DaveD/Lowedown -
I think part of the issue here is exactly what is VSP. This is a new concept that has been around for less than a decade. My understanding that it was developed as an idea to measure when recovery may occur for ESA listed stocks - in short the minimum parameters needed for recovery. Unfortunately to date no one to my knowledge have been able to actually attach a number to what a VSP escapement might be for a given basin. Some of the fed bios/TRT teams might recognize when it is achieved or whether that some populations may be sufficiently large enough that they are confident that it would excpet minimum VSP paramenters to meet delisting criteria. In short meeting VSP parameters is what is needed to achieve ESA recovery - My hope would be that the preferred alternative would provide more than that.; somehow I don't thing have populations on the cusp of recvoery (at VSP levels) will provide much in the way of fishing opportunities.

It is equally clear that whatever VSP levels might be it relationship to other common used escapement objectives will vary. For example those steelhead populations on the coast are not ESA listed so it should be clear that the VSP is lower than the current populations sizes there (VSP is less than MSH levels).

I think it is extremely important when talking about what MSH or carrying capacity levels might be like that they need to put into the context of under which survival parameters those values were determined. They vary considerably depending on quality and productivity of the freshwater habitats and over all survival in both freshwater and marine waters. Let's use the Snohomish basin steelhead as an example on how the above is extremely important.

In recent years the average escapement in the Snohomish basin has been less than 3,000. Since it is a listed stock I could assume that a spawning escapement of 3,000 would be below potential VSP levels.

When asked about what conditions were to be used for option #1 (carrying capacity) Jim Buck replied current conditons. For the last decade on the Snohomish no matter what the size of the escapements (those in the early 1990s were in the 6,000 range) as noted above the run sizes have average less than 3,000 fish - in other words under the conditons seen in recent years the carry capacity for winter steelhead in the Snohomish is less than 3,000.

The status quo escapement goal for the Snohomish prior to the ESA listing was 6,500. This was established in 1984 and established as a best guess at what MSH escapement levels (buffered) might be given the survival conditions were during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Sp let's review - under option one as currently written the escpaement objective would 3,000.

Under Option 2 it would also be asomewhat above 3,000.

Under option 3 it would be 6,500

If you ignore the labels for a second would you prefer an escapement objective for the basin of 3,000 or 6,500?

Clearly if some of the wording could be cleared up my assessment on the preferred alternative could well be different but at this point I can only respond on what is presented not what might be.

Tight lines
Curt