74 



Stelie S't50/96 Pago 1 2 



H would be ctesiraiale to manage harvest erf Snaka Rjver CSiinook w^'n 

 t)^ frame>vork of tfi« cverail PSC cfuoook rebuilding proonam. H tTiat cannot be 

 aooompfished we must have a fai! hack position th* p\sces thd burden on 

 fisJ>eri»8 subi^ct to U.S. jurlscfiction. We agree that the sacrmce required to save 

 a very small number of Srake Rtver fails, most of wt»ct\ will be cmigirt in 

 Cartatda, is net practicafate: henc^ tne greatest reductions must occur in the 

 en^e In-rtver har^st plus the ocean cajcft off Oregon aryj Washington. We are 

 encourapftd by your report ttial the PMFC recogrizes ttiis rwed. The ir>-fiver 

 haiveslBfs must atso be convinceci of its critical importance. 



H we cann« mantain tight oontroi over the harvest of ttw endarigenad 

 SnaJce River Chlnooic, many ot the gains from other recovery methods will be 

 lost. 



i isMbit 



The Team cot t v tw nets the Plan's sarxig st^i^xart tor the our 

 recommendaiiofts on the cooitlHTaffing rote of tne Habrtal Comrrtcee, emphasis 

 on tne effective monitoring of hab<tat protection and restt}ration progrees; and 

 the need for managefnent aQer>cy and staketuslder (»rticipalk)n in development 

 of long-term sub-&asin hab^al martagement ptan«. 



However, the Teem is cSsappointad ttiat the specific actions the Team 

 recommended (e.g., an immedte*e moratorium on furt^ef non-fish-reteled 

 devetopment of crttica) hsiatat areas), and wtiich were irHAxted in earter NUFS 

 Plan drafts, became "waiered down" in the firaJ draft to the status of federal 

 agency guidefines rather than ESA-mandatad specfflc actkrns, Asa resut. 

 innplementation of the propoeed hi^oitat protection and necovery measures wifi 

 depend upon NMFS ataity to persuade cooperaiive euppcrtive action 

 by other federal ageTKies, wtthout the cenainty of ESA-mandatad drectfves. 

 The Team urges NMFS to be strongly proactive in driving towanl that essemiai 

 mtitti-agency cooperatiYe action. 



