Washington: Chehalis, Hoh, Humptulips, Queets, …...Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss ©Monterey Bay...

Steelhead

Oncorhynchus mykiss

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Washington: Chehalis, Hoh, Humptulips, Queets, Quillayute,Quinault Rivers

February 6, 2017 (updated April 6, 2017)

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports rev iewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology,fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific rev iew, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or itsrecommendations on the part of the rev iewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF2

®®

®

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix A: Review Schedule

2

About Seafood WatchMonterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainableseafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase productionin the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makesits science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Eachreport synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, thenevaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “BestChoices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. Inproducing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewedjournals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fisherymanagement plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. SeafoodWatch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, andmembers of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices.Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each specieschanges, Seafood Watch ’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updatedto reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch andSeafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

3

Guiding PrinciplesSeafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished or farmed, that canmaintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affectedecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wildcatchfisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

How does fishing affect the species under assessment?How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?How effective is the fishery’s management?How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and scoreGuidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings andthe overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocketguide and online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm othermarine life or the environment.

“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

1

1

4

SummarySteelhead are seagoing members of the rainbow trout species found along the U.S. West Coast. Several distinctpopulation segments of steelhead have been listed as "Threatened" or "Endangered" under the U.S.Endangered Species Act. This report focuses on commercial fisheries for non-ESA listed steelhead in theWashington Coastal region (Southwest Washington and Olympic Peninsula). All commercial fishing for steelheadin Washington is conducted by Indian tribes. This report covers fisheries conducted by the Quinault IndianNation, Quileute Nation, and Hoh Tribe in the Chehalis, Hoh, Humptulips, Queets, Quillayute, and QuinaultRivers.

Steelhead are born in freshwater and generally spend 2–3 years there before migrating to ocean waters to feedand mature. After spending a few years in the ocean, steelhead return to freshwaters to spawn, often to thesame river they were born in. Steelhead are divided into two reproductive types based on when they return tofreshwater to spawn: summer-run steelhead enter freshwater between May and October, while winter-runsteelhead enter freshwater between November and April.

In general, steelhead populations in the Washington Coastal region are healthier than steelhead populations inother regions, but they have experienced declines because of both fishing and habitat degradation. To evaluatethe status of steelhead populations, scientists and managers monitor escapement. Escapement is the number offish that escape capture in the fishery and actually spawn. Managers set escapement goals for steelheadpopulations based on the number of spawners that are required to maintain healthy populations. In most riversassessed in this report, the winter steelhead populations have been meeting their escapement goals themajority of the time. But the abundance of summer steelhead in all rivers is unknown. Additionally, steelheadpopulations have been heavily supplemented with hatchery production, and hatchery fish are not alwaysdistinguished from wild fish, which can confound the interpretation of wild steelhead abundance. Theabundance of Chehalis River and Hoh River steelhead is of high concern because the winter steelheadpopulation in these rivers has often failed to achieve the respective escapement goals.

The tribal fisheries catch steelhead using mid-water gillnets. The fisheries may catch and retain other salmonspecies, primarily coho and Chinook. Additionally, the steelhead fisheries in the Hoh, Queets, and QuinaultRivers may incidentally catch threatened bull trout. The steelhead fisheries in the Chehalis and HumptulipsRivers may incidentally catch green sturgeon, a species of concern. Incidental catches of bull trout and sturgeonare poorly monitored, which makes it difficult to determine how the steelhead fisheries affect their populations.

Steelhead fisheries are co-managed by the Indian Tribes and the State of Washington. Each year, managersmeet to plan and set regulations for the steelhead fisheries. Managers try to balance the needs of fishers withthe need to maintain healthy steelhead populations. Managers are working toward managing steelhead using anintegrated approach, which includes restoring degraded steelhead habitats and improving the management ofhatcheries to minimize their negative ecological impacts (such as resource competition, disease transfer, andgenetic impacts) on wild fish, but further work is still needed to address hatchery concerns. Additionally, thereare currently no specific management policies to account for steelhead’s important ecological role in ocean andfreshwater ecosystems.

The Chehalis River and Hoh River steelhead fisheries are rated "Red" due to concerns about the status ofsteelhead in these river and concerns over bycatch of sturgeon and bull trout respectively. All other steelheadfisheries evaluated in this report are rated "Yellow."

5

Final Seafood Recommendations

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingoperations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scoresGood Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION1: IMPACTSON THESPECIES

CRITERION2: IMPACTSON OTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION4: HABITATANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

Rainbow trout (Steelhead)Washington Chehalis River,Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified), UnitedStates of America

Red (2.16) Red (2.16) Yellow (2.45) Yellow (2.83) Avoid (2.38)

Rainbow trout (Steelhead)Washington Hoh River,Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified), UnitedStates of America

Red (2.16) Red (1.53) Yellow (2.45) Yellow (2.83) Avoid (2.19)

Rainbow trout (Steelhead)Washington HumptulipsRiver, Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified), UnitedStates of America

Yellow(2.64)

Red (2.16) Yellow (2.45) Yellow (2.83) Good Alternative(2.51)

Rainbow trout (Steelhead)Washington Queets River,Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified), UnitedStates of America

Yellow(2.64)


Rainbow trout (Steelhead)Washington QuillayuteRiver, Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified), UnitedStates of America

Yellow(2.64)

Green (3.32) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (2.83) Good Alternative(2.94)

Rainbow trout (Steelhead)Washington Quinault River,Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified), UnitedStates of America

Yellow(2.64)


2

6

Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern , and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCritical scoresAvoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

Because effect ive management is an essent ial component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoidrecommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

2

2

7

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report focuses on commercial fisheries for non-ESA listed steelhead in the Washington Coastalregion (Southwest Washington and Olympic Peninsula). All commercial fishing for steelhead in Washington isconducted by Indian tribes. This report covers fisheries conducted by the Quinault Indian Nation, QuileuteNation, and Hoh Tribe in the Chehalis, Hoh, Humptulips, Queets, Quillayute, and Quinault Rivers.

Species Overview

Rainbow trout or steelhead is a complex species, with a variety of life history patterns. They are native tomarine and freshwater habitats along the U.S. West Coast from California to the Alaska Peninsula, and theirrange stretches to the Sea of Okhotsk and the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia. They have also been introducedto many areas. This species may either exhibit resident behavior (i.e., remain in freshwater year-round) oranadromous behavior (i.e., migrate between freshwater and the ocean). Those that exhibit resident behaviorare called rainbow or redband trout, while those that exhibit anadromous behavior are called steelhead. Thisreport is on the anadromous form, steelhead.

Steelhead are born in freshwater and generally spend 2–3 years there before migrating to ocean waters to feedand mature. Steelhead may spend up to 3 years in the ocean before returning to freshwater to spawn. Often,they return to the same freshwater river where they were born, which creates many distinct spawningpopulations. Steelhead are divided into two reproductive types based on when they return to freshwater tospawn: summer-run steelhead and winter-run steelhead. Summer-run steelhead enter freshwater in a sexuallyimmature condition between May and October and require several months to mature and spawn. Winter-runsteelhead sexually mature while in ocean waters, enter freshwater between November and April, and spawnshortly thereafter (WDFW 2008c) (NMFS 2014a). Spawning takes place in habitats ranging from smalltributaries to large rivers, with gravel bottoms and fast flowing waters (WDFW 2008c). The females will dig anest (or a redd) to lay their eggs in. The eggs will hatch in 3–4 weeks. Unlike other salmon species, steelheadhave the potential to reproduce more than once. Typically, around 5%–10% of the spawning population is madeof repeat spawners (WDFW 2008c). Steelhead grow to a maximum size of 120 cm and can live to 11 years ofage.

There are many distinct population segments (DPS) of steelhead throughout their range. A DPS is a taxonomicclassification system used for the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). A DPS is a population or group ofpopulations that are discrete from other populations of the same species (NOAA 2014). Each steelhead DPScomprises several individual populations. Currently, 10 steelhead DPSs are listed as "Threatened" under theU.S. Endangered Species Act, and 1 is listed as "Endangered" (NMFS 2014a). Those listed under theEndangered Species Act include five population segments in California, five population segments of theColumbia River Basin, and Puget Sound steelhead. One DPS (Oregon Coast) is listed as a "Species of Concern."The two DPSs that are the focus of our report, Southwest Washington steelhead and Olympic Peninsulasteelhead, are not listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Olympic Peninsula DPS includes waters west ofthe Elwha River, around Cape Flattery and south (all streams included) into the Pacific Ocean north of GraysHarbor. The Southwest Washington DPS occurs in all rivers draining into Grays Harbor, Willipa Bay, and theColumbia River up to the Cowlitz River (WDFW 2008c). Although logging, overfishing, and hatchery programshave all negatively affected Washington's steelhead populations, they are relatively healthy compared to othersteelhead populations (WDFW 2014a).

Washington steelhead fisheries are co-managed by the Indian tribes and the State of Washington. Only Indiantribes are allowed to commercially fish for steelhead, but there are state-managed recreational fisheries. Tribaland state managers meet each year to plan the steelhead fisheries. The Quinault Indian Nation co-manages

8

steelhead in the Chehalis, Copalis, Humptulips, Moclips, Queets, and Quinault Rivers. The Quileute Nation co-manages steelhead in the Quillayute River, and the Hoh tribe co-manages steelhead in the Hoh River.

Production Statistics

The Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) catches steelhead in the Quinault River, Queets River, Chehalis River, andHumptulips River. It also catches very small amounts of steelhead in the Moclips and Copalis Rivers (these riverswere not included in the assessment due to the minimal catches). Steelhead catches by the Quinault IndianNation (QIN) have historically been the highest on the Quinault River. Catches in this river have ranged from7,000 to 11,000 fish from 2000 to 2013. The highest catches occurred in 2010 and 2013. The Queets River hasthe second-highest catches, typically varying around 2,000 to 5,000 fish since 2000. The largest catch occurredin 2011, of 7,034 fish. In the Chehalis River, catches peaked in the early 2000s (6,553 fish in 2003) but havesince declined to 1,469 fish in 2013. Catches in the Humptulips River have varied between 132 and 904 fish peryear since 2000.

The Hoh tribe catches steelhead in the Hoh River. Catches have been variable but have increased in recentyears, with catches peaking at 3,720 fish in 2011.

The Quileute Nation catches steelhead in the Quillayute River. Catches have ranged between 3,988 and 11,546steelhead per year from 2000–2013, with the highest catches occurring in 2001 and 2007 (WDFW 2014g).

The tribes catch steelhead with gillnets. Directed steelhead fisheries primarily occur during the winter monthsand target winter steelhead. But summer steelhead are caught during the spring/summer and fall salmonfisheries, and are retained and sold.

Importance to the US/North American market.

Import and export information specific to steelhead trout are not available, because all trout species arecombined. Tribal-caught steelhead is consumed locally or sold within the U.S. Some farmed steelhead isimported into the U.S. (Harvey 2005).

Common and market names.

Also known as trout or steelhead trout.

Primary product forms

Steelhead are primarily sold as fresh whole fish.

9

AssessmentThis section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries,available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessmentThis criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherentvulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown.

The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortalityscores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical

Criterion 1 Summary

RAINBOW TROUT (STEELHEAD)

Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Washington/ChehalisRiver Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) | UnitedStates of America

2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern 2.33: ModerateConcern

Red (2.16)

Washington/Hoh RiverGillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified) |United States of America

2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern 2.33: ModerateConcern

Red (2.16)

Washington/HumptulipsRiver Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) | UnitedStates of America

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow (2.64)

Washington/Queets RiverGillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified) |United States of America



Yellow (2.64)

Washington/QuillayuteRiver Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) | UnitedStates of America



Yellow (2.64)

10

In this assessment, we evaluate tribal steelhead fisheries in the Washington Coastal region (SouthwestWashington and Olympic Peninsula). The steelhead populations in this region are generally healthier thansteelhead in other regions of the U.S. {WDFW 2008c}. The steelhead fisheries evaluated include those thatoccur in the Chehalis, Hoh, Humptulips, Queets, Quillayute, and Quinault Rivers. Tribal fishers primarily targetsteelhead during the winter months and target winter steelhead. But summer steelhead are caught duringspring/summer fisheries for Chinook salmon and fall fisheries for coho salmon, and are retained and sold.Therefore, our recommendations cover both winter and summer steelhead.

To evaluate the status of steelhead, scientists and managers monitor escapement. Escapement is the number offish that escape capture in the fishery and actually spawn. Managers set escapement goals for steelheadpopulations based on the number of spawners that are required to maintain a healthy population or maximumsustainable yield. Escapement or the number of spawners is typically estimated by counting the number of nestson the spawning grounds. One issue with evaluating steelhead populations is that there have been high levels ofhatchery production, and hatchery fish may contribute to spawning. If hatchery fish are not separated from wildfish, this makes it difficult to determine the status of the wild populations.

Because the abundance of steelhead can vary greatly from year to year, we evaluated abundance over the mostrecent 15-year period. In this assessment, abundance is scored as very low concern if wild populations havemet their escapement goals more than 75% of the time over the last 15 years, as low concern if they havemet escapement goals more than 50% of the time, as moderate concern if escapement goals have not beendetermined or if hatchery fish compound the interpretation of the wild population status, and as high concern ifpopulations are failing to meet escapement goals more than 50% of the time. In most rivers, the wintersteelhead populations have been meeting their escapement goals at least 50% of the time; however, in somecases, hatchery fish are included in the abundance estimates. In all rivers, there is a lack of information onsummer steelhead abundance. Therefore, abundance for most rivers was assessed as moderate concern. TheChehalis River and Hoh River were the only rivers with populations that were not meeting their escapementgoals at least 50% of the time, so were assessed as high concern.

There are no estimates of fishing mortality for any of the steelhead populations; when assessing fishingmortality, we considered short- and long-term abundance trends. Populations with stable or increasingabundances would suggest that fishing is occurring at sustainable levels, while populations experiencingsignificant declines in escapement could signal that overfishing is occurring. Fishing mortality was thereforescored as low concern if the majority of populations are stable or increasing, as moderate concern if abundancetrends were variable or not available, and as high concern if the majority of populations are experiencinglarge declines. For the rivers assessed in this report, steelhead escapement trends were either variable or notavailable, so fishing mortality on steelhead was considered uncertain and of moderate concern.

Washington/QuinaultRiver Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) | UnitedStates of America



Yellow (2.64)

11

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics thatmake it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life historycharacteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age atsexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middleof food chain).High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristicsthat make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), lowreproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index ofthe inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, ageat first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling,aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) andgeographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g.,biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherentvulnerability to fishing.2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknownand the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishingmortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to themortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, butsome uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but itscontribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy andthe species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality isunknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted,reasonable management is in place.1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishingmortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtailoverfishing.

12

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES


WASHINGTON/CHEHALIS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON/HOH RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAWASHINGTON/HUMPTULIPS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON/QUEETS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON/QUILLAYUTE RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON/QUINAULT RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Medium

FishBase assigned a medium vulnerability to fishing score of 36 out of 100 to steelhead (Froese and Pauly2014). Steelhead grows to a maximum size of 120 cm and can live to 11 years of age. It reaches sexualmaturity around 15 cm and 3 years of age. Steelhead, like other salmon, has a complex life history. It hatchesin freshwaters, migrates to ocean waters where it spends part of its life, then returns to freshwater streamsand rivers to reproduce (often to the same river where it was born). There are two reproductive types:summer-run steelhead enter freshwater while still immature between May and October, and winter-runsteelhead mature while in the ocean and enter freshwater streams between November and April. Steelhead isa demersal egg layer. A female creates a nest, called a "redd," and eggs are placed within the nest. Asteelhead produces between 700 and 4,000 eggs per spawning event. Steelhead can spawn multiple times,which is different than most Pacific salmon that spawn once and die (NMFS 2014a). Steelhead is a high levelpredator in the food chain (Froese and Pauly 2014). The diet of steelhead changes as they grow. Youngsteelhead feed primarily on zooplankton, while adults feed on a mix of insects, mollusks (e.g., snails, squid),crustaceans (e.g., shrimp/prawns), fish eggs, minnows, and other small fish (NMFS 2014a). These life historyattributes also support a medium vulnerability to fishing score.

WASHINGTON/CHEHALIS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

High Concern

There are two populations of steelhead in the Chehalis River: summer and winter. No escapement goal(desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) has been set for the summer steelheadpopulation and no abundance information is available. For the winter population, managers have set anescapement goal of 2,700 natural spawners per year. From 1997–2013 (no data for 2009 and 2010), thispopulation only met its escapement goal five times, or 33% of the time (WDFW 2014a). For the winterpopulation, hatchery production is integrated with wild production, and escapement estimates may includeboth hatchery and wild fish. Because the winter population has failed to meet its escapement goal the majorityof the time, we have awarded a "high" concern score.

Justification:

13

RAINBOW TROUT (STEELHEAD)


Figure 1 Chehalis Winter Steelhead spawner escapement (blue line) relative to the escapement goal (blackline).

WASHINGTON/HOH RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

High Concern

There are two populations of steelhead in the Hoh River: summer and winter. No escapement goal(desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) has been set for the summer steelheadpopulation, and there has been limited monitoring of the abundance of this population. The winterpopulation has an escapement goal of 2,400 natural spawners. This escapement goal was set based onthe average of the escapement goal suggested by Washington State (2,900) and the escapement goalsuggested by the Hoh Tribe (1,900) (US v. Washington 2004). This population has failed to meet theestablished spawner escapement goal eight times, or 53% of the time, over the past 15 years (2001–2016); however, if the more conservative escapement estimate produced by Washington State of2,900 steelhead were used, the population would have only met its goal five times, or 33% of the time,over the past 15 years (figure 2)(WDFW 2017).

The Chalaat Creek hatchery run by the Hoh tribe releases winter steelhead into this river (WCSSP2013b). The large hatchery releases into this river may decrease the fitness of natural steelhead andlead to a decrease in productivity of wild steelhead populations (Araki et al. 2009) (Chicolte 2004)(Kostow and Zhou 2006) (Chicolte et al. 2011). But escapement is estimated in a way that ensures thatestimates are based on wild fish only.

We have awarded a "high" concern score because escapement of the winter steelhead has been belowthe management goal for more than 50% of the last 15 years and the status of summer steelhead isunknown.

Justification:

14

Figure 2 Figure 2: Wild escapement of winter steelhead in the Hoh River from 1979 to 2016. Red linerepresents the escapement goal of 2400 fish. From unpublished data from Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife (2017).

WASHINGTON/HUMPTULIPS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Moderate Concern

There are two steelhead populations in the Humptulips River: summer and winter. No escapement goal(desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) has been set for the Humptulips summersteelhead population, and there has been no monitoring of the abundance of this population. The Humptulipswinter population has an escapement goal of 1,600 natural spawners. The estimated total naturalspawners have been above this escapement goal nine times, or 60% of the time, over the past 15 years(1999–2013); however, the natural spawner estimates may include hatchery fish. The Humptulips Hatcheryprovides steelhead to this river (WDFW 2014a). This hatchery releases around 30,000 juvenile summersteelhead and 125,000 winter steelhead annually (WDFW 2014m). We have awarded a "moderate" concernscore due to the unknown abundance of the summer population and because spawning estimates for thewinter population may include hatchery fish.

Justification:

15

Figure 3 Humptulips Winter Steelhead spawner escapement (blue line) relative to the escapement goal (blackline).

WASHINGTON/QUEETS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Moderate Concern

There are two steelhead populations in the Queets River: summer and winter. No escapement goals (desirednumber of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) have been defined for either population. There is noavailable abundance information for the summer population. For the winter population, the number of naturalspawners has varied from 1,100 to 4,900 over the period 1980–2014, with peaks occurring in 1980, 1994,2004, and 2006 (WDFW 2014a). The Salmon River hatchery provides hatchery steelhead to this river. Theintroduction of hatchery steelhead could influence population abundance by decreasing the productivity of wildsteelhead (Araki et al. 2009) (Chicolte 2004) (Kostow and Zhou 2006) (Chicolte et al. 2011). Becauseabundance relative to target goals is not known and steelhead has a medium vulnerability to fishing, we haveawarded a "moderate" concern score.

Justification:

16

Figure 4 Queets Winter Steelhead spawner escapement (blue line). No escapement goal has been establishedfor this population.

WASHINGTON/QUILLAYUTE RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Moderate Concern

Fishing for steelhead occurs in the main stream of the Quillayute River and in the lower reaches of theBogachiel River. There are two steelhead populations in the main stream Quillayute/Bogachiel River: summerand winter. No escapement goal (desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) has been setfor the Quillayute summer steelhead population, and there has been limited monitoring of the abundance ofthis population. The winter population has an escapement goal of 1,127 fish. The number of natural-originspawners for the main stream Quillayute/Bogachiel population has been above this established escapementgoal in most years since 1978, except for 1992 and 2009. There is an also an escapement goal of 5,900 forthe entire Quillayute River basin, which has been met in most years.

The Bogachiel Hatchery provides steelhead to this river (WDFW 2014a). This hatchery produced around50,000 juvenile summer steelhead and 150,000 juvenile winter steelhead annually (WDFW 2014n). The goalis for segregated harvest of hatchery and wild fish. Goals to reduce the percent of hatchery fish on thespawning grounds have been established, but these goals are currently not being met. The presence ofhatchery fish on the spawning ground could impact population abundances by reducing the productivity ofnatural steelhead (Chicolte 2004) (Chicolte et al. 2011) (Kostow and Zhou 2006).

Although the wild winter steelhead population is meeting its escapement goal, the abundance of the summerpopulation is unknown, so a "moderate" concern is awarded.

Justification:

17

Figure 5 Quillayute/Bogachiel Winter Steelhead spawner escapement (blue line) relative to the escapementgoal (black line).

WASHINGTON/QUINAULT RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Moderate Concern

There are three populations of steelhead in the Quinault River: summer, lower winter, and upper winter. Noescapement goal (desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) has been set for the summerpopulation and no abundance information is available. There is also no escapement goal for the lower winterpopulation, but estimates of natural origin spawners have been declining over time. Large numbers ofhatchery fish (winter population) have been released into the lower Quinault River and Lake Quinault and likelycontribute to spawning (WDFW 2014a). This mixing could negatively affect the wild population (Chicolte 2004)(Chicolte et al. 2011). The escapement goal for the upper winter population is 1,200 fish. Estimates of totalnatural spawners were mostly above this level from 1990–2007, except for 1992, 1993, 1996, and 1999;however, no spawner estimates are available for the years since 2007 (WDFW 2014a). Because abundancelevels relative to target conservation goals are uncertain for all populations, and steelhead has a mediumvulnerability to fishing, we have awarded a "moderate" concern score.

Justification:

18


Figure 6 Lower Quinault Winter Steelhead spawner escapement (blue line). No escapement goal has beenestablished.

Figure 7 Upper Quinault Winter Steelhead spawner escapement (blue line) relative to the escapement goal(black line).


Moderate Concern

There is no information on abundance trends for the Chehalis River summer steelhead population. For theChehalis winter steelhead population, abundance was variable from 1993–2008. There were no spawnerabundance estimates for the years 2009 and 2010, but from 2011–2013, the number of natural spawners hasincreased slightly (WDFW 2014a). Total tribal catches of steelhead in this river have ranged from 245 to 6,553fish per year since 2000 (WDFW 2014g). During 2014, the Quinault Indian Nation caught 540 hatchery and 326

19

wild steelhead in this river (WDFW 2015f).

Given that the winter steelhead population has failed to meet its spawner escapement goal in most years andabundance has been variable, it is unclear if current fishing levels on steelhead in this river are sustainable;however, management measures are in place. We have therefore awarded a "moderate" concern score.

Justification:

Abundance trend:

Figure 8 Chehalis Winter Steelhead spawner escapement trend 1993–2013.


Moderate Concern

There is no information on abundance trends for Hoh River summer steelhead. For the Hoh winter population,total spawner abundance has shown a small decline over the years, while spawner escapement has beenquite variable from year to year (see graphs in the Detailed Rationale section) (WDFW 2014a). Annual tribalcatches of steelhead by the Hoh tribe have varied from 731 to 3,720 fish from 2000 to 2013 (WDFW 2014g).During 2014, 919 hatchery and 1,347 wild steelhead were caught by Hoh tribal fisheries (WDFW 2015f).Because abundance trends are unknown for the summer population and have largely been variable for thewinter population, we consider fishing mortality a "moderate" concern.

Justification:

Steelhead abundance trends: Note that run size refers to the number of steelhead estimated to have returned to the river to spawn, whileescapement refers to the number of steelhead that escaped capture in the fishery and actually spawned.

20

Figure 9 Hoh Winter Steelhead spawner run size trend 1976–2014.

Figure 10 Hoh Winter Steelhead spawner escapement trend 1976–2014.


Moderate Concern

There is no information on abundance trends for the Humptulips River summer steelhead population. For theHumptulips winter steelhead population, abundance has shown an overall decline since the 1970s; however,most of this decline occurred during the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. Since the mid-1990s, abundance has beenvariable and shown an small increase (WDFW 2014a). The Quinault Indian Nation catches of steelhead in theHumptulips River have varied between 132 and 904 fish per year since 2000 (WDFW 2014g). During 2014,285 hatchery and 291 wild steelhead were caught in Quinault Indian Nation tribal fisheries (WDFW2015f). Because abundance trends are unknown or variable for Humptulips River steelhead, we consider

21

fishing mortality a "moderate" concern.

Justification:

Steelhead long and short-term abundance trends:

Figure 11 Humptulips Winter Steelhead spawner escapement trend 1979–2013.

Figure 12 Humptulips Winter Steelhead spawner escapement trend 1997–2013.


Moderate Concern

There is no information on abundance trends for the Queets River summer steelhead population. For the

22

Queets winter steelhead population, the number of total natural spawners has varied widely since the mid- tolate 1990s, with peaks occurring in 2004 and 2006. There has been a small overall decline in abundance since1980 (see the Detailed Rationale section for details). The Quinault Indian Nation catches of steelhead in thisriver have varied between 1,918 and 7,304 fish from 2000 to 2013 (WDFW 2014g). During 2014, 512 hatcheryand 1,637 wild steelhead were caught by tribal fisheries (WDFW 2015f). Because it is unclear if fishing levelson Queets River steelhead are sustainable, we have awarded a "moderate" concern score.

Justification:

Abundance trend:

Figure 13 Queets Winter Steelhead spawner escapement trend 1980–2014.


Moderate Concern

There is no information on abundance trends for Quillayute River summer steelhead. Abundances of wintersteelhead in the main stream Quillayute/Bogachiel and in the Quillayute basin as a whole have varied greatlyover time (see graphs in the Detailed Rationale section). Overall abundance has remained at a medium tohigh level, staying above the escapement goal in nearly all years (WDFW 2014a). From 2000 to 2013,the Quileute tribe has caught between 3,988 and 11,546 steelhead per year in this river (WDFW 2014g).During 2014, 758 hatchery and 2,108 wild steelhead were caught by Quileute tribal fisheries (WDFW 2015f).Because of the limited information on the summer population, we have awarded a "moderate" concern score.

Justification:


23

Figure 14 Quillayute Basin Winter Steelhead spawner run size trend 1980–2014. (These numbers are basedon the entire Quillayute Basin.)

Figure 15 Quillayute/Bogachiel Winter Steelhead spawner escapement trend 1978–2014.


Moderate Concern

There is no information on abundance trends for the Quinault River summer steelhead population. Abundanceof Lower Quinault winter steelhead has overall shown a declining trend since the 1980s, but appears to havestabilized in more recent years; however, no data are available for the years since 2007. Abundance of UpperQuinault winter steelhead has shown a small increasing trend over time, but again no data are available forthe years since 2007 (WDFW 2014a). Tribal catches of steelhead are high in this river, ranging from 7,229 to11,480 fish per year from 2000 to 2013 (WDFW 2014g). During 2013, 5,080 hatchery and 1,956 wildsteelhead were caught by the Quinault Indian Nation Tribe (WDFW 2015f). We have awarded a "moderate"

24

concern score to account for the various population trends and limited data in recent years.

Justification:


Figure 16 Quinault Winter Steelhead spawner run size trend 1980–2004.

Figure 17 Lower Quinault Winter Steelhead spawner escapement trend 1978–2007.

25

Figure 18 Upper Quinault Winter Steelhead spawner escapement trend 1978–2007.

26

Criterion 2: Impacts on other speciesAll main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species underassessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality orinjury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened speciescatch, and ghost fishing.

To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multipliedby the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) andbait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list andassessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

®

RAINBOW TROUT (STEELHEAD) - WASHINGTON/CHEHALIS RIVER - GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS(UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Subscore: 2.16 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 2.16

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Green sturgeon 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.16)

Coho salmon 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.32)

RAINBOW TROUT (STEELHEAD) - WASHINGTON/HOH RIVER - GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS(UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



Bull trout 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.53)

Chinook salmon 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern


Yellow(2.64)



27

RAINBOW TROUT (STEELHEAD) - WASHINGTON/HUMPTULIPS RIVER - GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS(UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



Green sturgeon 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.16)



RAINBOW TROUT (STEELHEAD) - WASHINGTON/QUEETS RIVER - GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS(UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA





Red (1.53)



RAINBOW TROUT (STEELHEAD) - WASHINGTON/QUILLAYUTE RIVER - GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS(UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



Chinook salmon 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern




RAINBOW TROUT (STEELHEAD) - WASHINGTON/QUINAULT RIVER - GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS(UNSPECIFIED) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA





Red (1.53)



28

The tribal fisheries targeting steelhead may catch other salmon species; however, other salmon species are notconsidered traditional "bycatch" because they are also retained. Coho salmon is the most common salmonspecies caught alongside steelhead because their run times overlap somewhat (WDFW 2015c) (WDFW 2015g).Chinook salmon are also caught alongside steelhead in the Quillayute and Hoh Rivers. Although several cohoand Chinook evolutionary significant units (ESUs) are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), thecoho and Chinook caught in the steelhead fisheries assessed in this report are not from ESA-listed populations(NMFS 2015b) (NMFS 2015c).

Bull trout, which is listed as "Threatened" throughout their U.S. range under the Endangered Species Act, isincidentally captured in the Chehalis, Hoh, Queets, and Quinalut Rivers (USFW and OFWO 2015) (USFWS2015). The impact of steelhead fisheries on these populations is uncertain. In the steelhead fisheries in theChehalis and Humptulips Rivers, there may be incidental catches of white sturgeon and green sturgeon (QIN2014a) (WDFG 2014e) (BRT 2005). White sturgeon is not a species of concern and the steelhead fisheries arenot a major contributor to fishing mortality on this species, so it was not included in this report. But greensturgeon is a species of concern, so it has been included in the report. The impact of the steelhead fisheries ongreen sturgeon is unclear, but all green sturgeon must be released if caught. Bull trout or green sturgeon is thelimiting species in the majority of the assessed steelhead fisheries.


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.2 above)

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality(same as Factor 1.3 above)

COHO SALMON



Medium

FishBase assigned a medium vulnerability score of 53 out of 100 to coho salmon (Froese and Pauly 2015).Coho salmon can grow to a length of 61 cm. Its maximum age is unknown. Coho, like other salmon species,begins life in freshwaters, migrates to the ocean to feed, then returns to freshwater streams and rivers to

29


spawn. It returns to its original birthing grounds and spawns only once before death. Adults usually return tospawn around 3 years of age. Females prepare nests called "redds," and the eggs remain in these redds for6–7 weeks. Young coho salmon feed on plankton and insects in freshwaters, while adults feed on small fish inocean waters (NMFS 2014e). These life history characteristics also suggest a medium level of vulnerability tofishing.


Moderate Concern

The Chehalis coho population is considered a mixed population of both wild and hatchery fish. A number ofhatchery fish originating from other populations were released into the basin in the 1970s and 1980s.

There is an escapement goal (desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) for the entireChehalis basin of 28,506 fish. The number of spawners was low in the basin during the 1990s and thisescapement goal was rarely achieved. Spawner numbers increased in the early 2000s and the escapementgoal was met from 2001–2004. Prior to 2005, the spawner estimates included both natural and hatchery-origin fish. Since 2005, escapement estimates have been calculated separately for natural-origin andhatchery-origin fish. From 2005–2013, the number of natural-origin spawners reached the escapement goal of28,506 fish four times (2009–2012) (WDFW 2015b). Additionally, the number of natural-origin coho spawnersfor the entire Grays Harbor Basin (Chehalis and Humptulips Rivers) exceeded the entire Grays Harborescapement goal in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (PFMC 2014). Overall, the Chehalis Basin coho population hasachieved its spawner escapement goal 53% of the time over the last 15 years, but in some years escapementestimates included hatchery fish. We have therefore awarded a "moderate" concern score.


Moderate Concern

There is one population of coho salmon in the Hoh River. The escapement goal (desired number of fishreaching the spawning grounds) for this population is 2,000 to 5,000 fish. This escapement goal is based onestimates of the maximum sustainable yield. Since 1999, the number of natural spawners has exceeded thelower end of the escapement goal in all years except 2006 (WDFW 2015b) (PFMC 2014); however, naturalspawner estimates may include hatchery fish. We have awarded a "moderate" concern score.


Moderate Concern

The population of coho in the Humptulips River is considered a mixed one that includes wild fish along withhatchery fishery originating from a number of other populations. The Humptulips hatchery releases hatchery-reared coho into this river. There is an escapement goal (desired number of spawners reaching the spawninggrounds) of 6,894 for the Humptulips River. The number of spawners was low in this river during the 1990sand this escapement goal was rarely achieved. Spawner numbers increased in the early 2000s and theescapement goal was met from 2001–2004. No estimates of the number of spawners are available for theyears since 2004 (WDFW 2015b). But spawner escapement estimates for the entire Grays Harbor Basin(Chehalis and Humptulips Rivers) have been meeting the basin-wide escapement goal in most years from

30


2005–2013, and the number of natural-origin coho spawners has exceeded the escapement goal in the mostrecent 3 years (PFMC 2014). The Grays Harbor population as a whole is not considered overfished; however,recent abundance estimates are not available for the Humptulips River, so we have awarded a "moderate"concern score.


Moderate Concern

There is a single population of coho in the Queets River. This population is native, with composite productionfrom hatchery released broodstock (WDFW 2015b). The Salmon River hatchery provides hatchery-rearedcoho to this river (WCSSP 2013b). The escapement goal (desired number of spawners reaching the spawninggrounds) for the Queets basin is 5,800 to 14,500 fish. This escapement goal is based on estimates of themaximum sustainable yield for this population. The lower end of the escapement goal has been met ninetimes (or 60% of the time) over the last 15 years (1999–2013). The recent 3-year average escapement(2011–2013) was above the limit abundance reference point of 4,350 fish, so the population is not consideredoverfished (PFMC 2015). But natural spawner estimates include fish taken for hatchery broodstock. We haveawarded a "moderate" concern score.


Moderate Concern

There are two coho populations in the Quillayute River: a summer population and a fall population. Cohosalmon in the Quillayute River are a mix of wild and hatchery-raised fish. The Sol Duc hatchery provideshatchery-produced coho to the Quillayute River (CTC 2013c). The summer population is primarily managed forhatchery production. The escapement goal (desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) forthe fall population is 6,300 to 15,800 fish. The lower end of the escapement goal has been met 12 times, or80% of the time, over the past 15 years (2000–2014) (PFMC 2015). But natural escapement estimates includefish taken for hatchery broodstock and hatchery strays. We have awarded a "moderate" concern score.


Moderate Concern

There is a single population of coho salmon in the Quinault River. The population is considered a mixed stock,with hatchery adults contributing to the spawning population. There is no escapement goal (desired number ofspawners reaching the spawning grounds). The population is primarily managed for hatchery production(WDFW 2015b) (PFMC 2014). We have awarded a "moderate" concern score due to a lack of information onabundance.


Low Concern

31

This population is a mix of wild and non-native hatchery fish. Abundance numbers were generally low in the1990s but increased in the early 2000s and have fluctuated since (WDFW 2015b). Most of the coho salmoncatches in this river occur during the fall salmon gillnet fishery. During the 2014 fall salmon fishery, tribalfisheries caught 55,879 coho salmon (WDFW 2014e). Additionally, another 5,474 coho salmon were caught inthe non-Indian commercial salmon gillnet fishery in this area. Far fewer catches occur in the targetedsteelhead fishery. During the 2014–2015 winter steelhead fishery, 1,139 coho salmon were caught (WDFW2015c). Fishing mortality rates specific to the Chehalis Basin coho population are not available. But fishingmortality rates for the entire Grays Harbor Basin (Chehalis and Humptulips Rivers) were below the fishingmortality reference point from 2009–2012, indicating that fishing levels were sustainable. No fishing mortalityestimates are available for 2013 and 2014 (PFMC 2014). Because fishing levels on this population are likelysustainable and the targeted steelhead fishery likely only contributes to a small percentage of the total cohocatch, we have awarded a "low" concern score.


Low Concern

Abundance trends of coho salmon in the Hoh River have been variable over time. Peaks occurred in the mid-1980s and 2001 (WDFW 2015b). Fishing mortality rates for 2013 are not available, but fishing mortality ratesprior to 2013 were below the fishing mortality reference point (maximum fishery mortality threshold, MFMT),indicating that fishing levels were sustainable. In 2014, the tribal fishery caught 2,500 wild fish and 150hatchery-origin fish between September 1 and December 31. The majority of these were not caught duringthe targeted steelhead fishery (PFMC 2015). Because fishing levels on this population are likely sustainableand the targeted steelhead fishery likely only contributes to a small percentage of the total coho catch, wehave awarded a "low" concern score.


Low Concern

This population is a mix of wild and non-native hatchery fish. During the 2014–15 Humptulips winter steelheadfishery, 880 coho were caught (WDFW 2015c). In comparison, during the 2014 fall tribal salmon gillnet fishery,9,261 coho were caught (WDFW 2014e). Abundance numbers for Humptulips coho were generally low in the1990s but increased in the early 2000s. No estimates of abundance specific to the Humptulips River areavailable since 2004. Fishing mortality rates on coho specific to the Humptulips River are not available. Butfishing mortality rates for the entire Grays Harbor Basin (Chehalis and Humptulips Rivers) were belowthe fishing mortality reference point from 2009–2012, indicating that fishing levels were sustainable. No fishingmortality estimates are available for 2013 and 2014 (PFMC 2014). Because fishing levels on this populationare likely sustainable and the targeted steelhead fishery likely only contributes to a small percentage of thetotal coho catch, we have awarded a "low" concern score.


Low Concern

Fishing rates on coho salmon in the Queets River have declined over time, and were below the fishingmortality reference point from 2009–2012, indicating that fishing levels were sustainable. No fishing mortalityestimates are available for 2013 or 2014. Abundance of this population has greatly fluctuated over time. Tribalfisheries captured 15,473 coho in this river during 2014 (PFMC 2015). We have awarded a "low" concern

32

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

score because it is likely that fishing levels on this population are sustainable.


Low Concern

Fishing mortality rates on fall coho salmon in the Quillayute River were below the fishing mortality referencepoint from 2009–2012, indicating that fishing levels on this population were sustainable. No fishing mortalityestimates were available for 2013 or 2014. Abundance of fall coho salmon in this river has been variable overtime. The abundance of summer coho has also been variable over time. The summer population is primarilymanaged for hatchery production. In 2014, the Quileute Tribe caught 27,427 fall coho (12,991 naturalcoho and 14,436 hatchery coho) and 4,281 (1,256 natural) summer coho (PFMC 2015). Because fishingmortality rates are likely sustainable, we have awarded a "low" concern score.


Low Concern

There is no abundance trend information for this population (WDFW 2015b) and there are no estimates offishing mortality (PFMC 2014). During 2014, 49,780 coho were caught, but only 360 coho were caught duringthe targeted steelhead fishery (WDFW 2015d). Because the steelhead fishery is not likely to be a significantcontributor to mortality of this species, we have awarded a "low" concern score.


< 20%

Discard rates in tribal steelhead fisheries are expected to be very low. Although some other salmon speciesare captured, they are almost always retained (Alverson et al. 1996).

33



WASHINGTON/CHEHALIS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON/HUMPTULIPS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

High

FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability to fishing score of 80 out of 100 to green sturgeon (Acipensermedirostris) (Froese and Pauly 2014). Green sturgeon reaches sexual maturity around 1.6 to 2.4 m in lengthand 15–17 years of age (Van Eenennaam 2002). The maximum length reached is reported to be 250 cm andit can live up to 70 years of age. Green sturgeon migrates between fresh and salt waters, spawning every 2–5years in open freshwater. Green sturgeon produces between 60,00 and 140,000 eggs during a spawning event(Moyle et al. 1992) (Moyle 2002). Green sturgeon is a high-level predator within the food chain (Froese andPauly 2014) (NMFS 2014c).


High Concern

There are two Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of green sturgeon, a northern and southern. The northernDPS spawns in the Klamath and Rogue Rivers and the southern DPS spawns in the Sacramento River. Thesouthern DPS is listed as "Threatened" by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the northern DPS islisted as a "Species of Concern." Sturgeon from both populations migrate up and down the U.S. West Coast(NMFS 2014b). We have awarded a "high" concern score.


Moderate Concern

Fishing mortality rates for green sturgeon are not known and no fishing target has been defined. Historically,fishing was considered a major threat to this species, and significant numbers of green sturgeon were caughtin commercial fisheries. In recent years, the loss of spawning habitat has become the largest threat, althoughbycatch in fisheries is still considered a threat (NMFS 2014c). The Endangered Species Act status reviewindicated that local harvest within the Chehalis River basin could be a threat to green sturgeon (BRT 2005).Catches of green sturgeon in Grays Harbor, which includes the Chehalis and Humptulips Rivers, varied from 1to 198 fish from 1985–2004 (BRT 2005). Since 2006, the retention of green sturgeon has been banned inGrays Harbor. Tribal fisheries operating in the Chehalis River are required to release any incidentally capturedgreen sturgeon. No green sturgeon catches have been reported since the retention ban (WDFW 2015e) (QIN2014a); however, it is unclear if some green sturgeon are still caught and discarded back to sea unreported.Little is known about post-release survival or mortality rates for green sturgeon (NMFS 2015a). We haveawarded a "moderate" concern score because fishing mortality on this species is unknown.

34

GREEN STURGEON



BULL TROUT




< 20%


WASHINGTON/HOH RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAWASHINGTON/QUEETS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON/QUINAULT RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

High

FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability to fishing score of 66 out of 100 to bull trout (Froese and Pauly2014). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) is a member of the family Salmonidae and is native to Washington,Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and western Canada. Bull trout displays both resident and migratory lifehistory strategies. Resident bull trout live in the same stream for their entire lives, whereas migratory formsmove to large bodies of water (e.g., a lake, river, or sometimes saltwater) to overwinter, then back to smallstreams to reproduce. Bull trout typically reaches sexual maturity between 58 and 86 cm in length andbetween 4 and 7 years of age (Froese and Pauly 2014) (USFWS 2015). Like salmon and steelhead, it layseggs in nests or "redds" (USFWS 2015). Bull trout is highly reliant on specific habitat requirements, includingwater less than 15 degrees C (59 degrees F), complex stream habitats, overhanging banks, and a way toconnect between foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO) habitats downstream and spawning andrearing (SR) habitats upstream (USFWS 2015). It may grow to 100 cm in length (Froese and Pauly 2015), andcommonly lives for 10 years and occasionally for 20 years or more (USFWS 2015). Bull trout is a top levelpredator, feeding on a variety of fish species (Froese and Pauly 2015).


Very High Concern

In 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed bull trout throughout its U.S. range as "Threatened" underthe U.S. Endangered Species Act (FR 1999). At listing time, bull trout populations were estimated to havebeen removed from around 60% of their natural range (USFWS 2015). A status review of bull trout in 2008concluded that the "Threatened" listing remained warranted. Six recovery units have been defined for bulltrout. Bull trout in western Washington and Oregon, including Puget Sound, Olympic Peninsula, and the Lower

35



CHINOOK SALMON


Columbia River, are part of the Coastal Recovery Unit. Within this recovery unit, 21 core areas have beenidentified, including the Hoh, Queets, and Quinault Rivers. The Quinault River, along with three other riversin the Coastal Recovery Unit, have been identified as bull trout strongholds, which means that they areconsidered to have the most stable and abundant populations. The Chehalis River is considered a foraging,migration, and overwinter (FMO) area. FMOs are considered critical to the life history behavior of bull troutwithin the recovery areas (USFSW and OFWO 2015). We have awarded a score of "very high" concern basedon the ESA listing.


Moderate Concern

Identified threats to bull trout in the Hoh, Queets, and Quinault Rivers include habitat impairment ordegradation and incidental catches in commercial and recreational salmon and steelhead fisheries (USFSWand OFWO 2015) (USFWS 2015). The amount of bull trout caught in steelhead gillnet fisheries in these riversis unknown, but one study reported that 102 bull trout were incidentally killed in Chinook salmon and wintersteelhead gillnet fisheries in the Hoh River over a 6-month period (January–June) in 2002 (Brenkman et al.2007). Bull trout's life history characteristics, which can include migrations between fresh and salt water, arebelieved to make it highly susceptible to capture in salmon and steelhead fisheries (Brenkman et al.2007). Because current fishing mortality rates on bull trout are unknown, but a recovery plan has beendeveloped to address both habitat and fisheries threats to bull trout (USFSW and OFWO 2015) (USFWS2015), a "moderate" concern score is awarded.


< 20%


WASHINGTON/HOH RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAWASHINGTON/QUILLAYUTE RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Medium

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability to fishing score of 68 out of 100 to Chinook salmon (Froese and Pauly

36


2014). But the life history characteristics of Chinook salmon suggest that it has only a medium level ofvulnerability to fishing. Chinook salmon reaches sexual maturity around 90 cm (3 ft) in length and between 2and 7 years of age. Chinook salmon can grow to a maximum length of 150 cm (5 ft) and can live up to 9 yearsof age. Like other salmon, Chinook salmon begins life in freshwaters, spending up to 2 years there beforemigrating to ocean waters to feed and mature. It then spends 1 to 6 years in the ocean before returning tofreshwaters to spawn. Similar to other salmon species, there are several seasonal spawning "runs" (i.e.,spring, fall, winter, summer) of migrating Chinook from the ocean to freshwaters. Chinook salmon layeggs on gravel bottoms. It spawns only once and then dies. Chinook salmon is a high level predator in theecosystem (NMFS 2014d), feeding primarily on other fish as adults (Froese and Pauly 2014). We have ratedthis factor as "medium" based on the life history attribute method (see Detailed Rationale below) and expertinput.

Justification:

Table 1: Results from the Seafood Watch fish vulnerability rubric (SFW criteria document, pg. 4). Attributescores can range from 1 to 3 with higher scores signifying more resilient life history attributes.

Species with average attribute scores between 1.80 and 2.43 are deemed to have a "medium" vulnerability.

Vulnerability attribute Category Score

Average age at maturity 5–15 years 2

Average maximum age < 10 years 3

Fecundity > 100 eggs N/A

Average maximum size 100–300 cm 2

Average size at maturity 40–200 cm 2

Reproductive strategy demersal egg layer 2

Trophic level > 3.25 1

Average Score Medium Vulnerability 2


Moderate Concern

There are two populations of Chinook salmon in the Hoh River: fall and spring/summer. The escapement goal(desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) for the fall Chinook population is either 1,200fish or 60% of the spawning run size, whichever is larger. Estimates of natural spawners have been abovethe escapement goal since 1973 (PFMC 2014) (WDFW 2014k).

The escapement goal for the spring/summer population is 900 fish or 60% of the spawning run size,whichever is greater. The spring/summer population has met its escapement goal 53% of the time over thelast 15 years (1999–2014; 2010 data were not available). But since 2007, it has only met its escapement goalonce (WDFW 2014k) (PFMC 2014). The recent 3-year mean escapement for this population is above theminimum abundance reference point of 450 fish; therefore, the population is not considered overfished {PFMC2014).

37


Although the Chinook populations in this river are meeting their escapement goals > 50% of the time, it isunclear if spawner escapement estimates include hatchery fish; we have therefore awarded a "moderate"concern score.


Moderate Concern

There are two populations of Chinook salmon in the Quillayute River: fall and spring/summer. The escapementgoal (desired number of spawners reaching the spawning grounds) for all combined fall Chinook populationsin the Quillayute basin is 3,000 fish or 60% of the spawning run size, whichever is greater (WDFW 2014k)(PFMC 2014). This escapement goal was met in all years from 1999–2013 (PFMC 2014), but the number ofspawners was slightly below the escapement goal for 2014 (WDFW 2014k).

All spring Chinook are considered hatchery fish and all summer Chinook are considered natural fish. Theescapement goal for all combined natural summer Chinook populations in the Quillayute basin is 1,200 naturalspawning fish. This goal is based on the spawner abundance necessary to achieve the maximum sustainableyield. From 1999–2013, this goal has only been met in 2001 and 2003. But the recent 3-year meanescapement (2011–2013) exceeds the threshold abundance level (600 fish), so spring/summer QuillayuteChinook are not considered overfished (PFMC 2014) (WDFW 2014k).

The Sol Duc Hatchery provides Chinook salmon to the Quillayute River basin (WCSSP 2013b). Naturalescapement estimates for the fall and summer populations may include hatchery strays, as well as broodstocktaken for the spring/summer population (PFMC 2014). We have awarded a "moderate" concern score becausethe spring/summer population has not met its escapement goal and because escapement estimates includehatchery fish.


Moderate Concern

The Hoh tribe caught 331 spring Chinook (264 hatchery origin and 67 natural origin) in the Hoh River during2014 (PFMC 2015). The spring/summer Chinook population has been in decline and has only met itsescapement goal once since 2007 (WDFW 2014k) (PFMC 2014). This suggests that fishing mortality onspring/summer Chinook in this river may be unsustainable.

Based on an estimated terminal spawning run size of 2,448 adults for the fall fishery, the allowed terminalharvest rate was 36.2%. The Indian fishery targeted 23.96% of the terminal run but caught slightly less (586and 541 fish, respectively). Fishing mortality estimates specific to this river are not available, but fishingestimates on fall Chinook from the Queets River have been used as a proxy. Fishing levels were consideredsustainable from 2009–2012, but no estimates of fishing mortality have been available since (PFMC 2015).The number of natural spawners has fluctuated greatly from year to year (WDFW 2014k).

Although fishing levels on the fall Chinook population are likely sustainable, we have awarded a "moderate"concern score because of the declining trend in abundance for the spring/summer population.

38



Low Concern

The Quileute Tribe caught 513 spring, 227 summer, and 4,122 fall Chinook salmon in this river during 2014.Fishing mortality estimates are not available for this specific river basin, but fishing mortality rates for Chinookin the Queets River have been used as a proxy. Fishing levels on Quillayute spring/summer Chinook and fallChinook are believed to be sustainable, though fishing mortality estimates for the most recent years are notavailable (PFMC 2015). Abundance trends for the fall population have been relatively stable since the mid- tolate 1990s. Abundance for the spring/summer population has fluctuated, but abundance estimates since themid-2000s have generally been lower than those in the late 1990s/early 2000s {PFMC 2014). We haveawarded a "low" concern score.

WASHINGTON/HOH RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAWASHINGTON/QUILLAYUTE RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

< 20%


39

Criterion 3: Management EffectivenessManagement is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determinedas follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is VeryHigh Concern = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 3.1 - Harvest Strategy

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, ScientificResearch/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record,and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and allother subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and

Region / MethodHarvestStrategy

BycatchStrategy Score

Washington / Chehalis River / Gillnets and entangling nets(unspecified) / United States of America

3.00 2.00 Yellow(2.45)

Washington / Hoh River / Gillnets and entangling nets (unspecified) /United States of America

3.00 2.00 Yellow(2.45)

Washington / Humptulips River / Gillnets and entangling nets(unspecified) / United States of America

3.00 2.00 Yellow(2.45)

Washington / Queets River / Gillnets and entangling nets (unspecified)/ United States of America

3.00 2.00 Yellow(2.45)

Washington / Quillayute River / Gillnets and entangling nets(unspecified) / United States of America

3.00 0.00 Yellow(3.00)

Washington / Quinault River / Gillnets and entangling nets(unspecified) / United States of America

3.00 2.00 Yellow(2.45)

40

Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species ofConcern rated ‘ineffective.’0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catchesthreatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, andunreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1 Summary

FACTOR 3.1 - MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIESRegion / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion

Washington /Chehalis River /Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) / UnitedStates of America

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Washington / HohRiver / Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) / UnitedStates of America

ModeratelyEffective

N/A ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Washington /Humptulips River /Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) / UnitedStates of America

ModeratelyEffective


ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Washington / QueetsRiver / Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) / UnitedStates of America

ModeratelyEffective


ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Washington /Quillayute River /Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) / UnitedStates of America

ModeratelyEffective


ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Washington /Quinault River /Gillnets andentangling nets(unspecified) / UnitedStates of America

ModeratelyEffective


ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

41

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must beappropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

WASHINGTON / CHEHALIS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / HOH RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAWASHINGTON / HUMPTULIPS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / QUEETS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / QUILLAYUTE RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / QUINAULT RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Moderately Effective

Steelhead fisheries in Washington are co-managed by the state of Washington and Indian tribes, whose rightswere established in treaties signed with the federal government in the 1850s. In those treaties, the tribesagreed to allow the peaceful settlement of much of western Washington, and provided the land to do so, inexchange for their continued right to fish, gather shellfish, hunt, and exercise other sovereign rights. A 1974federal court case (U.S. v. Washington) reaffirmed the tribe's rights to harvest salmon and steelhead, andestablished them as co-managers of Washington fisheries (WDFW 2014c). All commercial fishing forsteelhead is conducted by the Indian tribes, but there are non-tribal recreational fisheries. The state ofWashington has a Statewide Steelhead Management Plan (SSMP) to aid in the restoration and maintenance ofsteelhead populations. The management plan serves as a framework of strategies, policies, and guidelines forcollaboration between state and tribal managers to develop regional management plans (WDFW2008a). There are also a number of "lead entities" guiding steelhead and salmon management in theWashington Coast region, including the North Pacific Coast Lead Entity, the Quinault Indian Nation Lead Entity,the Grays Harbor Lead Entity, and Pacific County Lead Entity (WA 2014). Counties (Clallam, Grays Harbor,Jefferson, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston), tribes (Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, HohRiver Tribe, Makah Nation, Quileute Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, and Shoalwater Bay Tribe), cities, ports,state agencies, and concerned citizens are involved in regional management of steelhead and salmon throughtheir local lead entities. The four Lead Entities work together regionally and came together to form theWashington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership. They are working on the development of a regional planfor salmon and steelhead protection, which will identify common goals, objectives, and strategies forrestoration throughout the region. Their vision is that all watersheds in the Washington Coast Region willcontain diverse and self-sustaining populations of salmon/steelhead, which are capable of supporting theecological, cultural, social, and economic needs of human communities. Managers are working to protect andrestore steelhead habitats and to ensure that steelhead fisheries and hatchery operations supportsustainability goals for wild steelhead populations (WCSSP 2014).

The tribes that fish in the rivers analyzed in this assessment are the Quinault Indian Nation, Quileute Nation,and Hoh Tribe (WDFW 2008c). Each year, tribal managers meet with state managers to plan commercial andrecreational steelhead fisheries through the North of Falcon Process (WDFW 2014b). They also work togetherto estimate the abundance of steelhead to ensure that fishing is occurring at appropriate levels. To evaluatethe abundance of steelhead, scientists and managers monitor escapement. Escapement is the number of fishthat escape capture in the fishery and actually spawn. Escapement goals are typically aligned with the

42

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuildoverfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is theirlikelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood ofsuccess in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortalityfor any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

maximum sustainable yield concept (Gibbons et al. 1985). To control fishing levels on steelhead and ensureadequate escapement, the tribes will implement river-specific management measures. Measures implementedby the Quinualt Indian Nation in the Chehalis, Humptulips, Quinault, and Queets Rivers include pre-setschedules for when fishing is allowed to take place, mesh size and other gear restrictions, area restrictions,and reporting requirements (QIN 2014a) (QIN 2014b) (QIN 2014c) (QIN 2014d) (QIN 2014e) (QIN 2014f).There are also regulations related to the sale of steelhead. Fishers may sell only three steelhead per daydirectly to consumers, and the rest must be sold to authorized Quinault Nation buyers. The Quileute Nation(QN) develops a fishing schedule each year, which includes opening and closing times, for the QuillayuteRiver (QN 2014) (QN 2014d). All salmon/steelhead fishing is typically closed for 2 weeks in early spring toallow adult steelhead that have just spawned passage back to the ocean (QN 2014). There are no mesh sizerestrictions for this fishery (QN 2014d). Information on specific management measures by the Hoh Tribe forthe Hoh River fisheries was not readily available. The information that is available indicates that the Hoh Triberequires the use of mesh size restrictions to reduce the capture of steelhead kelts (i.e., after spawning andbefore returning to the sea) in other salmon fisheries (PFMC 2014).

Steelhead fisheries in the Washington Coastal Region have been maintained at healthier levels than steelheadin other regions of the state, and most populations that have established escapement goals have beenmeeting those goals. But there remain a number of concerns with steelhead management. Some scientistsbelieve that managing steelhead to achieve maximum sustainable yield is not the best approach, given thespecies' complex life history characteristics, and that a more updated, holistic approach is needed (Burge etal. 2006). Science has shown in recent years that the health and viability of steelhead populations aredetermined by abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and life history diversity (McElhany et al. 2000).Additionally, in some instances, the current escapement goals have been a policy compromise between stateand tribal managers, so there are concerns that they may not always be set at the most appropriate biologicallevel (US v. Washington 2004). It is also important to note that escapement goals have not been set for any ofthe summer steelhead populations assessed in this report, and the current status of the summer populationsis unknown. A final concern is the high level of hatchery production. Hatchery fish can reduce the productivityof wild steelhead (Chicolte 2004) (Chicolte et al. 2011), and hatchery fish are often not distinguished from wildfish, which makes it difficult to determine the true status of the wild populations. (Hatchery impacts on wildpopulations are discussed further in Section 4.3.)

We have awarded a "moderately effective" and not highly effective score because several managementregulations are in place for the steelhead fisheries, but management goals have not been determined for allsteelhead populations and there remain concerns over the current management system for steelhead.

WASHINGTON / CHEHALIS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA


The winter steelhead population in the Chehalis River has failed to meet spawner escapement goals morethan 50% of the time over the past 15 years (WDFW 2014a), which suggests that this population is potentiallyin a depleted state. Managers have developed plans and regulations to restore and maintain steelhead

43

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and thefishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conductedregularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

populations in this region. Additionally, The Quinault Indian Nation has a number of regulations in place tocontrol fishing (QIN 2014a). We have awarded a moderately effective score.

WASHINGTON / HOH RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAWASHINGTON / HUMPTULIPS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / QUEETS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / QUILLAYUTE RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / QUINAULT RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

N/A

No depleted, threatened, or endangered species are targeted/retained in these fisheries.



Monitoring of steelhead populations is conducted by both the state of Washington and the tribes. To evaluatethe status of steelhead, scientists and managers monitor escapement. Escapement is the number of fish thatescape capture in the fishery and actually spawn. Managers set escapement goals for steelhead populationsbased on the number of spawners that are required to maintain a healthy population (information on issuesrelated to the setting of these goals can be found in section 3.1) (WDFW 2008a) (WDFW 2014a) (QN2014a). Escapement is typically monitored by counting the number of nests on the spawning ground. Theescapement data are then used to develop fishing strategies. But for many populations, there is a lack ofescapement data, which has hindered their assessment (WDFW 2008a). Escapement data are not availablefor any of the summer steelhead populations assessed in this report (WDFW 2014a). In addition to monitoringabundance, tribes and the state also monitor the status of steelhead habitats and assess their populationstructure, to try to identify populations with potential conservation concerns (WDFW 2008a) (QN2014b). Some tribes also operate steelhead hatcheries. Hatchery production and performance may bemeasured through several means: number of juveniles released, survival/passage seaward, adult returnnumbers, juvenile release to adult survival, age and size at return, overall harvest contribution, and spawning

44

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientificrecommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating isgiven if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

ground contribution (WDFW 2014l). But there are often limited data on the number of hatchery fish thatcontribute to spawning, which can make it difficult to correctly estimate the number of wildspawners. Information on steelhead catches is recorded by individual fishers and reported to the tribes andstate. Overall, we consider research and monitoring of steelhead populations "moderately effective."



The tribes use information on abundance estimates and escapement goals collected during and prior to theseason to plan their fishing seasons. Co-managers balance the needs of fishers to harvest fish with that ofachieving spawner abundance goals. For populations that have escapement goals, these have been met inmost years, except in the Chehalis River. But there have been instances where escapement goals have beenset based on policy compromises and not necessarily the best available science (US v. Washington 2004). Wehave therefore awarded a "moderately effective" and not highly effective score.



Enforcement of tribal steelhead fisheries is left to the individual tribes. Tribes have enforcement officers that

45

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levelsor a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measuresenacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the managementof the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the managementprocess is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

monitor individual rivers for fisheries violations. Fishing violations are subject to fines and/or loss of fishingprivileges (NWIFC 2014) (QIN 2014i). Fishers are required to report every salmon caught on a fish ticket toindividual tribes (NWIFC 2014). For example, fishers on the Quinault River must report all fish catches to theQuinault Nation Department of Natural Resources (QIN 2014i). But there is no independent verification of tribalcatches. We have awarded a "moderately effective" score.



Degradation of riverine, estuarine, and near-shore habitats has resulted in a decline in steelhead throughoutWashington. But steelhead in the Washington Coastal region (Olympic Peninsula and Southwest Washington)are considered much healthier compared to steelhead populations in other regions (WDFW 2008c). There area number of management entities working to maintain and restore steelhead populations in the WashingtonCoastal region. A number of the populations assessed in this report have been meeting spawner escapementgoals set by managers. But a number of populations assessed in this report do not have spawner escapementgoals, so their status is uncertain (WDFW 2014a). We have awarded a "moderately effective" score.

46

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy

SCORING GUIDELINES

Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scientific Research and Monitoring,Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderatelyeffective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record ofFollowing Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these rating are the same as in 3.1.

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least‘moderately effective.’3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy butsome other factors rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective.’0 (Critical)—No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened speciesare known to be regular components of bycatch and are substatntially impacted by the fishery


Highly Effective

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Indian tribes work together to manage steelheadpopulations (Hunter 2006) (WDFW 2008a). Additionally, the public and other stakeholders are encouraged toparticipate in steelhead management by attending public meetings or by submitting written comments onproposed plans (WDFW 2008b). Collaboration between the state, tribes, and citizens is also facilitated throughscience-based research programs, such as the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and AssessmentProject (SSHIAP). The SSHIAP is a computerized information system that catalogues details aboutsalmon/steelhead habitats, population distributions, and population estimates (WDFW 2014c). Because themanagement process is transparent and includes stakeholder input, we have awarded a "highly effective"score.

FACTOR 3.2 - BYCATCH STRATEGY

Region / MethodAllKept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce

Washington / Chehalis River / Gillnets andentangling nets (unspecified) / UnitedStates of America

No No ModeratelyEffective

Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

47

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fisheryon bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating,the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimizethe impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).

Washington / Hoh River / Gillnets andentangling nets (unspecified) / UnitedStates of America



ModeratelyEffective

Washington / Humptulips River / Gillnetsand entangling nets (unspecified) / UnitedStates of America



ModeratelyEffective

Washington / Queets River / Gillnets andentangling nets (unspecified) / UnitedStates of America



ModeratelyEffective

Washington / Quillayute River / Gillnets andentangling nets (unspecified) / UnitedStates of America

Yes All Species Retained

Washington / Quinault River / Gillnets andentangling nets (unspecified) / UnitedStates of America



ModeratelyEffective

WASHINGTON / CHEHALIS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / HOH RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OF AMERICAWASHINGTON / HUMPTULIPS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / QUEETS RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICAWASHINGTON / QUINAULT RIVER, GILLNETS AND ENTANGLING NETS (UNSPECIFIED), UNITED STATES OFAMERICA


Bycatch is typically low in tribal steelhead fisheries because the majority of the catch is retained. But bull trout,which is listed as "Threatened" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, is incidentally captured in steelheadfisheries in the Hoh, Queets, and Quinault Rivers. There is a U.S. recovery plan in place for bull trout that aimsto: 1) make bull trout populations stable in six recovery units and make them geographically widespread; 2)manage and remove primary threats to the species; 3) improve our understanding of bull trout; 4) workcooperatively with partners to implement conservation plans; and 5) use adaptive management whileimplementing the recovery plan (USFWS 2015). Bull trout in the Hoh, Queets, and Quinault Rivers are part ofthe Coastal Recovery Unit. A recovery unit implementation plan was recently developed for the Coastal Unit,and includes action to address both habitat and fisheries threats to bull trout populations in this region (FR2015)(USFSW and OFWO 2015). The Chehalis River and Humptulips River winter steelhead fisheries

48

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch tomeasure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must beconducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch datacollection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientificrecommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating isgiven if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

may incidentally capture green sturgeon, a species of concern (QIN 2014a). Green sturgeon are to bereleased immediately if captured (QIN 2014a) (QIN 2014b). Bycatch management is rated "moderatelyeffective."


Ineffective

There have been no reported catches of green sturgeon since retention was banned in 2006. But some greensturgeon may be caught and discarded back to the water unreported (WDFW 2015e). Little is known aboutpost-release survival or mortality rates for green sturgeon (NMFS 2015a). There also appears to be littlemonitoring of incidental bull trout catches, though this has been identified as a recovery action priority in theCoastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for bull trout (USFSW and OFWO 2015). The lack of adequatebycatch monitoring of these species of concern makes it difficult to determine how steelhead fisheries affecttheir populations; we have therefore rated this factor "ineffective."



See Subfactor 3.1.4 in the Harvest Strategy section for more information.

49

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow managementregulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.



See Subfactor 3.1.5 in the Harvest Strategy section for detailed information.

50

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystemThis Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there aremeasures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and theuse of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based FisheriesManagement aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on theenvironment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gearimpacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined asfollows:


Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Region / Method

Gear TypeandSubstrate

Mitigation ofGear Impacts EBFM Score

Washington / Chehalis River / Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified) / United States of America

4.00: VeryLow Concern

0.00: NotApplicable

2.00:HighConcern

Yellow(2.83)

Washington / Hoh River / Gillnets and entangling nets(unspecified) / United States of America


0.00: NotApplicable

2.00:HighConcern

Yellow(2.83)

Washington / Humptulips River / Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified) / United States of America


0.00: NotApplicable

2.00:HighConcern

Yellow(2.83)

Washington / Queets River / Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified) / United States of America


0.00: NotApplicable

2.00:HighConcern

Yellow(2.83)

Washington / Quillayute River / Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified) / United States of America


0.00: NotApplicable

2.00:HighConcern

Yellow(2.83)

Washington / Quinault River / Gillnets and entanglingnets (unspecified) / United States of America


0.00: NotApplicable

2.00:HighConcern

Yellow(2.83)

51

5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom4 (Very Low) - Vertical line gear3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline,trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawlthat is known to contact bottom occasionally (2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, orbottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobbleor boulder)0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain,the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

+1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) withgear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modificationsshown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.+0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place tolimit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.+0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitatsnot protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensurefishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protectedwith marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators)4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in placeto protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem.Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fishaggregating devices (FADs) are used.3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in theecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of thesespecies, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible andmanagement is not place to mitigate these impacts2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and noefforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery ishaving serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades orother detrimental impacts to the food web.

52

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management


Very Low Concern

These fisheries use mid-water gillnets, which do not usually come into contact with the bottom habitat;however, in river fisheries, there may be some limited contact with the bottom. We have therefore awarded a"very low" concern score.


Not Applicable


High Concern

Steelhead plays an important role in its ecosystems and is considered an exceptional species because of the

53

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

important role it plays in transferring nutrients from marine to freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems (Helfieldand Naiman 2006). As juveniles, they feed on zooplankton; as they mature, their diet changes to one made upof insects (aquatic and terrestrial), crustaceans, mollusks, fish eggs, and small fish, including trout (NMFS2014a). Predators include other salmon/trout species and bony fish, along with seals when they are in themarine habitat (Froese and Pauly 2014).

Although the salmon and steelhead populations on the Washington Coast are healthier compared to those inother regions, their populations have still greatly declined from historic levels. Habitat declines have historicallybeen considered one of the leading causes of steelhead population declines in Washington (WDFW2008c). Thus, managers have taken action to study and protect the ecosystem in which these species reside.There are several plans and initiatives that have been developed with the intent of restoring steelheadhabitats and managing steelhead using an integrated approach. These include the 21st Century Salmon andSteelhead initiative, developed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington CoastSustainable Salmon Partnership, formed by the four coastal Lead Entities. Both of these initiatives/plans arefocused on coordinating decisions on habitat use, hatcheries, and harvest, to ensure healthy salmon andsteelhead populations (WCSSP 2013a). But specific policies are not in place to address potential food webeffects caused by the removal of steelhead from the ecosystem.

Another large concern is the potential negative impacts of hatchery fish on wild populations. It has becomeevident over time that hatcheries have contributed to the decline of wild populations through competition,predation, genetic impacts, and disease transfer, rather than aiding in the recovery of populations (Naish et al.2007) (HSRG 2014). Therefore, in 2000, the U.S. Congress established the Northwest Pacific Hatchery ReformProject. As part of this project, an independent scientific body, the Hatchery Scientific Review Group(HSRG), provided a review of state, tribal, and federal hatchery programs in coastal Washington and PugetSound and provided specific recommendations on how to improve hatchery management (WDFW 2014i). Oneof the main goals of the reform plan is to minimize negative ecological impacts (competition, predation,transfer of disease) of hatcheries on natural origin fish (HSRG 2014). Since this work, several hatcheries havetaken steps toward implementing the recommendations or standards laid out by the Hatchery ScientificReview Group, such as reducing the number of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds, but many hatcheriesare not yet meeting recommended goals (WSRCO 2014) (WDFW 2014p).

Because of the lack of specific policies to account for steelhead's important ecological role in the ecosystem,along with ongoing concerns about the effects of hatchery fish on wild populations, but recognizing that effortsare being made to address these issues, a "high" concern score is awarded.

54

AcknowledgementsScientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program, or its seafoodrecommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for theconclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher and author of this report, AlexiaMorgan, as well as six anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

®

®

55

ReferencesAlverson, D.L., Freeberg, M.H., Murawski, S.A. and Pop, J.G. 1996. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch anddiscards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339. Available at:http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t4890e/T4890E00.htm#TOC

Araki, H., B. Cooper, and M. S. Blouin 2009. Carry-over effect of captive breeding reduces reproductive fitness ofwild-born descendants in the wild. Biology Letters 5:621–624.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6, AmericanFisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Brenkman, S.J., Corbett, S.C., and E.C. Volk. 2007. Use of otolith chemistry and radiotelemetry to determineage-specific migratory patterns of anadromous bull trout in the Hoh River, Washington. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society 136:1-11.

BRT. 2005. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. Biological Review Team, SWFSC.Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/greensturgeon_update.pdf

Burge, R.T., Mantua, N.J., Berryman, J.W., and L.B. Doyle. 2006. The status of wild steelhead and theirmanagement in western Washington: Strategies for conservation. Report prepared for Wild Steelhead Coalitionand is available online at: www.wildsteelheadcoalition.org.

Carroll A (2005) What are escapement goals? Alaska Fish and Wildlife News. Available at

Chilcote, M. W. 2004. Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixedspawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 60(1057): 1067.

Chilcote, M. W., K. W. Goodson, and M. R. Falcy. 2011. Reduced recruitment performance in natural populationsof anadromous salmonids assoicated with hatchery-reared fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and AquaticSciences 68: 511-522.

CTC. 2013. Annual report of catch and escapement for 2013. Pacific Salmon Commission Joint TechnicalCommittee. Report TCChinook (14)-2. Available at: http://www.psc.org/pubs/TCCHINOOK14-2.pdf

CTC. 2013. Annual report of catch and escapement for 2013. Pacific Salmon Commission Joint TechnicalCommittee. Report Chum (14)-1. Available at: http://www.psc.org/pubs/TCCHUM(14)-1.pdf

CTC. 2013. Annual report of catch and escapement for 2013. Pacific Salmon Commission Joint TechnicalCommittee. Report Cho (14)-2. Available at: http://www.psc.org/pubs/TCCOHO13-1.pdf

Gimenez Dixon, M. 1996. Salvelinus confluentus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 1996:e.T19875A9094983. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.1996.RLTS.T19875A9094983.en

Duke, S. (USF&WS), Down, T., Ptolemy, J., Hammond, J. & Spence, C. (Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection,Canada) 2004. Acipenser transmontanus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 Availableat: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/234/0

FR. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Bull Trout inthe Coterminous United States. Federal Register Vol 64, No, 201.

56

FR. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United StatesPopulation of Bull Trout. Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 189.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2014. FishBase.World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org,version (06/2014).

Gibbons, R.G., Hahn, P.K.J., and T.H. Johnson. 1985. Methodology for determining MSH steelhead spawningescapement requirements. Report 85-11, prepared for Washington State Game Department, FisheriesManagement Division. Olympia, WA.

Harvey, D. 2005. Aquaculture Outlook. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service,Washington, DC. pp. 27.

Helfield, J.M. and Naiman, R.J. 2006. Keystone interactions: salmon and bear in Riparian forests of Alaska.Ecosystems 9:167-180

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2014. On the Science of Hatcheries: An updated perspective on therole of hatcheries in salmon and steelhead management in the Pacific Northwest. A. Appleby, H.L. Blankenship,D. Campton, K. Currens, T. Evelyn, D. Fast, T. Flagg, J. Gislason, P. Kline, C. Mahnken, B. Missildine, L. Mobrand,G. Nandor, P. Paquet, S. Patterson, L. Seeb, S. Smith, and K. Warheit. June 2014; revised October 2014.

Hunter, J. 2006. Quillayute watershed prioritized salmon restoration projects. Quileute Natural Resources.Available at: http://www.quileutenation.org/images/stories/govt/qnr/quileute_reach_assessment_final_rept.pdf

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world's marine fisheries an update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470.Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5936e/y5936e00.HTM

Kostow KE, Zhou S (2006) The effect of an introduced summer steelhead hatchery stock on the productivity of awild winter steelhead population. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:825–841

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonidpopulations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42,156 p.

Moore, J.W., Yeakel, J.D., Peard, D. Lough, J., and M. Beere. 2014. Life-history diversity and its importance topopulation stability and persistence of a migratory fish: steelhead in two large North American watersheds.Journal of Animal Ecology 5: 1035-1046.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 502 pp.

Moyle, P.B., P.J. Foley, and R.M. Yoshiyama. 1992. Status of green sturgeon, Acipensermedirostris, in California.Final Report submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service. 11 p. University of California, Davis, CA 95616.

Naish, K.A., Taylor, J.E., Levin, P.S., Quinn, T.P., Winton, J.R., Huppert, D. and Hilborn, R. 2007. An evaluation ofthe effects of conservation and fishery enhancement hatcheries on wild populations of salmon. Advances inMarine Biology. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065288107530026

NMFS. 2009. Designation of critical habitat for the threatened southern Distinct Population Segment of NorthAmerican green sturgeon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region Protected Resources Division.

57

NMFS. 2014a. Steelehad trout. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Available at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelheadtrout.htm

NMFS. 2014b. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources.Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/greensturgeon.htm

NMFS. 2014c. Green sturgeon. NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region. Available at:http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/green_sturgeon/green_sturgeon_pg.html

NMFS. 2014d. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/chinook-salmon.html

NMFS. 2014e. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Availableat:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/cohosalmon.htm

NMFS. 2014f. Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Available at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/chumsalmon.htm

NMFS. 2015a. Green sturgeon bycatch project. National Marine Fisheries Service, Available at:http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/green_sturgeon/Green_sturgeon_bycatch_project.html

NMFS. 2015b. Endangered and Threatened marine species under NMFS Jurisdiction. NOAA FIsheries. Availableat: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#fish

NOAA. 2014. Protected resources gallery. NOAA Fisheries.

NWIFC. 2014. Questions and answers on tribal salmon fisheries. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.Available at: http://nwifc.org/about-us/fisheries-management/questions-and-answers-on-tribal-salmon-fisheries/

PacFIN. 2015. All E-O-C species rpt: 2014 commercial landed catch: metric-tons, revenue and price per pound.Pacific Fisheries Information Network.

PFMC. 2013. Review of 2012 ocean salmon fisheries Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for thePacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Available at:http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/stock-assessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe-documents/review-of-2012-ocean-salmon-fisheries/

PFMC. 2014. Review of 2013 ocean salmon fisheries Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for thePacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Available at:http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/stock-assessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe-documents/review-of-2013-ocean-salmon-fisheries/

PFMC. 2015. Review of 2014 ocean salmon fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Available at:http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/salsafe2014_FullDocument.pdf

Portley N and Geiger HJ (2014) Stock management units and limit reference points in salmon fisheries: Bestpractice review and recommentdations to the MSC. Marine Stewardship Council Science Series 2: 89 – 115.

QIN. 2008. Salmon habitat resoration plan: Upper Quinault River. Quinault Indian Nation, QDNR, Department ofFisheries. Taholah, Washington.

58

QIN. 2014a. Chehalis River and GH areas 2A, 2A-1 & 2D 2014 spring/summer fishery commercial fishingregulation -01. Quinault Indian Nation. Available online:http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/chehalis%20commercial.pdf

QIN. 2014b. Grays Harbor area 2C 2014 spring/summer fishery commercial fishing regulation -01. QuinaultIndian Nation. Available at:http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/humptulips%202C%20commercial.pdf

QIN. 2014c. Quinault RIver 2014 Spring/summer fishery commercial fishing regulation. Quinault Indian Nation.Available at: http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/quinault%20commercial.pdf

QIN. 2014d. Quinault RIver 2014 spring/summer fishery sport fishing regulation-01. Quinault Indian Nation.Available at: http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/quinault%20sport.pdf

QIN. 2014e. Queets River 2013-14 winter commercial fishing regulation -03. Quinault indian Nation. Availableat: http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/queets%20commercial.pdf

QIN. 2014f. Queets RIver 2014 spring/summer fishery sport fishing regulation - 02. Quinault Indian Nation.Available at:.http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/queets%20sport.pdf

QIN. 2014g. Moclips River commercial fishery regulation - 01 2013-2014 winter season. Quinault Indian Nation.Available at:. http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/moclips%20river%20commercial.pdf

QIN. 2014h. Copalis River commercial fishery regulation - 01 2013 fall season. Quinault Indian Nation. Availableat: http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/copalis%20river%20commercial.pdf

QIN. 2014i. Quinault River general fishing regulations. Quinalt Indian Nation. Available at:http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/quinault%20general%20regulations.pdf

QIN. 2014j. Queets River general fishing regulations. Quinault Indian Nation. Available at:http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/Fishing%20Regs/queets%20general%20regulations.pdf

Hunter. 2006. Quillayute watershed prioritized salmon restoration projects. Produced for Quileute NaturalResources, LaPush Washington. Availableat:http://www.quileutenation.org/images/stories/govt/qnr/quileute_reach_assessment_final_rept.pdf

QN. 2014. Fisheries Management. Quileute Nation. Available at:http://www.quileutenation.org/programs/fisheries-management

QN. 2014b. Salmon restoration. Quileute Nation. Available at: http://www.quileutenation.org/programs/salmon-restoration

QN. 2014c. Environmental Programs. Quleute Nation. Available at:http://www.quileutenation.org/programs/environmental-programs

QN. 2014d. 2014-15 Quillayute River steelhead schedule. Quileute Natural Resources Quileute Indian Tribe.Available at: http://www.quileutenation.org/qnr/Regulations/Quil_River_2014-2015_Winter_Steelhead_IGN_Schedule.pdf

Schlosser, W.E., Armstrong, W.E. and Schlosser, B.R. 2011. Upper Quinault River salmon habitat restorationNEPA compliance. Quinault Indian Nation, July 19, 2011. Available at: http://www.resource-

59

analysis.com/Documents/NEPA/NEPA_EA_Final_20110722.pdf

Thorpe, J.E. 2007. Maturation responses of salmonids to changing developmental opportunities: Marine EcologyProgress Series 335: 285–288.

US v Washington. 2004. Stipulation and Order of Continuance, Subproceeding 03-1, No. C70-9213. StatesDistrict Court Western District of Washington at Seattle. (A 3 Year Agreement between the Hoh Tribe and theState of Washington on the Hoh River Wild Steelhead Harvests).

USFWS and OFWO. 2015. Coastal recovery unit implementation plan for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). USFish and Wildlife Service and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xii + 179 pages.

Van Eenennaam, J. P. 2002. Personnel Communication. In Adams, P.B., C.B. Grimes, J.E. Hightower, S.T. Lindley,and M.L. Moser. 2002. Status Review for the North American green sturgeon. NOAA, National Marine FisheriesService, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA. 49 p.

WA. 2014. Salmon restoration and sustainability organizations. Washington state government. Available at:http://stateofsalmon.wa.gov/regions/washington-coast

WCSSP. 2009. Washington Coast Restoration Initiative. Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership.Available at: http://www.wcssp.org/index.html

WCSSP. 2013a. Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Plan. The Washington Coast Sustainable SalmonPartnership, May 7, 2013. Available at: http://www.wcssp.org/Documents/PLAN5-7-13_000.pdf

WCSSP. 2013b. Appendix 6 inventory of coastal hatchery programs. Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Plan.Available at: http://www.wcssp.org/images/docs/plan/a6.pdf

WCSSP. 2014. Quinault Indian Nation. Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership.

WDFW. 2008a. Statewide Steelhead Management Plan: statewide policies, strategies and actions. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00149/wdfw00149.pdf

WDFW. 2008b. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the statewide steelhead Management Plan(SSMP). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00921

WDFW. 2008c. Oncorhynchus mykiss: Assessment of Washington state's steelhead populations and programs.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Availableat:http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00150/wdfw00150.pdf

WDFW. 2010. Hoh bull trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/population_details.jsp?stockId=8288

WDFW. 2010b. Queets bull trout. Washington Department of FIsh and Game. Available at:https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/population_details.jsp?stockId=8300

WDFW. 2014a. Species management plan, steelhead. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

60

Conservation. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/steelhead.jsp?species=Steelhead

WDFW. 2014b. North of Falon setting 2014-2015 salmon fishing seasons. Washington Department of Fish andWildlife. Available at:http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/

WDFW. 2014c. Salmon and steelehad conservation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/salmon/co-management/

WDFW. 2014d. 21st Century salmon and steelhead initiative. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00036/wdfw00036.pdf

WDFW. 2014e. Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor fall commercial non Indian and tribal salmon landings. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. Available at:http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/files/2014_landings_archive.pdf

WDFW. 2014f. Tribal net catch for coastal rivers of Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/2014_landings.html

WDFW. 2014g. Steelhead catches by river 2000-2014. Data provided by the Washington Department of Fish andWildlife.

WDFW. 2014h. Steelhead catches by river 2000-2014. Data provided by the Washington Department of Fish andWildlife.

WDFW. 2014j. Overview: salmon recovery and restoration. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/recovery/recovery.jsp#recovery

WDFW. 2014i. Conservation: Hatcheries. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Availableat:http://wdfw.wa.gov/hatcheries/overview.html

WDFW. 2014k. Conservation Chinook statistics. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Availableat:https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/chinook.jsp?species=Chinook

WDFW. 2014l. Hatchery production & performance. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at:https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/hatcheries/hatcheries_prod_perf.jsp#track

WDFW. 2014m. Humptulips hatchery. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at:https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/hatcheries/hatchery_details.jsp?hatchery=Humptulips%20Hatchery

WDFW. 2014o. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015-2017 capital budget request. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01648/wdfw01648.pdf

WDFW. 2014p. Bogachiel wild steelhead broodstock program-options document. Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife, August 19, 2014. Available at: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01659/wdfw01659.pdf

WDFW. 2015a. Species management plan, chum. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation.Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/chum.jsp?species=Chum

WDFW. 2015c. WIllapa Bay and Grays Harbor fall commercial non Indian and tribal salmon landings. WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Fishing and Shellfishing. Available at:http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

61

WDFW. 2015b. Statistics coho. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation. Available at:https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/coho.jsp?species=Coho

WDFW. 2015e. Gillnet landings of green sturgeon by Treaty Indian 2000-2013. Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife.

WDFW. 2015f. Hatchery and wild caught steelhead 2000-2014. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

WDFW. 2015g. Tribal salmon catch data - Chehalis and Humptulips Rivers. Washington Department of Fish andWildlife.

Wadhingotn Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017. Unpublished Data received via email.

WDFW. 2015d. 2015 Tribal net catch for coastal rivers of Washington. Washington Department of Fish andWildlife, Fishing and Shellfishing. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/landings.html

WSRCO. 2012. State of Salmon in Watersheds 2012 report. Governors Salmon Recovery Office. Available at:http://stateofsalmon.wa.gov/

WSRCO. 2014. State of salmon in watersheds 2014 report. Governor's Salmon Recovery Office. Available at;http://www.stateofsalmon.wa.gov/regions/washington-coast/hatcheries-summary/

62

Appendix A: Review ScheduleThis report was updated in March 2017 to include additional data from the 2015-16 which resulted in a changeof scoring for Hoh River steelhead abundance in factor 1.2, from moderate concern to high concern. The resultof this scoring change was a change in overall recommendation to Avoid.

63

Washington: Chehalis, Hoh, Humptulips, Queets, …...Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss ©Monterey Bay...

Documents

Transcript of Washington: Chehalis, Hoh, Humptulips, Queets, …...Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss ©Monterey Bay...