populations appear to have been an important 

contributor to the decline of many stocks prior to listing. Ocean conditions appear to have 

improved in recent years, which may have contributed to the increase in abundance of Puget 

Sound salmonid populations since listing. However, NMFS does not have data to corroborate an 

improved marine survival trend for Puget Sound populations at this time. The survival and 

recovery of these species will depend on their ability to persist through periods of low ocean 

survival when stocks may depend on better quality freshwater habitat and lower relative harvest 

rates. 

Performance under Current Habitat and Environmental Conditions: 

The survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU will depend, over the long 

term, on responses to limiting factors, including those associated with hatchery and habitat. 

Completion of the ESU recovery plan and decisions regarding the form and timing of recovery 

efforts described in the recovery plan is ongoing, but will determine the kinds of harvest actions 

that may be necessary and appropriate in the future. Absent guidance provided in a recovery 

plan, NMFS evaluated the RMP by examining the isolated impacts of harvest on the ESU under 

current conditions. Therefore, this document evaluates the future performance of the population 

under current productivity conditions, assuming that the impacts of the hatchery and habitat 

actions remain as they are presently. 

Though the Puget Sound TRT has not specifically determined what is needed for recovery of the 

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, the TRT have derived preliminary recovery goals for most 

populations (NMFS 2002a). The TRT’s preliminary recovery goals can provide a useful contrast 

between current productivity and the level of potential productivity associated with recovery. For 

most Puget Sound chinook salmon populations, recovery is dependent on an increase in 

productivity (recruitment) relative to current status, not simply achieving the optimum 

escapement levels associated with current habitat conditions. Past harvest constraints have 

contributed to stable or increasing trends in escapements, which for several populations include 

hatchery-origin adults. However, the trend in natural-origin returns, when compared with 

hatchery returns, into several systems suggests that marine, freshwater, and estuary habitat 

quality and quantity is the primary constraint on productivity. Spawner-recruit functions derived 

from Ecosystems Diagnostics and Treatment or EDT 7

 modeling of habitat capacity under current 

 

7

 The Ecosystems Diagnostics and Treatment or EDT model provides a conceptual framework for 

organizing information to describe a watershed ecosystem in order to apply scientific principles to the 

understanding of that ecosystem. The model describes how the fish population would respond to 

conditions in a stream based on our scientific understanding of their needs. It is an analytical tool used 

to analyze environmental information and draw conclusions about the ecosystem, and designed to 

provide a practical, science-based approach for developing and implementing watershed plans. EDT 

models have been used to develop fish and wildlife plans for many watersheds throughout the Pacific 

Northwest. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

38 

and recovered conditions demonstrates that natural production is constrained below that 

associated with a recovered habitat condition (Figure 3). 

Source: T. Scott, WDFW, March 22, 2004. 

Figure 3 Productivity (adult recruits) of North Fork Stillaguamish 

summer chinook salmon under current and recovered habitat 

conditions. Beverton-Holt functions derived from habitat 

analysis using the Ecosystems Diagnostics and Treatment or 

EDT method. 

Further harvest constraint will not, by itself, effect an increase above the asymptote associated 

with current productivity, until habitat conditions improve. Very similar conclusions can be 

drawn from examination of current natural-origin escapement trends in the North Fork 

Nooksack, Skykomish, and Dungeness rivers. In these systems, natural-origin returns have 

remained at very low levels, while total natural escapement has increased due to hatchery 

supplementation programs. 

In making an evaluation of future escapement performance under current productivity 

conditions, it would be useful to examine recent escapement trends in relation to past reductions 

in harvest rates. Mass marking of hatchery production has enabled managers to begin accurate 

accounting of the contribution of natural-origin and hatchery-origin spawners to the natural 

escapement for several Puget Sound chinook salmon populations (see Chapter 6 of the RMP and 

Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of the RMP). Sufficient data has accumulated to 

conclude that reductions in harvest rates, along with more favorable conditions for marine 

survival, have contributed to an increasing trend in hatchery-origin returns. In some systems the 

harvest rates have been reduced by 30 to 70 percent from the mid-1980s. However, the returns of 

natural-origin fish in those same systems have not responded similarly. This evidence suggests 

that, in some systems, natural production is constrained primarily by the condition of the marine, 

freshwater, and estuary habitat. 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Spawners

Recruits

Recovered

Current
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

39 

The population trend for the North Fork Stillaguamish River is cited here as an example, 

although, similar escapement data is available for the populations within the North Fork 

Nooksack and Skykomish Rivers. Fingerlings released by the summer chinook salmon 

supplementation program are coded wire tagged, enabling accurate estimation of their 

contribution to escapement. The 2001 to 2003 three-year average total, adult-equivalent 

exploitation rate for the Stillaguamish Management Unit of 15 percent has declined 71 percent 

when compared with the 1983 to 1987 five-year average total, adult-equivalent exploitation rate 

of 54 percent (see Table 13, page 47, of the RMP). Although the return of hatchery-origin 

chinook salmon appear to have responded to this decrease in exploitation rate, exceeding 800 

since 1989, the natural-origin returns have remained relatively stable in the last five years, 

averaging 522 fish (Figure 4). Hatchery production since 1989 has been relatively constant (T. 

Tynan, NMFS, pers. com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, March 25, 2004). 

Source: T. Scott, WDFW, March 22, 2004. 

Figure 4. The return of natural-origin (NOR) chinook salmon to the North 

Fork Stillaguamish River has remained relatively stable, while the 

number of hatchery-origin adults (HOR) have increased 

substantially. 

Harvest constraint, along with other ongoing conservation efforts; has contributed to stable or 

increasing abundance trends in escapement. However, the abundance trend in the natural-origin 

returns suggests that, although escapement may be stable or even trend upward toward or above 

the optimum level associated with current habitat condition, natural-origin recruitment will not 

increase much beyond that level unless constraints limiting survival prior to entry to fisheries are 

alleviated 

The reductions of harvest pressure, along with improvements in other sectors, appears to have 

contributed to stabilized natural-origin escapement, in areas where data is available, and the 

listed hatchery supplementation program further guards against catastrophic decline. While 

acknowledging the risk of density dependent effects, implementing the RMP will experimentally 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1988 1992 1996 2000

HOR

NOR
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

40 

test production at these higher escapement levels, and capitalize on favorable survival conditions 

that may occur. 

 

(3) Spatial Structure 

The spatial structure of a population results from a complex interaction of the genetic and life 

history characteristics of a population, the geographic and temporal distribution and quality of 

habitat, and the disturbance level of the habitat. Although the understanding of these interactions 

is limited, the ability of individuals to successfully colonize and move through habitat at each 

subsequent life stage is essential for population viability. 

Spatial structure should be taken into account in the analysis of the populations with the 

implementation of the RMP for at least three reasons: 1) the spatial and temporal distribution, 

quantity, and quality of habitat (landscape structure) dictates how effectively juvenile and adult 

salmon can bridge freshwater, estuarine, nearshore and marine habitat patches during their life 

cycle; 2) there is a time lag between changes in spatial structure and population response, and 

extinction risk at the 100-year time scale may be affected in ways not readily apparent from 

short-term observations of abundance and productivity; and 3) population spatial structure 

affects evolutionary processes and may therefore alter a population’s ability to respond to 

environmental change (PSTRT 2003).

A fishery could target a certain portion of the run, which may result in a decrease in the number 

of spawners destined to a particular spawning location or population through time. For example, 

the early portion of a run of salmon may be the fish that will spawn the farthest upstream. If a 

fishery harvests just the early portion of the total adult return, the percentage of the population 

spawning in the upper portion of the system may be changed. 

In Puget Sound, the co-managers generally shape salmon fisheries to harvest throughout the run 

timing of the returning adults. However, when harvest must be reduced, fishing-related mortality 

on listed chinook salmon is reserved as incidental harvest in salmon fisheries directed at other 

species. In these situations, the salmon fishery may concentrate incidental fishing-related 

mortality on the extreme ends of the run timing of listed fish in order to protect the majority of 

the run while providing access to other salmon species. The extent that a fishery may concentrate 

incidental fishing-related mortality on the extreme ends of the run could vary from year to year. 

In mixed-population salmon fisheries, harvest generally occurs throughout the migration of the 

returning chinook salmon. In terminal areas where chinook salmon are caught incidentally in 

fisheries targeting other species, harvest probably affects 15 percent or less of the run on either 

end of the run timing. There is currently no information to indicate that these incidental impact 

salmon fisheries are having deleterious effects on certain segments of the populations or to the 

ESU. For example, NMFS’ status review (Myers et al. 1998) did not note any trends in size, 

weight, fecundity or other life history traits for Puget Sound chinook salmon that might be a 

result of fishing activities. 

The spatial structure of the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit is unique among the proposed 

management units. The Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit contains only one population, the 

Mid-Hood Canal rivers population (Category 2), which is composed of an aggregation of 

spawners from several adjacent rivers that are tributaries to Hood Canal. Unlike other 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

41 

populations within the ESU, these spawning aggregations are separated by salt water. Since most 

harvest impacts on this population occur outside Hood Canal, it is difficult for the co-managers 

to impose differential harvest effects on the individual spawning aggregate components in order 

to adjust spawning distribution among the rivers (W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to K. Schultz, 

NMFS, January 31, 2004). For all populations, the RMP provides general guidelines to avoid 

focusing harvest on any one temporal segment of the return. The RMP establishes a low 

abundance threshold of 400 fish, which combines all the spawning components within the MidHood Canal Management Unit. The RMP’s aggregate upper management threshold for the Hood 

Canal Management Unit is 750 fish. 

The historical structure of the Hood Canal chinook salmon population is unknown (PSTRT 

2003). Historical returns and distributions of chinook salmon in Hood Canal have been affected 

by construction of dams, fisheries, and the introduction of non-native fish. The largest 

uncertainty within the Hood Canal populations, as identified by the TRT, is the degree to which 

chinook salmon spawning aggregations are demographically linked in the Hamma Hamma, 

Duckabush, and the Dosewallips Rivers. A possible alternative scenario, as identified by the 

TRT, is that the chinook salmon in the Hammam Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosewallips were 

independent populations (NMFS 2004b). Habitat differences do exist among these Mid-Hood 

Canal rivers. The Dosewallips River is the only system in the snowmelt-transition hydroregion 

(PSTRT 2003). 

Although the TRT has identified two independent populations within Hood Canal Region8 (the 

Skokomish and Mid-Hood Canal rivers populations), the TRT noted that important components 

of the historical diversity may have been lost, potentially due, in part, to the use of transplanted 

Green River origin fish for hatchery production in the region (PSTRT 2003). Life history 

information for the extant populations within Hood Canal Region was not useful in 

discriminating different populations (PSTRT 2003). The TRT also found genetic data not 

informative in reconstructing population structure under historical conditions. Allele frequencies 

between the Skokomish River population and the spawning aggregate in the Hamma Hamma 

River (Mid-Hood Canal rivers population) were not different (P = 0.136 as reported in PSTRT 

2003). Extant Hood Canal chinook salmon belonged to the same genetic cluster as late-returning 

chinook salmon southern populations within the South Puget Sound Region (see Figure 5 in 

PSTRT 2003). 

The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 404 fish for the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population is 

only slightly above the co-managers’ low abundance threshold of 400 fish (see Table 9). The 

Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit has exhibited an increasing escapement trend since listing 

(see Table 9). However, escapement trends in the individual rivers comprising the Mid-Hood 

Canal rivers population have not varied uniformly. 

In recent years, the spawning aggregation in the Hamma Hamma River has generally comprised 

the majority of the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population (Table 12). In comparison, the 

Dosewallips River has seen a decrease in escapement during this same time period. Spawning 

 

8 The TRT identified five geographic regions within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, which are 

based on similarities in hydrographic, biogeographic, and geologic characteristics. The TRT’s regions 

will be discussed in more detail later within this document. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

42 

levels below 40 fish have been observed in recent years in the Duckabush and Dosewallips 

Rivers (see Table 6). However, exchange among the three spawning aggregations within the 

Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit, and with other Hood Canal natural and hatchery populations 

is probable (W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, January 31, 2004). The 

demographic risks to the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population may be buffered by this straying at 

all abundance levels. 

Table 12. The trend of the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population’s individual spawning aggregates. 

Mid-Hood Canal 1991 to 1995, 1998 1999 to 2002 

Rivers Population 

Average Percent 

of Total 

Average Percent 

of Total 

Percent 

Difference 1

All Spawning Components: 178 100.0% 404 100.0% 127% 

Hamma Hamma River 64 36.0% 304 75.3% 375% 

Duckabush River 17 9.6% 57 14.1% 235% 

Dosewallips River 97 54.4% 43 10.6% -56% 

1

 The Percent Difference is the difference in percent of the 1999 to 2002 average escapement when compared to 

the 1991 to 1995, 1998 average escapement 

The TRT suggests that most of the historical chinook salmon spawning in the Mid-Hood Canal 

rivers was “likely to [have] occurred in the Dosewallips River because of its larger size and 

greater area accessible to anadromous fish” (PSTRT 2003). However, production from the 

Hamma Hamma Fall Chinook Restoration Program, a hatchery-based supplementation program, 

has contributed substantially to the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population. The goal of the 

restoration program is to restore a healthy, natural-origin, self-sustaining population of chinook 

salmon to the Hamma Hamma River. This hatchery production is at least partially responsible 

for the recent increase in escapement observed in the Hamma Hamma River. 

During 1999, it is estimated that about 77 percent of age-3 chinook salmon and 97 percent of 

age-4 chinook salmon spawning in the Hamma Hamma River were of hatchery origin. Overall, 

83 percent of the chinook salmon returning to the Hamma Hamma River was hatchery-origin 

fish (as cited by WDFW/LLK 2002). The Hamma Hamma River hatchery-origin production has 

contributed substantially to the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit’s overall increasing 

escapement trend since listing (see Table 9). The program may also buffer demographic risks to 

the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population in the short term, particularly to the natural-origin 

spawning aggregate returning to the Hamma Hamma River. 

The range of anticipated aggregate spawning escapements into the rivers of the Mid-Hood Canal 

Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP is 344 to 531 fish (see Table 3). The 

most likely escapement within in this range is 504 fish (see Table 5). Benefits to this population 

from reductions in fisheries-related impacts are limited. The co-managers, in cooperation with 

NMFS, have modeled escapement results under a no Puget Sound fishery alternative, and the 

most likely escapement under the “no fishery” scenario is 527 fish in the Mid-Hood Canal 

Management Unit, as discussed in more detail in the FEIS. With no Puget Sound fishing, 

escapement into the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population is only predicted to be increase by 23 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

43 

fish, from 504 to 527 fish. Given the ratio of recent escapements into the individual river systems 

in the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit (see Table 12), totally eliminating Puget Sound 

fisheries would only increase escapements into the Duckabush (14.1 percent of 23) and 

Dosewallips (10.6 percent of 23) Rivers by 3 and 2 fish, respectively. 

Because of the currently low numbers of spawners in the individual rivers, and with there being 

no provision within the RMP to preserve the spatial structure of the escapement within and 

between component rivers for the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population there is a increased level of 

concern for the spatial structure of the escapement for this population. Additional discussion on 

this elevated level of concern for the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population, in regards to the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU, will be provided in Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

(4) Diversity 

The transfer from parents to offspring (heritability) of certain biological traits such as age at 

maturity, growth rate, and the effect of these traits on each other has been researched and 

described (Clark and Blackbird 1994; Donaldson and Menasveta 1961; Hankin et al. 1993; 

Heath et al. 1994b; and Silverstein et al. 1998). Under certain circumstances, fishing may 

influence the biological traits of salmon that return to spawn, and potentially the traits that 

are conveyed to their offspring. 

Diversity in biological traits is important so that populations can successfully respond to 

changing environmental conditions. For example, numerous studies have emphasized the 

possible importance of large size in naturally-spawning populations of chinook salmon for 

mate choice and reproductive success (Baxter 1991; Berejikian et al. 2000; Healey 2001; 

Healey and Heard 1984; and Silverstein and Hershberger 1992). A fishery is characterized as 

selective whenever fish with particular characteristics are caught more frequently than they 

occur in the population at large. Selective fishing may affect the diversity of size, age and sex 

ratio in the salmon population escaping to spawn. 

Salmon fisheries may be size-selective, stock-selective, or species-selective. Size-selective 

fisheries catch fish within a certain size range at a greater rate than smaller or larger fish. 

Stock-selective fisheries harvest some populations at different rates than other populations. 

Fisheries are usually deliberately structured to be stock-selective or species-selective by 

shaping the time, location or physical attributes of fish that may be caught. Harvest managers 

have implemented stock- and species-selective fisheries in Puget Sound. 

Selective Effects of Fishing in Puget Sound: 

Although the potential consequences of size-selective fishing have been recognized, the ability 

of fisheries managers to address the potential long-term consequences is limited. The magnitude 

of selective effects will vary depending on the intensity of selective-fishing on a particular 

salmon population, the period of time over which those effects are encountered, and the 

biological characteristics of the population itself (Heath et al. 1994a; and Hard 2004). Hard 

(2004) predicted that, in general, reducing the exploitation rate reduces the selection intensity, 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

44 

and that changes in life history traits under most of the harvest scenarios he examined were 

modest, at best, over a few generations. 

Information on the effects of fishery selectivity on Puget Sound chinook salmon is very limited. 

NMFS found a decline in the size of Puget Sound coho salmon spawners since the 1970s, and 

noted it as a risk factor (Weitkamp et al. 1995). However, in its review of west coast chinook 

salmon populations (Myers et al. 1998), NMFS did not note any trends in recent decades for 

size, weight, or age for Puget Sound chinook salmon that might be the result of fishing activities. 

The lack of an observed selective-fishing effect may be the result of the way Puget Sound 

fisheries are structured. Puget Sound salmon fisheries, including those harvesting chinook 

salmon, are managed for stock-specific exploitation rates that depend on the underlying 

productivity of each population. 

With regard to the potential age-selectivity of fishing gear types, Puget Sound gillnet fisheries do 

not appear to be any more age-selective for chinook salmon than gear types like purse seines that 

use small mesh and are thus considered to be relatively non-selective (Table 13 and Figure 5). 

Based on the Puget Sound population-specific data that are available, there are no trends in age 

structure observed in Puget Sound chinook salmon escapement over the last 24 to 30 years that 

one might expect if there were age-selective fishing effects (Figure 6). 

Table 13. Average age composition of the Puget Sound chinook salmon catch by gear 

type. 

Gear Type Age composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon catch (1980−2000) 

Age-2 Age-3 Age-4 Age-5 

Gillnet 3% 34% 59% 5% 

Purse seine 7% 37% 54% 4% 

All gear types 3% 35% 56% 6% 

Source: S. Bishop, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, based on data provided by 

the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

 

NMFS also conducted analyses to determine whether there was a difference in size at age 

between Puget Sound chinook salmon caught in the fishery and those that spawn. NMFS focused 

its analyses on a subset of Puget Sound chinook salmon populations for which sufficient 

information was available and that represented some diversity in life history (spring and fall run 

types), geographic distribution and fishing intensity. NMFS also limited its analysis to terminal 

in-river net fisheries9

 for which data were available so that the analyses were not confounded by 

the catch of immature fish that commonly occurs in marine fisheries. The analyses were broken 

into three steps: (1) compare the average size at age and sex of coded-wire tagged fish recovered 

in the terminal net fishery with those recovered in the hatchery escapement; (2) size at age and 

sex information collected from naturally spawning adults was compared with results for 

 

9

 These fisheries intercept fish returning to a single river system; the one in which the fishery occurs. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

45 

returning hatchery adults; and, (3) analysis was conducted to see whether the magnitude of 

change in size could be linked to effects of the terminal fishery. 

Average age in Puget Sound chinook in catch sampled 1980-2000

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Sample Year

Average age (years)

gillnet Seine all gear

Source: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team data. 

Figure 5. Age composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon catch. Average age has 

changed little since 1980. 

 Source: Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team data.

Figure 6. Age composition of Puget Sound chinook salmon escapement. Average age 

has changed little since the 1970s. 

Average Age in Puget Sound Chinook Natural Escapement

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

19711973

1975

1977

1979

1981

19831985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

19992001

Calendar Year

Average age (years)

Lower Skagit Skykomish NF Stillaguamish Green River
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

46 

In the first step, the average size at age and sex of coded-wire tagged fish recovered in the 

terminal net fishery was compared with those recovered in the hatchery escapement during the 

period 1975-2001. The use of coded-wire tagged fish ensured that the analysis included only fish 

from the same population based on the unique coded-wire tag code implanted into the fish prior 

to their release from the hatchery. 

Step 1 of the analysis indicates that there were significant trends in size at age and sex for some 

Puget Sound chinook salmon populations and shows some consistency with the expectation that 

populations with high exploitation rates would show declining trends in size for ages most likely 

to be affected by fishery selectivity. When populations with moderate to high terminal area 

exploitation rates are compared with populations with low exploitation rates, the populations 

with higher exploitation rates showed a consistent pattern of decreasing size at age for both male 

and female age four chinook salmon, one of the two ages most likely to experience any selective 

effects. Declines ranged from 0.11 to 0.45 centimeters per year or 0.55 to 2.5 centimeters per 

generation. Whether these changes are biologically significant is unknown. The majority of size 

at age trends for age three fish were not significant, regardless of fishing intensity. 

On the other hand, other aspects of the results suggest factors other than fisheries are equally as 

likely: (1) the comparison between populations in moderate-high and low exploitation rate 

categories also compared populations with different life histories, so the difference could be due 

to differences in environmental conditions experienced by the different life history types; (2) the 

trends did not show consistent contrasts between the ages most vulnerable to selective fishing 

effects and those ages that are not, although this may have resulted from small numbers of 

samples for two- and five-year-old fish; (3) the trends in age-3 chinook which are also vulnerable 

to selective fishing effects were generally insignificant regardless of fishing intensity; (4) the 

trends would also have reflected the result of cumulative selective pressures of fisheries other 

than Puget Sound terminal net fisheries; (5) the trends were not entirely consistent between high 

and low exploitation rate populations when total exploitation rates are considered. While the 

terminal area exploitation rates were low for Skagit River spring chinook, the total exploitation 

rate was similar to those of the Green and Skokomish Rivers and the Samish River showed no 

significant trends in size-at-age, although it is classified as a moderate to high exploitation rate 

population. 

In the second step of the analysis, size at age and sex information collected from naturally 

spawning adults was compared with results from the first step. Only three of the six Puget Sound 

chinook salmon populations, including only one of the four populations in the moderate-high 

exploitation rate category, evaluated in step 1 had sufficient data available to conduct the 

analysis. The trends in size at age were significant for five of the six analyses conducted. For all 

but one of these population/age groups examined, the trends in size at age were not significantly 

different among males and females. Although limited, the results of these did not indicate 

declining trends in size with higher exploitation rates. In general; (1) the trends were increasing 

for both high and low exploitation rate populations; (2) the trend of size-at-age is mixed among 

ages most likely to experience selective effects of fisheries; and (3) as in the step 1 analysis, the 

apparent differences in magnitude of change between the high and low exploitation rate 

populations could be the result of difference in environmental effects on different life history 

strategies. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

47 

The results in steps 1 and 2 are consistent in direction and significance of trends for only two of 

the six analyses that were compared and the magnitude of change was substantially different 

between the analyses that were similar. Both analyses indicated trends between male and female 

chinook salmon spawners were similar. The results of the analyses in step 2 seem to indicate that 

trends of size at age and sex between the hatchery and naturally spawning components are 

different. The results do not indicate that fisheries are affecting the naturally spawning 

component of the population in the ways that might be expected, i.e., declining size at age with 

increasing exploitation. The differences in the two analyses could reflect actual differences 

between trends in size-at-age in hatchery and naturally-spawning adult chinook, differences in 

the sampling and data collection in the two environments, or differences in life history. 

From the discussion above, it is evident that analyses of observed trends alone cannot confirm 

that harvest is primarily responsible for declines in size at age; therefore, an analysis was 

conducted to see whether the magnitude of change in size could be linked to the intensity of the 

fishery (Step 3). To do this, the populations were assessed using the models of Hard (2004) to 

determine to what extent fisheries might be a factor where statistically significant patterns in size 

at age and sex were identified in the first two steps. The model examined four possible scenarios: 

two levels of legal size threshold (50 and 70 centimeters) and two levels of natural selection 

intensity (strong and weak) on size (J. Hard, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, pers. com., to 

S. Bishop, NMFS, September 16, 2004). This step compares what the trends in size at age would 

be under different levels of environmental and fishing conditions with the results in step 1 to see 

if the observed trends are consistent with any of the scenarios. The same general conclusions 

with regard to increasing and decreasing trends are equally applicable to results from step 2. 

The analysis resulted in a mixture of upward and downward observed trends. The expected 

trends estimated by the harvest model generally explained less then 50 percent of corresponding 

observed trends. These results suggest that environmental influences on the observed size trends 

are large. For decreasing observed trends, these influences may include factors such as 

environmental conditions that reduce growth and size, or artificial or domestication selection in 

the hatchery. However, these influences also appear to vary considerably among the populations, 

pointing to the possibility of marked population-environment interaction effects. For increasing 

observed trends, these influences are likely to reflect environmental conditions that enhance 

growth and size, which could result from more favorable marine conditions, improvements in 

hatchery practices, reductions in harvest intensity, changes in migration patterns, or other factors 

that affect growth and size. Unfortunately, it is not possible from the present analysis to 

determine the directions or magnitudes of these environmental effects for any particular 

population with confidence because harvest and environmental effects on growth and size cannot 

be discriminated reliably. 

(5) Section (b)(4)(i)(C) Sets escapement objectives or maximum exploitation rates for each 

management unit or population based on its status, and assures that those rates or 

objectives are not exceeded. 

Table 2 identifies the proposed RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates and critical exploitation rate 

ceilings, which when taken in concert with the RMP’s upper management thresholds and low 

abundance thresholds forms the framework of the co-managers’ harvest strategy. NMFS 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

48 

independently established rebuilding exploitation rates for nine individual populations within the 

ESU and for the Nooksack Management Unit (Table 14). For individual populations, 

exploitation rates at or below the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates are not likely to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of rebuilding that population, assuming that current 

environmental conditions continue. 

The following will provide a risk analysis of the anticipated exploitation rates under the 

implementation of the RMP’s harvest strategy in those management units for which NMFS has 

derived rebuilding exploitation rates. Additionally, there are eight management units for which 

NMFS has yet to derive a rebuilding exploitation rate. These eight management units lacking a 

NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates are the Lake Washington, White River, Puyallup, 

Nisqually, Skokomish, Mid-Hood Canal, Dungeness, and Elwha Management Units. NMFS did 

not develop rebuilding exploitation rates for these management units because adequate data were 

not available to assess current productivity or analysis is as yet incomplete. A risk analysis of the 

proposed RMP’s harvest strategy for these eight management units will follow the analysis of 

management units with the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates. 

Management Units that can be evaluated using NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates as 

standards: 

Modeling provides an estimate of the most likely exploitation rates and their ranges anticipated 

under the implementation of the RMP (see Table 3). The anticipated total exploitation rates 

under the implementation of the RMP are compared with the NMFS-derived rebuilding 

exploitation rates in Table 14. 

The range of anticipated exploitation rates under the implementation of the RMP are equal to or 

less than the rebuilding exploitation rate developed by NMFS for five populations. These five 

populations are: the Upper Skagit River in the Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit; the Upper 

Sauk River and Suiattle River populations in the Skagit Spring Management Unit; and, the North 

Fork Stillaguamish River and the South Fork Stillaguamish River populations in the 

Stillaguamish Management Unit. The level of risk associated with the anticipated range of 

exploitation rates for these five populations are consistent with the NMFS-derived rebuilding 

exploitation rates. 

The entire range of anticipated exploitation rates for the Nooksack Management Unit and the 

Snohomish Management Unit exceeds the corresponding NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation 

rate (Table 14). In addition, the most likely anticipated exploitation rates under the 

implementation of the RMP in three populations (the lower Skagit River and the lower Sauk 

River populations in the Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit, and the Duwamish-Green River 

population in the Green River Management Unit) exceeds the corresponding rebuilding 

exploitation rate developed by NMFS. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

49 

Table 14. The range of anticipated total exploitation rates under the implementation of the 

RMP and the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. 

Management 

Unit 

Population 

Range of 

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rates 

Most Likely 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

NMFS-derived 

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack 

South Fork Nooksack 

20 to 26% 

- 

- 

25% 

- 

- 

12% 

- 

- 

Skagit 

Summer/Fall 1

Natural Spawners: 

Upper Skagit River 

Lower Sauk River 

Lower Skagit River 

48 to 56% 

- 

- 

55% 

- 

- 

- 

60% 

51% 

49% 

Skagit 

Spring 

Natural Spawners: 

Upper Sauk River 

Suiattle River 

Upper Cascade River 

23 to 28% 

- 

- 

- 

27% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

38% 

41% 

- 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River 

S.F. Stillaguamish River 

17 to 20% 

- 

- 

19% 

- 

- 

- 

32% 

24% 

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River 

Snoqualmie River 

19 to 23% 

- 

- 

22% 

- 

- 

- 

18% 

- 

Lake 

Washington 

Natural Spawners: 

Cedar River 

Sammamish River 

31 to 38% 

- 

35% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Green River Natural Spawners: 

Duwamish-Green River 49 to 63% 63% 53% 

White River Natural Spawners: 

White River 20% 20% - 

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 49 to 50% 50% - 

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 

Nisqually River 64 to 76% 76% - 

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 45 to 63% 63% - 

Mid-Hood 

Canal 

Natural Spawners: 

Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 26 to 34% 32% - 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 22 to 29% 27% - 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 

Elwha River 22 to 30% 27% - 

1

 Based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and 

abundance. Anomalous age structure and the presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 that lead to 

increased incidental harvest of chinook salmon make the estimates of exploitation rates used in this 

modeling a likely overestimate of the harvest impacts. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

50 

NMFS analyzed the increased risk associated with the proposed SUS fisheries by using the 

NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates as the standard. The risk analysis simulates exposure 

of a population to a fixed brood-year exploitation rate, adjusted annually for management error 

and environmental variability, for a period of 25 years. When compared to NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rates, the risk analysis can predict: (1) the change in the probability of 

achieving the viable threshold; and (2) the change in probability of falling below the critical 

threshold. 

In assessing the potential risk of SUS fisheries, NMFS assumes a low marine survival, which is 

conservative and risk adverse. Additionally, the actual brood-year exploitation rates experienced 

in this RMP over the next five years, from May 1, 2005 through April 2010, although fixed in 

the simulations, will vary. The RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates or escapement goals may 

modified in response to the most current information about the productivity and status of 

populations, or in response to better information about management error. There is also 

uncertainty in the risk analysis simulation about actual exploitation rates beyond the duration of 

the proposed RMP (April 30, 2010). The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates are based 

on simulations over a more conservative 25-year period, where the RMP’s proposed duration is 

for a shorter duration, five years, from May 1, 2005 through April 2010. 

Furthermore, the impact of fisheries in Alaska and British Columbia also adds uncertainty. 

Annex IV, Chapter 3, Chinook Salmon of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST 1999) imposes 

exploitation rate ceilings for fisheries impacts on indicator populations that are not achieving 

their escapement goals. Concern has heightened in recent years, as some Canadian chinook 

salmon fisheries have approached the limit imposed by Annex IV (W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to 

K. Schultz, NMFS, January 31, 2004). The current Annex IV, Chapter 3, Chinook Salmon of the 

Pacific Salmon Treaty expires in 2009, so new guidelines could be imposed as a new annex is renegotiated, or as the current harvest distribution of contributing populations is better defined. 

Given these uncertainties, the following analyses estimate the potential elevated risk when 

compared to the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates as the standard for the proposed 

evaluation. This analysis is done for the four management units, identified above, in which the 

anticipated exploitation rates are above the rebuilding exploitation rates developed by NMFS. 

These four management units are the Nooksack, Snohomish, Skagit Summer/Fall, and the Green 

River Management Units. 

Nooksack Management Unit - There are two populations within the Nooksack Management 

Unit: the North Fork Nooksack River and the South Fork Nooksack River populations. Both 

populations are currently classified as a Category 1 population (see Table 7). The North Fork 

Nooksack River natural-origin population has exhibited an increasing escapement trend (see 

Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 180 natural-origin spawners for the North 

Fork Nooksack River population is below the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish (see 

Table 8). The critical threshold for the Nooksack Management Unit is based on natural-origin 

fish. However, when including Kendall Creek hatchery-origin fish, an average aggregate 

escapement of 3,438 natural spawners for the North Fork Nooksack River has been observed 

since listing (see Table 10). The South Fork Nooksack River natural-origin population has also 

exhibited an increasing escapement trend since listing (see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 average 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

51 

escapement of 249 natural-origin spawners for the South Fork Nooksack River population is 

slightly above the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish (see Table 8). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Nooksack Management Unit by applying a 9 percent 

SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling (see Table 2). It also is the co-managers’ intent to constrain 

fisheries affecting the management unit so that the projected SUS exploitation rate does not 

exceed 7 percent more than once during the duration of the RMP (see page 92 of the RMP). The 

RMP’s SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling would not include impacts in Alaska or Canadian 

fisheries. 

Similar to recent years, the largest proportion of the anticipated total exploitation rate for the 

Nooksack Management Unit is accounted for in Canadian fisheries (see Table 4). The resulting 

anticipated range of total exploitation rates for the Nooksack Management Unit under the 

implementation of the RMP is 20 to 26 percent (see Table 3). The most likely exploitation rate 

within this range is 25 percent (see Table 5). The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for 

the Nooksack Management Unit is 12 percent (see Table 14). The entire range of anticipated 

exploitation rates under the implementation of the RMP for the Nooksack Management Unit of 

20 to 26 percent exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate ceiling by 8 to 14 

percentage points (Table 15). 

Table 15. Comparison of the range of anticipated total exploitation rates with the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rate for the Nooksack Management Unit.

 

Difference in 

Percentage Points 1

Nooksack 

Management Unit 

 or Population 

Range of 

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rates 

Most Likely 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

NMFSderived 

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Low 

End of 

Range 

Most 

Likely 

High 

End of 

Range 

Management Unit 

N. F. Nooksack R. 

S. F. Nooksack R. 

20 to 26% 

- 

- 

25% 

- 

- 

12% 

- 

- 

+8 

- 

- 

+13% 

- 

- 

+14% 

- 

- 

1

 A positive number within the difference in percentage point column indicates that the corresponding 

anticipated exploitation rate exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. 

The management of Canadian fisheries is outside the jurisdiction of the co-managers. However, 

the co-managers do have jurisdiction over SUS fisheries. The most likely exploitation rate for the 

SUS fisheries is 7 percent (see Table 5). NMFS determined the increased risk associated with the 

SUS fisheries proposed by the co-managers in the RMP, when compared to the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rate. With the modeled Canadian fisheries and a 7 percent SUS 

exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations, assuming 2003 abundance, the anticipated 

total exploitation rate represents a 6 percentage point decrease in the probability of rebuilt 

populations in 25 years. Modeling also suggests that there is a 21 percentage point increase in the 

probability that the populations will fall below their respective critical threshold level during that 

same 25-year period (Table 16). The anticipated total exploitation rate includes impacts from 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

52 

both the Canadian and SUS fisheries. The exploitation rates from just the modeled Canadian 

fisheries exceeds NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations 

of 12 percent. We can also isolate the effects of only the SUS fisheries. Using the exploitation 

rate in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries as a baseline, i.e., the mortality that has occurred prior to 

SUS fisheries, a 7 percent SUS exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations represents a 

2 percentage point decrease in the probability of rebuilt populations in 25 years. Modeling also 

suggests that a 7 percent SUS exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations represents a 

14 percentage point increase in the probability that the populations will fall below their 

respective critical threshold level during that same 25-year period. 

Additional discussion on this identified elevated level of risk to the North Fork Nooksack River 

and South Fork Nooksack River populations under the implementation of the RMP, in regards to 

the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU, will be provided in Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit - The Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit 

encompasses three populations: the upper Skagit, the lower Sauk, and the lower Skagit River 

populations. All three populations are classified as a Category 1 population (see Table 7). Since 

listing, all populations in the Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit have exhibited an increasing 

escapement trend (see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 average escapements for all three populations 

are above their respective viable thresholds (see Table 8). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit with a 50 

percent total rebuilding exploitation rate, and a 15 percent SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling 

in even-years and a 17 percent SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling in odd-years (see Table 2). 

The resulting anticipated range of total exploitation rates for the Skagit Summer/Fall 

Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP is 48 to 56 percent (see Table 3). The 

most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 55 percent (see Table 5). 

The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates for the individual populations within the Skagit 

Summer/Fall Management Unit are shown in Table 17. The lower end of the range of anticipated 

total exploitation rates of 48 percent under the implementation of the RMP is less than the 

NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate ceiling for all three populations within the Skagit 

Summer/Fall Management Unit. When the most likely total exploitation rate of 55 percent is 

applied to the individual populations within the management unit, the exploitation rate is less 

than the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the upper Skagit River population, but 

exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the lower Sauk River and lower 

Skagit River populations by 4 and 6 percentage points, respectively (Table 17). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

53 

Table 16. The percentage point change in probability of a rebuilt population in 25 years and the percentage point 

probability that the population will fall below the critical threshold in 25 years when the anticipated toare compared to the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates. The anticipated total exploitation rateimpacted associated with the modeled Canadian fisheries and the anticipated southern United States (SRMP. 

Lower End of Range Most Likely 

Management Unit 

Population Percentage Point 

difference in 

Probability of a 

Rebuilt 

Population in 25 

Years1

Percentage Point 

difference in 

Probability that 

the Population 

will fall below 

the Critical 

Threshold in 25 

Years2

Percentage Point 

difference in 

Probability of a 

Rebuilt 

Population in 25 

Years1

Percentage Point 

difference in 

Probability that 

the Population 

will fall below 

the Critical 

Threshold in 25 

Years2

Percenta

differe

Probabi

Reb

Populati

Yea

Nooksack 

N. F. Nooksack River S.F. Nooksack River 

- 6% 

- - 

9% 

- - 

- 6% 

- - 

21% 

- - 

- 12

- - 

Skagit Summer/Fall Upper Skagit River 

Lower Sauk River Lower Skagit River 

- - - 

- - - 

- - 

- 26% 

- - 

0% 

- - 

- 33

Skagit Spring Upper Sauk River 

Suiattle River Upper Cascade River 

17% 19% 

- 

- 0% 

-1% 

- 

16% 19% 

- 

- 0% - 1% 

- 

1618

- 

Stillaguamish 

N. F. Stillaguamish R. S.F. Stillaguamish R. 

14% 

9% 

- 1% - 1% 

14% 

4% 

- 1% - 1% 

15

4% 

Snohomish 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

- 4% 

- 

1% 

- 

- 14% 

- 

3% 

- 

- 15

- 

1 A negative number in the difference in probability of a rebuilt population in 25 years indicates a decrease in the probability of that pop

25 years, when compared to the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. A positive number in the difference in probability of a re

years indicates an increase in the probability of that population being rebuilt in 25 years, when compared to the NMFS-derived rebuil

Rebuilt is defined as the population’s abundance meeting or exceeding its viable threshold under current conditions. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

54 

2 A negative number in the difference in probability that the population will fall below the critical threshold in 25 years indicates a decr

that population will fall below the critical threshold in 25 years, when compared to the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. A 

difference in probability that the population will fall below the critical threshold in 25 years indicates an increase in the probability o

below the critical threshold in 25 years, when compared to the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. 

3 The anticipated total exploitation rate includes impacts from both the Canadian and SUS fisheries. The exploitation rates from just th

fisheries exceeds NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations. When assessing the impacts of just percent SUS exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations represents a 2 percentage point decrease in the probability of rebuiModeling also suggests that a 7 percent SUS exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations represents a 14 percentage point inthat the populations will fall below their respective critical threshold level during that same 25-year period. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

55 

Table 17. Comparison of the range of anticipated total exploitation rates for the Skagit 

Summer/Fall Management Unit with the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate 

for individual populations within the Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit. 

Difference in 

Percentage Points 2

Skagit Summer/Fall 

Management Unit 

 or Population 

Range of 

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rates 1

Most Likely 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 1

NMFSderived 

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Low 

End of 

Range 

Most 

Likely 

High 

End of 

Range 

Management Unit 

Upper Skagit River 

Lower Sauk River 

Lower Skagit River 

48 to 56% 

- 

- 

- 

55% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

60% 

51% 

49% 

- 

-12% 

-3% 

-1% 

- 

-5% 

+4% 

+6% 

- 

-4% 

+5% 

+7% 

1

 Based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and 

abundance. Anomalous age structure and the presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 that lead to 

increased incidental harvest of chinook salmon make the estimates of exploitation rates used in this 

modeling a likely overestimate of the harvest impacts. 

2

 A positive number within the difference in percentage point columns indicates that the corresponding 

anticipated exploitation rate exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. 

Similar to the Nooksack Management Unit discussed above, the anticipated impacts on the 

Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit include those from the Canadian fisheries. The 

management of Canadian fisheries is outside the jurisdiction of the co-managers. However, the 

co-managers do have jurisdiction over fisheries within the SUS. For the Skagit Summer/Fall 

Management Unit, the anticipated exploitation rate10 range for the SUS fisheries is 16 to 18 

percent (see Table 3). The most likely exploitation rate for the SUS fisheries is 16 percent (see 

Table 5). 

Through modeling, NMFS determined the increased risk to the lower Skagit River population 

associated with the SUS fisheries in the RMP. With the modeled Canadian fisheries and 

abundance similar to 2003, a 16 percent SUS exploitation rate represents a 26 percentage point 

decrease in the probability of a rebuilt population in 25 years. Modeling also suggests that there 

is no change in the probability that the population will fall below the critical level (see Table 16). 

NMFS was unable to determine the increased risk associated with the anticipated exploitation 

rates under the implementation of the RMP exceeding the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation 

rate for the lower Sauk River population. However, the level of risk is assumed to be similar to 

that estimated for the lower Skagit River population. Additional discussion on the risks to the 

lower Sauk River and lower Skagit River populations under the implementation of the RMP, in 

 

10 Based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and 

abundance. Anomalous age structure and the presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 rates that lead 

to increased incidental harvest of chinook salmon make the estimates of exploitation rates used in this 

modeling a likely overestimate of the harvest impacts. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

56 

regards to the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU, will be provided in Section 

(b)(4)(i)(D). 

Snohomish Management Unit - The Snohomish Management Unit encompasses two 

populations: the Skykomish River and the Snoqualmie River populations. Both populations are 

classified as a Category 1 population (see Table 7) and both have exhibited an increasing 

escapement trend since listing (see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 2,118 for 

the Skykomish River population has been above the critical threshold of 1,650 fish, but below 

the viable threshold of 3,500 fish (see Table 8). The 1999 to 2002 average escapements of 1,818 

fish for the Snoqualmie River population have been above the VSP guidance for a viable 

threshold of 1,250 fish (see Table 8). 

The co-managers propose to manage fisheries affecting the Snohomish Management Unit by 

applying a 21 percent total rebuilding exploitation rate and a 15 percent SUS critical exploitation 

rate ceiling (see Table 2). The resulting anticipated range of exploitation rates for the Snohomish 

Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP is 19 to 23 percent. The most likely 

exploitation rate within this range is 22 percent (Table 18). 

Table 18. Comparison of the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates for the Snohomish 

Management Unit with the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the 

Skykomish River population. 

Difference in 

Percentage Points 1

Snohomish 

Management Unit 

 or Population 

Range of 

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rates 

Most Likely 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

NMFSderived 

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Low 

End of 

Range 

Most 

Likely 

High 

End of 

Range 

Management Unit 

Skykomish River 

Snoqualmie River 

19 to 23% 

- 

- 

22% 

- 

- 

- 

18% 

- 

- 

+1% 

- 

- 

+4% 

- 

- 

+5% 

- 

1

 A positive number within the difference in percentage point column indicates that the corresponding 

anticipated exploitation rate exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. 

The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the Skykomish River population is 18 

percent. The range of anticipated total exploitation rates for the Snohomish Management Unit is 

19 to 23 percent. The entire range exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate of 18 

percent for the Skykomish River population; by 1 to 5 percentage points (see Table 18). 

Although not as prominent as in the Nooksack and Stillaguamish Management Units discussed 

above, the anticipated impacts on the Snohomish Management Unit also include those from the 

Canadian fisheries (see Table 4). The management of Canadian fisheries is outside the 

jurisdiction of the co-managers. However, the co-managers do have jurisdiction over fisheries 

within the SUS. For the Snohomish Management Unit, the anticipated range of exploitation rates 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

57 

for the SUS fisheries is 13 to 14 percent (see Table 3). The most likely exploitation rate within in 

this range is 13 percent (see Table 5). 

Through modeling, NMFS analyzed the increased impacts associated with the SUS fisheries in 

the RMP, when compared to the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate as the standard. 

With the modeled Canadian fisheries and assuming 2003 abundance, a 13 percent SUS 

exploitation rate for the Skykomish River population represents a 14 percentage point decrease 

in the probability of a rebuilt population in 25 years. Modeling also suggests that there is a 3 

percentage point increase in the probability that the population will fall below the critical level 

during that same 25-year period (see Table 16). Additional discussion on the identified elevated 

level of risk to the Skykomish River population under the implementation of the RMP, in regards 

to the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU, will be provided in Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

Lacking sufficient data, no rebuilding exploitation rate has been developed by NMFS for the 

other population within the Snohomish Management Unit, the Snoqualmie River population. The 

risk associated with the proposed exploitation rate in the RMP to the Snoqualmie River 

population will be addressed in the following subsection, Management Units for which NMFSderived Rebuilding Exploitation Rate standards are not available. 

Green River Management Unit - The Green River Management Unit includes only one 

population, the Duwamish-Green River population (Category 1). The Duwamish-Green River 

population has exhibited an increasing escapement trend (see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 

average escapement of 9,299 for the Duwamish-Green River population has been above the 

viable threshold of 5,523 (see Table 8). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Green River Management Unit with a 15 percent preterminal SUS rebuilding exploitation rate and a 12 percent pre-terminal SUS critical exploitation 

rate ceiling (see Table 2). The RMP’s pre-terminal SUS rebuilding exploitation rate and the preterminal SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling would not include impacts in terminal fisheries. 

The co-managers propose to manage the terminal fisheries of the Green River Management Unit 

based on an in-season estimate of the run-size abundance. The in-season run-size abundance 

estimate allows the co-managers to manage the fisheries to achieve the natural escapement goal 

of 5,800 fish (see page 160 of the RMP). The resulting anticipated range of total exploitation 

rates for the Green River Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP is 49 to 63 

percent. The most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 63 percent (Table 19). The 

NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the Duwamish-Green River population is 53 

percent (Table 19). 

The lower end of the anticipated range of exploitation rates under the implementation of the 

RMP of 49 percent is less than the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate of 53 percent. The 

level of risk associated with the lower end of the range of anticipated exploitation rates for the 

Duwamish-Green River population is consistent with the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation 

rate as the standard. However, the most likely exploitation rate for the Duwamish-Green River 

population of 63 percent exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate by 10 

percentage points (Table 19). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

58 

Table 19. Comparison of the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates with the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rate for the Duwamish-Green River population. 

Difference in 

Percentage Points 1

Green River 

Management Unit 

 

Population 

Range of 

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rates 

Most Likely 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

NMFSderived 

Rebuilding 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Low 

End of 

Range 

Most 

Likely 

High 

End of 

Range 

DuwamishGreen River 49 to 63% 63% 53% -2% +10% +10% 

1

 A positive number within the difference in percentage point column indicates that the corresponding 

anticipated exploitation rate exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. 

The co-managers’ escapement goal of 5,800 fish for the Duwamish-Green River population have 

been successfully achieved by the co-managers annually since 1995 (see Table 6). Modeling of 

the Green River Management Unit indicates that with the implementation of the proposed RMP 

from May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2010, the escapement goal of 5,800 fish is likely to be 

continually achieved. The co-managers’ escapement goal of 5,800 fish for the Duwamish- Green 

River population is above the NMFS-derived viable threshold for this population of 5,523 fish 

(see Table 8). With the level of escapement anticipated to continue to exceed the NMFS-derived 

viable threshold, the level of risk to the Duwamish-Green River population that is associated 

with the anticipated range of exploitation rates under the implementation of the RMP is 

consistent with NMFS’ standards. 

In summary for those management units for which NMFS has derived rebuilding exploitation 

rates, a portion of, or the entire range of the anticipated total exploitation rates under the 

implementation of the RMP exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for three 

populations (Lower Sauk River, Lower Skagit River, and the Skykomish River populations) and 

the two populations within the Nooksack Management Unit (North Fork Nooksack River and 

South Fork Nooksack River populations). In these populations, there is a decreased probability 

that the populations will rebuild within 25 years and/or an increase in the probability that the 

population will fall below their critical thresholds during that same 25-year period, when 

compared to the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates as the standard. Additional 

discussion on the identified elevated level of risk to these populations under the implementation 

of the RMP, in regards to the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU, will be provided in 

Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

Management Units for which NMFS-derived Rebuilding Exploitation Rate standards are not 

available: 

 The following analysis addresses the eight management units for which NMFS has not yet 

derived a rebuilding exploitation rate. The RMP has identified escapement objectives or 

maximum exploitation rates for each of these management units. These eight management units 

are the Lake Washington, Puyallup, White River, Nisqually, Skokomish, Mid-Hood Canal, 

Dungeness, and Elwha Management Units. In these management units, adequate data were not 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

59 

available to assess current productivity of the population(s) or NMFS has not yet completed an 

analysis of an appropriate rebuilding exploitation rate. 

The order of the management units to be evaluated will be based on how the management unit is 

proposed to be managed, as outlined below. The co-managers propose to manage the Nisqually 

and the Skokomish Management Units in-season for escapement objectives. The RMP proposes 

that two management units be managed based on a pre-terminal SUS rebuilding exploitation rate 

(Lake Washington and Mid-Hood Canal Management Units), two management units by a SUS 

rebuilding exploitation rate (Dungeness, and Elwha Management Units), and two management 

units based on a total rebuilding exploitation rate (Puyallup and White River Management 

Units). 

Nisqually Management Unit - The Nisqually Management Unit contains one population, the 

Nisqually River population (Category 2). The natural component of the Nisqually River 

population has exhibited an increasing escapement trend (see Table 9). Analysis of habitat 

capacity by the co-managers, using the Ecosystems Diagnosis and Treatment methodology 

(NCRT 2001 as cited in the RMP) suggests that optimum productivity under current habitat 

conditions is achieved by an escapement of 1,100 fish (see page 170 of the RMP). 

The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 1,318 for the Nisqually River population has been 

above the co-managers’ escapement goal of 1,100 fish (see Table 8). Since listing, the comanagers have successfully achieved the escapement goal of 1,100 fish in the Nisqually River in 

all but one year (see Table 6). In 2001, the estimated natural spawning escapement in the 

Nisqually River was 1,079 fish, only slightly below the escapement goal. 

The co-managers propose to manage the Nisqually Management Unit’s terminal area fisheries 

based on an in-season run-size abundance update, which is designed to achieve the escapement 

goal of 1,100 fish (see pages 170 and 171 of the RMP). When the in-season run-size abundance 

estimate indicates that the RMP’s upper management threshold of 1,100 fish will not be achieved 

with scheduled or proposed terminal area fisheries, the co-managers will constrain the fisheries 

with the objective of increasing abundance to a level at or above the escapement objective. The 

modeled anticipated range of total exploitation rates for the Nisqually Management Unit under 

the implementation of the RMP are the highest of any management unit, 64 to 76 percent. The 

most likely exploitation within this range is 76 percent (see Table 14). 

Modeling of the Nisqually Management Unit indicates that the co-managers will continue to 

achieve the escapement goal of 1,100 fish under the implementation of the RMP. Based on the 

current abundance status, the increasing escapement trend for the Nisqually River population and 

the anticipated level of escapement under the implementation of the RMP, the level of risk to the 

Nisqually River population due to the anticipated range of total exploitation rates is consistent 

with NMFS’ standards. 

Skokomish Management Unit – The Skokomish Management Unit contains one population, the 

Skokomish River population (Category 2). The 1999 to 2002 average natural spawning 

escapement of 1,483 fish for the Skokomish River population has been below the RMP’s 

escapement goal of 1,650 fish, but above the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 800 fish (see 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

60 

Table 2). Since listing, the natural component of the Skokomish River population has exhibited 

an increasing escapement trend (see Table 9). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Skokomish Management Unit by applying a 15 percent 

pre-terminal SUS rebuilding exploitation rate and a 12 percent pre-terminal SUS critical 

exploitation rate ceiling (see Table 2). The Skokomish Management Unit upper management 

threshold is 3,650 fish. The upper escapement objective represents a spawner requirement for 

1,650 in-stream natural spawners (HCSMP 1985) and 2,000 spawners required for the 

maintenance of hatchery production. 

If the returning abundance is insufficient to achieve the upper escapement goal of 3,650 fish, as 

described above, or if the naturally spawning component of Skokomish River population is 

expected to fall below 1,200 spawners, additional terminal fishery management measures will be 

applied by the co-managers, with the objective of meeting or exceeding the 1,200 in-stream 

natural spawners (see page 175 of the RMP). The types of additional terminal management 

measures the co-managers will consider are provided on page 175 of the RMP. Since 1996, the 

annual natural escapement into the Skokomish River has exceeded 1,200 fish (see Table 6). 

The anticipated range of total exploitation rates for the Skokomish Management Unit under the 

implementation of the RMP is 45 to 63 percent. The most likely total exploitation rate within this 

range is 63 percent (see Table 14). Modeling of the Skokomish Management Unit also indicates 

the returning abundance will be insufficient to achieve the upper escapement goal of 3,650 fish, 

but that the co-managers will continue to meet or exceed the lower in-stream natural spawner 

escapement goal of 1,200 fish under the implementation of the RMP. The RMP’s escapement 

goal of 1,200 fish is similar to the VSP generic guidance of 1,250 fish for a viable threshold for 

this population. 

Based on the current status, the increasing escapement trend of the population, and the 

anticipated level of escapement under the implementation of the RMP, the level of risk to the 

Skokomish River population due to the anticipated range of exploitation rates under the 

implementation of the RMP is consistent with NMFS’ standards. 

Lake Washington Management Unit - The Lake Washington Management Unit contains two 

populations; the Cedar River (Category 1) and the Sammamish River (Category 2). The 1999 to 

2002 average escapement is 385 for the Cedar River population and 373 for the Sammamish 

River population (see Table 8). Since 1998, the natural escapements for both of these populations 

has exceeded the VSP generic guidance of 200 fish, but are well below the VSP-derived 

guidance for a viable threshold of 1,250 fish. Since listing, the escapement for the Cedar River 

population is considered stable, while the Sammamish River population is considered increasing 

(see Table 9). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Lake Washington Management Unit by applying a 15 

percent pre-terminal SUS rebuilding exploitation rate and a 12 percent pre-terminal SUS critical 

exploitation rate ceiling (see Table 2). The terminal area fisheries for sockeye and coho salmon 

will be managed “to minimize incidental impact[s] on chinook [salmon]” as long as the Cedar 

River population remains below the RMP’s upper management threshold of 1,200 fish (see page 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

61 

155 of the RMP). Appendix C: Minimum Fisheries Regime of the RMP presents the terminal 

conservation management measures the co-managers will impose if the Cedar River population 

falls below its low abundance threshold of 200 fish. These terminal conservation management 

measures include non-retention in recreational fisheries, no directed fisheries, and the reduction 

in incidental impacts by other fisheries through time and area restrictions (see pages 204 and 205 

of the RMP). The Cedar River and Sammamish River populations share the same terminal 

fisheries. Terminal conservation management measures directed at migrating fish returning to the 

Cedar River will also benefit fish returning to the Sammamish River. 

The anticipated range of total exploitation rates for the Lake Washington Management Unit 

under the implementation of the RMP is 31 to 38 percent. The most likely total exploitation rate 

within this range is 35 percent (see Table 14). Modeling of the Lake Washington Management 

Unit indicates that the co-managers will continue to meet or exceed the critical threshold of 200 

natural spawners for each of these two populations under the implementation of the RMP. The 

range of anticipated escapements for both the Cedar River and the Sammamish River under the 

implementation of the RMP is 214 to 305 fish each (see Table 3). The most likely escapement 

for both populations within this range is 295 fish each (see Table 5). 

However, as mentioned earlier, the escapement estimates for the Cedar River are based on an 

expansion of the observed live count of fish. Expansions of the Cedar River redd counts suggests 

that the expansion of the Cedar River live count may be a conservative estimate of the total 

escapement (P. Hage, Muckleshoot Tribe, e-mail to S. Bishop, NMFS, February 10, 2004). 

Additionally, escapement estimates presented in Table 6 for the Sammamish River population do 

not include escapement into the Upper Cottage Lake or Issaquah Creeks. Therefore, although the 

escapement information present in Table 6 is believed to be representative of this population’s 

abundance trend, the escapement estimates are to be considered a conservative estimate of the 

total Sammamish River population’s escapement. 

The range of anticipated escapements in each watershed, although conservative estimates, 

suggest that escapement will be well below the VSP-derived viable threshold of 1,250 fish and 

perhaps approaching the VSP-derived critical threshold of 200 fish. Concerns do exist that these 

two populations may fall below their critical thresholds. Additional discussions on the increased 

concern for these populations, in regards to the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU, 

will be provided in the following section, Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit - The Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit includes chinook 

salmon spawning aggregations in the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and the Dosewallips Rivers. 

The Mid-Hood Canal rivers population is classified as a Category 2 population (see Table 7). 

The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 404 for the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit is 

slightly above the co-managers’ low abundance threshold of 400 fish, but well below the viable 

threshold of 1,250 fish derived from VSP guidance (see Table 9). Since listing, the Mid-Hood 

Canal rivers population has exhibited an increasing escapement trend (see Table 9), although 

trends in individual spawning aggregates of the population are varied (see Table 12). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit by applying a 15 

percent pre-terminal SUS rebuilding exploitation rate and a 12 percent pre-terminal SUS critical 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

62 

exploitation rate ceiling (see Table 2). Additionally, the co-managers propose that when the MidHood Canal Management Unit’s upper management threshold of 750 spawners is not expected to 

be met, that all extreme terminal (freshwater) fisheries that are likely to impact adult spawners of 

these “sub-populations” will be closed (see page 180 of the RMP). 

If escapement is projected to fall below the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit’s low abundance 

threshold of 400 fish, the co-managers will implement “further conservation measures” in preterminal and terminal fisheries to reduce mortality (see page 180 of the RMP). These terminal 

conservation management measures include non-retention, or even closures of recreational 

fisheries, no directed fisheries, and the reduction in incidental impacts in other fisheries by the 

use of time and area restrictions (see pages 207 and 208 of the RMP). The anticipated range of 

the total exploitation rates for the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit, including those from 

Canadian fisheries, under the implementation of the RMP is 26 to 34 percent. The most likely 

total exploitation rate within this range is 32 percent (see Table 14). 

Terminal-area harvest impacts have been virtually eliminated for the Mid-Hood Canal rivers 

chinook salmon population, particularly when abundance is below the RMP’s low abundance 

threshold. It is anticipated that the pre-terminal SUS fisheries, with a most likely exploitation rate 

of 12 percent, will account for most of the exploitation rate for the entire SUS of 13 percent (see 

Table 5). The impacts in pre-terminal SUS fisheries is limited to no more than a 15 percent 

exploitation rate when the anticipated escapement abundance exceeds the RMP’s low abundance 

threshold. When the anticipated abundance is less than the RMP’s low abundance threshold, the 

impacts in pre-terminal SUS fisheries is reduced to no more than 12 percent. 

Since 1990, escapements to the natural spawning areas in Mid-Hood Canal have exceeded the 

RMP’s low abundance threshold of 400 fish for this management unit in only two years (see 

Table 6). Estimated escapements were 762 fish and 438 fish in 1999 and 2000, respectively. In 

2002, the natural escapement into the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit of 95 spawners is well 

below the VSP guidance for a critical threshold of 200 fish. 

The range of anticipated aggregate spawning escapements into the rivers of the Mid-Hood Canal 

Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP is 344 to 531 fish (see Table 3). The 

most likely escapement within in this range is 504 fish (see Table 5). As mentioned earlier, the 

co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS, have modeled escapement results under a no Puget 

Sound fishery alternative. The most likely escapement under the “no fishery” scenario is 527 

fish. Under the “no fishery” alternative, when compared to the proposed RMP, the most likely 

resultant escapement into the Mid-Hood Canal population would increase by only 23 fish, from 

504 to 527 fish. 

Simulation modeling of the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit indicates that the co-managers 

will continue to meet or exceed the critical threshold of 200 natural spawners during the 

implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010. However, given that the 

range of anticipated escapements approaches the VSP-derived critical threshold of 200 fish, and 

issues regarding the spatial distribution of the escapement discussed earlier (see pages 40 to 42), 

concerns do exist for Mid-Hood Canal rivers population. Additional discussion on the increased 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

63 

concern for the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population in regards to the likelihood of survival and 

recovery of the ESU will be provided in the following section, Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

Dungeness Management Unit - The Dungeness Management Unit contains one population, the 

Dungeness River population (Category 1). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 345 fish for 

Dungeness River population has been above the VSP-derived critical threshold of 200 fish, but 

below the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 500 fish (see Table 9). Since listing, the 

Dungeness River population has exhibited an increasing escapement trend (see Table 9). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Dungeness Management Unit by applying a 10 percent 

SUS rebuilding exploitation rate and a 6 percent SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling (see Table 

2). The RMP’s SUS rebuilding exploitation rate and the SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling do 

not include impacts in Alaska and Canadian fisheries. In recent years, Alaska and Canadian 

fisheries have accounted for the vast majority of the impacts on the Dungeness Management 

Unit. Although there are no estimates for the Dungeness Management Unit, in the adjacent 

Elwha Management Unit, it is estimated that the Alaska and Canadian harvests represented, on 

average (1993 to 1997), 75 percent of the total impacts (16.2 percent in Alaska plus 58.8 percent 

in Canada, see page 185 of the RMP). A similar Alaska and Canadian harvest distribution is 

likely for the Dungeness River population. 

The co-managers’ stated management objective in the RMP for the Dungeness Management Unit 

is “to stabilize escapement and recruitment, as well as to restore the natural-origin recruit 

population basis through supplementation and fishery restrictions” (see page 182 of the RMP). 

The co-managers, in cooperation with federal agencies and private-sector conservation groups, 

have implemented a supplementation program to rehabilitate chinook salmon runs in the 

Dungeness River. Chinook salmon from the hatchery program on the Dungeness River are listed 

under the ESA. The primary goal of the supplementation and fishery control program is to 

increase the number of fish spawning naturally in the river, while maintaining the generic 

characteristics of the existing stock. 

Simulation modeling indicates the range of total exploitation rates that may be anticipated for the 

Dungeness Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP is 22 to 29 percent. The 

most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 27 percent (see Table 14). However, the 

anticipated SUS exploitation rate for the entire SUS fishery affecting this population is most 

likely only 5 percent (see Table 5). The range of anticipated escapements to the Dungeness River 

resulting from the implementation of the RMP is 231 to 356 fish (see Table 3). The most likely 

escapement within this range is 336 fish (see Table 5). The anticipated escapement range is 

below the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 500 fish, and approaches the VSP-derived critical 

threshold of 200 fish for this population. 

Simulation modeling of the Dungeness Management Unit indicates that the VSP-derived critical 

threshold of 200 natural spawners will continue to be met or exceeded under the implementation 

of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010. However, given that the range of anticipated 

escapements approaches the critical threshold of 200 fish and falls below the RMP’s low 

abundance threshold of 500 fish, concerns do exist for this population. Benefits to this population 

by reductions in SUS fishery-related impacts are limited. The anticipated SUS exploitation rate 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

64 

on this population is very low, at 5 percent. Additional discussion on the increased concern for 

this population in regards to the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU will be provided 

in Section (b)(4)(i)(D). 

Elwha Management Unit - The Elwha Management Unit contains one population, the Elwha 

River population (Category 1). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 2,009 for the Elwha 

River population has been above the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 1,000 fish. The Elwha 

River population has exhibited a stable escapement trend since listing (see Table 9). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Elwha Management Unit with a 10 percent SUS 

rebuilding exploitation rate and a 6 percent SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling (see Table 2). 

The RMP’s SUS rebuilding exploitation rate and the SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling do not 

include impacts in Alaska and Canadian fisheries. Alaska and Canadian fisheries have accounted 

for the majority of the impacts on the Elwha Management Unit. On average (1993 to 1997), 75 

percent of the impacts on the Elwha River population have occurred in Alaska and Canadian 

fisheries (see page 185 of the RMP). 

In the Elwha River, chinook salmon production is limited by two hydroelectric dams which 

block access at river mile 5 to approximately 70 miles of upstream spawning and rearing habitat 

(T. Tynan, NMFS, pers. com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, February 18, 2004). Habitat below the dams 

is also severely degraded because of downstream effects of the dams (N. Lampsakis, Point-NoPoint Treaty Council, pers. com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, February 20, 2004). Recovery of this 

population is dependent upon removal of the two dams, and restoration of access to high quality 

habitat in the upper Elwha River basin. Chinook salmon produced by the hatchery mitigation 

program in the Elwha River system are considered essential to the recovery, and are listed under 

the ESA. 

The anticipated range of total exploitation rates for the Elwha Management Unit under the 

implementation of the RMP is 22 to 30 percent. The most likely total exploitation rate within this 

range is 27 percent (see Table 14). Similar to the Dungeness Management Unit, the most likely 

exploitation rate for the SUS fisheries on the Elwha River population is only 5 percent (see Table 

5). The resulting range of anticipated escapements to the Elwha River under the implementation 

of the RMP is 1,395 to 2,125 fish (see Table 3). The range of anticipated escapements is above 

the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 1,000 fish, but below the co-managers’ upper 

management threshold of 2,900 fish. 

Based on the current status and stable escapement trend of the population, the anticipated level of 

escapement under the implementation of the RMP, the hatchery mitigation program initiated on 

the Elwha River, and consideration of the low anticipated SUS exploitation rate, the level of risk 

to the Elwha River population due to the anticipated range of exploitation rates under the 

implementation of the RMP is consistent with NMFS’ standard for rebuilding. 

Puyallup Management Unit - The Puyallup Management Unit contains one population. The 

Puyallup River population is classified as a Category 2 population. Hatchery programs 

introduced out-of-basin origin stocks, primarily of Green River lineage, into the Puyallup River 

system beginning in 1917 (T. Tynan, NMFS, pers. com., to K. Schultz, NMFS, February 10, 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

65 

2004). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 1,672 fish for Puyallup River population has 

been well above the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 500 fish and above the VSP-derived 

viable threshold of 1,250 fish (see Table 9). Using the trend in the South Prairie Creek index area 

as a proxy, the Puyallup River population is considered to have a stable escapement trend (see 

Table 9). 

The co-managers propose to manage the Puyallup Management Unit by applying a 50 percent 

rebuilding exploitation rate and a 12 percent pre-terminal SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling. 

The resulting anticipated range of total exploitation rates for the Puyallup Management Unit 

under the implementation of the RMP is expected to be 49 to 50 percent. The most likely total 

exploitation rate within this range is 50 percent (see Table 14). The range of anticipated 

escapements to the Puyallup River under the implementation of the RMP is 1,798 to 2,419 fish 

(see Table 3). The most likely escapement within this range is 2,419 fish (see Table 5). The 

range of anticipated escapements for the Puyallup River is above the VSP-derived viable 

threshold of 1,250 fish. 

Based on the current status, the stable escapement trend, and the anticipated level of escapement 

to remain above the viable threshold, the level of risk to the Puyallup River population due to the 

anticipated range of exploitation rates under the implementation of the RMP is consistent with 

NMFS’ standard for rebuilding. 

White River Management Unit – The White River Management Unit contains one population, 

the White River population (Category 1). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 1,220 fish for 

White River population has been above the RMP’s upper management threshold of 1,000 fish 

(see Table 9). The White River population has exhibited an increasing escapement trend since 

listing (see Table 9). 

The co-managers propose to manage the White River Management Unit by applying a 20 percent 

total rebuilding exploitation rate and a 15 percent SUS critical exploitation rate ceiling. The 

resulting anticipated range of total exploitation rates for the White River Management Unit under 

the implementation of the RMP is expected to vary little around the RMP’s 20 percent rebuilding 

exploitation rate (see Table 14). The range of anticipated escapements to the White River under 

the implementation of the RMP is 1,011 to 1,468 fish (see Table 3). The most likely escapement 

within this range is 1,459 fish (see Table 5). Modeling suggests that escapement will continue to 

remain above the RMP’s upper management threshold of 1,000 fish under the implementation of 

the RMP. 

Based on the current status and increasing escapement trend of the of the population, and the 

anticipated level of escapement under the implementation of the RMP, the level of risk to the 

White River population due to the anticipated range of exploitation rates under the 

implementation of the RMP is consistent with NMFS’ standard for rebuilding. 

In summary, for those management units where adequate data were not available for NMFS to 

develop rebuilding exploitation rates, or for those management units where NMFS has yet to 

develop a rebuilding exploitation rate, there is an increased level of concern for the Cedar River, 

Sammamish River, Mid-Hood Canal rivers, and Dungeness River populations due to the low 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

66 

escapement anticipated under the implementation of the RMP. Additional discussion on the 

increased concern for these populations, in regards to the likelihood of survival and recovery of 

the ESU, will be provided in the following section. 

(6) Section (b)(4)(i)(D) Displays a biologically based rationale demonstrating that the 

harvest management strategy will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and 

recovery of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit in the wild, over the entire period of time 

the proposed harvest management strategy affects the population, including effects 

reasonably certain to occur after the proposed actions cease. 

The Puget Sound TRT is in the process of developing recommended recovery biological criteria 

for listed salmonids in the Puget Sound region. The TRT has prepared a draft document that 

includes general guidelines for assessing recovery efforts across individual populations within 

Puget Sound and determining whether they are sufficient for delisting and recovery of the listed 

ESU (NMFS 2002a). The preliminary delisting and recovery criteria recommendation provided 

by the TRT (see Chapter 3 in NMFS 2002d) have been used to assist in the evaluation of the 

harvest management strategy represented by the RMP. 

Although component populations contribute fundamentally to the structure and diversity of the 

ESU, it is the ESU, not an individual population, which is the listed “species” under the ESA. 

The TRT is charged with identifying the biological characteristics of a recovered ESU as part of 

developing delisting and recovery criteria. These biological characteristics are based on the 

collective viability of the individual populations, their characteristics, and their distributions 

throughout the ESU. 

NMFS recognizes that there are various recovery scenarios that may lead to a recovered ESU. 

Different scenarios of ESU recovery may be based on choosing different degrees of acceptable 

risk of extinction for different combinations of populations across the ESU. An ESU-wide 

scenario with all populations at the lower end of the planning range for viability is unlikely to 

assure persistence and delisting of the ESU (NMFS 2002a). The final ESU-wide scenario for 

delisting will likely include populations with a range of risk levels, but when considered in the 

aggregate, the collective risk will be sufficiently low to assure persistence of the ESU. 

The geographical distribution of viable populations across the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

ESU is important for the ESU’s recovery (NMFS 2002a). The TRT has identified five 

geographic regions (Figure 7) within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU based on 

similarities in hydrographic, biogeographic, and geologic characteristics, which also correspond 

to regions where groups of populations could be affected similarly by catastrophes (volcanic 

events, earthquakes, oil spills, etc.). An ESU with well-distributed viable populations avoids the 

situation where populations succumb to the same catastrophic risk(s), allows for a greater 

potential source of diverse populations for recovery in a variety of environments (i.e., greater 

options for recovery), and will increase the likelihood of the ESU’s survival in response to rapid 

environmental changes, such as a volcano eruption of Mount Rainier. Geographically diverse 

populations in different regions also distribute the ecological and ecosystem services provided by 

salmon across the ESU. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

67 

Figure 7. Map of the geographic regions within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). Based on NMFS’ proposed evaluation, 

identified within the figure are populations are with an increased level of concern, 

when compared to NMFS’ standards and populations where the anticipated range 

of exploitation rates resulting from the implementation of the RMP exceeds the 

NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

68 

The TRT recommends that an ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to four 

viable chinook salmon populations in each of the five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region (NMFS 2002a). An ESU-wide recovery scenario should also include within 

each of these geographic regions one or more viable populations from each major genetic and 

life history group historically present within that geographic region (NMFS 2002a). While 

changes in harvest alone cannot recover the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, NMFS can use 

the preliminary TRT guidance for assistance in evaluating whether the proposed RMP would 

impede recovery of the ESU. 

The following risk assessment is presented in two stages. In the first stage, a potential area of 

concern or risk is identified by region. In the second stage, the likelihood of that concern or risk 

occurring is evaluated. The assessment in the second stage also considers the practical influence 

harvest may have on the potential concern or risk. 

Estimated impacts from the fisheries proposed by the RMP will vary by region, consistent with 

population-specific management objectives specified in the RMP. In prior sections, NMFS 

evaluated the RMP’s impacts on individual populations. Consistent with the TRT’s guidance to 

assess ESU-wide effects, the following is an evaluation of the estimated impacts on the ESU, by 

region, from the fisheries proposed by the RMP: 

Georgia Strait Region – Chinook salmon originating from the Georgia Strait Region are distinct 

from other Puget Sound chinook salmon in their genetic attributes, life history traits, and habitat 

characteristics (PSTRT 2003). There are two populations within the Georgia Strait Region: the 

North Fork Nooksack River and the South Fork Nooksack River populations (see Figure 7). Both 

populations are designated as Category 1 populations (see Table 7). Straying between the two 

populations was historically low, as supported by available genetic data, but straying may have 

increased in recent years (PSTRT 2003). The more recent straying observations may be partially 

due to an increase in hatchery production. This potential source of straying may have been 

reduced by the co-managers with the implementation of a 50 percent reduction in on-station 

hatchery releases from Kendall Creek Hatchery (T. Scott, WDFW, e-mail to K. Schultz, NMFS, 

March 22, 2004). Habitat differences between the two populations exist, but are subtle (PSTRT 

2003). 

In previous sections, NMFS has evaluated the RMP’s impacts on individual populations and 

identified an elevated level of risks to the North Fork Nooksack River and South Fork Nooksack 

River populations, when compared to NMFS’ standards. A summary of the risk analysis for 

these two populations follows. A more detailed analysis of risks to these populations is provided 

in previous sections. 

Nooksack River Populations - The North Fork Nooksack River natural-origin population has 

exhibited an increasing escapement trend since listing (see Table 9). However, the estimated 

1999 to 2002 average escapement of 180 natural-origin spawners for the North Fork Nooksack 

River population is below the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish (see Table 8). The 

South Fork Nooksack River natural-origin population has also exhibited an increasing 

escapement trend since listing (see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 249 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

69 

natural-origin spawners for the South Fork Nooksack River population is slightly above the 

NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish (see Table 8). 

The broodstock used for the Kendall Creek Hatchery program, located on the North Fork 

Nooksack River, retains the genetic characteristics of the wild population and is considered 

essential for the survival and recovery of the ESU. When including Kendall Creek hatcheryorigin fish, an average aggregate escapement of 3,438 natural spawners in the North Fork 

Nooksack River has been observed since listing (see Table 10). Adult fish produced by the 

Kendall Creek Hatchery program and migrating with the natural-origin fish are expected to 

buffer harvest-induced genetic and demographic risks to the natural-origin North Fork Nooksack 

River population (see discussion on pages 27 to 30). 

Increased escapement of natural-origin fish into the Nooksack River in recent years may be due, 

in part, to harvest reductions. However, the abundance trend in the natural-origin returns 

suggests that, although escapement may be stable or even trend upward toward or above the 

optimum level associated with current habitat condition, natural-origin recruitment will not 

increase much beyond that level unless constraints limiting marine, freshwater, and estuary 

survival are alleviated. Augmentation of these natural-origin spawners on the natural spawning 

areas of the North Fork Nooksack River, with the addition of hatchery-origin spawners, will 

continue to test the natural production potential of the system at higher escapement levels. The 

escapement of hatchery-origin fish may also benefit the natural-origin production by capitalizing 

on favorable survival conditions in some years. 

For the Nooksack Management Unit, the anticipated range of total exploitation rates is 20 to 26 

percent. The most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 25 percent (see Table 14). 

Similar to recent years, the largest proportion of the total exploitation rate is expected to be 

accounted for by the Canadian fisheries (see Table 4). The SUS exploitation rate on the 

Nooksack River populations is not anticipated to exceed 7 percent under the proposed RMP (see 

Table 3). Even if the entire SUS exploitation rate on Nooksack River populations of 7 percent 

was eliminated, the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate of 12 percent for the Nooksack 

Management Unit would still not be achieved. 

NMFS has evaluated the elevated risks to the Nooksack Management Unit associated with the 

SUS fisheries proposed in the RMP, using the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate as the 

standard for comparison. With the modeled Canadian fisheries, and assuming 2003 abundance, a 

7 percent SUS fishery exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations would lead to a 6 

percentage point decrease in the probability of rebuilt populations in 25 years under current 

conditions. Modeling also suggests that the application of a 7 percent SUS fishery exploitation 

rate would result in a 14 percentage point increase in the probability that the populations will fall 

below the critical level during that same 25-year period (see Table 16). 

Similar to recent years, it is likely that the vast majority of the SUS fishery harvest impacts on 

the Nooksack Management Unit populations under the RMP would occur in treaty Indian 

fisheries. Since 2001, the majority of the SUS harvest on the Nooksack Management Unit has 

occurred in tribal fisheries. In recognition of tribal management authority and the Federal 

government’s trust responsibility to the tribes, NMFS is committed to considering their judgment 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

70 

and expertise regarding the conservation of trust resources. Consistent with this commitment and 

as a matter of policy, NMFS has sought, where there is appropriate tribal management, to work 

with tribal managers to provide limited tribal fishery opportunities, so long as the risk to the 

population remains within acceptable limits. 

Trends in the escapement of natural-origin Nooksack early chinook salmon populations are 

increasing. The additional contributions of hatchery origin spawners to the natural spawning 

areas are anticipated to reduce catastrophic and demographic risks to the North Fork Nooksack 

population. In addition, the Kendall Creek hatchery-origin chinook salmon share the ecological 

and genetic characteristics of the natural origin spawners. Information suggests that past harvest 

constraints have had limited effect on increasing the escapement of returning natural-origin fish. 

The magnitude of Canadian harvest is expected to significantly exceed the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rate for the Nooksack River populations. However, the SUS exploitation 

rate on the Nooksack River populations is not anticipated to exceed 7 percent. NMFS considers 

the tribes’ management authority, judgment, and expertise regarding conservation of trust 

resources. Taking all these factors into account, NMFS concludes that the implementation of the 

RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2010, will adequately protect chinook salmon 

populations in the Georgia Straight Region. 

North Puget Sound Region – The largest river systems in Puget Sound are found within the 

North Puget Sound Region. There are ten chinook salmon populations delineated by the TRT 

within the North Puget Sound Region (see Figure 7). NMFS has determined that the proposed 

RMP will contribute to the rebuilding of seven of the ten populations (70 percent) within this 

region. NMFS has identified a potential elevated level of risk under the RMP for three of these 

ten populations, as assessed through a comparison of likely exploitation rate ranges for these 

populations under the RMP with their NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates. These three 

populations are the lower Sauk River and lower Skagit River populations in the Skagit 

Summer/Fall Management Unit, and the Skykomish River population in the Snohomish 

Management Unit. A summary of the risk analysis for these three populations follows, but a 

more detailed analysis is provided in previous sections. 

Lower Skagit River Population: The lower Skagit River population is classified as a Category 1 

population (see Table 7). The population has shown an increasing escapement trend since listing 

(see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 2,944 fish has been above the NMFSderived viable threshold of 2,182 fish for the lower Skagit River population (see Table 8). The 

anticipated escapement under the implementation of the RMP for the lower Skagit River 

population is 1,182 fish (see Table 5). This level of escapement is well above the NMFS-derived 

critical threshold of 251 fish for the lower Skagit River population. 

The anticipated total exploitation rate under the implementation of the RMP for the lower Skagit 

River population would range between 48 and 56 percent. The most likely total exploitation rate 

within this range would be 55 percent (see Table 14). The upper end of the range of anticipated 

total exploitation rates exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate of 49 percent for 

this population. Similar to recent years, it is anticipated that Canadian fisheries will account for 

the substantial portion of the anticipated total exploitation rate on this population under the 

implementation of the RMP (see Table 4). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

71 

The anticipated range of exploitation rates for the SUS fisheries for the lower Skagit River 

population is 16 to 18 percent (see Table 3). The most likely exploitation rate for the SUS 

fisheries within this range is 16 percent (see Table 5). Through modeling, NMFS assessed the 

increased risk to the lower Skagit River population associated with the SUS fisheries proposed in 

the RMP. With the modeled Canadian fisheries and abundance similar to 2003 levels, a 16 

percent SUS exploitation rate would result in a 26 percentage point decrease in the probability of 

a rebuilt population in 25 years under current conditions. This modeling also indicates that there 

is no change in the probability that the population will fall below the critical level during that 

same 25-year period (see Table 16). 

Lower Sauk River Population: The lower Sauk River chinook salmon population is classified as 

a Category 1 population (see Table 7). The population has exhibited an increasing escapement 

trend since listing (see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 721 fish has been 

above the NMFS-derived viable threshold of 681 fish for the lower Sauk River population (see 

Table 8). The most likely escapement resulting from the implementation of the RMP for the 

lower Sauk River population is 588 fish (see Table 5). This level of escapement is above the 

NMFS-derived critical threshold of 200 fish defined for the for the lower Sauk River population 

(see Table 8). 

Total exploitation rates on the lower Sauk River population under the implementation of the 

RMP on the lower Sauk River population are expected to range between 48 and 56 percent. The 

most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 55 percent (see Table 14). The upper end of 

the range of anticipated total exploitation rates exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding 

exploitation rate for this population of 51 percent. A lack of data prevented NMFS from 

determining the level of increased risk for to the lower Sauk River population in the event that 

the total exploitation rate exceeds the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. The effects of 

the implementation of the RMP on the lower Sauk River population are assumed to be similar to 

those identified for the lower Skagit River population as discussed above. 

Skykomish River Population: The Skykomish River chinook salmon population is classified as a 

Category 1 population (see Table 7). The population has exhibited an increasing escapement 

trend since listing (see Table 9). The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 2,118 fish for the 

Skykomish River population has been above the NMFS-derived critical threshold of 1,650 fish, 

but below the NMFS-derived viable threshold of 3,500 fish (see Table 8). The estimated 

escapement for the Skykomish River population that is most likely to result from the 

implementation of the RMP is 2,385 fish (see Table 5). 

The total exploitation rate of 22 percent that is most likely to result from the implementation of 

the RMP would exceed the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate for the Skykomish River 

population by 5 percentage points (see Table 19). The anticipated harvest impacts on the 

populations within the Snohomish Management Unit include those from Canadian fisheries (see 

Table 4). The management of Canadian fisheries is outside the jurisdiction of the co-managers. 

However, the co-managers do have jurisdiction over fisheries occurring within the SUS areas. 

For the Snohomish Management Unit, the anticipated range of exploitation rates for the SUS 

fisheries is 13 to 14 percent (see Table 3). The most likely exploitation rate within in this range is 

13 percent (see Table 5). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

72 

Through modeling, NMFS identified the increased level of risk that may be associated with the 

SUS fisheries exploitation rates proposed in the RMP, when compared to the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rate. Under the mostly likely scenario, a 13 percent SUS exploitation rate 

for the Skykomish River population will result in a 14 percentage point decrease in the 

probability of a rebuilt population in 25 years under current conditions. Modeling also suggests 

that the implementation of the RMP will result in a 3 percentage point increase in the probability 

that the population will fall below the critical level during that same 25-year period (see Table 

16). 

The TRT recommends that any ESU-wide recovery scenario include at least two to four viable 

chinook salmon populations in each of the five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. NMFS’ assessment is that the RMP will contribute to rebuilding for seven of 

the ten populations within the North Puget Sound Region. The life history and run timing 

characteristics of the three populations identified as having an elevated level of risk for 

rebuilding (the lower Sauk River, the lower Skagit River, and the Skykomish River populations), 

are similar to the seven other populations in the region (see Table 7). Two of these three “at risk” 

populations are currently above their identified viable thresholds, and all three populations have 

an increasing trend in escapement since listing. Therefore, NMFS concludes that the RMP’s 

management objectives are adequately protective of the geographic distribution, life history 

characteristics, and diversity of populations within the North Puget Sound Region of the ESU. 

South Puget Sound Region – There are six populations delineated by the Puget Sound TRT 

within the South Puget Sound Region (see Figure 7). Genetically, most of the present spawning 

aggregations in the South Puget Sound Region are similar, likely reflecting the extensive 

influence of transplanted stock hatchery releases, primarily from the Green River population 

(PSTRT 2003). The TRT found that life history and genetic variations were not useful in 

determining populations within the South Puget Sound Region. Most chinook salmon in the 

South Puget Sound Region have similar life history traits. 

In the previous sections, NMFS found that the proposed RMP is anticipated to contribute to the 

stabilization or rebuilding of all populations within this region11. However, NMFS has identified 

a concern for two South Puget Sound Region populations due primarily to anticipated low 

abundance under the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010. A 

summary of the concerns for these two populations follows, but a more detailed analysis is 

provided in previous sections. 

Cedar River and Sammamish River Populations: The Lake Washington Management Unit 

includes two populations; the Cedar River (Category 1) and the Sammamish River (Category 2) 

populations. The 1999 to 2002 four-year average escapements of 385 fish for the Cedar River 

population and 373 fish for the Sammamish River population are above the identified critical 

thresholds. The four-year average escapement of 385 fish for the Cedar River population is 

 

11 With the level of escapement for the Duwamish-Green River population anticipated to continue to 

exceed the NMFS-derived viable threshold, the level of risk to this population associated with the 

implementation of the RMP is consistent with NMFS’ standards. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

73 

below the RMP’s upper management threshold for the population of 1,200 fish (see Table 8). 

The RMP proposes no upper management threshold for the Sammamish River population (see 

discussion on pages 32 to 33). 

Since listing, the trend in escapement to the Cedar River has been stable, while the escapement to 

the Sammamish River population has exhibited an increasing trend (see Table 9). However, it is 

noted that the total escapement estimates for the Cedar River, as presented in Table 6, are based 

on an expansion of a live fish counts. Expansions of redd counts in the Cedar River suggest that 

this historical expansion of the live counts may be a conservative estimate of the total 

escapement. Additionally, the escapement estimates for the Sammamish River population do not 

include escapement into the Upper Cottage Lake or Issaquah Creeks. Therefore, although the 

escapement information used in this evaluation is believed to be representative of trends, the 

escapement estimates are considered a conservative estimate of the total escapement. A direct 

comparison of the Cedar River and Sammamish River escapements with the VSP generic 

guidance for a critical threshold of 200 fish should be considered conservative, as the total 

escapements for these two systems are likely greater than those depicted in Table 6. 

Since 1998, the estimated natural escapement levels for both populations within the Lake 

Washington Management Unit have exceeded the VSP generic guidance for a critical threshold 

of 200 fish, but have remained well below the guidance for a viable threshold of 1,250 fish. 

Escapements into the Cedar River and the Sammamish River tributaries resulting from the 

implementation of the RMP are anticipated to range from 214 to 305 fish each (see Table 3). The 

most likely escapement for each population within this range is 295 fish (see Table 5). 

Harvest impact modeling for the Lake Washington Management Unit indicates that the comanagers will continue to meet or exceed the critical threshold of 200 natural spawners for both 

populations within the management unit under the implementation of the RMP. However, given 

that the range of anticipated escapements approaches the critical thresholds for each population, 

and considering the volatility in escapement observed for these populations in the past, NMFS is 

concerned that these populations could experience very low abundance in the next several years, 

below the critical thresholds. However, there is a substantial contribution of stray hatchery-origin 

fish to the natural escapement in the Sammamish River tributaries. The Sammamish River 

population (Category 2 population) is not genetically distinct from these straying hatchery-origin 

fish. These hatchery-origin fish may lessen demographic concerns that may arise regarding low 

escapement for that population. 

In previous sections of this document, NMFS has expressed concern for the Sammamish River 

population because the RMP provides no low abundance threshold for managing harvest impacts 

on the population. The co-managers propose that protective measures imposed to safeguard the 

Cedar River population, which include management constraints that would be applied when the 

population falls below its low abundance threshold, will also incidentally benefit the Sammamish 

River population. The co-managers’ argument is compelling because the Cedar River and 

Sammamish River populations are both affected by the same terminal area fisheries. NMFS 

agrees that it is reasonable to expect that terminal conservation management measures directed at 

migrating fish returning to the Cedar River would also benefit fish returning to the Sammamish 

River. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

74 

Limiting factors to chinook salmon survival and productivity in the Lake Washington basin are 

being addressed by improving fish passage conditions at the Ballard Locks, and restoration of 

anadromous fish access to 17 miles of the Cedar River above the Landsburg Dam. While these 

improvements will likely enhance spatial structure and productivity, there remain highly altered 

conditions in the Lake Washington basin and at the Ballard Locks that are daunting to juvenile 

salmon survival and emigration, and adult immigration. 

The TRT recommends that an ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to four 

viable chinook salmon populations in each of five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. Despite potential risks that the Cedar River and Sammamish River 

populations may experience under the harvest management plan from May 1, 2005 through April 

2010, the RMP is still expected to provide sufficient protection for four of the six populations in 

the South Puget Sound Region. The concerns for the Cedar River and Sammamish River 

populations do not represent much risk to the region. Identifying these two populations as a 

concern is considered a precautionary approach, as information suggests that the escapements 

estimated for these systems are likely conservative. NMFS believes that the RMP’s management 

objectives are adequately protective of the geographic distribution, life history characteristics, 

and genetic diversity of the populations within the South Puget Sound Region of the ESU. 

Hood Canal Region – Primarily because of their geographic isolation from other basins of the 

ESU, the TRT concluded that chinook salmon spawning historically in Hood Canal streams were 

independent from other chinook salmon spawning aggregations in the Puget Sound region 

(PSTRT 2003). There are two populations within the Hood Canal Region: the Skokomish River 

and the Mid-Hood Canal rivers populations (see Figure 7). Both populations are classified as a 

Category 2 population (see Table 7). Watersheds harboring Category 2 chinook salmon 

populations are areas where indigenous populations of the species are believed to no longer exist, 

but where sustainable wild populations existed historically and wild production remains selfsustaining at present and where habitat could still support such populations. 

In a previous section, NMFS has identified potential concern for harvest impacts on the spatial 

structure of the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population. This concern is heightened because of the 

low abundance in two of the individual rivers. A summary of the concerns for the Mid-Hood 

Canal rivers population follows, but a more detailed analysis is provided in previous sections. 

Mid-Hood Canal Rivers Population: The 1999 to 2002 average escapement of 404 fish for the 

Mid-Hood Canal rivers population is only slightly above the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 

400 fish for the population (see Table 9). The Mid-Hood Canal rivers population has exhibited 

an increasing escapement trend since the time of listing (see Table 9). However, low levels of 

escapements in the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit are anticipated to continue under the 

implementation of the RMP. The range of anticipated spawning escapements into the rivers of 

the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 

through April 2010 is expected to range from is 344 to 531 fish (see Table 3). The most likely 

escapement within this range is 504 fish (see Table 5). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

75 

The Mid-Hood Canal rivers population includes spawning aggregations in the Hamma Hamma, 

Duckabush, and the Dosewallips Rivers. Most harvest impacts on this population occur in mixed 

stock areas outside of the Hood Canal region. The effects of these mixed stock fisheries on the 

three components of the population are variable and unpredictable. It is therefore difficult for the 

co-managers to impose differential harvest effects on the individual spawning aggregate 

components in order to adjust spawning distribution among the rivers. In 2002, the natural 

escapement of 95 spawners into the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit fell well below the VSP 

guidance for a critical threshold of 200 fish for this population. Total annual spawning 

escapements below 40 fish have been observed in recent years in each of the Duckabush and 

Dosewallips Rivers. 

For the Mid-Hood Canal Management Unit, the anticipated range of total exploitation rates that 

would result from the implementation of the RMP is 26 to 34 percent. The most likely total 

exploitation rate within this range is 32 percent (see Table 14). Similar to the more northern 

chinook salmon management units discussed above, Canadian fisheries are expected to account 

for a substantial proportion of the total exploitation rate on this population (see Table 4). The 

most likely SUS exploitation rate anticipated under the implementation of the RMP is 13 

percent. 

Escapement into the individual systems has varied, with the spawning aggregation in the Hamma 

Hamma River representing the majority of the total Mid-Hood Canal rivers population 

abundance in recent years (see Table 6). Adult returns resulting from the WDFW-administered 

Hamma Hamma River supplementation program, which relies partially on broodstock returning 

to the river, has likely contributed substantially to the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population’s 

increasing abundance trend (see Table 12). 

The hatchery-origin adult fish that are progeny of broodstock collected from the Hamma Hamma 

River may buffer demographic risks to the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population in the short term, 

particularly to the component of the population spawning in the Hamma Hamma River. The 

general characteristics of the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population, including life history and run 

timing, are also found in the Skokomish River population (see Figure 7), the only other 

population within the region. Genetically similar stocks are also sustained by several hatchery 

facilities in the Hood Canal area and in hatcheries in the South Puget Sound Region where the 

Green River-lineage are naturally or artificially sustained. 

As mentioned in a previous section, the co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS, have modeled 

escapement results under a no Puget Sound fishery alternative. The most likely escapement for 

this management unit under the “no fishery” scenario is 527 fish. With no Puget Sound fisheries, 

anticipated escapement into the Mid-Hood Canal rivers population would only increase by 23 

fish, spread among the three component natural spawning rivers. Given the observed proportions 

of recent year escapements into the individual river systems comprising the Mid-Hood Canal 

Management Unit (see Table 12), the most likely increase in escapement into the Duckabush and 

Dosewallips Rivers will be only three and two fish, respectively. Based on modeling, further 

decreases in the proposed SUS fisheries-related impacts would have little effect on the 

persistence of the spawning aggregations in the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

76 

The TRT recommends that an ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to four 

viable chinook salmon populations in each of five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. NMFS concludes the RMP’s management objectives are adequately 

protective of the geographic, life history, and diversity of the populations within the Hood Canal 

Region of the ESU. This recommended determination takes into consideration that the hatcheryorigin production may buffer demographic risks associated with the RMP to the Mid-Hood 

Canal rivers population. Additionally, the genetic similarity between the Mid-Hood Canal rivers 

population and populations within the Skokomish River and the South Puget Sound Region, 

which could serve as reserves, was also a factor. However, the primary reasons for the 

recommendation are the total abundance status of the population, the increasing escapement 

trend observed for the population, the annual monitoring and evaluation actions outlined in the 

RMP (discussed later in this document), and the likelihood that further decrease in the SUS 

fisheries-related impacts would have limited beneficial effects. 

Strait of Juan de Fuca Region - The TRT delineated two populations within the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca Region: the Dungeness River and the Elwha River populations (see Figure 7). Both 

populations are classified as Category 1 populations (see Table 7). Although the TRT identified 

only two historically extant populations within the Strait of Juan de Fuca Region, important 

components of the historical diversity within the Strait of Juan de Fuca Region may have been 

lost (PSTRT 2003). 

Genetically, the chinook salmon in the Elwha River are very distinct from other Puget Sound 

populations (see Figure 5a in PSTRT 2003). Chinook salmon in the Dungeness River are also 

genetically distinct from other populations in Puget Sound and appear intermediate in their 

characteristics between eastern Puget Sound and the Elwha River populations (PSTRT 2003). 

Habitat differences also exist between the Dungeness and Elwha River basins and other Puget 

Sound watersheds (PSTRT 2003). 

In previous sections, NMFS found that the RMP provides sufficient protection for the Elwha 

River population. However, NMFS has identified a heightened level of concern for the 

Dungeness River population, primarily because of the current status of the populations, the 

annual anticipated escapement resulting from the implementation of the RMP is expected to 

approach the VSP-derived critical threshold of 200 for the population. A summary of the risk 

analysis for the Dungeness River population follows, but a more detailed analysis is provided in 

previous sections. 

Dungeness River Population: Since listing, the average escapements of 345 fish for the 

Dungeness River population has been above the VSP generic guidance for a critical threshold of 

200 fish for this population, but below the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 500 fish. The 

Dungeness River population has exhibited an increasing escapement trend since listing (see 

Table 9). Modeling of the Dungeness Management Unit indicates that the co-managers would 

continue to meet or exceed the critical threshold of 200 natural spawners under the 

implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010. The range of escapements to 

the Dungeness River under the implementation of the RMP is expected to be 231 to 356 fish (see 

Table 3). The most likely escapement within this range is 336 fish (see Table 5). The range of 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

77 

anticipated escapements is below the RMP’s low abundance threshold of 500 fish and 

approaches the VSP generic guidance for a critical threshold of 200 fish for this population. 

The co-managers, in cooperation with federal agencies and private-sector conservation groups, 

have implemented a captive brood stock program to rehabilitate chinook salmon runs in the 

Dungeness River. Juvenile and adult fish produced through the hatchery program on the 

Dungeness River are listed with the natural-origin fish under the ESA. The primary goal of the 

supplementation and an associated fishery restriction program is to increase the number of fish 

spawning naturally in the river, while maintaining the generic characteristics of the existing 

broodstock. 

Although there are no fishery harvest distribution estimates for the Dungeness Management 

Unit, in the adjacent Elwha Management Unit, it is estimated that the Alaskan and Canadian 

harvests have represented, on average, almost 80 percent of the total fishery impacts. A similar 

Alaskan and Canadian harvest distribution is assumed for the Dungeness River population. 

Through modeling, the estimated range of exploitation rates that may be anticipated for the 

Dungeness Management Unit under the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through 

April 2010 is 22 to 29 percent. The most likely total exploitation rate within this range is 27 

percent (see Table 14). However, the anticipated SUS exploitation rate for this population is very 

small; the SUS fisheries exploitation rate on this population is most likely to be 5 percent (see 

Table 5). 

The co-managers will review the status of populations within the ESU annually. The comanagers, in cooperation with NMFS, will use this information to assess whether impacts on 

listed fish are as expected. When a population is anticipated to fall below its low abundance 

threshold, the co-managers have committed to consider additional actions when application of 

the RMP is not sufficiently protective in a given year, and when such additional actions would 

benefit the stocks. 

NMFS concludes that the RMP would provide sufficient protection for the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Region populations. This recommended determination takes into consideration that the 

conservation hatchery program operating in the Dungeness River buffers the demographic risk to 

the Dungeness River population. This recommended determination also considers the status and 

increasing escapement trend of the populations within this region, annual monitoring and 

evaluation outlined in the RMP (which will be discussed more later in this evaluation), the small 

anticipated SUS exploitation rate of less than five percent, and the likelihood that any further 

decrease in the SUS fisheries-related impacts would have limited beneficial effects on these 

populations. As discussed above and in previous sections, NMFS finds that the RMP’s 

management objectives would be adequately protective of the geographic distribution, life 

history characteristics, and genetic diversity of populations within the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Region of the ESU. 

ESU Summary - The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, not the component, individual 

populations, is the primary focus of NMFS’ evaluation of the impacts of the RMP under the 

ESA. In conducting this evaluation, NMFS takes into account the recommendations of the TRT, 

which is charged with identifying the biological characteristics of a recovered ESU as part of 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

78 

developing delisting and recovery criteria. As noted earlier, the TRT’s preliminary 

recommendation is that any ESU-wide recovery scenario should include at least two to four 

viable chinook salmon populations in each of five geographic regions within Puget Sound, 

depending on the historical biological characteristics and acceptable risk levels for populations 

within each region. Biological criteria outlined in the ESA 4(d) Rule, NMFS’ other mandates 

under the Endangered Species Act, and federal trust responsibilities to treaty Indian tribes will 

also be considered in developing NMFS’ evaluation and resultant determination for the RMP. 

NMFS concludes that the implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 30, 2010, 

will adequately protect chinook salmon populations in the Georgia Straight Region based 

primarily on the increasing trends of the natural-origin populations, the additional contributions 

of hatchery-origin spawners to the natural spawning areas, and the low anticipated SUS 

exploitation rate. Additionally, NMFS’ conclusion is based on information suggesting that past 

harvest constraints have had limited effect on increasing escapement of returning natural-origin 

fish, when compared with the return of hatchery-origin fish, and taking into consideration 

NMFS’ treaty trust responsibility. 

NMFS has determined that implementation of the proposed RMP will contribute to rebuilding 

for seven of the ten populations within the North Puget Sound Region. The life history and run 

timing characteristics of the three populations identified as having an elevated level of risk for 

rebuilding, are represented by the seven other populations in the region. Escapements for two of 

three “at risk” populations are currently above their identified viable thresholds, and all three 

populations have shown an increasing trend in escapement since listing. Therefore, NMFS 

concludes that the RMP’s management objectives would be adequately protective of the 

geographic distribution, life history characteristics, and genetic diversity of the populations 

within the North Puget Sound Region of the ESU. 

Through its evaluation, NMFS expects that the proposed RMP would contribute to the 

stabilization or rebuilding of all populations within the South Puget Sound Region. Specific 

harvest impacts identified for the two populations within the region, the Cedar River and 

Sammamish River populations, do not rise to a level that might represent a substantial risk to 

chinook salmon population rebuilding and recovery in the region when all populations are 

considered. Highlighting harvest impact concerns for these two populations is considered 

precautionary. Therefore, NMFS concludes that the RMP’s management objectives are 

adequately protective of the geographic distribution, life history characteristics, and genetic 

diversity of the populations within the South Puget Sound Region of the ESU. 

The RMP’s management objectives are adequately protective of the geographic distribution, life 

history traits, and genetic diversity of the populations within the Hood Canal Region of the ESU. 

This conclusion is based on the production of the hatchery-origin fish that share the ecological 

and genetic traits of the natural-origin population, the status and increasing escapement trends of 

the two component populations, the annual monitoring and evaluation actions applied in the 

RMP to track population status and harvest impacts, the likelihood that further decrease in the 

SUS fisheries-related impacts would have limited effects on the persistence of the Mid-Hood 

Canal rivers population within this region, and the genetic similarity between the Mid-Hood 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

79 

Canal rivers population and populations within the Skokomish River and the South Puget Sound 

Region. 

NMFS concludes that the RMP will also provide adequate protection for chinook salmon 

originating from the Strait of Juan de Fuca Region. This recommended determination is based on 

the status and increasing escapement trends of the populations, the annual monitoring and 

evaluation actions outlined in the RMP, the low anticipated SUS exploitation rates, the 

likelihood that any further decrease in the SUS fisheries-related impacts would have limited 

beneficial effects on the persistence of these two populations, and on consideration that the 

hatchery-origin fish produced for conservation purposes in the two watersheds within this region 

share the ecological and genetic traits of the natural-origin populations. 

Based on these conclusions and the analysis presented in previous sections, NMFS finds that the 

RMP’s management objectives, in combination with other ongoing habitat and hatchery efforts, 

would provide adequate protection for each of the five regions of the ESU. NMFS finds that the 

RMP’s management objectives adequately address the biological criteria outline in the ESA 4(d) 

Rule. Therefore, the NMFS Northwest Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division concludes that 

implementation of the RMP from May 1, 2005 through April 2010 would not appreciably reduce 

the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU in the wild.

(7) Section (b)(4)(i)(E) Includes effective (a) monitoring and (b) evaluation programs to 

assess compliance, effectiveness, and parameter validation (Minimum requirement: collect 

catch and effort data, information on escapements, and information on biological 

characteristics, such as age, fecundity, size and sex data, and migration timing).

The Puget Sound Indian Tribes and the WDFW, independently and jointly conduct a variety of 

research and monitoring programs. Chapter 7 of the RMP (starting on page 55) describes these 

monitoring programs which are used to assess effectiveness of the management actions in 

achieving the management objectives of the RMP and to validate the assumptions used in 

deriving the objectives. Information from research and monitoring programs will be used in 

conjunction with the performance indicators to assess the effectiveness of the RMP and revise 

management objectives and actions accordingly. 

Chinook salmon harvest in all fisheries, including incidental catch and fishing effort, is 

monitored by the co-managers. Commercial catches within the Puget Sound Action Area are 

recorded on sales receipts (‘tickets’), copies of which are sent to the WDFW and tribal agencies 

and recorded in a jointly-maintained database. A preliminary summary of catch and effort is 

available four months after the season, although a final, error-checked record may require a year 

or more to develop. 

For Puget Sound fishing areas, recreational harvest is estimated from either creel census or from 

a sample of catch record cards obtained from anglers. The recreational fishery baseline sampling 

program provides auxiliary estimates of species composition, effort, and catch-per-unit-effort 

(CPUE) to the Salmon Catch Record Card System. The baseline sampling program is 

geographically stratified among the marine catch areas in Puget Sound. The objective of the 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

80 

sampling program is to sample 120 fish per stratum for estimation of species composition, and 

100 boats per stratum for the estimation of CPUE. 

Catch and effort summaries allow an assessment of the performance of fishery regulations in 

constraining catch to the desired levels. Time and area constraints, and gear limitations, are 

imposed by regulations, but with some uncertainty regarding their exact effect on harvest. For 

many management units, catch is often projected pre-season based on the modeled effect of 

specific regulations. Post-season comparison of estimated and actual catch allows for the 

assessment of the true effect of those regulations, and guides their future application or 

modification. 

Incidental mortality in fisheries directed at other species or non-listed chinook salmon has 

comprised an increasingly large proportion of the total harvest mortality of Puget Sound chinook 

salmon. Non-landed mortality is accounted for in the RMP. Non-landed mortality is primarily 

addressed in the RMP’s Chapter 4, the section on Non-Landed Fisheries Mortality (starting on 

page 26 in the RMP) and in Appendix B: Non-landed Mortality Rates of the RMP. Non-landed 

mortality is projected by averaging levels estimated across a recent period, either as total chinook 

salmon landed or as a proportion of the target species catch. 

The co-managers estimate chinook salmon escapement from surveys in each river system. 

Escapement surveys provide information on run timing and population status. A variety of 

sampling and computational methods are used to calculate escapement, including cumulative 

redd counts, peak counts of live adults, cumulative carcass counts, and integration under 

escapement curves drawn from a series of live fish or redd counts. A more detailed description of 

methods used for Puget Sound systems is included in Appendix E: Puget Sound Chinook 

Escapement Estimates: Description and Assessment of the RMP. 

Catch sampling and escapement surveys also provide biological data on age, length, sex, and 

size. Depending on the accuracy required of such estimates, more sampling effort may be 

required by the co-managers than has previously been expended on gathering basic biological 

data to determine age and sex composition and the effects of fisheries on these biological 

elements. State and tribal technical staffs are currently focusing attention on the improving 

design and implementation of these studies. 

The performance of the fisheries during the life of the RMP will be assessed to determine the 

extent to which catch and fishing effort conform to the quotas, ceilings, or projections that were 

defined in pre-season planning for each fishing area and season. The assessment may lead to 

further evaluation of the effectiveness of fishing regulations (e.g. time or area constraints, gear 

restrictions, or bag limits), in future management plans. The causes of discrepancies between 

expected and actual catch and effort will be identified by the co-managers with a view to 

changing regulatory measures, and methods for projecting catch and fishing effort, to improve 

their accuracy. 

Assessment of the total return requires accurate estimation of escapement and reconstruction of 

fishing-related mortality from coded-wire tag data or fishery simulation models. There will a 

time lag of approximately 18 months, after the conclusion of the fall fisheries, before tag 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

81 

recovery data are available to researchers. Tag recoveries from all intercepting fisheries, 

including those in Alaska and British Columbia, are required to complete the assessment. 

Accounting of the harvest fishing-related mortality and escapement for each management unit 

will enable the calculation of exploitation rates, which may be compared with the pre-season 

projections and objectives. Ultimately, reconstruction of all cohorts associated with a given 

brood year enables the calculation of brood-year exploitation rates. 

Cohort reconstruction and estimation of exploitation rates from tag recovery data will also 

provide a means of assessing the accuracy of the fishery simulation models. Models predict unitspecific fishing-related mortality by scaling the abundance of all contributing populations, and 

the fishing effort anticipated in each area and season, against those in a base period. Tag-based 

run reconstruction provides an alternative and independent estimate of the total fishing-related 

mortality and harvest distribution of each management unit or population. The errors detected in 

the simulation model, whether they be associated with abundance forecasts or computation of 

harvest, will be quantified and taken into account in developing harvest objectives and fishery 

planning so that fishery management planning will be robust to those errors. 

Cohort reconstruction for each management unit is the fundamental monitor of productivity. As 

discussed above, the productivity of each management unit or population guides the 

development and adjustment of exploitation rate objectives. Those objectives must conform to 

the most recent values and trends in population productivity. However, many management units 

do not have sufficient data on productivity to detect changes. Periodically, the population/recruit 

function will be updated, and the exploitation rates and thresholds re-assessed, for each 

management unit. The tasks involved in monitoring abundance and productivity, and assessing 

the performance of annual fishing regimes, is mandated by the Puget Sound Salmon 

Management Plan (PSSMP 1985). 

In addition to the monitoring programs discussed in the RMP, there are numerous other ongoing 

projects funded by other agencies or programs which provide additional information useful for 

fisheries management. Each year, the Salmon Recovery Funding Board provides funding for 

projects designed to further salmon recovery. Limiting factor analyses are being conducted for 

each major watershed within Washington State (WSCC 2000). The results of these analyses will 

be important for parameter validation and management objective revision as necessary. Data 

collection and monitoring programs included in Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans 

implemented within the Puget Sound region will also provide valuable information on stray rates 

and patterns, and contribution of hatchery fish to escapements. 

(8) Section (b)(4)(i)(F) Provides for (a) evaluating monitoring data; and (b) making any 

revisions of assumptions, management strategies, or objectives that data show are needed.

A description of how WDFW and the PSTT will evaluate the monitoring data and compile a 

report of the findings can be found in Chapter 7 of the RMP, in the Annual Chinook 

Management Report section, and in Appendix E: Puget Sound Chinook Escapement Estimates: 

Description and Assessment of the RMP. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

82 

State and tribal technical staff will meet periodically in-season to exchange information and data, 

achieve consensus on in-season management actions, and prepare post-season reports. Additional 

meetings and exchanges will occur as needed to develop recommendations for management 

units’ harvest regimes pertinent to the RMP, resolve differences in approach, and review 

monitoring program results. Data from the monitoring programs form the basis for development 

and refinement of forecasting and assessment efforts. 

The RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceilings were established by the co-managers, after policy 

consideration of the recent fisheries regimes that responded to critical status for some 

management units. If substantial changes are made to the model, these ceilings may be adjusted 

in consultation with NMFS (see page 17 of the RMP). 

The co-managers will notify NMFS when in-season actions are expected to deviate substantially 

from preseason expectations, e.g., increase an exploitation rate to a management unit’s ceiling 

rate or reduce the expected escapement level to below the management unit’s low abundance 

threshold (see page 38 of the RMP). The notification will include a description of the change, an 

assessment of the anticipated fishing mortality resulting from the change, and an explanation of 

how impacts of the action maintains consistency with the Puget Sound chinook salmon harvest 

management plan. 

The annual post-season review of the management plan is part of the annual pre-season planning 

process. The post-season review is necessary to permit an assessment of the co-managers’ annual 

management performance in achieving spawning escapement, harvest, and allocation objectives. 

The co-managers will review each population’s status annually and, where needed, identify 

actions required to improve estimation procedures and correcting bias. As appropriate, measures 

will be derived to address deleterious effects on size, age or sex selectivity. Such improvements 

provide greater assurance that management objectives will be achieved in future seasons. The 

effort builds a remedial response into the pre-season planning process to prevent excessive 

fishing-related mortality levels relative to the conservation of a management unit. 

The annual post-season reports will be completed by mid-February of each year over the term of 

the RMP (see page 55 of the RMP). A copy will be provided to NMFS. The review of the 

harvest management plan will include: a fisheries summary; harvest levels; non-landed 

mortality; estimated escapement; an exploitation rate assessment; and the cohort reconstruction. 

It will also include consideration of the information developed through the recovery planning 

efforts of the TRT. Future revisions to the Puget Sound chinook salmon management plan will 

occur if comprehensive technical review of the available information indicates that a 

modification would be beneficial to achieving the goals of the RMP. The results of the postseason reports will also be used to shape future fishery management plans in order to increase the 

effectiveness of the harvest regime and decrease uncertainty. Escapements will be monitored to 

evaluate whether the exploitation rates have contributed to stabilizing or increasing escapements. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

83 

(9) Section (b)(4)(i)(G) Provides for (a) effective enforcement, (b) education, (c) 

coordination among involved jurisdictions. 

The description of the RMP’s enforcement and education programs can be found in Chapter 5 - 

Fisheries and Jurisdictions, starting on page 38 of the RMP. The RMP relies on a pre-season 

planning process to set the initial harvest regimes (fishing schedules and seasons) for all 

management units. The setting of the Puget Sound fisheries schedules and seasons occurs 

concurrently with the planning of the Washington and Oregon coastal fisheries. The pre-season 

planning process will occur from March through early-April, during the North of Cape Falcon 

forums. The forum is open to the public, allowing the public access to salmon status information, 

and providing the public an opportunity to interact with the co-managers. 

Regulations enacted during the season will implement guidelines established during the preseason planning process described above, but may be modified based on in-season assessments 

of effort, catch, abundance, and escapement. However, in many areas, the co-managers lack the 

necessary tools to detect in-season deviations from the pre-season forecast in time to adjust 

regulations. Any in-season modifications will be in accordance with the procedures specified in 

the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (PSSMP 1985) and subsequent court orders. 

The WDFW and individual treaty tribes are responsible for regulation of harvest in fisheries 

under their authority, consistent with the principles and procedures set forth in the Puget Sound 

Salmon Management Plan. Fisheries will be regulated to achieve sharing and production 

objectives based on four fundamental elements: (1) acceptably accurate determination of the 

appropriate exploitation rate, harvest rate, or numbers of fish available for harvest; (2) the ability 

to evaluate the effects of specific fishing regulations; (3) a means to monitor fishing activity in a 

sufficient, timely and accurate fashion; and (4) effective regulation of fisheries to meet objectives 

for spawning escapement and fishery impact limitations. 

Commercial fishery regulations are promulgated by WDFW and by each tribe. The co-managers 

maintain a system for transmitting commercial fishing regulations electronically to all interested 

parties (including NMFS), in a timely manner, prior to and during all fisheries. Regulations are 

stored in paper and electronic format by WDFW, each tribe, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission. Commercial fishery regulations for some fisheries are also available through 

telephone hotlines maintained by WDFW, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and 

individual tribes. The WDFW publishes regulations for recreational fisheries in a widely 

distributed pamphlet. WDFW regulations, and in-season regulation changes, are also published 

on their website (www.wa.gov/wdfw). 

Non-tribal commercial and recreational fishery regulations are enforced by the WDFW. The 

WDFW Enforcement Program currently employs 163 personnel. Of that number, 156 are fully 

commissioned Fish and Wildlife staff who ensure compliance with licensing and habitat 

requirements, and enforce prohibitions against the illegal taking or poaching of fish and wildlife 

(WDFW 2003). The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Program is primarily responsible for 

enforcing the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Code. However, officers are also charged with 

enforcing many other codes as well, and are often called upon to assist their local city/county, 

and other state law enforcement agencies, and tribal authorities. On average, officers currently 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

84 

make more than 300,000 public contacts annually. The WDFW Enforcement staff also works 

cooperatively with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS Enforcement branch, and 

the United Sates Coast Guard. 

Each tribe exercises authority over enforcement of tribal commercial fishing regulations, whether 

fisheries occur on or off their reservation. In some cases enforcement is coordinated among 

several tribes by a single agency (such as the Point No Point Treaty Council, which is entrusted 

with enforcement authority over Lower Elwha Klallam, Jamestown S’Klallam, and Port Gamble 

S’Klallam tribal fisheries). Enforcement officers of one tribal agency may be cross-deputized by 

another tribal agency, where those tribes fish in common areas. Prosecution of violations of tribal 

regulations occurs through tribal courts and governmental structures. 

The co-managers maintain a system for transmitting, cross-indexing and storing fishery 

regulations affecting harvest of salmon. Both WDFW and the Puget Sound Tribes monitor and 

enforce compliance with these regulations as part of more extensive enforcement programs. The 

co-managers’ and federal court systems are expected to be sufficient to ensure that enforcement 

is followed through with appropriate prosecution of violators. 

The PSTT and WDFW have direct management authority over fisheries harvesting Puget Sound 

chinook salmon in Puget Sound. The Pacific Salmon Commission, Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, and North of Falcon meetings will provide the forums for coordination among 

jurisdictions impacting Puget Sound chinook salmon populations. The fishery regimes developed 

each year as an outcome of these planning forums account for fishing-related mortality in all 

fisheries in the United States and Canada. They also help to ensure that fisheries are consistent 

with the management objectives and approach described in the RMP. The RMP’s rebuilding 

exploitation rate objectives for the Puget Sound chinook salmon management units will be 

submitted to the Pacific Fishery Management Council for inclusion into the federal management 

plan for West Coast ocean salmon fisheries. Fishing-related mortality of Puget Sound chinook 

salmon in Alaska and Canadian fisheries is constrained by the terms of the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty agreement (PST 1999). 

Both the Pacific Fishery Management Council and North of Falcon fishery planning processes 

are open to the public. The Council takes public comment and input throughout its development 

of fishing regimes for the ocean fisheries off Washington, Oregon and California. 

Representatives from the commercial and recreational fishing constituencies are active 

participants in the North of Falcon planning process. Public notification of fishery regulations is 

achieved through press releases, regulation pamphlets, telephone hotlines, and Federal Register 

notices. The WDFW has recently implemented a more aggressive campaign to increase public 

involvement and education through expanded public meetings, and greater access to information 

through use of the Internet. 

(10) Section (b)(4)(i)(H) Includes restrictions on resident and anadromous species fisheries 

that minimize any take of listed species, including time, size, gear, and area restrictions. 

The RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates, upper management thresholds, low abundance 

thresholds, and the critical exploitation rate ceilings are the primary elements of the harvest plan. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

85 

Time, size, gear and area and retention restrictions are all among the actions taken to ensure that 

salmon fishing-related mortality is consistent with these management objectives. Chinook 

salmon-directed fisheries in some terminal areas have been closed for years, and in other areas, 

fisheries on other species and healthy hatchery populations are restricted or delayed to protect 

naturally spawning chinook salmon. 

Actions the co-managers have taken in the past and that will be considered under the RMP to 

protect listed species include: closures in the April, May, and June recreational fisheries and size 

limits to protect spring chinook salmon; closed spawning grounds to fishing; and required nonretention of chinook salmon. Both commercial and recreational fisheries have instituted closures 

around river mouths where chinook salmon concentrate before moving upstream. 

Juvenile yearling life stage spring chinook salmon are not typically vulnerable to being caught in 

the fisheries subject to the RMP because of the juvenile’s feeding habits and small size. Juvenile 

chinook salmon are rarely caught in any Puget Sound fishery. Nets are the primary commercial 

gear used in Puget Sound and the mesh is generally too large to ensnare juveniles. 

Recreational fisheries in areas throughout Puget Sound have regulations that will reduce the 

potential mortality of juvenile chinook salmon. These regulations include the use of barbless 

hooks, minimum size requirements, and catch-and-release-only fishing. Puget Sound freshwater 

salmon recreational fisheries are concentrated during the period of adult return (July, August, 

September, and October), typically well after the majority of juveniles have emigrated from 

freshwater. 

(11) Section (b)(4)(i)(I) Is consistent with other plans and conditions established within any 

Federal court proceeding with continuing jurisdiction over tribal harvest allocations.

The RMP explicitly states in its general principles that it will comply with the requirements of 

U.S. v. Washington, U.S. v. Oregon, other applicable federal court orders, and the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty (see page 4 of the RMP). 

Recommended Determination: 

The co-managers’ RMP for Puget Sound fisheries potentially affecting listed Puget Sound 

chinook salmon from May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2010 has been evaluated, pursuant to 50 

CFR 223.209 (Tribal Rule) and the government-to government processes therein. 

NMFS Northwest Region’s Sustainable Fisheries Division recommends that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service determine under 50 CFR 223.203(b)(6) that: 

(i) implementing and enforcing the RMP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival 

and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU; and 

(ii) the RMP will be implemented and enforced within the parameters set forth in United States 

v. Washington or United States v. Oregon. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

86 

Literature Cited

Anderson, J. L., R. W. Hilborn, R. T. Lackey, and D. Ludwig. 2003. Watershed restoration—

adaptive decision making in the face of uncertainty. Pages 203-232 in R. C. Wissmar and 

P. A. Bisson, editors. Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: sources of variability and 

uncertainty in natural and managed systems. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Baxter, R.D. 1991. Chinook Salmon Spawning Behavior: Evidence for Size-Dependent Male 

Spawning Success and Female Mate Choice. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, 

Arcata, California. 

Berejikian, B.A, E.P. Tezak, and A.L. LaRae. 2000. Female Mate Choice and Spawning 

Behavior of Chinook Salmon Under Experimental Conditions. J. Fish Biology 57: 647-

661. 

Bisson, P.A., and R.E. Bilby. 1998. Organic matter and trophic dynamics. in: R.J. Naiman and 

R.E. Bilby, editors. 1998. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific 

Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag. 696p. 

Chinook Technical Committee. 2003. Annual exploitation rate analysis and model calibration 

(TCChinook (03) – 2). Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, B.C. 

Clarke, W.C., and J. Blackburn. 1994. Effect of growth on early sexual maturation in stream-type 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Aquaculture 121:95−103. 

Cramer, S.P., J. Norris, P. Mundy, G. Grette, K. O'Neal, J. Hogle, C. Steward, and P. Bahls. 

Status of chinook salmon and their habitat in Puget Sound. Volume 2, Final Report. June 

1999. 

Donaldson, L.R., and D. Menasveta. 1961. Selective breeding of chinook salmon. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 90:160-164. 

Gresh, T., J. Lichatowich, and P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current 

levels of salmon production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem. Fisheries. Volume 

25(1):15-21. 

Hankin, D.G., J.W. Nicholas, and T.W. Downey. 1993. Evidence for inheritance of age of 

maturity in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

50:347−358. 

Hard, J.J. 2004. Evolution of chinook salmon life history under size-selective harvest. In A. 

Hendry and S. Stearns (editors), Evaluation Illuminated: Salmon and their relatives. 

Oxford University Press. Pages 315-337. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

87 

Hayman, B. 2003. Calculation of management thresholds for Skagit summer/fall and spring 

chinook. Skagit System Cooperative Salmon Recovery Technical Report No. 03-1. Skagit 

System Cooperative, La Conner, Washington. 

Heath, D. D., G.K. Iwama, and R.H. Delvin. 1994a. DNA fingerprinting used to test for family 

effects on precocious sexual maturation in two populations of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

(Chinook salmon). Heredity 73:616-624. 

Healey, M.C. 2001. Patterns of gametic investment by female stream- and ocean-type chinook 

salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 58:1545-1556. 

Healey, M.C., and W.R. Heard. 1984. Inter- and Intra-Population Variation in the Fecundity of 

Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and its relevance to Life History Theory. 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41: 476-483 

Heath, D.D., R.H. Delvin, J.W. Heath, and G.K. Iwama. 1994a. Genetic, environmental and 

interaction effects of the incidence of jacking in Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (chinook 

salmon). Heredity 72:146−154. 

Heath, D.D., G.K. Iwama, and R.H. Delvin. 1994b. DNA fingerprinting used to test for family 

effects on precocious sexual maturation in two populations of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

(chinook salmon). Heredity 73:616−624. 

Holling, C. S. (editor). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley 

and Sons, London. 

Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan (HCSMP). 1985. U.S. v. Wash. Civil 9213, Ph. I (Proc. 

83-8). Order Re: Hood Canal Management Plan (1986). 

Larkin, G.A., and P.A. Slaney. 1996. Trends in marine-derived nutrient sources to south coastal 

British Columbia streams: impending implications to salmonid production. Watershed 

Restoration Management Report No. X. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of 

Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. 356p. 

Mantua, N.J., S.R., Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M., Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific 

interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the 

American Meteorological Society, Volume 78, pages 1069−1079. 

Meyers, J.M., and 10 co-authors. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, 

Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-35. 443p. 

Murota, T. 2003. The marine nutrient shadow; a global comparison of anadromous salmon 

fishery and guano occurrence. American Fisheries Society Symposium: (not yet officially 

published). 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

88 

Murphy, M.L. 1998. Primary production. in: R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, editors. 1998. River 

ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag. 

696p. 

Naiman, R.J., S.R. Elliott, J.M. Helfield, and T.C. O'Keefe. 2000. Biophysical interactions and 

the structure and dynamics of riverine ecosystems: the importance of biotic feedbacks. 

Hydrobiologia 410:79-86. 

NMFS. 2000a. A risk assessment procedure for evaluating harvest mortality of Pacific 

salmonids. Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Northwest Region. May 30, 2000, 33p. 

NMFS. 2000b. Viable salmon populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. 

NMFS. 2001. Untitled letter from the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team to Dear interested 

party, dated April 17, 2001. 2p. 

NMFS. 2002a. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines for the delisting and recovery of the 

Puget Sound chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Puget Sound Technical 

Recovery Team. April 30, 2002. 17p. 

NMFS. 2003a. A joint tribal and state resource management plan (RMP) submitted under Limit 6 

of the ESA 4(d) Rule by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife for salmon fisheries and steelhead net fisheries affecting Puget Sound 

chinook salmon – Decision Memorandum, dated May 19, 2003. 8p. plus attachments. 

NMFS. 2004a. Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

essential fish habitat consultation titled Effects of Programs Administered by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs supporting tribal salmon fisheries management in Puget Sound and Puget 

Sound salmon fishing activities authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services during 

the 2004 fishing season. 87p. 

NMFS. 2004b. Independent populations of chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound, Puget 

Sound Technical Recovery Team, Final Draft, dated January 18, 2004. 61p. 

PST (Pacific Salmon Treaty). 1999. The Pacific Salmon Agreement, signed between the United 

States and Canada. Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, British Columbia. June 30, 

1999. 

Polis, G.A., W.B. Anderson, and R.D. Holt. 1997. Toward an integration of landscape and food 

web ecology. Annual review of ecology and systematics 28:289-316. 

PSIT (Puget Sound Indian Tribes) and WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 

2001. Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest Management 

Component. March 23, 2001. 47p. plus appendices. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

89 

PSIT and WDFW. 2003. Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook Management Plan: Harvest 

Management Component. February 19, 2003. 239p. including appendices. 

PSSMP (Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan). 1985. United States vs. Washington 1606 

F.Supp. 1405. 42p. 

PSTRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery). 2003. Independent populations of chinook salmon in 

Puget Sound. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. Public final draft dated July 22, 

2003. 61p. 

Ricker, W. E. (1975). Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. 

Ottawa, Fisheries and Marine Service. 

Simenstad, C.A. 1997. The relationship of estuarine primary and secondary productivity to 

salmonid production: bottleneck or window of opportunity? In: Emmett RL, Schiewe MH, 

editors. Estuarine and ocean survival of Northeastern Pacific salmon: proceedings of the 

workshop. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-29: U.S. Department of 

Commerce. p133-145. 

Silverstein, J.T., and W.K Hershberger. 1992. Precocious maturation in coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch): estimation of the additive genetic variance. J. Heredity 83:282-

286. 

Silverstein, J.T., K.D. Shearer, W.W. Dickhoff, and E.M. Plisetskaya. 1998. Effects of growth 

and fatness on sexual development of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) parr. 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55:2376−2382. 

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McMillan Pub. Co., New York.

WDFW. 2003. Information obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Enforcement web site at www.wa.gov/wdfw/enf/enforce.htm,accessed February 16, 2003. 

WDFW/LLK (Long Live the Kings). 2002. Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan: Hamma 

Hamma fall chinook supplementation program. Submitted: March 29, 2001. Date last 

updated: August 20, 2002. 

WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat 

Limiting Factors Resource Inventory. Washington State Conservation Commission. 

Olympia, Washington. Volumes 1-5. 

Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. 

Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24. September 

1995. 258p. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

90 

Wipfli, M.S., J. Hudson, and J. Caouette. 1998. Influence of salmon carcasses on stream 

productivity: response of biofilm and benthic macroinvertebrates in southeastern Alaska, 

U.S.A. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55:1503-1511. 

Young, S.F. and J.B. Shaklee. 2002. DNA characterization of Nooksack River chinook salmon 

 stocks and stock-of-origin assignments of outmigrating smolts from 1999 and 2000. 

Genetics Laboratory. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 

Washington. 33p. 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

91 

Appendix A 

Model Results: 

Implementation of the RMP 

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

92 

Appendix A1. Anticipated exploitation rates and escapements for Puget Sound chinook salmon by manage

RMP, FRAM run number 30P3. 

Abundance: 30 Percent Reduction of 2003 Canadian: 2003 Level 

Management 

Unit Population 1

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Pre-terminal 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Escapement 

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack South Fork Nooksack 

20% 

- - 

7% 

- - 

3% 

- - 

278 125 153 

Skagit Summer/ Fall 3

Natural Spawners: Upper Skagit River Lower Sauk River Lower Skagit River 

49% 

- - - 

18% 

- - - 

9% 

- - - 

8,003 6,743 

428 861 

Skagit Spring Natural Spawners: 

Upper Sauk River Suiattle River Upper Cascade River 

23% 

- - - 

14% 

- - - 

12% 

- - - 

1,331 

493 448 389 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River S.F. Stillaguamish River 

17% 

- - 

12% 

- - 

10% 

- - 

1,620 1,321 

299 

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

20% 

- - 

14% 

- - 

11% 

- - 

3,543 1,724 1,819 

Lake Washington 

Natural Spawners: Cedar River Sammamish River 

33% 

- - 

23% 

- - 

9% 

- - 

446 223 223 

Green Natural Spawners: 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

93 

Duwamish-Green River 49% 39% 9% 5,801 

White Natural Spawners: 

White River 20% 19% 8% 1,011 

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 50% 39% 9% 1,798 

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 

Nisqually River 64% 56% 24% 1,119 

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 45% 31% 12% 1,239 

Mid-Hood Canal 

Natural Spawners: Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 26% 12% 12% 367 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 22% 5% 4% 245 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 

Elwha River 23% 5% 4% 1,480 

1 A natural-origin spawner (NOR) is any naturally spawning salmon that has spent essentially all of its life-cycle in 

parents spawned in the wild. Unless other wise note, exploitation rate and escapement are natural spawners. Natur

naturally spawning salmon (hatchery plus natural-origin). 

2 A general description of these minimal fisheries, as proposed by the co-managers, is outlined in Appendix C: Min

Regime of the RMP.

3 Based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and abundance. Anomal

the presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 make the estimates of exploitation rates used in this modeling a like

harvest impacts. The SUS exploitation rates are more likely to be similar to recent rears, 6 to 18 percent exploitati
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

94 

Appendix A2. Anticipated exploitation rates and escapements for Puget Sound chinook salmon by manage

RMP, FRAM run number 30M2. 

Abundance: 30 Percent Reduction of 2003 Canadian: Maximum allowed under Pacific Salmon Treaty 

Management 

Unit Population 1

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Pre-terminal 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Escapement 

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack South Fork Nooksack 

26% 

- - 

7% 

- - 

2% 

- - 

252 113 139 

Skagit Summer/Fall 3

Natural Spawners: Upper Skagit River Lower Sauk River Lower Skagit River 

56% 

- - - 

16% 

- - - 

8% 

- - - 

7,551 6,339 

403 809 

Skagit Spring Natural Spawners: 

Upper Sauk River Suiattle River Upper Cascade River 

28% 

- - - 

15% 

- - - 

13% 

- - - 

1,270 

470 428 371 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River S.F. Stillaguamish River 

20% 

- - 

12% 

- - 

11% 

- - 

1,584 1,291 

293 

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

23% 

- - 

14% 

- - 

12% 

- - 

3,399 1,654 1,745 

Lake Washington 

Natural Spawners: Cedar River Sammamish River 

38% 

- - 

22% 

- - 

9% 

- - 

428 214 214 

Green Natural Spawners: 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

95 

Duwamish-Green River 51% 36% 9% 5,802 

White Natural Spawners: 

White River 20% 17% 9% 1,011 

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 50% 35% 9% 1,834 

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 

Nisqually River 66% 53% 25% 1,109 

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 48% 26% 12% 1,225 

Mid-Hood Canal 

Natural Spawners: Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 34% 12% 12% 344 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 29% 5% 5% 231 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 

Elwha River 30% 5% 4% 1,395 

1 A natural-origin spawner (NOR) is any naturally spawning salmon that has spent essentially all of its life-cycle in 

parents spawned in the wild. Unless other wise note, exploitation rate and escapement are natural spawners. Natur

naturally spawning salmon (hatchery plus natural-origin). 

2 A general description of these minimal fisheries, as proposed by the co-managers, is outlined in Appendix C: Min

Regime of the RMP.

3 Based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and abundance. Anomal

the presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 make the estimates of exploitation rates used in this modeling a like

harvest impacts. The SUS exploitation rates are more likely to be similar to recent rears, 6 to 18 percent exploitati
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

96 

Appendix A3. Anticipated exploitation rates and escapements for Puget Sound chinook salmon by managem

RMP, FRAM run number AEQ1. 

Abundance: 2003 Level Canadian: 2003 Level 

Management 

Unit Population 1

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Pre-terminal 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Escapement 

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack South Fork Nooksack 

20% 

- - 

7% 

- - 

3% 

- - 

388 174 214 

Skagit Summer/Fall 3

Natural Spawners: Upper Skagit River Lower Sauk River Lower Skagit River 

48% 

- - - 

18% 

- - - 

9% 

- - - 

11,633 

9,765 

620 

1,247 

Skagit Spring Natural Spawners: 

Upper Sauk River Suiattle River Upper Cascade River 

23% 

- - - 

14% 

- - - 

13% 

- - - 

1,921 

711 647 562 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River S.F. Stillaguamish River 

17% 

- - 

11% 

- - 

10% 

- - 

2,322 1,893 

429 

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

19% 

- - 

14% 

- - 

11% 

- - 

5,073 2,468 2,604 

Lake Washington 

Natural Spawners: Cedar River Sammamish River 

31% 

- - 

20% 

- - 

10% 

- - 

610 305 305 

Green Natural Spawners: 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

97 

Duwamish-Green River 62% 51% 10% 5,819 

White Natural Spawners: 

White River 20% 19% 9% 1,468 

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 49% 39% 10% 2,392 

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 

Nisqually River 76% 68% 26% 1,106 

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 63% 50% 13% 1,211 

Mid-Hood Canal 

Natural Spawners: Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 26% 13% 13% 531 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 22% 5% 5% 352 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 

Elwha River 22% 5% 5% 2,125 

1 A natural-origin spawner (NOR) is any naturally spawning salmon that has spent essentially all of its life-cycle in th

parents spawned in the wild. Unless other wise note, exploitation rate and escapement are natural spawners. Naturanaturally spawning salmon (hatchery plus natural-origin). 

2 A general description of these minimal fisheries, as proposed by the co-managers, is outlined in Appendix C: Mini

Regime of the RMP.

3 Based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and abundance. Anomalo

presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 make the estimates of exploitation rates used in this modeling a likely ovharvest impacts. The SUS exploitation rates are more likely to be similar to recent rears, 6 to 18 percent exploitatio
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

98 

Appendix A4. Anticipated exploitation rates and escapements for Puget Sound chinook salmon by manage

RMP, FRAM run number 03m2. 

Abundance: 2003 Level Canadian: Maximum allowed under Pacific Salmon Treaty 

Management 

Unit Population 1

Anticipated 

Total 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Pre-terminal 

SUS 

Exploitation 

Rate 

Anticipated 

Escapement 

Nooksack Natural-Origin Spawner: 

North Fork Nooksack South Fork Nooksack 

25% 

- - 

7% 

- - 

2% 

- - 

365 164 201 

Skagit Summer/Fall 3

Natural Spawners: Upper Skagit River Lower Sauk River Lower Skagit River 

55% 

- - - 

16% 

- - - 

8% 

- - - 

11,029 

9,258 

588 

1,182 

Skagit Spring Natural Spawners: 

Upper Sauk River Suiattle River Upper Cascade River 

27% 

- - - 

14% 

- - - 

13% 

- - - 

1,845 

683 621 539 

Stillaguamish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

N.F. Stillaguamish River S.F. Stillaguamish River 

19% 

- - 

11% 

- - 

10% 

- - 

2,281 1,860 

421 

Snohomish Natural-Origin Spawners: 

Skykomish River Snoqualmie River 

22% 

- - 

13% 

- - 

11% 

- - 

4,901 2,385 2,516 

Lake Washington 

Natural Spawners: Cedar River Sammamish River 

35% 

- - 

20% 

- - 

10% 

- - 

588 294 294 

Green Natural Spawners: 
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION 

99 

Duwamish-Green River 63% 47% 10% 5,816 

White Natural Spawners: 

White River 20% 18% 9% 1,459 

Puyallup Natural Spawners: 

Puyallup River 50% 35% 10% 2,419 

Nisqually Natural Spawners: 

Nisqually River 76% 65% 26% 1,126 

Skokomish Natural Spawners: 

Skokomish River 63% 44% 12% 1,237 

Mid-Hood Canal 

Natural Spawners: Mid-Hood Canal Rivers 32% 13% 12% 504 

Dungeness Natural Spawners: 

Dungeness River 27% 5% 4% 336 

Elwha Natural Spawners: 

Elwha River 28% 5% 4% 2,031 

1 A natural-origin spawner (NOR) is any naturally spawning salmon that has spent essentially all of its life-cycle in th

parents spawned in the wild. Unless other wise note, exploitation rate and escapement are natural spawners. Natura

naturally spawning salmon (hatchery plus natural-origin). 

2 A general description of these minimal fisheries, as proposed by the co-managers, is outlined in Appendix C: Mini

Regime of the RMP.

3 Based on Skagit Summer/Fall Management Unit modeling, which assumes 2003 fisheries and abundance. Anomalo

presence of pink salmon fisheries in 2003 make the estimates of exploitation rates used in this modeling a likely ovharvest impacts. The SUS exploitation rates are more likely to be similar to recent rears, 6 to 18 percent exploitatio
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 1 of 18 

Public Comments and Responses 

On March 18, 2004, the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (PSTT) and the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provided a jointly developed resource 

management plan to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Regional 

Office. The resource management plan, titled the “Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook 

Management Plan: Harvest Management Component,” dated March 1, 2004 (hereafter 

referred to as the RMP), provides the framework through which the tribal and state 

jurisdictions would jointly manage all salmon and gillnet steelhead fisheries that may 

impact listed chinook salmon within the greater Puget Sound area. The co-managers 

proposed that the RMP remain in effect for six years, from May 1, 2004 through April 

30, 2010. 

NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of its 

Proposed Evaluation and Pending Determination (PEPD) on the RMP for public review 

and comment on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19975). The comment period closed on May 17, 

2004. Three commenters provided comments to NMFS on the PEPD during this public 

comment period. NMFS has reviewed the comments received and discussed the 

substantive issues with the co-managers. Several of the comments were addressed and 

reflected in NMFS’ final Evaluation and Recommended Determination (ERD). The comanagers made no modifications to the RMP based on public comments received on 

NMFS’ PEPD. 

Comments received from the public in response to the NMFS announcement of the PEPD 

for review are summarized as follows: 

On Tuesday, May11, 2004, NMFS received e-mail comments from Mr. Robert Hayman 

of the Skagit River System Cooperative. The comments were submitted in the form of 

electronic versions of three documents: “NMFSFinalE&DComments504.doc”; 

“BYExplRateCalcs2004 PopStatFix 404.xls”; and “SkgtSFCkProjectn4E&D404.xls”. 

Under the implementation of the RMP, the projected range of exploitation rates for the 

Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon management unit was estimated to be 48 to 56 

percent (Table 3 in the PEPD). The PEPD qualified this projection by stating that this 

range of exploitation rates probably overestimates the actual rates under the RMP. Mr. 

Hayman agreed with this assessment and requested that his three documents be included 

as part of the public record on the PEPD “so that they are available if further elaboration 

is needed about the Evaluation and Determination's assessment of Skagit summer/fall 

chinook.” No change to the PEPD was necessary. 

On Tuesday, May11, 2004, NMFS received comments from Mr. Sam Wright. Mr. Wright 

commented that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) should be completed 

prior to soliciting public review comments on the PEPD. Mr. Wright’s comments were 

primarily directed at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The comments 

addressed the alternatives of the DEIS and proposed an additional alternative, which he 

referred to as Alternative 1A. He asked that these comments on the DEIS be incorporated 

by reference. Mr. Wright provided no other direct comments on the PEPD. The 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 2 of 18 

discussion on the various alternatives is not directly applicable to the PEPD. Mr. 

Wright’s comments pertaining to the DEIS will be addressed in the FEIS process. 

On Monday, May 17, 2004, through e-mail, NMFS received comments on the PEPD 

from the Washington Trout (WT). The commenter recommends that NMFS substantively 

revise the PEPD before a final determination is developed. The structure of the WT’s 

comments was presented in nine identified sections. These sections were: Introduction; 

Minimum Fishery Regime; Management Objectives and Indicators; Recovery 

Exploitation Rates; Upper Management Thresholds; Low Abundance Thresholds; Critical 

Exploitation Rate Ceiling; Critical Exploitation Rate Ceiling; and Other Issues of 

Concern. In responding to the WT’s comments, NMFS will use a similar structure. 

Response to Comments 

“Introduction” Comments: 

Comment 1 – In the introduction section, the commenter requested that the PEPD: (1) 

provide a detailed explanation of key terms and concepts employed in the RMP. The 

commenter stated that the PEPD employs important legalistic and technical-biological 

terms and concepts without ever attempting to explain them; (2) provide a detailed and 

critical description and assessment of the key assumptions made by the RMP; (3) clearly 

describe and characterize the several kinds of risk that the harvest regime may pose to 

populations of the listed Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and to the ESU as a 

whole; (4) characterize relevant and critical uncertainties with methods used in the PEPD; 

(5) evaluate whether the proposed fishery regime(s) is(are) described in sufficient detail 

to permit a clear assessment of the extent to which the regime is risk-averse to potential 

impacts on populations of the listed ESU; (6) clearly describe and explain the extent to 

which the proposed harvest regime is risk-averse to harmful impacts on individual 

populations of the listed ESU and the ESU as a whole; and, (7) require the RMP to 

employ clearly articulated impact-threshold targets to be attained (or to be avoided), with 

clearly articulated management actions that will be taken in response when critical 

thresholds are not attained (or not avoided), and clear time frames for taking corrective 

actions and for achieving the desired targets of the corrective actions. 

Response: NMFS found these comments too general in nature and lacking necessary 

specifics to properly respond. NMFS assumes, given that that these comments were in the 

“introduction” section, that many of these comments will be addressed by responding to 

the more specific comments that followed in other sections. For a general response, as 

required in section (b)(6)(iii) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) section 4(d) 

rule for listed Puget Sound chinook salmon (referred hereafter as the ESA 4(d) Rule), the 

RMP, in NMFS’ opinion, must adequately address eleven criteria under section (b)(4)(i) 

in Limit 4. The criteria under Limit 4 section (b)(4)(i) are summarized in Table 1, page 3 

of the PEPD. Compliance with these criteria does not necessarily require the most 

conservative response. The RMP proposes implementation of restrictions to the fisheryrelated mortality to each Puget Sound chinook salmon population or management unit. 

The RMP’s restrictions to the cumulative fishery-related mortality are expressed as: (1) a 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 3 of 18 

rebuilding exploitation rate; (2) an upper management threshold; (3) a low abundance 

threshold; and (4) a critical exploitation rate ceiling (Table 2 of the PEPD). For select 

management units, Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of the RMP describes 

how these thresholds or exploitation rate limits were derived. NMFS did not necessarily 

evaluate the RMP’s definition of terms or the assumptions the co-managers used in 

developing the RMP’s mortality limits. In the PEPD, NMFS compared the proposed 

RMP’s mortality limits, regardless of their basis, to the NMFS-derived critical and viable 

threshold standards. NMFS used the best data available to estimate these critical and 

viable thresholds for each population. The PEPD also evaluated the effects of 

implementing the RMP’s mortality limits. The co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS, 

modeled the anticipated impacts of implementing the proposed RMP’s mortality limits. 

The modeling used risk-averse assumptions in determining potential impacts and the 

resultant escapement. The modeling assumed the fishing regime under the RMP would 

closely resemble that planned for 2003, and modeled those fishing regulations for the 

southern United States (SUS). The modeling also assumed a range of intercepting 

fisheries to include the highest Canadian harvest allowed under the 1999 Pacific Salmon 

Treaty (PST) agreement, as well as those in 2003. The modeled range of Puget Sound 

chinook salmon abundance was bounded by the 2003 forecast abundance and a 30 

percent reduction from that level for all populations. The anticipated results of 

implementing the RMP were compared against the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of the 

ESA 4(d) Rule. NMFS’ approach in its evaluation is conservative, and takes into 

consideration the uncertainty of the data. Through its evaluation of the RMP, NMFS 

Northwest Region’s Sustainable Fisheries Division concluded that the RMP adequately 

addressed all the criteria outlined in the ESA 4(d) Rule, including implementing and 

enforcing the RMP, and would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and 

recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. Information provided in the PEPD, 

along with the information included and available by reference, provides the reviewer the 

information necessary to evaluate NMFS’ risk criteria used to reach this conclusion. 

Comment 2: The commenter expressed concern regarding the PEPD’s conclusion that the 

RMP “would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget 

Sound Chinook Salmon ESU.” The commenter believes that this finding reflects an 

opaque standard, open to any number of subjective interpretations, including the most 

minimal. 

Response: This language in question in the PEPD is taken directly from section (b)(6)(i) 

of the ESA 4(d) Rule. The ESA 4(d) Rule states that “...the [take] prohibitions of 

paragraph (a) of this section relating to threatened species of salmonids ....... do not apply 

to actions undertaken in compliance with a resource management plan ......... provided 

that: (i) The Secretary has determined .......... that implementing and enforcing the joint 

tribal/state plan will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of 

affected threatened ESUs” (50 C.F.R. 223.203(b)(6)). Some of the criteria outlined in the 

ESA 4(d) Rule require NMFS to evaluate the RMP’s impacts on individual populations. 

One of the criteria for Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule is that harvest actions that impact 

populations at or above their viable thresholds must maintain the population or 

management unit at or above that level. Overall, along with other on-going habitat and 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 4 of 18 

hatchery programs, the results of harvest actions since the ESA listing of the Puget Sound 

Chinook Salmon ESU appear to be maintaining these populations above the viable 

threshold levels as required by the ESA 4(d) Rule. Another criterion for Limit 6 of the 

ESA 4(d) Rule is that fishing-related mortality on populations above critical levels, but 

not at viable levels (as demonstrated with a high degree of confidence), must not 

appreciably slow achievement to viable function. The criterion for populations at or 

below their critical thresholds is that fishing-related mortality on the population must not 

appreciably increase genetic and demographic risks facing the population, and does not 

preclude achievement of viable functions, unless the RMP demonstrates the likelihood of 

survival and recovery of the entire ESU in the wild would not be appreciably reduced by 

greater risks to an individual population. Only one population in the ESU, the North Fork 

Nooksack River population, is considered to be below its critical threshold (see Table 9 

of the PEPD). For the North Fork Nooksack River population, NMFS concludes that the 

RMP does not appreciably increase genetic and demographic risks facing this population, 

as required by the ESA 4(d) Rule, for a population below their critical level. However, 

the ESU, not the individual populations within the ESU, is the listed entity under the 

ESA. Through its evaluation of the RMP, NMFS Northwest Region’s Sustainable 

Fisheries Division concluded that the RMP would not appreciably reduce the likelihood 

of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 

“Minimum Fishery Regime” Comments: 

Comment 3: The commenter believes that the PEPD introduces factors that appear to be 

extra-biological mitigation for various and specific anticipated risks to the ESU imposed 

by the RMP, including what appears to be consideration of the need for a fair distribution 

of the burden of conservation. The commenter suggests that the relationship of the RMP 

to Canadian and Alaskan fisheries appears to be NMFS’ most explicit attempt in the 

PEPD to distribute the conservation burden fairly. 

Response: As required in section (b)(6)(iii) of the ESA 4(d) Rule, the RMP must 

adequately address eleven criteria under section (b)(4)(i) in Limit 4. How the 

conservation burden was distributed among the various sections is not one of the eleven 

criteria used to evaluate the RMP under the ESA 4(d) Rule. However, to provide the 

reviewer a better understanding of the RMP, the PEPD did present the co-managers’ 

perspective on certain aspects of the RMP. From the co-managers’ perspective, the 

Minimum Fishery Regime proposed in the RMP addresses conservation concerns “while 

still allowing a reasonable harvest of non-listed salmon” (page 17 of the RMP). The 

PEPD (page 5) incorrectly alludes that it is the co-managers’ perspective that the RMP 

represents a fair distribution of the burden of conservation. Reference to the comanager’s perspective that the RMP represents a fair distribution of the burden of 

conservation was removed from the ERD. However, NMFS did not evaluate the comanagers’ perspective of the minimum fisheries regime. NMFS evaluated the effects of 

the proposed action, in this case the implementation of Puget Sound fisheries under the 

abundance and non-SUS fisheries anticipated in the next five years. In evaluating the 

effects of the action, Canadian impacts are considered in the baseline. 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 5 of 18 

Comment 4: The commenter believes that the recognition of tribal treaty rights would 

mandate the acceptance of a base level of fisheries that must always be allowed, under 

any circumstance. It was of concern to the commenter that the RMP would propose that 

there was no conceivable circumstance potentially faced by the ESU that would warrant 

the complete restriction of fishery impacts on an individual management unit. 

Response: Similar to recent years, it is likely that the vast majority of the SUS fishery 

harvest impacts on the Nooksack Management Unit populations under the RMP would 

occur in treaty Indian fisheries. Since 2001, the majority of the SUS harvest on the 

Nooksack Management Unit has occurred in tribal fisheries. In recognition of tribal 

management authority and the Federal government’s trust responsibility to the tribes, 

NMFS is committed to considering their judgment and expertise regarding the 

conservation of trust resources. Consistent with this commitment and as a matter of 

policy, NMFS has sought, where there is appropriate tribal management, to work with 

tribal managers to provide limited tribal fishery opportunities, so long as the risk to the 

population remains within acceptable limits. NMFS evaluated the RMP based on what is 

likely to occur over the next five fishing seasons, May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2010, the 

remaining duration of the RMP. To approve the RMP under the ESA 4(d) Rule, NMFS 

must conclude that the RMP adequately address the criteria outlined in the ESA 4(d) 

Rule, including the criterion that implementing the RMP will not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit in the wild, 

over the entire period of time the proposed harvest management strategy affects the 

population. Compliance with these criteria does not necessarily require the most 

conservative response. In the PEPD, the anticipated results of implementing the RMP 

were compared against the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. Through 

its evaluation of the RMP, NMFS Northwest Region’s Sustainable Fisheries Division 

concluded that the RMP adequately addressed all the criteria outlined in the ESA 4(d) 

Rule, including implementation and that enforcing the RMP would not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 

The “complete restriction of fishery impacts on an individual management unit” was not 

necessary to meet the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. If impacts 

under the implementation of the RMP are greater than expected, NMFS can withdraw the 

ESA 4(d) Rule determination or ask the co-managers to adjust fisheries to reduce 

impacts.] 

Comment 5: The commenter suggests that the minimum fisheries regime proposed in the 

RMP will not result in significant reductions in either the total exploitation impacts 

experienced by management units, or the SUS [southern United States] or pre-terminal 

SUS exploitation rates. The commenter believes that this inadequacy conflicts with the 

RMP’s characterization of the minimum fisheries regime as “extraordinary fisheries 

conservation measures” designed to “minimize” impacts on management units from 

fisheries. 

Response: NMFS did not evaluate the RMP’s characterization of the minimum fisheries 

regime. The anticipated results of implementing the RMP, not the RMP’s 

characterization of the minimum fisheries regime, were compared against the criteria 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 6 of 18 

outlined under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. Compliance with these criteria does not 

necessarily require the most conservative response. The RMP proposes implementation 

of restrictions to the fishery-related mortality to each Puget Sound chinook salmon 

population or management unit. The RMP’s limits to the cumulative fishery-related 

mortality are expressed as: (1) a rebuilding exploitation rate; (2) an upper management 

threshold; (3) a low abundance threshold; and (4) a critical exploitation rate ceiling 

(Table 2 of the PEPD). The co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS, modeled the 

anticipated impacts of implementing the RMP, which uses these four harvest mortality 

limits in combination to manage the fisheries. Table 3 of the PEPD provides the 

anticipated range of exploitation rates and anticipated escapements for Puget Sound 

chinook salmon under the implementation of the RMP. In addition, in the RMP, the comanagers also presented data that suggest that significant reductions in the exploitation 

rate in some systems have not resulted in substantially higher returns of natural-origin 

chinook salmon. Although, this has not been conclusively demonstrated for many 

populations, it is suggestive that habitat, not fishery-related mortality, may be the limiting 

factor on production in some systems. 

Comment 6: The commenter states that the description of the various SUS exploitation 

rates is confusing. As an example, the commenter suggests that a comparison of Table 2 

with Table 5 fails to clarify what, if any, the changes in fishery regimes would occur 

under the minimum fishery regime. 

Response: For most management units, the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling 

imposes an upper limit on southern United States (SUS) exploitation rates when 

spawning escapement for a management unit is projected to fall below its low abundance 

threshold or if Canadian fisheries make it difficult or impossible to achieve the RMP’s 

rebuilding exploitation rate. The co-managers define “impossible” if the northern 

fisheries by themselves impose an exploitation rate above the rebuilding exploitation rate 

or reduce abundance so that either the upper management threshold or the low abundance 

threshold could not be achieved even with zero SUS fishing. The co-managers define 

“difficult” if, in order to achieve a total exploitation rate less than the rebuilding 

exploitation rate, or escapement above the upper management threshold, SUS fisheries 

directed at abundant un-listed chinook and other species would have to be constrained 

(W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to K. Schultz, NMFS, August 6, 2004). The RMP provides a 

general description of the fisheries that will represent the lowest level of fishing mortality on 

listed chinook salmon proposed by the co-managers. A general description of these minimal 

fisheries is outlined in Appendix C: Minimum Fisheries Regime of the RMP. In modeling 

the fisheries, instances where the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling was imposed on 

a management unit can be identified by reviewing the anticipated escapement or 

exploitation rates. If the anticipated escapement was below the RMP’s low abundance 

threshold or if the exploitation rate was greater than the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation 

rate, then the modeling exercise imposed the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling. 

Table 2 in the PEPD are the RMP’s management objectives (rebuilding exploitation rate, 

upper management threshold, low abundance thresholds, and the critical exploitation rate 

ceiling), by management units and populations. Table 2 in the PEPD shows the change in 

the exploitation rate under the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rate and the exploitation 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 7 of 18 

rate under the minimum fishery regime, the critical exploitation rate ceiling. Table 5 in 

the PEPD are the most likely total exploitation rates, southern United States (SUS) 

exploitation rates, and escapements within the modeled forecasts under the 

implementation of the RMP by Puget Sound chinook salmon management unit or 

population. To assist the reader, a column was added to Table 5 of the ERD and to the 

tables in Appendix A of the ERD that identify the management units in which the RMP’s 

critical exploitation rate ceiling for that management unit was implemented during 

modeling. 

Comment 7: The commenter stated that under the RMP’s minimum fishery regime, 

additional conservation measures on the SUS fisheries may be considered by the comanagers “where analysis can demonstrate that additional conservation measures in 

fisheries would contribute substantially to recovery of a management unit...”. The 

commenter suggests that the RMP and the PEPD make no attempt to define or identify 

what would constitute a “substantial” contribution to recovery. 

Response: The co-managers propose that where analysis can demonstrate that additional 

conservation measures in fisheries would contribute substantially to recovery of a 

management unit, the co-managers may, at their discretion, and in concert with other 

specific habitat and enhancement actions, implement them (see page 34 of the RMP). The 

need to define or identify what would constitute a substantial contribution to recovery is 

not needed to evaluate the RMP under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. The co-managers, in 

cooperation with NMFS, have modeled the anticipated impacts of the implementation of 

the RMP. Appendix A of the PEPD contains the model run results. The analysis of the 

anticipated results of implementing the RMP, without the inclusion of these possible 

additional conservation measures in fisheries, was evaluated against the criteria under 

Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. If the actual escapement outcome during the next five 

years is below that modeled, NMFS will meet with the co-managers to discuss possible 

additional management actions the co-managers may take. Additionally, NMFS may 

reconsider revoking the ESA 4(d) determination. However, the co-managers have 

instituted additional management measures under low abundance conditions in the past to 

decrease fishery impacts. The demonstrated willingness of the co-managers to constrain 

fisheries over the past 15 years, without certainty of substantial benefit to the ESU, gives 

NMFS some confidence in their future response to a population with a declining status. 

Comment 8: Table 2 of the PEPD summarizes the relationship between the various 

management objectives and exploitation rates for each management unit. The commenter 

believes that Table 2 is confusing and potentially misleading. In Table 2, some of the 

RERs [rebuilding exploitation rates] are expressed as pre-terminal SUS and SUS rates, 

without clearly identifying that the rate does not include impacts from Canadian and 

Alaskan Fisheries. 

Response: The categorization of the exploitation rates within the Table 2 of the PEPD is 

clearly identified as either total, southern United States (SUS), or pre-terminal southern 

United States (PT SUS). Additionally, Footnote 2 of Table 2 of the PEPD reads, in part, 

as follows: “The SUS fishery includes all fisheries south of the border with Canada that 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 8 of 18 

may harvest listed Puget Sound chinook salmon. The SUS fishery includes both preterminal SUS and terminal SUS fisheries. The co-managers define a pre-terminal fishery 

as a “fishery that harvests significant numbers of fish from more than one region of 

origin” (page 65 of the RMP). The co-managers define a terminal fishery as a “fishery, 

usually operating in an area adjacent to or in the mouth of a river, which harvests 

primarily fish from the local region of origin, but may include more than one 

management unit” (page 65 of the RMP). The terminal SUS fisheries will vary by 

management unit and may occur in freshwater and marine areas.” A similar description 

of the categorization of the exploitation rates can be found within the main body of the 

PEPD, on page 7. 

Comment 9: The commenter suggested that the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceilings 

are “driven by policy considerations” and not by biological (i.e., conservation) 

considerations. The commenter believes that these “policy considerations” are not 

described in the RMP and that their legal basis is not explicitly described, explained, 

and/or justified. 

Response: Although the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceilings were primarily based on 

policy concerns, biological and conservation considerations were also taken into account 

by the co-managers in developing the ceilings. All other harvest mortality limits in the 

RMP (rebuilding exploitation rates, upper management thresholds, and low abundance 

thresholds) were derived using biological consideration rather than policy-driven 

parameters. NMFS compared the proposed RMP’s mortality limits, regardless of their 

basis, to the NMFS-derived standards. NMFS’ evaluation focused on the effects of 

implementing the RMP’s mortality limits. The co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS, 

modeled the anticipated impacts of implementing the RMP. A description of the comanagers’ policy considerations used to develop the RMP’s critical exploitation rate 

ceilings was not needed to evaluate the impacts of the RMP under Limit 6 of the ESA 

4(d) Rule. In recognition of tribal management authority and the Federal government’s 

trust responsibility to the tribes, NMFS is committed to considering their judgment and 

expertise regarding the conservation of trust resources. Consistent with this commitment 

and as a matter of policy, NMFS has sought, where there is appropriate tribal 

management, to work with tribal managers to provide limited tribal fishery opportunities, 

so long as the risk to the population remains within acceptable limits. 

“Management Objectives and Indicators” Comments: 

Comment 10: The commenter states that the RMP proposes to manage harvest on the 

basis of the status of individual populations. The commenter suggests that the substance 

of the proposed regime overstates the extent to which the RMP is supportive of recovery 

within five management units: Nooksack, Skagit Summer/Fall chinook, Skagit spring 

chinook, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish. The commenter believes that in none of these 

four [five] management units is the maximum (“recovery”) exploitation rate based 

directly upon an estimate of the maximum allowable rate sustainable by the weakest 

component stock. The commenter believes that this reliance on management unit rates 

contradicts the claim by the RMP and the PEPD that the RMP proposes a harvest 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 9 of 18 

management regime in which exploitation rates are restricted by the weakest component 

population. 

Response: For most management units with multiple populations, the objectives in the 

RMP are based on the management for the weakest component (e.g. see Appendix A: 

Management Unit Status Profile of the RMP for the Snohomish Management Unit). In 

NMFS’ evaluation of the RMP, the management unit’s anticipated exploitation rate was 

applied to all populations within that management unit. When available, the anticipated 

exploitation rates on individual populations were compared to the corresponding 

population-specific NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates. NMFS also derived a 

rebuilding exploitation rate for the Nooksack Management Unit, which contains two 

populations, because data was insufficient to develop a population-specific rebuilding 

exploitation rates. In this case, the anticipated exploitation rates for the Nooksack 

Management Unit were compared to the corresponding management unit-specific 

NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rate. Additionally, the anticipated populationspecific escapements were compared to NMFS-derived critical and viable thresholds or 

to the generic guidance provided by the Viable Salmonid Populations document (VSP) 

(NMFS 2000b as cited in the PEPD). This approach evaluates the anticipated impacts of 

the RMP on weakest component population within each management unit. Results 

showed that the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates for the weakest population 

within a given management units were generally met and often below the NMFS-derived 

rebuilding exploitation rates. However, it also needs to be noted that although populations 

contribute fundamentally to the structure and diversity of the ESU, it is the ESU, not an 

individual population, which is the listed entity under the ESA. 

“Recovery Exploitation Rates” Comments: 

Comment 11: The commenter stated that the PEPD inappropriately references the draft 

RAP [risk assessment procedure] document of May 30, 2000. The commenter suggested 

that the method described in this citation was superceded by a method described in a 

document titled “Viable Risk Assessment Procedure”. The commenter indicated that the 

latter document employed a harvest model more suitable for population viability 

modeling needed to assess harvest impacts on listed salmon populations. 

Response: The method outlined in NMFS’ document titled “A risk assessment procedure 

for evaluating harvest mortality of Pacific salmonids,” dated May 30, 2000, is commonly 

referred to as the RAP model. Subsequent updates and improvements to the original RAP 

model resulted in the current model, known as the Viable Risk Assessment Procedure 

(VRAP) model. The VRAP model is what NMFS used to derive the rebuilding 

exploitation rates to evaluate the RMP. Unlike the RAP model, the VRAP model lacks 

complete documentation. However, the method used by NMFS to derive the rebuilding 

exploitation rates using the VRAP model are accurately described in NMFS’ RAP 

document, as cited in the PEPD. The ERD was modified to make this clearer to the 

reader. 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 10 of 18 

Comment 12: The commenter challenges the PEPD’s assertion that harvest at or below 

NMFS-derived RERs “will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of rebuilding that 

population, assuming current environmental conditions based on specific risk criteria”. 

The commenter suggests that no details are provided by NMFS regarding assumptions 

and calculations in support of this finding. Consequently, the commenter believes that it 

is impossible for the reviewer to know what “specific risk criteria” were employed, and 

to thereby judge the appropriateness of NMFS’ finding. 

Response: As stated on page 25 in the PEPD, NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates 

were developed by using a simulation model to identify an exploitation rate for an 

individual population that meets specific criteria related to both survival and recovery, 

given the specified thresholds and estimated spawner/recruit parameters. The simulation 

used the population-specific threshold levels to identify an exploitation rate that met the 

following criteria: (a) the percentage of escapements less than the critical threshold value 

increase by less than five percentage points relative to no fishing, and either (b) the 

escapement at the end of the 25-year simulation exceeded the viable threshold at least 80 

percent of the time or (c) the percentage of escapements less than the viable escapement 

threshold at the end of the 25-year simulation differed from the no-fishing baseline by 

less than 10 percentage points. The PEPD references Appendix C: Technical Methods - 

Derivation of Chinook Management Objectives and Fishery Impact Modeling Methods of 

the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the proposed determination for a 

detailed explanation of rebuilding exploitation rate derivation. The PEPD also references 

NMFS’ RAP modeling document, cited as NMFS 2000a, for additional information on 

how NMFS derived these rebuilding exploitation rates. Information provided in the 

PEPD, along with the information included and available by reference, provides the 

reviewer the information necessary to ability to evaluate NMFS’ risk criteria. 

“Upper Management Thresholds” Comments: 

Comment 13: The commenter suggests that there is little real data available to the comanagers or NMFS on which to base firm, robust estimates of the current carrying 

capacity. The commenter stated that any estimate of a critical management threshold such 

as the MSH [maximum sustainable harvest] escapement level will inevitably be 

extremely uncertain. The commenter believes that it is extremely risky to employ such an 

uncertain point estimate as a management target, without at least acknowledging the 

uncertainty, which in practical terms should mean adjusting the target in a conservative 

direction relative to the risks associated with the uncertainty. The commenter believes 

that the PEPD fails to raise or discuss any critical considerations of these kinds about the 

approach taken by the RMP for estimating these escapement reference points and 

employing them in the proposed harvest management regime. 

Response: In the PEPD, NMFS used the best estimate of the level of escapement that 

produces maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of the system. This level of escapement was 

referred to as the viable threshold in the evaluation. NMFS completed a comprehensive 

analysis to derive viable thresholds for a subset of Puget Sound chinook salmon 

populations (Table 8 of the PEPD). These viable thresholds are based on a spawner-
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 11 of 18 

recruit analysis of recent years’ catch and escapement data and include environmental 

variants. NMFS used these viable thresholds to determine the NMFS-derived rebuilding 

exploitation rates. The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates were set so that 

escapement would meet or exceed the viable threshold at least 80 percent of the time at 

the end of 25 years. By using at least 80 percent, one would on average obtain an 

escapement level greater than the MSY. During this fishery impact simulation modeling, 

NMFS assumed low marine survival rates for the salmon populations, which is 

conservative and risk adverse. Additionally, the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation rates or 

escapement goals may be modified in response to the most current information about the 

productivity and status of populations, or in response to better information about 

management error. There is also uncertainty in the risk analysis simulation about actual 

exploitation rates beyond the duration of the RMP. The NMFS-derived rebuilding 

exploitation rates are based on simulations over a more conservative 25-year period, 

whereas the RMP’s duration is for a much shorter duration. In other words, NMFS 

compared the RMP to NMFS’ standards which were developed on simulations assuming 

fish would be harvested at a given rate over a 25 years period. NMFS’ approach in 

evaluating the RMP is conservative and considers the uncertainty of the data and 

simulation outcomes. 

Comment 14: The commenter suggests that the impact of past (over-) harvest on 

aggregate stocks (management units) is not taken into consideration in the estimation of 

stock-recruitment relationships. 

Response: Development of data with which to manage Puget Sound chinook salmon has 

been an ongoing effort. Work towards a comprehensive approach to Puget Sound salmon 

harvest began in the late 1980s. A comprehensive chinook salmon management plan was 

implemented initially in 1997 by the co-managers. Revisions to the management 

framework have been made in subsequent years as new information became available. 

Subsequent Puget Sound chinook salmon escapements indicate that the reduced 

exploitation rates and other harvest management actions resulting from the 

implementation of these harvest plans have contributed to the stabilization and increase in 

Puget Sound chinook salmon escapement. The RMP has replaced the old escapement 

goals with rebuilding exploitation rates for several management units, and changed the 

escapement goals for others. However, the role of past harvest in current condition of the 

resource is not the primary consideration of the PEPD. The focus of the NMFS’ 

evaluation is whether implementing and enforcing the proposed action will not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook 

Salmon ESU over a range of possible abundance and fishing conditions anticipated in the 

next five years. In the PEPD, NMFS evaluated the RMP’s response to low abundance and 

concluded that implementing and enforcing the RMP would not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Comment 15: The commenter states that the RMP establishes upper management 

thresholds for populations or management units using methods such as “standard 

spawner-recruit calculations..., empirical observations of relative escapement levels and 

catches, or Monte Carlo simulations that buffer for error and variability...”. The 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 12 of 18 

commenter suggests that the RMP’s harvest thresholds, derived through these 

simulations, are not appropriately risk-averse. 

Response: The co-managers’ method in establishing the RMP’s upper management 

thresholds is risk-averse by acknowledging and attempting to account for known 

uncertainties. Many of the RMP’s upper management thresholds were derived when 

sufficient data was available to use the classic spawner-recruit functions, augmented by 

incorporating environmental covariates. In addition, the spawner-recruit functions are fit 

by applying deviates from predicted calendar year escapements to observed escapements 

rather than the deviates of the estimated returns to predicted returns. Additionally, in the 

PEPD, NMFS compared the RMP’s upper management thresholds to the NMFS-derived 

or VSP-derived viable thresholds and found that they were similarly conservative and 

risk-averse. 

Comment 16: The commenter believes that the NMFS should not accept a 20 percent 

probability of not attaining a viable threshold within four to eight chinook generations. 

Response: The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates were set to result in 

attainment of the viable threshold in at least 80 percent of the simulation runs by the end 

of 25 years (see response to Comment 13). NMFS’ use of 25 years is conservative, as 

four to eight generations (number of generations in 25 years) is not a very long time to 

expect a population to respond to a change. Additionally, by using at least 80 percent as a 

condition, one would on average obtain an escapement level greater than this floor. 

NMFS’ use of an 80 percent chance of achieving the viable threshold is reasonable. This 

approach is conservative considering uncertainty of the data and simulations. 

Comment 17: The commenter believes that inability to detect a difference between 

harvest and no harvest regimes should not suffice as a justification for harvesting 

[declining] stocks. 

Response: One of the criteria that must be adequately addressed to approve the RMP 

under the ESA 4(d) Rule is that NMFS must conclude that implementing the RMP will 

not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Puget Sound Chinook 

Salmon ESU (emphasis added). In its evaluation, NMFS estimated the impacts on the 

populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU under a no-harvest regime and 

compares those results to the impacts associated with implementing the RMP. This 

comparison is necessary to assess whether or not implementation of the RMP will 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of affected threatened ESU 

than if the action did not occur. NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates were 

developed by using a simulation model to identify an exploitation rate for an individual 

population that meets specific criteria related to both survival and recovery, given the 

specified thresholds and estimated spawner/recruit parameters. The simulation used the 

population-specific threshold levels to identify an exploitation rate that met certain 

conditions (see response to Comment 12). One of those conditions is whether the 

percentage of escapements less than the critical threshold value increase by less than five 

percentage points relative to the baseline. The baseline assumes no salmon fisheries. This 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 13 of 18 

approach recognizes that a population may improve or decline irrespective of the 

proposed action being evaluated. In situations where freshwater or estuarine survival is 

severely compromised by degraded habitat, even the total elimination of the harvest may 

not improve the population’s productivity or status. If the risk assessment concludes that 

the percentage probability of escapements falling below the critical threshold will 

increase by less than five percentage points relative to the baseline, then it is reasonable 

to conclude that implementing the RMP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The focus of NMFS’ evaluation is on 

whether the difference is appreciable between the impacts associated with the 

implementation of the RMP and those that would still occur under the baseline. 

Comment 18: The commenter believes that the PEPD relies upon questionable and 

controversial estimates of current habitat capacity to justify estimates of upper 

management thresholds. 

Response: NMFS uses the best data available and continues to encourage the comanagers to improve and expand their data collection. Habitat capacity estimation is 

accomplished using several methods, and comparisons between results from the different 

methods are made to help evaluate the RMP. See response to Comment 19. 

Comment 19: The commenter suggests that the PEPD relies on Ecosystem Diagnosis and 

Treatment (EDT) modeling estimates of spawner-recruit functions to argue that “further 

harvest constraint will not, by itself, effect an increase above the asymptote associated 

with current productivity, until habitat conditions improve.” The commenter believes that 

the EDT model has received very critical reviews from the Salmon Recovery Science 

Review Panel and from the Columbia Basin Independent Science Advisory Panel. 

Response: Calculating a rebuilding exploitation rate ideally requires knowledge of a 

spawner-recruit relationship based on escapement, age composition, coded-wire tag 

distribution, environmental parameters, and management error. These types of data are 

available for several management units (Table 8 of the PEPD). For populations with 

insufficient data to develop a spawner-recruit relationship, generic guidance from the 

VSP paper or, when available, analyses of habitat capacity (such as the EDT 

methodology) have been used to assist NMFS in evaluating the RMP’s proposed 

thresholds. NMFS uses the best scientific data available in this evaluation. Habitat 

capacity is difficult to measure and estimation is now accomplished by several different 

methods. NMFS acknowledge that all models have strengths and weaknesses. NMFS has 

made appropriate comparisons of the models and their outputs to help evaluate the 

RMP’s upper management thresholds. 

“Low Abundance Thresholds” Comments:

Comment 20: The commenter states that the RMP defines a low abundance threshold as 

“a spawning escapement level, set intentionally above the point of biological instability, 

which triggers extraordinary fisheries conservation measures” to minimize fishery related 

impacts and increase spawning escapement. The commenter believes that the RMP’s 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 14 of 18 

claim that the low abundance thresholds are set above the point of biological instability is 

misleading. 

Response: As required in section (b)(6)(iii) of the ESA 4(d) Rule, the RMP must 

adequately address eleven criteria under section (b)(4)(i) in Limit 4. The analysis of the 

anticipated results of implementing the RMP, not the RMP’s characterization, was 

compared against the criteria defined under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule (see response to 

Comment 5). After taking into account uncertainty, the critical threshold is defined as a 

point under current conditions below which: (1) depensatory processes are likely to 

reduce the population below replacement; (2) the population is at risk from inbreeding 

depression or fixation of deleterious mutations; or (3) productivity variation due to 

demographic stochasticity becomes a substantial source of risk (see page 15 of NMFS 

2000b as cited in the PEPD). NMFS-derived critical thresholds ranged from 200 to 1,650 

fish. These critical thresholds may be revised as additional information becomes available 

on how an individual population responds to low abundance. NMFS finds that the RMP’s 

low abundance thresholds are generally set at or above what are considered to be critical 

thresholds (point of biological instability) for the chinook populations based on a survey 

of the literature and population-specific assessments. However, NMFS recognizes these 

thresholds are likely to vary over time as habitat conditions change. 

Comment 21: The commenter believes that the SUS exploitation rates will generally 

increase when the minimum fishery regime [equating to the RMP’s critical exploitation 

rate ceiling] is triggered. This might occur under circumstances when total abundances 

are low enough that escapements are projected to be below a population or management 

unit’s low abundance threshold. This outcome is relative to the circumstance when the 

regime is triggered due to the total RER being exceeded even though escapements are 

expected to be above the low abundance threshold. 

Response: For most management units, the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling 

imposes an upper limit on SUS exploitation rates when spawning escapement for a 

management unit is projected to fall below its low abundance threshold or if Canadian 

fisheries make it difficult or impossible to achieve the RMP’s rebuilding exploitation 

rate. Modeling exercises by the co-managers demonstrate the potential for imposing the 

RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling for several management units for the duration of 

the RMP (see response to Comment 6). The proposed critical exploitation rates are 

ceilings that are not to be exceeded. The commenter suggests the SUS exploitation rates 

will be increased to meet the ceiling when the RMP’s critical exploitation rate ceiling is 

imposed. This is not NMFS’ understanding of the co-managers’ plans for implementing 

the RMP, nor was this outcome used as an assumption in how the fisheries were 

modeled. During modeling, if the SUS fisheries’ impacts were already below the RMP’s 

critical exploitation rate ceiling, the co-managers in modeling future fisheries did not 

increase the impacts of the SUS fisheries to reach this ceiling. If impacts under the 

implementation of the RMP are greater than expected, NMFS can withdraw the ESA 4(d) 

Rule determination or ask the co-managers to adjust the fisheries’ impacts. 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 15 of 18 

Comment 22: The biological importance of the low abundance thresholds was also of 

concern to the commenter. The commenter suggested that neither the RMP nor the PEPD 

clearly define the “point of biological instability” [critical threshold] or provide a clear 

quantitative explanation of how the proposed low abundance threshold levels are 

determined. The commenter further suggested that the PEPD does not provide any 

evidence that the RMP’s low abundance thresholds are set far enough above putative 

points of biological instability to provide a precautionary and properly risk-averse margin 

of safety when they are crossed from above. 

Response: See response to Comment 20. 

Comment 23: The commenter stated that the RMP defines the point of instability as “that 

level of abundance (i.e., spawning escapement) that incurs substantial risk to genetic 

integrity, or exposes the population to depensatory mortality factors.” The commenter 

believes that with other critical terms employed in the RMP and the PEPD, no 

explanation is provided or even attempted regarding what is meant by a “substantial” risk 

or how such a level of risk is determined. 

Response: NMFS did not evaluate the RMP’s definition of the point of instability. 

NMFS’ evaluation focused on the effects of implementing the RMP’s mortality limits, 

regardless of their basis. In the PEPD, NMFS compared the RMP’s low abundance 

thresholds against NMFS-derived or VSP-derived critical thresholds threshold (see 

response to Comment 20 for NMFS’ definition of a critical threshold). The co-managers’ 

basis in the development of the RMP’s low abundance thresholds was not needed to 

make this comparison. In the PEPD, NMFS concludes that the RMP’s low abundance 

thresholds are generally set at or above what are defined as, or considered to be, the 

critical thresholds. 

“Critical Exploitation Rate Ceiling” Comments: 

Comment 24: The commenter expressed concern that the application of an exploitationrate ceiling in response to crossing a critical-abundance threshold from above would be 

based on policy objectives rather than biological considerations. 

Response: See responses to Comments 9 and 21. 

Comment 25: The commenter expressed concern about an apparent disconnect between 

the descriptions of the Critical ER [exploitation rate] Ceilings and their apparent actual 

effects on impact rates. The commenter suggested that no discussion is offered in the 

PEPD on how a minimally acceptable level of access was determined, who determined it, 

or why. 

Response: The RMP does include discussion on how a minimally acceptable level of 

access was determined. See responses to Comments 5 and 21. 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 16 of 18 

Comment 26: The commenter suggested that the association of the Critical ER Ceilings 

with RERs and the low abundance thresholds creates the implication of a two-tiered 

harvest regime for each MU [management unit], with separate impact-rate schedules 

above and below the thresholds. However, there is little indication that the provisions of 

the RMP would necessarily affect any significant difference in overall impacts on an MU, 

no matter what level of abundance it reaches, or whether or not Critical ER Ceilings are 

imposed. 

Response: See response to Comment 5 and 21. 

“Other Issues of Concern” Comments: 

Comment 27: The commenter believes that the range of variability in chinook salmon 

productivity is not fully considered. The commenter suggests that the PEPD uncritically 

accepts the likely range of abundances of adult chinook returns under the six-year RMP 

implementation period chosen by the co-managers for their modeling of the impacts of 

implementing the RMP. The commenter believes that the PEPD fails to require that the 

co-managers adopt more risk-averse modeling assumptions in estimating the likely 

impacts on listed chinook of the implementation of the RMP. 

Response: As mentioned earlier, Table 3 of the PEPD provides the anticipated range of 

exploitation rates and anticipated escapements for Puget Sound chinook salmon under the 

implementation of the RMP. Two variables were used in the modeling of the future 

fisheries to provide these anticipated ranges of exploitation rates and anticipated 

escapements. These modeling variables were abundance of returning salmon and impacts 

associated with the level of Canadian fisheries. The modeled salmon abundance in 2003 

was used to estimate the upper end of the annual abundance returns under the 

implementation of the RMP. A 30 percent reduction in the 2003 abundance was used to 

represent the lower range of modeled returns. This range of modeled abundance is similar 

to the variation in observed abundance for the ESU recently. However, this range is 

considered conservative given the increasing escapement trend in recent years. Given the 

general trend of stable to increasing abundance, it is likely that if the actual abundance in 

the next five years falls outside this range, the actual abundance would most likely be 

greater. Under the implementation of the RMP, it is unclear if Canadian conservation 

actions will continue or if impacts will increase to maximum levels allowed under the 

Pacific Salmon Treaty. In modeling the Canadian fisheries, the impacts similar to 

fisheries in 2003 were used to represent the lower range of anticipated impacts. 

Maximum harvest levels allowed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty were modeled to 

represent the upper range of impacts associated with Canadian fisheries. Fisheries can not 

go above this level under the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The evaluation used the 

modeling based on the maximum harvest levels under the Pacific Salmon Treaty as the 

most likely to occur within this range. Canadian impacts, under the agreement of the 

Pacific Salmon Treaty, may not be greater than the level assumed as the most likely to 

occur. The range of abundance was chosen by NMFS in consultation with the comanagers and based on an examination of abundance and survival conditions over the 

past ten years. 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 17 of 18 

Comment 28: The commenter believes negative impacts of hatchery chinook salmon on 

natural-origin chinook salmon are ignored, misinterpreted, or inappropriately accepted. 

The commenter expressed that the Kendall Creek Hatchery is currently operating without 

ESA take authorization. The commenter suggests that the PEPD’s assertions that the 

Kendall Creek hatchery population “retains the genetic characteristics of the wild 

population,” or that hatchery production at Kendall Creek “buffers genetic and 

demographic risks” to wild NF [North Fork] Nooksack River chinook salmon are 

precisely the assertions that NMFS has yet to make any determination over. 

Response: In its recent proposed revision of the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESA 

listing, NMFS has proposed that the Kendal Creek Hatchery population be determined to 

be part of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. 69 Fed. Reg. 33102, 33129 (June 14, 

2004). NMFS has proposed the Kendall Creek Hatchery chinook population 

conservation-directed program may provide substantial benefits to VSP parameters for 

the North Fork Nooksack River spring chinook salmon population (see section 6.2.1 of 

the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report, An Evaluation of the 

Effects of Artificial Propagation on the Status and Likelihood of Extinction of West 

Coast Salmon and Steelhead Under the Federal Endangered Species Act, as posted on the 

NMFS, NWR’s web-site at: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1srd/Prop_Determins/Inv_Effects_Rpt/6_PSoundChinook.pdf, 

as accessed on December 15, 2004). The North Fork Nooksack River spring chinook 

salmon population is a unique population that will likely be considered important for 

recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU to a viable level. The program likely 

benefits the abundance, diversity, and spatial structure of the North Fork Nooksack River 

population. NMFS and the co-managers recognize that the Kendall Creek hatchery-origin 

fish spawning in the South Fork Nooksack River are a risk, not a benefit to the South 

Fork Nooksack River population. This was one of the reasons that the co-managers 

reduced the Kendall Creek early chinook salmon hatchery production by 50 percent in 

2003 (W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to K. Schultz, NMFS, August 6, 2004). However, the 

Kendall Creek Hatchery, and the other chinook hatchery programs in Puget Sound are 

currently under review by NMFS for our evaluation and determination under limit 6 of 

the ESA 4(d) Rule. Therefore, this finding regarding the Kendall Creek Hatchery chinook 

population is considered preliminary. The ERD was modified to reflect that the Puget 

Sound hatchery programs are being reviewed by a separate Limit 6 determination of the 

ESA 4(d) Rule.

Comment 29: The commenter believes that the RMP lacks clarity in describing how it 

recognizes “Viable” and “Critical” concepts. 

Response: See response to Comment 20 for NMFS’ definition of a critical threshold, 

which is consistent with the VSP paper for a critical threshold. The regulations in the 

ESA 4(d) Rule require that the RMP must use the concepts of “viable” and “critical” 

thresholds in a manner so that fishery management actions; (1) recognize significant 

differences in risk associated with viable and critical population threshold states, and (2) 

respond accordingly to minimize long-term risks to population persistence. The RMP 
Public Comments and Responses 

Page 18 of 18 

defines its own upper management and low abundance thresholds, but these are readily 

comparable to the NMFS-derived or VSP-derived viable and critical thresholds. The ESA 

4(d) Rule also requires that harvest actions that impact populations that are currently at or 

above their viable thresholds must maintain the population or management unit at or 

above that level. Fishing-related mortality on populations above critical levels but not at 

viable levels (as demonstrated with a high degree of confidence) must not appreciably 

slow rebuilding to viable function. Fishing-related mortality to populations functioning at 

or below their critical thresholds must not appreciably increase genetic and demographic 

risks facing the population and must be designed to permit achievement of viable 

functions, unless the RMP demonstrates the likelihood of survival and recovery of the 

entire ESU in the wild would not be appreciably reduced by greater risks to an individual 

population. Table 9 in the PEPD is the post-listing threshold classification and 

escapement trend since listing for Puget Sound chinook salmon populations. In the 

PEPD, NMFS found the RMP was responsive to the populations’ status, when compared 

to the critical or viable thresholds, as required by the ESA 4(d) Rule. 

Comment 30: The commenter believes that there is a lack of consistency between the 

PEPD and RMP. The commenter received and reviewed information from WDFW 

regarding the co-managers’ 2004 fishing plan, outlining model predictions of expected 

impacts and escapements for all management units. The commenter suggested that 

several of the exploitation-rate and escapement predictions fall well outside the range of 

likely impacts and escapements described in Table 3 of the PEPD. 

Response: NMFS, in cooperation with the co-managers, have modeled the anticipated 

impacts of the implementation of the RMP. NMFS recognized that in this modeling 

exercise, conservative assumptions were made and that there was always the possibility 

that in any individual year the results could be different than the range of possibilities 

considered. In recent years, the post-season assessment has generally shown that 

estimated exploitation rates are lower than pre-season projections, with the escapement 

often higher than predicted pre-season (W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to K. Schultz, NMFS, 

August 6, 2004). If impacts under the implementation of the RMP are greater than 

expected, NMFS can withdraw the ESA 4(d) Rule determination or ask the co-managers 

to adjust fisheries to reduce impacts. Generally, the 2004 pre-season modeled escapement 

results are within or greater than the range of predicted escapements in the PEPD. This 

can be, in part, attributed to the use of risk-averse modeling assumptions in modeling 

impacts and the resultant escapement under the RMP (see response to Comment 27). 

ESA 4(d) Tracking Number: NWR/4d/06/2003/01616 

ESA Section 7 Tracking Number: F/NWR/2004/00731