FY 2020 Implementation and Monitoring of Skagit Salmon Recovery Goals: Harvest Management

Salmonid Hatcheries and Harvest Management

Harvest Management
Project ID20-SRSC-03
Recovery DomainsPuget Sound
Start Date03/01/2022
End Date06/30/2023
Year2020
StatusCompleted
Last Edited02/27/2024
 
1 - 1

Description    


During this time we attended weekly co-manager meetings to coordinate monitoring needs within the Skagit. Co-managers present included: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe and Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. SRSC updated the co-managers regarding test fisheries, brood stocking and spawn ground surveys. Co-managers requested SRSC supported additional spawn ground surveys for Chinook Salmon and Chum Salmon to fill gaps in monitoring coverage because of staff issues and provided additional surveys to address federal review of harvest practices. We have conducted Chinook salmon run reconstruction for 2021 and 2022. We continue to support monitoring on the Cascade River to protect Cascade River Spring Chinook population, review of comanager and NOAA plans to address hatchery straying. We evaluated Chinook salmon escapement estimates compared to escapement goals. We additionally developed a multi-stage model for Skagit River Chinook to better evaluate the spawner recruit relationship and drivers of population dynamics. This may be further developed into a preseason forecast tool for improved harvest management.

Project Benefit    


The limiting factor that this project addresses is harvest, and the purpose of the project is to provide the information that allows managers to conduct fisheries on harvestable fish, with low enough impacts that harvest is removed as a limiting factor on species recovery. Achieving project objectives will insure that impacts of annually-negotiated fisheries regimes achieve the management reference points for all salmon stocks returning to the Skagit River system, including escapement and harvest objectives outlined in local resource management plans and harvest limits outlined in Chinook and Coho AABM Agreements of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and are therefore low enough to meet abundance based management reference points for Chinook and steelhead to recover to delisting levels (as long as complementary habitat and artificial production actions are taken) and for Puget Sound coho, chum, sockeye, and pinks to remain at healthy levels. Finally, this project will allow us to map progress toward Chinook recovery and will enable timely implementation of management actions in light of significant changes in stock productivity.



Because harvest could potentially be a significant limiting factor to the maintenance of productivity levels required by Recovery Plans of ESA listed Pacific salmon, all project objectives provide critical information required for responsible management of harvestable fish stocks in the Skagit.

Accomplishments

Metric Completed Originally
Proposed

Funding Details

SourceFunds
PCSRF$34,999
Report Total:$34,999


Project Map



Worksites

48599459    


  • Worksite Identifier: 48599459
  • Start Date:
  • End Date:
Area Description

No Area Description data was found for this worksite.

Location Information

  • Basin: Puget Sound (171100)
  • Subbasin: Puget Sound (17110019)
  • Watershed: Whidbey Island (1711001901)
  • Subwatershed: Fidalgo Island-Frontal Similk Bay (171100190101)
  • State: Washington
  • Recovery Domain: Puget Sound
  • Latitude: 48.390316
  • Longitude: -122.501709

ESU

  • Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon ESU
  • Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Chum Salmon ESU
  • Puget Sound Steelhead DPS
  • Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU

Map

Photos

Metrics

Metrics
  • D.0 Salmonid Hatcheries and Harvest ManagementY (Y/N)
    •      . . D.0.a Hatchery and harvest mgmt. funding 34,999.00
    •      . . D.0.b
      Complement habitat restoration project
    •      . . D.0.c
      Project Identified in a plan or watershed assessment.
      Skagit River System Cooperative & Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan. Submitted to NOAA Fisheries. Seattle, WA. 296 pp. and appendices.
    •      . . D.3 Harvest Management ProjectY (Y/N)
      •      . . . . D.3.a Harvest Management Funding 34,999.00
      •      . . . . D.3.b.1 Fishery EvaluationsY (Y/N)
        •      . . . . . . D.3.b.2 Number of fishery evaluations completed 8
        •      . . . . . . D.3.b.3
          Record Names Of Fishery Evaluation Documents
          Skagit River System Cooperative. 2021. Pacific coastal salmon recovery grant progress report covering monitoring period January 1, 2021 – June 30, 2021. Report to Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund [PCSRF]. Skagit River System Cooperative. 2022. Pacific coastal salmon recovery grant progress report covering monitoring period July 1, 2023 – December 31, 2023. Report to Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund [PCSRF]. Skagit River System Cooperative. 2023. Pacific coastal salmon recovery grant progress report covering monitoring period January 1, 2023 – June 30, 2023. Report to Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund [PCSRF]. Schooler, S.L., Lemoine, M., Ruff, C. 2023. Integrated Population Models with application to Skagit River Chinook Recovery Evaluation. In: Status and trends of Skagit Chinook salmon abundance, life history diversity, and productivity in response to recovery plan actions and environmental variability. Chapter 2. Report to Puget Sound National Estuary Program NTA 2018-0697. Skagit River System Cooperative. Puget Sound Indian Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. Appendix A: Management Unit Profiles (MUPs): Skagit River Management Unit Status Profile. In: Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest Management Component. https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02309 Scheurell, M.D., Ruff, C.P., Anderson, J.H., Beamer, E.M., Hedley, G. 2021. An integrated population model for estimating the relative effects of natural and anthropogenic factors on a threatened population of steelhead trout. Journal of Applied Ecology 58(1): 114-124. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13789