[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35842-35856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15137]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648 XA485
Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final determination and discussion of underlying
biological analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has evaluated the joint resource management plan (RMP)
for harvest of Puget Sound Chinook salmon provided by the Puget Sound
Treaty Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
pursuant to the protective regulations promulgated for Puget Sound
Chinook salmon under Limit 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for
salmon and steelhead. The RMP specifies the future management of
commercial, recreational, subsistence and Tribal salmon fisheries
potentially affecting listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon from May 1,
2011, through April 30, 2014. This document serves to notify the public
that NMFS, by delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce, has
determined pursuant to the Tribal rule and the government-to-
[[Page 35843]]
government processes therein that implementing and enforcing the RMP
from May 1, 2011, through April 30, 2014, will not appreciably reduce
the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook
salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU).
DATES: The final determination on the RMP was made on May 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the final determination and
underlying biological analysis should be addressed to Susan Bishop,
Salmon Management Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600
Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, Washington 98115-0070, or faxed to (206)
526-6736. The document is also available on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/-State-Tribal-Management/PS-Chinook-RMPs.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Bishop at phone number: 206-526-
4587, Puget Sound Harvest Team Leader or e-mail: [email protected]
regarding the RMP.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is relevant to the Puget Sound
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant
Unit (ESU).
Electronic Access
The full texts of NMFS' determination and the final Evaluation are
available on the Internet at the NMFS, Northwest Regional Office Web
site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/State-Tribal-Management/PS-Chinook-RMPs.cfm.
Background
In April, 2010, the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and the WDFW (co-
managers) provided a jointly developed RMP that encompasses Strait of
Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound salmon fisheries affecting the Puget Sound
Chinook salmon ESU. The RMP encompasses salmon and steelhead fisheries
within the area defined by the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU, as well
as the western Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is not within the ESU. The
RMP is effective from May 1, 2011, through April 30, 2014. Harvest
objectives specified in the RMP account for fisheries-related mortality
of Puget Sound Chinook throughout its migratory range, from Oregon and
Washington to southeast Alaska. The RMP also includes implementation,
monitoring and evaluation procedures designed to ensure fisheries are
consistent with these objectives.
As required by Sec. 223.203(b)(6) of the ESA 4(d) Rule, NMFS must
determine pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 (redesignated as 50 CFR 223.204)
and pursuant to the government-to-government processes therein whether
the RMP for Puget Sound Chinook would appreciably reduce the likelihood
of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. NMFS must take
comments on how the RMP addresses the criteria in Sec. 223.203(b)(4)
in making that determination.
Discussion of the Biological Analysis Underlying the Determination
The RMP provides a framework for fisheries management measures
affecting 23 Chinook salmon populations. Twenty-two populations are
within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, and one population (the Hoko
River) is located in the western portion of Strait of Juan de Fuca. The
populations within the ESU and on which the RMP bases its management
objectives are consistent with those defined by the Puget Sound
Technical Recovery Team (TRT). For harvest management purposes, the RMP
distributes the 23 populations among the 15 management units. These
management units represent the entire range of life history types and
geographic distribution that comprise the Puget Sound Chinook salmon
ESU.
The RMP proposes the implementation of limits to the cumulative
directed and incidental fishery-related mortality to each Puget Sound
Chinook salmon population or management unit. The RMP's limits to the
cumulative fishery-related mortality are expressed as: (1) An
exploitation rate ceiling; (2) an upper management threshold; (3) a low
abundance threshold; and (4) a critical exploitation rate ceiling. The
RMP also contains a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan, which
will maintain and improve population assessment methodologies and allow
for the assessment of: Fishing-related impacts on hatchery and
naturally spawning Chinook salmon populations; the abundance of
hatchery and naturally spawning fish for each of the identified
management units; the effectiveness of the fishing regimes and general
approach; and the regulatory compliance. This information will be used
to assess whether impacts on listed fish are as predicted pre-season
and as anticipated in our evaluation. In addition, information from the
monitoring programs will eventually be used to develop exploitation
rate objectives for those management units where data are currently
limited. The RMP also includes provisions for an annual report. This
report will assess compliance with the RMP objectives and help validate
parameters used in development of the RMP and the effectiveness of the
RMP.
A more detailed discussion of NMFS' evaluation is on the NMFS
Northwest Regional Office Web site (see Electronic Access, under the
heading, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Evaluation and
Pending Determination
NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the
availability of its Proposed Evaluation and Pending Determination
(PEPD) on the RMP for public review and comment on December 29, 2011
(75 FR 82213) for 30 days. NMFS reopened the comment period on February
4, 2011, to provide additional opportunity for public comment (76 FR
6401). Public comment closed February 22, 2011. Eleven commenters
provided comments to NMFS on the PEPD during this public comment
period. NMFS has reviewed the comments received and discussed the
substantive issues with the co-managers. Several of the comments were
addressed and reflected in NMFS' final Evaluation and Recommended
Determination (ERD). The co-managers made no modifications to the RMP
based on public comments received on NMFS' PEPD. NMFS appreciates the
time and effort of the persons and organizations who submitted comments
on our PEPD and seeks to respond with clarity to those comments. We
have grouped comments that are similar and responded to the reviewer's
comments through our responses below. Comments received in response to
the NMFS announcement of the PEPD for review are summarized as follows:
Comment 1--Several commenters expressed diverging opinions on the
use of the Population Recovery Approach (PRA) in NMFS' evaluation of
the Puget Sound Chinook RMP. Two commenters recommended that NMFS not
use the PRA in its evaluation of the RMP pending further review of its
technical basis and discussion with the broader community involved with
recovery planning. One of these comments noted that the PRA appears to
be inconsistent with the terms of the NMFS recovery plan for Puget
Sound Chinook. Two other commenters expressed support for its use as a
framework to provide common guidance for NMFS in its regulatory
assessment of proposed habitat, harvest and hatchery actions under the
ESA across the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit
(ESU); to clarify priorities for recovery actions; and, because they
view it as
[[Page 35844]]
consistent with a holistic ``All-H'' approach to recovery.
Response: First, NMFS emphasizes the fundamental scientific and
technical function served by articulating the structure of a healthy
Puget Sound Chinook ``family tree'' for rebuilding its long-term
resiliency and achieving the delisting objectives of the ESA. Puget
Sound Chinook consists of a large number of independent populations
distributed across Puget Sound. The NMFS Puget Sound Technical Recovery
Team described 22 populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU
(Ruckelshaus et al., 2006). In evaluating proposed actions such as
those under the RMP, NMFS considers the impacts on each affected
population, how those impacts affect the overall viability of each
population and ultimately how the distribution of risks across
populations affect the survival and recovery of the entire ESU. This is
because the ESU, not the individual populations within the ESU, is
listed under the ESA. As a scientific matter, not all of the 22 Puget
Sound Chinook salmon populations or their watersheds will serve the
same role in recovery of the ESU under the ESA (NMFS 2006a). Different
populations will be able to tolerate different levels of risk while
still contributing to the overall healthy ``family tree'' that
comprises the ESU. This assessment of different risks to individual
populations within their context to the ESU is explicit in several of
the ESA 4(d) criteria used to evaluate the RMP under the ESA and
envisions the use of a PRA-like structure. In fact, in its Supplement
to the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, NMFS called for a systematic
approach to identify those Chinook salmon populations that should
receive the highest priority for recovery activities, with the
overarching goal of meeting ESU delisting criteria. Key considerations
identified in the Supplement were the uniqueness, status, and physical
location of the population, the present condition of the population's
freshwater, estuarine and adjacent nearshore habitats, and the
likelihood for preserving and restoring those habitats given present
and likely future condition.
NMFS did not suggest that any populations or watersheds should be
neglected. Although a ``preserve and restore the best'' strategy is
sensible, all populations and watersheds will still need to be
sufficiently protected to enable the production of sustainable
anadromous salmon populations. NMFS has followed through on this
commitment by developing the PRA, basing the framework on the key
considerations identified in the Supplement.
In characterizing the numerous populations which currently comprise
the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team
also noted the loss of a significant number of populations in the
Sound--sixteen in fact--and stressed the importance of preserving all
of the remaining populations in order to retain the resiliency of the
ESU as a whole in the face of changing and highly variable conditions.
The PRA does not detract from this objective for any populations, as
suggested by some commenters, even for Tier 3 populations.
In light of the twin objectives of meeting the ESA 4(d) criteria
and maintaining all existing populations, NMFS responds to related
comments by emphasizing the function of the PRA: It is to use the best
available information on the relative structure, condition and
distribution of individual populations ``to develop a biologically
sound process for identifying which populations, watersheds and
associated nearshore areas most need immediate protection and
restoration investments'' (NMFS, 2006a), while at the same time
emphasizing the need to preserve all of the historical legacy of the
wild Chinook possible.
In a closely related matter, NMFS acknowledges that the recovery
plan for Puget Sound Chinook that was developed by the Shared Strategy
in Puget Sound and ultimately was adopted by NMFS did not distinguish
among the roles of various Chinook populations. This approach, which
essentially assumes all populations would be recovered to equal and low
risk of extinction, certainly meets ESA recovery criteria--in fact, it
exceeds it in the sense that more risk to certain populations within
the ESU is acceptable for ESA recovery than the recovery plan
envisions. NMFS has deferred to Puget Sound recovery planners in taking
this approach because it also encompasses other public policies beyond
those articulated in the ESA, not the least of which supports treaty
Indian fishing rights, the rebuilding of the ecological productivity of
the individual watersheds across Puget Sound, and the broader water
quality and ecological goals of Puget Sound recovery.
NMFS is currently reviewing public comments received on the PRA and
will continue to refine and update the PRA as new information becomes
available. However, the PRA currently represents the best available
information against which to assess the distribution of identified
risks across populations to the survival and recovery of the ESU for
the purposes of evaluating the RMP under the ESA 4(d) criteria. If
subsequent revision to the PRA substantially changes NMFS' conclusions
regarding the risk to the ESU, NMFS can ask the co-managers to make the
necessary adjustments to the RMP or invoke the process leading to the
withdrawal the ESA 4(d) Rule determination.
We emphasize that the concepts underlying the PRA apply most
directly when we exercise certain specific authorities under the ESA as
a general matter, and in particular as relating to those ESU
population-specific activities such as managing the near-term effects
of harvests and hatchery production. In other contexts, including the
long-term rebuilding of productive riverine and estuarine habitats, we
will continue to emphasize the importance of achieving broad sense
recovery of all populations in Puget Sound and Washington's coast, to
support Tribal treaty rights and recreational and commercial fishing
goals, and to contribute to the broader habitat-related goals for
rebuilding the health and productivity of Puget Sound. NMFS
acknowledges that consultations among Tribal, state and local
governments and others interested in the PRA will be ongoing.
Comment 2--Four commenters stated that NMFS did not adequately
follow, apply, and is inconsistent with the recommendations and goals
of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) in its consideration of
hatchery-origin Chinook salmon effects and protective management
actions needed in the PEPD document. The HSRG itself commented that the
NMFS proposed analysis failed to adequately address the negative
impacts of hatchery-origin spawners on these spawning grounds.
Response: The proposed action triggering the PEPD is the harvest
management plan proposed by the co-managers that is designed to meet
the criteria in the ESA 4(d) Rule. The RMP is being evaluated under
Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule that applies to jointly-developed state and
Tribal harvest management plans. In addressing the requirements of
Limit 6, the RMP must adequately address 11 criteria under section
(b)(4)(i) in Limit 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
section 4(d) Rule for listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Table 1 in
PEPD). Although these criteria are specific to harvest management plans
rather than hatchery production programs, they require NMFS to assess
the effects of the RMP on VSP criteria of natural populations within
the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU including
[[Page 35845]]
diversity. Therefore, NMFS evaluated the effects on genetic diversity
of hatchery fish that might escape fisheries implemented under the RMP
and interbreed with fish from natural populations.
That harvest plan does not include specific harvest measures--such
as fisheries that selectively harvest hatchery fish and release
natural-origin fish--to address directly the effects of hatchery origin
fish on natural origin spawners. Salmon abundance is highly variable
from year to year, both among Chinook populations and other salmon
species, requiring managers to formulate fisheries (i.e., location,
duration, timing, gear type) to respond to the population abundance
conditions particular to that year. Rather, the RMP provides the
framework and objectives against which the co-managers must develop
annual action-specific fishing regimes to protect Puget Sound Chinook
salmon and meet other management objectives. It should be noted,
however, that the plan does not preclude such measures either. The
prior harvest management plan also did not include such measures, yet
mark-selective recreational Chinook fisheries are implemented
extensively throughout Puget Sound.
If the effects of hatchery production on wild stocks are not
addressed in the RMP, then where are they addressed? The structure of
the entire ESA 4(d) Rule is key to understanding the answer to this
question. Limit 5 speaks to the effects of hatchery programs on listed
salmon, including the effects of hatchery-origin fish on natural
spawning grounds, in the development and approval of Hatchery Genetic
Management Plans (HGMPs). Among other things, Limit 5 states that:
``(E) The HGMP * * * account for the * * * program's genetic and
ecological effects on natural populations, including disease transfer,
competition, predation, and genetic introgression caused by the
straying of hatchery fish.''
``(F) The HGMP describes interrelationships and interdependencies
with fisheries management'' (Emphasis added).
NMFS's expectation, which it believes is shared by the co-managers,
is that the suite of issues associated with the (direct and indirect)
effects of hatchery stocks on the productivity of natural origin
spawners will be addressed in the HGMPs now under development for all
Chinook hatchery programs in Puget Sound. NMFS furthermore fully
encourages the integration of those hatchery strategies with the other
relevant ``Hs'', undertaken on a watershed-by-watershed basis, and
thereby allowing for a tight integration of hatchery strategies,
harvest strategies, including local strategies for managing stray
rates, and habitat protection and restoration strategies on a place-
based basis.
The Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) was originally formed
to provide recommendations for consideration and potential application
by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW (the co-managers) in their
implementation, as the U.S. v. Washington fish resource management
agencies, of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs within the Puget
Sound and Washington Coastal regions. In fulfilling that role, the HSRG
provided recommendations to the co-managers regarding potential
hatchery management and operational methods that could reduce the risk
of adverse effects on natural-origin salmonid populations, while
meeting the co-managers' specific hatchery production objectives for
the programs. These recommendations were to be applied at the
discretion of the co-managers, with the acknowledgement that there may
be other measures, beyond those developed by the HSRG, which also could
be implemented to meet the objectives of the hatchery programs. The
Puget Sound co-managers have implemented the HSRG's recommendations in
many of their hatchery programs (Washington Recreation and Conservation
Office 2011), and are in the process of implementing more as funding
allows, and as agreed by WDFW and Tribal managers for each watershed.
NMFS strongly supports the work of the HSRG that focuses on adverse
effects of interbreeding hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish. We
anticipate that its work will figure prominently in HGMPs that are
being developed under Limit 5 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. Even though most
HGMPs in Puget Sound are in development, hatcheries producing most of
the Chinook subject to harvest under the RMP already have been adjusted
and are continuing to be adjusted, following HSRG and other best-
science-related findings and recommendations.
NMFS considers the HSRG's findings and recommendations important to
the advancement and implementation of measures needed to reduce the
risk of adverse hatchery-related risks to natural-origin salmon
populations. These recommendations are not formal ESA standards nor
will they constitute the sole source of information considered by NMFS
to render ESA determinations regarding harvest and hatchery actions.
However, NMFS considers the HSRG's contributions to hatchery-risk
related science regarding hatchery-origin fish spawning proportions to
be valuable to our review work. As such, the HSRG's recommendations
will be fully considered with other best-science-directed information
in NMFS' ESA 4(d) Rule evaluation and determination documents
addressing Puget Sound hatchery programs operated by the co-managers
that affect listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead,
and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon. As mentioned, because of the way
Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule has been structured, the ESA hatchery effects
review process is the appropriate venue for addressing the hatchery
effects-related issues under the ESA.
The HSRG stated the group's belief that Puget Sound Chinook salmon
populations will continue to exhibit low productivity unless ``the
proportion of hatchery-origin fish is taken into account, regardless of
the rate of recovery of habitat'' and that failing to control hatchery-
origin fish spawning will ``retard productivity improvement and
progress toward rebuilding natural Chinook populations no matter what
the current or future condition of habitat''. Two other commenters
reiterated an assertion attributed to the HSRG that ``by reforming
hatchery broodstock practices and limiting the proportion of hatchery
fish reaching the spawning grounds, the science indicates that wild
salmon production in many river and streams could actually double''.
The weight of available scientific information suggests that any
artificial breeding and rearing is likely to result in genetic change
and fitness reduction in hatchery fish and in the progeny of naturally
spawning hatchery fish relative to desired levels of diversity and
productivity for natural populations. There remain uncertainties
associated with the degree or extent of that change. Nevertheless,
those risks should be reduced where possible. Although NMFS believes
further research is necessary to quantify the effects of interbreeding,
circumstances may exist where the commenters' assertion of a
``doubling'' of productivity could result.
However, NMFS cautions against the utility of broad generalizations
at this time and believes, at a minimum, that the effects must be
analyzed on a watershed-specific basis. The extent and duration of
genetic change and fitness loss and the short and long-term
implications and consequences differ among species, life-history types,
and for species subjected to different hatchery practices and
protocols. NMFS believes that actions taken to address the risks of
interbreeding must be
[[Page 35846]]
considered within the context of these and other factors affecting
survival and recovery of a population. Extensive habitat loss and
degradation, and the on-going deterioration of natural habitat
supporting the survival and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the
Puget Sound region has deeply degraded the productivity of most
watersheds. Too often, this habitat degradation presents its own,
substantial risk that likely dominates in specific basins the factors
affecting productivity. Productivity may be so low that even
``doubling,'' while certainly positive, would not substantially improve
productivity in absolute terms, nor improve the population's viability
as much as one might assume from the generalized notion of
``doubling.'' Often the problems with the population are compounded by
demographic risk (i.e., the sheer fact that there are too few fish)
which may lead to the conclusion that artificial production in the
near-term is appropriate as a near-term method to ``recolonize''
available habitat. Therefore, relative improvements in productivity
resulting from changes in the proportion of hatchery fish spawning
naturally will depend on site specific circumstances and must include
consideration of the existing demographic risk to the population.
NMFS believes its position has been clear throughout its listing
determinations, adopted recovery plans and status reviews. Improvement
in both habitat condition and hatchery practices is important to
rebuilding all VSP parameters for wild Chinook populations, including
productivity. We cannot recover Puget Sound Chinook by only reducing
the adverse effects of hatchery production, or conversely by ignoring
these adverse effects and arguing it is just about habitat. For many
populations where habitat is severely degraded, circumstances are such
that hatchery reforms will do little to improve overall productivity
until other critically limiting factors are addressed. However,
debating the relative magnitude of improvements in productivity that
might occur from a given set of hatchery reforms is a distraction that
can impede progress when it is already agreed that such reforms should
be implemented where possible. Better science will provide better
information on key questions in the future. In the mean time, recovery
efforts should focus on site-specific considerations of both habitat
conditions and hatchery practices and a deliberate strategy to improve
the overall productivity of the population and the habitats upon which
it depends.
Comment 3--Several commenters stated that the ``Genetic Effects''
section of the harvest PEPD document (Section 6.4.2), and the document
in general, do not reflect the best available science regarding the
effects of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon on the viability (in
particular, the productivity) of listed natural-origin Chinook salmon
populations in Puget Sound. They also indicate that the section does
not effectively reflect NMFS's position regarding the issue of fitness
and genetic diversity loss effects associated with natural spawning by
hatchery-origin fish. Suggestions for revising the text in the section
were provided.
Response: NMFS has responded to these comments by revising and
clarifying the description of its understanding of the genetic effects
associated with hatchery-origin spawners on the natural origin stocks.
One major facet of rebuilding the long-term productivity and resiliency
of listed salmon stocks under the ESA is addressing effectively adverse
effects of hatchery production on naturally spawning populations.
Studies are showing that interbreeding between hatchery-origin and
natural-origin fish of various species and hatchery production types
pass fitness reductions to naturally produced fish, thereby decreasing
the overall productivity and rate of local adaptation of the naturally
spawning population over time.
NMFS assembled the PEPD Section 6.4.2 to address genetic diversity
and fitness loss issues to the extent that they pertain to harvest
management actions evaluated in the PEPD. Our intent is to summarize
the state of the science regarding hatchery fish-related fitness loss
risks to natural-origin salmonids, with a focus on Chinook salmon
produced in the Puget Sound region. We believe that inclusion of this
section is appropriate, as the discussion is relevant to our assessment
of the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP to address concerns regarding
hatchery fish that are not caught in the proposed co-manager fisheries
designed to capture the fish, and that then bypass hatchery release
sites and escape into natural spawning areas. The initial version of
section 6.4.2 was modified shortly after it was released for public
review. NMFS made available the modified, expanded version of the
section in response to concern expressed by certain reviewers that the
original section was not adequately detailed regarding the state of the
science, or reflective of NMFS's position regarding fitness loss risks.
Comments directed at both versions of section 6.4.2 were subsequently
received through the public review process.
As indicated in the modified (second version) genetic diversity
section of the PEPD, NMFS is addressing hatchery-related fitness loss
concerns by seeking, in broad terms, to reduce adverse impacts
associated with the interbreeding of hatchery-origin and natural-origin
fish. NMFS's mechanism for evaluating and seeking measures to reduce
identified effects of hatchery programs in the Puget Sound region on
the viability of natural Chinook salmon populations, including fitness
effects resulting from hatchery fish spawning, is a separate ESA
evaluation and determination process specific for Puget Sound region
hatcheries under Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule (See response to Comment 2).
Through that process, responses to fitness loss, reduced rates of local
adaptation, and other genetic and environmental effects of hatchery
stocks will be considered on a watershed-specific basis, taking into
account the demographic strength and genetic diversity of the affected
natural-origin population, the existing and projected productivity of
habitat in the watershed, the effect of adjustments in hatchery
production on the implementation of treaty Indian fishing rights, and
other issues relevant to the viability of the natural-origin
populations.
In response to public comments received about this issue, NMFS has
further modified PEPD section 6.4.2. The new, revised genetic diversity
section is included in the final Evaluation and Recommended
Determination (ERD) document for the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP. Our
objectives for modifying the section were to: (1) Provide an improved
explanation regarding why inclusion of a discussion about hatchery fish
genetic diversity effects in the harvest evaluation document is
appropriate and describe the issues of concern; (2) provide updated,
expanded information regarding our view of the state of the science
pertaining to hatchery fish fitness effects in general, and specific to
Puget Sound Chinook salmon, relying on more detailed coverage of report
findings cited in our original version of the section (e.g., RIST 2009)
and data gleaned from newly available and additional studies; and, (3)
more clearly state NMFS NWR's general position regarding hatchery
Chinook salmon management and research actions required to
appropriately address fitness loss risks over the near term, consistent
with ESA and other mandates. The discussion in the revised section is
[[Page 35847]]
broader than necessary to evaluate the proposed RMP under the Limit 6
criteria, but NMFS feels the additional information is important given
the broader questions raised in the public comments and to put in
better context the varied sources of hatchery effects compared to those
related to implementation of the RMP.
Comment 4--Two commenters stated that the section addressing
genetic diversity effects of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon in the
Puget Sound action area (Section 6.4.2 of the PEPD) is not relevant to
the NMFS evaluation of harvest plan effects and should be deleted. They
indicated that there is no information presented in the co-managers'
RMP regarding hatchery production levels, fisheries targeting hatchery
fish, and other hatchery management issues that could be used by NMFS
to allow for the review presented in Section 6.4.2. Risks to the
genetic diversity should instead be addressed within the NMFS ESA
consultation process specifically directed at Puget Sound region salmon
and steelhead hatchery actions, and considering hatchery-specific
information presented in the co-manager Puget Sound hatchery RMPs and
HGMPs proposed for authorization.
Response: As stated above (See Response to Comment 3), NMFS
believes that the subject genetic diversity section in the harvest plan
evaluation document is appropriate because the discussion was relevant
to our assessment of the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP. The discussion
addresses general concerns about the effects of hatchery fish that are
not caught in the co-manager fisheries under review. These hatchery-
origin fish will escape at varying levels and with varying effects into
natural spawning areas where genetic diversity and fitness effects will
be important to assess. We have included a modified version of the
section 6.4.2 in the PEPD document with an improved explanation
regarding the need for the discussion in the harvest plan effect
evaluation document and to provide additional context for the varied
sources of hatchery effects compared to those related to implementation
of the RMP.
We agree with the commenters that the appropriate venue for
addressing the full range of genetic diversity effects, including
productivity and fitness loss risks, and other effects that may be
associated with Chinook salmon hatchery programs, is the NMFS ESA
consultation process under Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule where co-manager
Puget Sound hatchery RMPs and HGMPs will be reviewed (See Response to
Comment 2). Included in the evaluation will be consideration of the
effects of regional hatchery programs on natural-origin Puget Sound
Chinook salmon population abundance, genetic diversity, fitness, and
productivity.
Comment 5--Several commenters indicated that there is uncertainty
regarding the degree of hatchery-related genetic diversity and fitness
reduction risks, in general agreement with conclusions presented in the
versions of PEPD Section 6.4.2 provided. Other commenters strongly
believe that NMFS over-stated the uncertainty of current scientific
findings regarding fitness loss effects associated with hatchery-origin
fish straying in both versions of the section.
Response: NMFS has modified section 6.4.2 included in the final
PEPD document for the co-manager harvest plan to more clearly
articulate our perspective regarding the state of the science and the
level of certainty pertaining to hatchery fish productivity and fitness
loss effects and risks to Pacific Northwest anadromous salmonid
populations in general, and Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations in
particular.
Comment 6--Two commenters stated that NMFS should emphasize the
essential function of hatchery production to enable the exercise of
treaty-reserved fishing rights.
Response: Treaty fishing rights stewardship is an important mandate
for NMFS. The importance of meeting U.S. Federal obligations in this
regard is highlighted in NMFS's ESA effects evaluation documents for
Puget Sound harvest and hatchery actions. Extensive loss and
degradation, and the on-going deterioration of natural habitat
supporting the survival and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the
Puget Sound region has deeply degraded the productivity of the system
and been a major factor in the listing of Puget Sound Chinook
populations under the ESA (Good et al., 2005, Myers et al., 1998, NMFS,
2005a; 2006b; 2007; Shared Strategy, 2007). NMFS acknowledges that with
the existing state of salmon habitat in Puget Sound, hatchery
production is essential for providing surplus fish for harvest within
treaty-reserved fisheries in many watersheds. Hatchery production will
continue to be needed until productivity of the natural populations
increase sufficiently to support salmon and steelhead abundances
necessary for sustainable fisheries. Habitat improvements and decreases
in genetic, ecological, and physical effects from hatchery facility
operations are important requirements to increase productivity. While
hatchery production will be required for the foreseeable future, we
must simultaneously take appropriate steps to reduce its adverse
effects on natural-origin fish. The tension between the implementation
of treaty Indian fishing rights and ESA-required conservation measures
for listed ESUs of salmon was recognized in 1997 with the issuance of
an order by the secretaries of the U.S. departments of Commerce and
Interior (Secretarial Order 3206). Generally in this context, the
Secretarial Order directs NMFS to ``harmonize'' the requirements of the
ESA with those of treaty reserved fishing rights and outlines
procedures to do so.
Comment 7--One commenter stated that certain data regarding
hatchery-origin Chinook salmon mark rates and stray rates presented in
the document are inaccurate (re ``pages 175-176, Table 1'').
Response: The commenter appears to be addressing a table and
statements included in the RMP and not the NMFS PEPD provided for
public review and comment. From pages 161 and 162 of the co-manager
harvest RMP (PSIT and WDFW 2010).
``Estimates of hatchery and natural contribution for Issaquah Creek
are derived from sampling at the hatchery rack. An assumption that the
hatchery contribution at the rack is the same as the contribution in
Issaquah Creek was confirmed in 2007 by extensive carcass sampling in
the creek. These estimates are conservative since juvenile hatchery
Chinook mark rates are less than 100%. The estimates for mark rate in
Bear Creek assume that the natural production from Issaquah Creek
contributes unmarked spawners to Bear Creek in the same proportion as
that in Issaquah Creek.''
We have notified the co-managers regarding these potential
discrepancies in the RMP. These estimates were not integral to the
evaluation in the PEPD.
Comment 8--One commenter emphasized the need for NMFS'
consideration of critical habitat loss and degradation effects on
natural-origin Chinook salmon ESU productivity in its evaluation,
holding that those effects are much greater than possible negative
genetic interactions with hatchery fish. The commenter stated that NMFS
needs to consider all ``H'' integration in its ESA consultation
processes to appropriately address all factors affecting recovery, and
not just hatchery and harvest actions.
Response: NMFS concurs that habitat loss and degradation are
limiting factors for the survival and productivity of Puget Sound
Chinook salmon
[[Page 35848]]
populations. We have acknowledged the important role of these factors
in depressing salmon population viability in our species status review
(e.g., Myers et al., 1998) and annual PCSRF Report to Congress
documents (NMFS, 2005a; 2006b; 2007), and within the baseline
environmental condition sections of our biological opinions addressing
regional habitat, harvest, and hatchery actions (e.g., NMFS's recent
FEMA floodplain effect biological opinion (NMFS 2008)). ``State of
Salmon Watersheds'' documents produced by the Washington Governor's
Salmon Recovery Office (e.g., Washington Recreation and Conservation
Office 2011) are among the resources used by NMFS and available to the
public indicating the poor condition of regional habitat for salmon,
and habitat protection and restoration measures needed to benefit
natural-origin salmon population recovery. We consider this information
about baseline habitat conditions in forming our determinations in the
Puget Sound region. In reviewing the effects of hatchery-origin Chinook
salmon on natural-origin populations and determining appropriate
protective measures under Limit 5 of the ESA 4(d) Rule, our intention
is to take into account the existing and projected productivity of
habitat in the watersheds where the hatchery-origin fish return.
Appropriate integration of hatchery management with the present
condition of habitat, and plans for its restoration, will be a key
objective of the ESA consultation process for Puget Sound hatchery
programs (See Response to Comment 2).
Comment 9--Two commenters agreed with some, or most, of the
statements in Section 6.4.2 of the PEPD. They supported the need to
implement studies designed to collect empirical data regarding the
effects of Puget Sound sub-yearling hatchery program-origin Chinook
salmon on natural populations, including gene flow levels and fitness
reduction effects. They indicated that study results would show actual,
likely effects, rather than relying on studies of other species with
different hatchery life histories to inform needed harvest and hatchery
risk mitigation measures.
Response: NMFS concurs that there is a need for additional studies
to obtain gene flow and fitness loss risk data relevant for
appropriately guiding risk management strategies for hatchery Chinook
salmon production for the Puget Sound. A coordinated, programmatic
approach, spanning regional Chinook salmon population viability and
habitat conditions, will help guide development of appropriate and
effective genetic diversity risk management measures for co-manager
hatcheries. We have recently begun a research, monitoring and
evaluation initiative in the Puget Sound region (the Puget Sound VSP
(Viable Salmonid Population) Monitoring Initiative) directed at
evaluation needs for hatchery programs. Studies implemented to address
key data gaps may provide better information in support of managing
genetic diversity risks associated with the production and escapement
to natural spawning areas of Puget Sound sub-yearling hatchery-origin
fish. However, NMFS believes the data and body of science is currently
sufficient to warrant appropriate actions to reduce adverse effects of
interbreeding when and where they can be implemented.
Comment 10--One commenter indicated that the conclusions presented
in NMFS's PEPD document represent a major departure from the agency's
findings in its 2005 Hatchery Listing Policy (NMFS 2005b) and the
recent Mitchell Act Hatchery Draft EIS regarding the role of hatchery-
origin fish in wild salmon recovery efforts. Another commenter stated
that the ESA requires that hatchery-origin fish are not part of the
solution for recovering natural-origin salmon populations, and alleges
that NMFS is proposing to treat hatchery-origin strays to natural
spawning areas at a status equivalent to natural-origin fish.
Response: NMFS disagrees with these comments and seeks through
these revisions and responses to clarify its approach. NMFS's 2005
Hatchery Listing Policy identifies the role hatchery-origin fish
populations may play in contributing to the viability of listed
natural-origin salmon and steelhead populations (70 FR 37204, June 28,
2005). The policy clearly states that self-sustaining natural-origin
fish populations are the central focus of population viability
restoration efforts and recovery of listed fish species under the ESA.
The policy also acknowledged that there are certain circumstances where
hatchery populations that were no more than moderately diverged from
donor stock natural-origin populations could contribute in certain
cases positively to the abundance, diversity, spatial structure and
productivity of the listed natural-origin populations. Through the
hatchery population review and Hatchery Policy implementation
processes, NMFS evaluated the status of all hatchery-origin Chinook
salmon populations in Puget Sound, determining that fish produced in 26
hatchery programs were part of the listed ESU and protected with
natural-origin fish (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005). NMFS further
evaluated the effects of the listed hatchery-origin populations on
viability parameters for the natural-origin populations from which they
were derived, determining that most contributed positively to the
abundance of associated natural-origin populations, and many also
contributed to population diversity and spatial structure (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/upload/SHIEER.pdf). These determinations
are entirely consistent with the NMFS's determinations pertaining to
the adverse genetic and environmental effects of certain hatchery
practices, as described above. The NMFS PEPD document incorporates
these previous determinations regarding the potential contribution of
certain hatchery populations to natural Chinook salmon population
viability. However, NMFS's clear intent is to assess effects on the
natural-origin Chinook salmon populations as the paramount concern
regarding population and ESU recovery. It is precisely for this reason
that the recovery exploitation rates used in NMFS's harvest evaluation
are therefore focused upon and derived from natural-origin production.
Regarding the issue of consistency between conclusions presented in
the PEPD document and the NMFS's Draft EIS for Mitchell Act Hatchery
programs, we emphasize that the former document addresses Puget Sound
harvest programs, the Chinook populations affected by them, and is in
response to a RMP structured to meet the requirements of the ESA 4(d)
Rule. The Draft EIS is structured to meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and pertains to Columbia River
hatchery programs and their effects on salmon and steelhead populations
in the Columbia River Basin. The two documents have different purposes,
and evaluate the effects of separate actions on different ESUs and
DPSs, in distinct habitat settings, and under different resource
management frameworks. The draft findings presented in NMFS's PEPD
document reflect evaluations specific for discrete Tribal and state-
managed harvest effects on Puget Sound regional Chinook salmon
populations based on the criteria of Limit 6 in the salmon and
steelhead 4(d) Rule, considering their status, and the condition of
habitat and hatchery production types as context. The draft EIS exposes
for review effects on the human environment of a broad range of
alternative hatchery production and management practices in the
Columbia
[[Page 35849]]
River. Like hatchery programs in the Puget Sound region, hatchery fish
considered in the Mitchell Act hatchery Draft EIS were evaluated by
NMFS in 2005 under the Hatchery Listing Policy for inclusion with
natural-origin populations as part of listed ESUs and DPSs, and many
were determined through the commensurate Salmon Hatchery Inventory and
Effects Evaluation Report (SHIEER) process as contributing to the
abundance, diversity, and spatial structure of natural populations. The
methods evaluated by NMFS for assessing the effects of harvest on Puget
Sound Chinook salmon populations (i.e., RERs) are consistent with those
applied to assessing the effects of harvest to Chinook salmon
populations in the lower Columbia region that are affected by the
hatchery programs evaluated in the Draft EIS. For these reasons, and
considering the contents of the version of Section 6.4.2 provided for
public review, we do not agree that the two documents are inconsistent
in their treatment of the role of hatchery-origin salmon in population
recovery efforts.
Comment 11--Several commenters raised concerns that harvest actions
like those within the RMP are evaluated independently of hatchery,
habitat, and recovery plan actions. They expressed the view that all
management actions (hatcheries, harvest and habitat) should be assessed
together. One commenter suggested that existing and planned management
actions should be reviewed and revised based upon their ability to meet
necessary conservation and harvest goals for each Puget Sound Chinook
stock over several time frames: short (potential), mid-term
(delisting), and long-term (i.e., recovery).
Response: NMFS understands the sentiment underlying these comments
and the desirability of linking explicitly strategies for managing
habitats, hatchery practices and harvest practices in an integrated
fashion. NMFS furthermore anticipates that the HGMPs will serve as an
important vehicle by which to undertake such integration on a
watershed-by-watershed basis, and at a level of specificity that far
exceeds that which is pertinent to the evaluation of this harvest RMP.
NMFS must evaluate the RMP that is provided by the co-managers against
the criteria under Limit 6 in the ESA 4(d) Rule. In its PEPD, NMFS
evaluated the co-managers plan using the best available information
regarding the expectation of conditions over the proposed duration of
the plan, and evaluated the anticipated outcome against NMFS' standards
for listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule,
NMFS focuses its inquiry on whether the RMP meets the criteria of Limit
6 and will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and
recovery.
NMFS' proposed evaluation of the RMP discusses a subset of hatchery
related effects in Section 6.4.2 Genetic Diversity of the PEPD and
takes into account the effect of habitat and environmental conditions
in determining stock status and in deriving the standards it uses to
assess the RMP (see Appendix 1 in the PEPD). As required by the ESA,
the biological opinion associated with NMFS' determination under the
ESA 4(d) Rule considers the effects of the proposed RMP in the context
of other past, present and future habitat, harvest and hatchery actions
that affect the status and environmental baseline of the listed
species.
The commenters describe an integrated approach in the context of
long-term recovery planning. NMFS agrees with the commenters that
survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU will
depend, over the long term, on necessary actions in all H sectors. The
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan describes the types of actions in each
sector for each Puget Sound watershed that must occur to achieve a
positive trajectory toward recovery for the ESU and emphasizes the need
for an integrated approach. If implemented, these actions will have a
positive effect on Puget Sound Chinook. In order for this to happen,
the entities with regulatory authority and jurisdiction to implement
the actions in the various H sectors must work together. The watershed
planning efforts currently on-going under the aegis of the Puget Sound
Partnership, state, Tribal and local governments are striving to bring
together the necessary regulatory authorities to develop integrated
approaches to recovery planning. NMFS supports these efforts as the
best opportunity to succeed with integrating habitat, hatchery and
harvest actions.
In the meantime, NMFS has taken a precautionary approach to its
evaluation of the RMP. Unlike harvest actions that are implemented,
effective and assessed in a matter of days to several years, certain
habitat and hatchery actions may take much longer to implement and
generally decades to assess. This timeframe is well outside the
duration of the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP. Their pace of
implementation is highly uncertain. Incorporating assumed benefits in
the near-term for the purposes of evaluating the RMP under Limit 6 of
the ESA 4(d) Rule given such uncertainty could result in overly risky
projections of future production. Therefore, in its evaluation NMFS
assessed the performance of populations in the ESU under recent
productivity conditions, i.e., assuming that the impacts of hatchery
and habitat management actions remain consistent with current
practices.
Finally, the previous RMP was adopted as the harvest component of
the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan (NMFS, 2006a) and so is integral
to the overall approach to recover Puget Sound Chinook. If determined
to be consistent with the requirements of the ESA salmon and steelhead
4(d) Rule, the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP will replace the previous
RMP as the harvest component of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.
Comment 12--Several commenters expressed the view that the
processes for development of the RMP and NMFS' evaluation of it were
not transparent. One commenter requested peer review of the RMP and
NMFS' analysis in the evaluation.
Response: As noted above, NMFS recognizes the complexities of these
analyses and has sought through this notice and comment period to
provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to review and comment
on our draft analysis. NMFS is evaluating the RMP that is provided by
the co-managers against the criteria under Limit 6 in the ESA 4(d)
Rule. As required under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule, NMFS published its
proposed determination on the RMP along `` * * * with a discussion of
the biological analysis underlying that determination,'' i.e., its
proposed evaluation, for 30 days in the Federal Register. Based on
requests from the public for additional time to review and comment on
the proposed evaluation, NMFS extended public review by an additional
25 days. NMFS requested public comment on its PEPD in order to (1) seek
input from the public on its proposed decision; (2) provide
transparency in explaining the basis of its proposed decision; and, (3)
provide the opportunity for review of its data, analysis and
conclusions from the science community, local, state, Tribal
governments, non-governmental organizations as well as the general
public. Although no detailed technical comments were received in this
case, we have received substantive technical comments as a result of
public review on previous evaluations of RMPs and through similar
processes for other listed species. We acknowledge that both the
proposed action and the information used to analyze the potential
effects of its implementation are extremely complex and
[[Page 35850]]
understandably difficult for the average lay-person to understand.
Where internal or external review has highlighted areas needing
clarification we have attempted to provide further explanation. Aside
from the results, analysis and conclusions presented in the PEPD,
Appendices 1 and 2 provide additional technical information and
methodology descriptions to help the reviewer understand in more depth
the rationale underlying our approach and the derivations of the
standards NMFS used in the PEPD. In Section 2 and throughout the PEPD
(e.g., pages 47 and 136-141), we describe further the our key
assumptions used in the analysis, uncertainties or limitations in
aspects of the data and modeling tools and how we take them into
account in our evaluation.
NMFS' relationship to the RMP is to assess the effects of the RMP
against the specific criteria of the ESA 4(d) Rule as requested by the
co-managers when they submitted it to NMFS for evaluation under Limit 6
of the 4(d) Rule. The RMP framework and objectives consider a broader
range of resource use objectives, legal obligations and other
provisions than is within the scope of NMFS' assessment of the criteria
under the 4(d) Rule. The co-managers may seek a broader peer review of
the RMP if they choose, but it is not NMFS' responsibility to do so as
part of its evaluation under the 4(d) Rule. Peer review of the PEPD,
while it could further validate the science, is not required under the
4(d) Rule and could not be accomplished without delaying the
determination beyond the 2011 fishing season. NMFS relied on peer
reviewed sources in its scientific analysis such as Puget Sound TRT
documents, the Viable Salmonid Populations document (McElhaney, et al.,
2000), scientific literature cited in the PEPD and collaboration with
Northwest Fisheries Science Center staff in the development of RERs and
escapement thresholds.
Comment 13: Several commenters suggested the increased use of mark-
selective fisheries as a tool for reducing the level of hatchery fish
on the spawning grounds and avoiding by-catch of other species.
Response: As discussed in response to Comment 2 above, the RMP does
not preclude mark-selective fisheries (many are currently in use), but
does not require them. Nor do the criteria in the ESA 4(d) Rule require
their inclusion. The PEPD evaluated the effects of implementing the
RMP's management thresholds and exploitation rates--from whatever
harvest regime--on natural-origin populations, to the extent
information was available. The anticipated results of implementing the
RMP were compared against the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of the
ESA 4(d) Rule. Through its evaluation of the RMP, NMFS concluded that
the RMP adequately addressed all the criteria outlined in the ESA 4(d)
Rule, including implementing and enforcing the RMP, and would not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget
Sound Chinook Salmon ESU.
The RMP does not include specific details of an annual fishing
regime, for example where and when fisheries occur; what gear will be
used; or how harvest is allocated among gears, areas, or fishermen.
Salmon abundance is highly variable from year to year, both among
Chinook populations and other salmon species, requiring managers to
formulate fisheries (i.e., location, duration, timing, gear type) to
respond to the population abundance conditions particular to that year.
Rather, the RMP provides the framework and objectives against which the
co-managers must develop annual action-specific fishing regimes to
protect Puget Sound Chinook salmon and meet other management
objectives. Alternative fishing techniques such as mark-selective
fisheries are not specifically addressed in the RMP since the use of
the appropriate management measure is dependent on the annual
circumstances. Even though not addressed in the RMP, many gear-related
measures, including mark-selective fisheries, have been and would be
implemented in Puget Sound fisheries that extend fishing opportunity,
reduce mortality on released animals (including Chinook salmon), or
reduce such encounters (as with seabirds).
Even under the prior RMP (which also does not mention mark-
selective fisheries), the use of mark-selective regulations in
recreational fisheries has increased both in time and areas in Puget
Sound (Figures 1 and 2). However, releasing fish after being caught
using nearly any gear type, including those designed for selective
fishing has some associated mortality associated with it, even if it is
very low (Columbia River Compact 2004; Ruggerone and June, 1996; Vander
Haegen, 2002a; Vander Haegen, 2002b; Vander Haegen, 2001; Vander
Haegen, 2003; also see Appendix B of the Proposed Action in DEIS
Appendix A (NMFS 2004)). Because of the associated mortality on
released fish, new areas opened to mark-selective fishing usually
require a commensurate closure somewhere else in order to maintain
acceptable or ``level'' impacts to wild stocks in order to meet
conservation objectives. In most of Puget Sound, these impacts of
concern occur to populations in critical status (e.g., Nooksack,
Stillaguamish, Mid-Hood Canal, Dungeness) that have very low allowable
exploitation rates. In South Puget Sound and Hood Canal, hatchery fish
currently dominate the catch in areas where fisheries are open.
However, the catch rates and exploitation rates in Puget Sound
recreational fisheries are relatively low even when significant mark-
selective fisheries are implemented. The figure below shows how use of
mark selective fisheries has grown over time. The second figure shows
the specific months and areas that were open to mark selective fishing
in 2010. But the annual average Chinook catch per angler in Puget Sound
marine sport fisheries ranges from 0.04 to 0.3 depending on the area
(pers. comm. S. Theisfeld, WDFW). Although mark-selective recreational
fisheries can reduce to some degree the number of hatchery fish that
stray to spawning areas, to achieve significant fishery-based
reductions in hatchery strays will likely require development and
implementation of alternative gears that can capture large numbers of
fish and provide minimal mortality to fish released. The development
and progression of these alternative gears along with further expansion
of mark selective recreational fisheries is part of the annual co-
manager discussions during the preseason process.
[[Page 35851]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20JN11.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20JN11.001
NMFS supports the use of mark-selective fisheries where appropriate to
extend recreational fishing opportunity. However, the use of mark-
selective fisheries, like any other management tools, depends on the
specific circumstances and is shaped by the over-riding need to achieve
conservation objectives. As the commenter points out, other methods may
better achieve reductions in hatchery contribution, and the potential
risks of hatchery spawners must be weighed against the specific
resource use, conservation objectives and watershed characteristics in
each management area.
Comment 14: One commenter suggested using confidence intervals or
some other method to explain how risks are being managed in the face of
uncertainty.
[[Page 35852]]
Response: In Section 2 and throughout the PEPD (e.g., pages 47 and
136-141), we describe our key assumptions in the analysis,
uncertainties or limitations in aspects of the data and modeling tools
and how we take them into account in our evaluation. The Fishery
Regulation and Assessment Model (FRAM) that NMFS used to model the
exploitation rates and escapements anticipated to result from
implementation of the RMP is a static model and does not provide
estimates of uncertainty. Therefore, we modeled a range of abundances
and fishery scenarios as another way to capture the uncertainty in what
might occur over the foreseeable future under implementation of the
RMP. The Rebuilding Exploitation Rates (RERs) that NMFS uses in part to
assess the effects of the RMP directly incorporate estimates of
variability in the spawner-recruit parameters, environmental covariates
and management error (Appendix 2 of the PEPD and NMFS, 2000) and makes
conservative assumptions about future conditions. For example, we
assume marine survival will continue to remain low for Puget Sound
Chinook populations. NMFS will continue to work to improve ways to
illustrate the uncertainty in the analyses on which it bases its
decisions.
NMFS recognized that in this modeling exercise, conservative
assumptions were made and that there was always the possibility that in
any individual year the results could be different than the range of
possibilities considered. As another way to manage uncertainty, NMFS
and the co-managers regularly evaluate the performance of the RMP and
build in provisions to make adjustments as new information becomes
available or problems are detected. In recent years, post-season
assessment of the previous RMP which is similar to the 2010 Puget Sound
Chinook RMP generally showed that estimated exploitation rates were
lower than pre-season projections (NMFS 2009). Generally, the 2011 pre-
season modeled escapement results are within or greater than the range
of predicted escapements in the PEPD. This can be, in part, attributed
to the use of risk-averse modeling assumptions in modeling impacts and
the resultant escapement under the RMP. The RMP contains provisions to
evaluate the fishery performance under the RMP for bias and make
necessary adjustments if bias is detected (Chapter 7 of the RMP).
Finally, although approval of the RMP under the ESA 4(d) Rule would
authorize take consistent with the management objectives in the RMP,
that approval is based on the patterns of escapement and exploitation
rates resulting from NMFS' analysis, anticipated levels of abundance
over the duration of the RMP and the key assumptions described in the
PEPD. Based on post-season information, should actual circumstances
deviate from those considered in the analysis such that the RMP is not
effective in conserving listed Puget Sound Chinook, NMFS expects that
the co-managers will take actions under the RMP to provide the
necessary protections as per its adaptive management provisions, or
NMFS may withdraw its approval as per the provisions of the 4(d) Rule
(50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)(v)).
Comment 15: One commenter requested a shorter time frame of one
year for the RMP rather than the five years originally proposed to
reflect more recent information and broader involvement in its
development.
Response: The duration of the RMP was shortened by the co-managers
from an original term through April 2015 to a new term through April
2014 in response to concerns related to prey available to listed
Southern Resident killer whales and the need to develop a comprehensive
review of West Coast fisheries impacts on Southern Residents. However,
it should be noted that this change in duration was an action taken not
by NMFS, but by the co-managers following a NMFS request. It is the co-
managers who decide what the duration of the proposed RMP should be,
and NMFS then evaluates that RMP for a positive or negative
determination under Limit 6 of the 4(d) ESA Rule. As noted in the
introduction to these responses, NMFS has discussed with the co-
managers comments received about the process by which the RMP was
developed.
Comment 16: The commenter requested that NMFS recognize the
Sammamish as important to recovery of the ESU and that all natural-
origin Chinook from the WRIA 8 watershed warrant protection under the
ESA.
Response: NMFS evaluated the anticipated effects of implementing
the RMP on all 22 Puget Sound Chinook populations, including the
Sammamish, in assessing the risk to the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. In its
evaluation, NMFS determined that the Sammamish and Cedar River
populations were at low risk from implementation of the RMP. The
average exploitation rates under the RMP are anticipated to be below
their surrogate RERs for both populations. The surrogate RER for these
populations is described in Section 2.3 of the PEPD. Average
escapements are expected to increase by a small amount under
implementation of the RMP.
The listed Puget Sound Chinook ESU includes all runs of Chinook
salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound, including the
Straits of Juan de Fuca from the Elwha River eastward, and rivers and
streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound, and the
Strait of Georgia in Washington. Also included in the ESU are 26
artificial propagation programs. All Chinook from these areas warrant
protection under the ESA. In evaluating proposed actions such as the
RMP, NMFS considers the impacts on each affected population; how those
impacts affect the overall viability of each population and ultimately
how the distribution of risks across populations affect the survival
and recovery of the entire ESU. This is because the ESU, not the
individual populations within the ESU, is the listed entity under the
ESA and not all of the 22 Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations or
their watersheds have the same role in contributing to the recovery
under the ESA of the ESU (NMFS, 2006a). This assessment of risks to
individual populations within their context to the ESU is explicit in
several of the 4(d) criteria used to evaluate the RMP under the ESA.
See also response to Comment 1.
Comment 17: The commenter requested that NMFS not approve the
proposed change in provisions for Lake Washington Chinook. NMFS should
keep the exploitation rate ceiling at a 15% rate as it was in the
previous RMP for Washington fisheries that occur prior to these fish
entering the Lake Washington watershed (known as ``pre-terminal
southern U.S. rate'') and allowing no directed fisheries on Lake
Washington Chinook. (Pre-terminal southern U.S. fisheries are those
that occur south of the Canadian border and before the terminal area,
in this case, Lake Washington.)
Response: There is no change from the prior RMP to the anticipated
total exploitation rate in southern U.S. fisheries for Chinook
returning to the Lake Washington basin, although the structure of the
exploitation rates is adjusted from the prior plan. NMFS' proposed
evaluation indicates the management objectives proposed in the RMP
would be adequately protective of Cedar River Chinook. Although the
provisions are different, the 2010 RMP constrains the overall southern
U.S exploitation rate to the same level as anticipated under the
previous RMP. In addition, the escapement goal for the Cedar River is
higher under the 2010 RMP and the allowable southern U.S. exploitation
rate at very low abundances is lower. The harvest management
[[Page 35853]]
objectives for the Cedar and Sammamish populations in the previous 2004
Puget Sound Chinook RMP were a 15 percent pre-terminal (i.e., areas
outside of Lake Washington) southern U.S. exploitation rate ceiling
with a 1,550 escapement goal (1,200 to Cedar River and 350 to Northern
Lake Washington tributaries). Under the previous RMP, no directed
Chinook fisheries would occur in Lake Washington. Anticipating that
productivity and abundance would remain low during the term of the 2004
RMP, the co-managers committed to continuing to implement management
actions in Lake Washington terminal fisheries which constrained impacts
on Lake Washington natural Chinook to very low incidental levels, i.e.,
as if the populations were at critical levels (PSIT and WDFW, 2004).
The total southern U.S. exploitation rate on Lake Washington Chinook
was not anticipated to exceed 20 percent (Frank and Koenings 2004)
accounting for incidental impacts in Lake Washington terminal fisheries
directed at other species. At lower abundance levels, pre-terminal
southern U.S. fisheries were limited to a 12 percent exploitation rate.
Actual total southern U.S. exploitation rates under implementation of
the 2004 RMP averaged 17 percent (2004-2008) (NMFS unpublished data).
The 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP also constrains the overall
southern U.S. exploitation rate to no greater than 20 percent except
where the Cedar River is expected to exceed its upper management
threshold of 1,680 Chinook spawners. The Cedar River escapement goal
was increased from the goal in the 2004 RMP to account for additional
capacity downstream of the Landsberg Dam. At Cedar River escapements
less than 1,680, directed Chinook fisheries will not occur in Lake
Washington and impacts will be limited to fisheries targeted at other
species and/or Tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries (PSIT and
WDFW 2010). Under very low abundances, pre-terminal southern U.S.
fisheries would be constrained more than under the 2004 RMP, i.e., 10%
under the 2010 RMP compared with 12% under the 2004 RMP. If Cedar River
escapements are projected to be above the 1,680 escapement goal, the
RMP allows for directed Chinook fisheries in Lake Washington but only
under conservative conditions. The RMP states that ``Directed fisheries
targeting harvestable surplus for any management unit will be
implemented cautiously. Consistent forecasts of high abundance,
substantially above the upper management threshold, and preferably
corroborated by post-season or in-season assessment, would be necessary
to initiate such fisheries. Alternatively, a terminal area inseason
update with consistent performance may be used to identify abundance
above the upper management threshold. In practice, a substantial
harvestable surplus must be available, so that the directed fishery is
of practical magnitude (i.e., there is substantial harvest opportunity
and the fishery can be managed with certainty not to exceed the harvest
target). The decision to implement a directed fishery will also
consider the uncertainty in forecasts and fisheries mortality
projections. A directed fishery would not be planned to remove a very
small surplus above the UMT [Upper Management Threshold--1,680 in the
case of the Cedar River]. Implementing a new directed fishery, in an
area where one has not recently occurred, will require reasonable
assurance that abundance has increased to the level that will support a
fishery. In practice this implies that increased abundance has occurred
for a period of prior years, and that forecasts are reliable, before
implementing a new directed fishery.'' (Page 36 of the 2010 RMP.) In
addition, for the Cedar River, any Chinook-directed fisheries in Lake
Washington must also be designed to result in spawning escapements
above 1,680 and increase as abundance increases. Based on these
conditions and past patterns in escapement, a directed Chinook fishery
in Lake Washington is unlikely to occur under the 2010 RMP. Escapement
has exceeded the escapement threshold of 1,680 only once since 1999.
Pre-season forecasts for 2011 estimate Cedar River escapement will be
lower than the escapement goal (FRAM model runs 0411 and 0611).
Finally, the co-managers have not yet developed the inseason update
required as a precursor to implementing Chinook-directed Lake
Washington fisheries.
NMFS' proposed evaluation indicates the management objectives
proposed in the 2010 RMP would be adequately protective of Cedar River
Chinook. The escapement trend is increasing and growth rates are stable
(Table 9 of PEPD), average exploitation rates are not anticipated to
increase from those observed and anticipated average exploitation rates
are below the surrogate RER even under extremely low abundance
conditions (Tables 29 and 30 of PEPD). NMFS' evaluation of the Cedar
River included southern U.S. exploitation rates approaching the 20
percent ceiling, i.e., 18-19%. If directed fisheries were to occur,
based on the RMP requirements, resulting escapements should seed the
existing habitat based on the limited information available and probe
the available capacity and productivity at higher abundances. NMFS'
analysis also assumed that impacts on the Sammamish population were the
same as that for the Cedar River in southern U.S. fisheries, i.e., the
co-managers will not target the Sammamish population in Lake Washington
in isolation of management for the Cedar River Chinook population (page
46 of the PEPD). Directed Chinook fisheries within Lake Washington
during the duration of the RMP will be driven by the status of the
Cedar population. Given the conservative requirements in the 2010 RMP
to implementing directed fisheries and the results of its evaluation,
NMFS concludes the proposed management regime would not represent an
undue risk to the Lake Washington populations.
See also response to Comment 18.
Comment 18: The commenter requested that the low abundance
threshold and upper management thresholds in the RMP be increased for
the Cedar River to better incorporate watershed-specific information
reflecting improved conditions and increased capacity in the Cedar
River and to be more conservative while stocks recover.
Response: NMFS concurs with the general implication of the comment
that deriving abundance thresholds based upon the most recent
watershed-specific data would be preferable. However, in the absence of
such data, NMFS believes that the escapement thresholds are properly
conservative for several reasons. Since a sufficient time series of
data does not exist for the Cedar River that measures the proportion of
natural-origin spawners in escapements to determine the population
specific thresholds that reflects the productivity and capacity of the
watershed, NMFS uses generic escapement thresholds based on guidance in
the Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) document (McElhaney et al., 2000)
to evaluate the potential effect of proposed harvest actions on the
Cedar River. However, this threshold is similar to or greater than
rebuilding escapement thresholds that NMFS has derived from population-
specific data for river systems similar to the Cedar River.
Additionally, the co-managers escapement goal of 1,680 is higher than
the generic rebuilding threshold of 1,250 used by NMFS. NMFS agrees
that a population-specific Cedar threshold should be derived as
sufficient data become available; particularly given the
[[Page 35854]]
additional capacity in the upper watershed. NMFS will evaluate the
feasibility of deriving a population-specific escapement threshold for
the Cedar River prior to development of the next Puget Sound Chinook
harvest plan.
Average productivity for the Cedar River is currently estimated as
1.7 recruits/spawner (Table 8 of PEPD) well below the recovery planning
high productivity target of 3.1. The commenter asserts that more
spawners are needed to achieve the recovery targets if the productivity
is lower than the 3.1 target, but this assumes that the spawner-recruit
curve for recovery has been achieved. It is likely that the current
spawner-recruit curve is well below that which describes recovery given
the actions that have been identified for the Cedar River watershed in
the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan (Shared Strategy, 2006). In that
case, the situation would be similar to that illustrated for the North
Fork Stillaguamish in Figure 6, page 69 of the PEPD and the spawner
capacity would be much lower. Without sufficient data, the actual
spawner level is unknown. In the meantime, NMFS' assessment based on
the available information indicates the proposed management objectives
would be adequately protective of Cedar River Chinook. The escapement
trend is increasing and growth rates are stable (Table 9 of PEPD),
average exploitation rates are not anticipated to increase from those
observed and anticipated average exploitation rates are below the
surrogate RER even under extremely low abundance conditions (Tables 29
and 30 of PEPD). If subsequent information substantially changes NMFS'
conclusions regarding the risk to the ESU, NMFS can ask the co-managers
to make the necessary adjustments to the RMP or invoke the process
leading to the withdrawal the ESA 4(d) Rule determination.
Comment 19: One commenter stated that NMFS' consideration of
hatchery fish in spawning escapements implied that recovery levels for
the stocks of concern have already been reached or can easily be
reached by adding more hatchery fish.
Response: We respectfully disagree with the commenter (see NMFS's
2005 Hatchery Listing Policy at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/FR-Notices/2005/upload/70FR37204.pdf). None of the documents, analysis
or conclusions used in NMFS' evaluation implies that recovery levels
can be reached solely on the basis of hatchery fish. The escapement
thresholds that NMFS used in part to assess the effects of the Puget
Sound Chinook RMP on Puget Sound Chinook represent natural-origin
spawners. The RERs that NMFS uses are calculated to meet or exceed the
levels of natural-origin spawners defined by the critical and
rebuilding thresholds (Appendix 1: VRAP and page 47 of the PEPD). NMFS
states on page 39 of the PEPD that `` * * * viable thresholds in the
context of this evaluation are a level of spawning escapement
associated with rebuilding to recovery, consistent with current
environmental and habitat conditions. For most populations, the upper
management thresholds are well below the escapement levels associated
with recovery * * * but achieving these goals under current
environmental and habitat conditions is a necessary step to eventual
recovery when habitat and other conditions are more favorable.'' Tables
8 and 9 of the PEPD compare the current estimates of total natural and
natural-origin escapements against the recovery planning targets in the
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan; demonstrating current levels are well
below recovery targets for most populations.
Comment 20: One commenter stated that the lower exploitation rates
proposed in the RMP for some management units are the result of
insufficient escapement under the prior plan for some watersheds and,
secondly, that if escapements had decreased under the prior RMP then
the harvest plans must be impeding recovery.
Response: The commenter did not specify which management units were
of concern, but only two exploitation rate ceilings, those for the
Nisqually and Skokomish Management Units, are lower in this RMP than
under the 2004 Puget Sound Chinook RMP. However, the exploitation rates
were not reduced based on insufficient escapement under the prior plan.
Escapements under the previous RMP exceeded escapement goals in five of
six years for the Nisqually and four of six years for the Skokomish.
Average escapements for these two populations since 1999 are 50 percent
and 127 percent higher than average escapements prior to listing.
Escapement trends are stable or increasing for both populations (Table
9 of the PEPD). Escapement growth rates are higher than growth rates
for overall abundance (Table 9 of the PEPD), indicating some
stabilizing influence from harvest management constraints. Declining
growth rates in natural-origin abundance for both populations indicate
limitations in a broader range of factors than harvest. The proposed
exploitation rates for the Nisqually management unit in the 2010 RMP
were reduced to reflect new information on watershed conditions and
resource use objectives (page 196 of the RMP). Management of the
Skokomish Chinook population was changed from a fixed escapement goal
to an exploitation rate approach, an approach which is generally
considered more robust to management uncertainty (Feiberg 2004, NMFS
2004). NMFS sees these changes as responsible responses and consistent
with an adaptive approach to harvest management.
In its evaluation, NMFS identified some increased risk for these
two populations under the exploitation rates proposed in the RMP. NMFS
considered the history of habitat degradation and hatchery production
in the watersheds, and the extirpation of the native Chinook runs and
assessed the potential risks identified for both extant, hatchery
dominated populations. We concluded that, for these populations, which
are essential to recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, the focus of
recovery is on improving watershed conditions, re-introduction of a
locally-adapted broodstock and transition to a self-sustaining natural-
origin population as the existing Green River lineage broodstock adapts
to each of the Skokomish and Nisqually watersheds, and as habitat
conditions improve to support natural production. The timing and
magnitude of changes in harvest that occur in these watersheds will be
coordinated with the pace of habitat recovery and with the
implementation of hatchery actions that reduce the adverse influence of
the hatchery population on the natural-origin fish. The escapement and
exploitation rates anticipated to result from the likely implementation
of the RMP for these populations are consistent with such a
transitional strategy and would not appreciably reduce the survival and
recovery of the ESU.
Comment 21: Several commenters expressed opinions that harvest
management approaches negatively affect the abundance and productivity
of populations; that harvest rates proposed in the RMP were too high or
that reductions in harvest did not mitigate the effects of high
proportions of hatchery fish spawning naturally. The commenters did not
provide alternative data or analysis to support their views.
Response: NMFS has intended through this analysis to examine
specifically the effects of harvest on escapements of natural-origin
spawners and other factors, and seeks to explain more precisely its
approach to the analysis in order to respond to this comment.
Generally, the PEPD considers the RMP in light of 11 criteria under
section (b)(4)(i) in Limit 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA) section 4(d) Rule for listed Puget Sound
[[Page 35855]]
Chinook salmon (referred hereafter as the ESA 4(d) Rule). The criteria
under Limit 4 section (b)(4)(i) are summarized in Table 1, page 3 of
the PEPD. Of note, requirement ``C'' states, in part, that
``[M]anagement of fisheries where artificially propagated fish
predominate must not compromise the management objectives for
commingled naturally spawned populations.'' Anticipated effects on the
abundance and productivity of natural origin spawners are described in
Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the PEPD, to the extent data are available. The
anticipated effects of implementing the exploitation rate ceiling in
the RMP are described in Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of the PEPD.
The RMP proposes implementation of restrictions to the fishery-
related mortality of each Puget Sound Chinook salmon population or
management unit. The RMP's restrictions to the cumulative fishery-
related mortality are expressed as: (1) An exploitation rate; (2) an
upper management threshold; (3) a low abundance threshold; and (4) a
critical exploitation rate ceiling (Table 4 of the PEPD). For select
management units, Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of the
RMP describes how these thresholds or exploitation rate limits were
derived. In the PEPD, NMFS compared the proposed RMP's mortality
limits, regardless of their basis, to the NMFS-derived critical and
rebuilding escapement threshold standards and Rebuilding Exploitation
Rates which have as their basis NMFS' ESA standards relating to the
natural population. In the PEPD, NMFS modeled and evaluated the
anticipated impacts of implementing the proposed RMP's exploitation
rate ceilings consistent with the criteria of the 4(d) Rule.
The modeling used risk-averse assumptions in determining potential
impacts and the resultant escapement as described in Appendix 1 of the
PEPD. The modeling assumed a range of intercepting fisheries to include
the highest Canadian harvest allowed under the 2008 Pacific Salmon
Treaty Agreement, as well as those most likely to occur. The modeled
range of Puget Sound Chinook salmon abundance included abundances
observed over the last 15 years and a 40 percent reduction from that
level for all populations. The anticipated results of implementing the
RMP were compared against the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of the
ESA 4(d) Rule. Through its proposed evaluation of the RMP, NMFS
concluded that the RMP adequately addressed all the criteria outlined
in the ESA 4(d) Rule, including implementing and enforcing the RMP, and
would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of
the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. Information provided in the PEPD,
along with the information included and available by reference,
provides the reviewer the information necessary to evaluate NMFS' risk
criteria used to reach this conclusion.
See also responses to Comments 2-10 related to specific concerns
about hatchery fish spawning naturally.
Comment 22: One commenter stated that Chinook management activities
and uses in shoreline jurisdictions must be consistent with the
Shoreline Management Act and the local Shoreline Master Programs. The
commenter did not provide any specific comments on aspects of the RMP
that were or were not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and
the local Shoreline Master Programs.
Response: The Final EIS (NMFS, 2004) addresses all plans and
policies that are related to the proposed RMP implementation in Section
1.10, Relationship to Other Plans and Appendix F, Applicable Laws,
Treaties, Licenses and Permits. The Shoreline Management Act is
discussed in Appendix F, along with the state Growth Management Act and
Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2020 Strategy. Additionally,
discussions about related Federal legislation are found in Appendix F,
including the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and
National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Since Shoreline Master Programs can
only be implemented if they are consistent with the state Shoreline
Management Act, Growth Management Act, and other applicable laws,
policies, and programs, the EIS did not address each individual program
in the action area, assuming instead that the broader legislations
would suffice for analysis, and that each local program is in
compliance with ``parent'' legislation.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that
an EIS identify ``possible conflicts between the proposed action and
objectives of Federal, regional, state, and local land use plans,
policies, and controls for the area concerned'' (40 CFR 1502.16(c)).
The requirement to demonstrate inconsistencies is repeated at 40 CFR
1506.2(d) and in CEQ's 40 Most Asked Questions at numbers 23a and 23b.
NMFS's review of the related Federal, state, and regional land use
plans, policies, and ``controls'' within the action area did not reveal
any inconsistencies between the proposed action to implement the RMP
and the objectives of each of these laws, policies, or plans. If any
inconsistencies were uncovered, this would have been discussed in the
EIS in either Section 1.10, Relationship to Other Plans or Appendix F,
Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits.
The Shoreline Management Act and local Shoreline Master Programs
guide development of shoreline lands in a manner that will promote and
enhance the public interest. The RMP does not include specific details
of an annual fishing regime, for example where and when fisheries
occur; what gear will be used; or how harvest is allocated among gears,
areas, or fishermen, and as such does not identify specific shoreline
areas that could be impacted. Salmon abundance is highly variable from
year to year, both among Chinook populations and other salmon species,
requiring managers to formulate fisheries (i.e., location, duration,
timing, gear type) to respond to the population abundance conditions
particular to that year. Rather, the RMP provides the framework and
objectives against which the co-managers must develop annual action-
specific fishing regimes to protect Puget Sound Chinook salmon and meet
other management objectives. NMFS expects that the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound treaty Tribes will
implement these annual fishing regimes consistent with any relevant
provisions of the Shoreline Management Act or Shoreline Master
Programs. Additionally, NMFS previously analyzed the possible
environmental and socioeconomic impacts in the Final EIS (NMFS 2004),
and also assumed for analysis purposes that this RMP would be in
compliance with all state and other Federal laws, such as the state
Shoreline Management Act.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES), or through the documents available on the NMFS
Northwest Regional Office Web site (see Electronic Access, under the
heading, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Authority
Under section 4(d) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1533(d), NMFS, by
delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce, is required to
adopt such regulations as it deems necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and
steelhead 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as amended) specifies
categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed
salmonids or are governed by a program that adequately limits impacts
on listed
[[Page 35856]]
salmonids, and sets out the criteria for such activities. The Rule
further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the Rule do
not apply to actions undertaken in compliance with a RMP developed
jointly within the continuing jurisdiction of United States v.
Washington by the State of Washington and the Tribes and determined by
NMFS to be in accordance with the provisions of 50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)
(i.e., Limit 6 of the salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42422, July
10, 2000)). In 2005, as part of the final listing determinations for
sixteen Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast salmon, NMFS
amended and streamlined the previously promulgated 4(d) protective
regulations for threatened salmon and steelhead (70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005). Under these regulations, the same set of fourteen limits was
applied to all threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead ESU's or DPS's.
Dated: June 13, 2011.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-15137 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P