[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 47 (Friday, March 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12194-12203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 030105B]
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 the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The RMP
specifies the management of commercial, recreational and tribal salmon
fisheries and steelhead net fisheries that potentially affect listed
Puget Sound chinook salmon from May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2010.
The co-managers propose that the resource management plan be in
effect for six years, from May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2010.
However, a biological opinion issued by NMFS on June 10, 2004, titled
``Effects of Programs Administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
supporting tribal salmon fisheries management in Puget Sound and Puget
Sound salmon fishing activities authorized by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services during the 2004 fishing season'', is effective
through April 30, 2005. Therefore, NMFS' evaluation and determination
under the ESA 4(d) rule will only address May 1, 2005 to April 30,
2010, of the proposed duration of the RMP. This document serves to
notify the public that NMFS, by delegated authority from the Secretary
of Commerce (Secretary), has determined pursuant to the Tribal Rule and
the government-to-government processes therein that implementing and
enforcing the RMP from May 1, 2005, to April 30, 2010, 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 take limit was made on February
28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Sustainable Fisheries Division, National Marine Fisheries
[[Page 12195]]
Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Bishop at: 206/526-4587, or e-
mail: [email protected] regarding the RMP.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is relevant to the Puget Sound
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ESU.
Electronic Access
The full texts of NMFS' determination and the final Evaluation are
available on the Internet at the NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division
web site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/limit6/index.html.
Background
In March, 2004, 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 is effective from May 1, 2004, through
April 30, 2010. Harvest objectives specified in the RMP account for
fisheries-related mortality of Puget Sound chinook throughout its
migratory range, from Oregon and Washington to Alaska. The RMP also
includes implementation, monitoring and evaluation procedures designed
to ensure fisheries are consistent with these objectives. On April 15,
2004, at 69 FR 19975, NMFS published a notice of availability for
public review and comment in the Federal Register, on its evaluation of
how the Puget Sound chinook RMP addressed the criteria in section
223.203 (b)(4) of the ESA 4 (d) rule (65 FR 42422).
As required by section 223.203 (b)(6) of the ESA 4 (d) rule, NMFS
must determine pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 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 and other affected threatened ESUs.
NMFS must take comments on how the RMP addresses the criteria in
section 223.203 (b)(4) in making that determination.
Discussion of the Biological Analysis Underlying the Determination
The RMP's approach to establishing management objectives is risk
averse and progressive, including (1) management objectives, based on
natural production and natural spawning, have been established for the
majority of naturally producing populations which historically had
self-sustaining chinook populations and for which data is available.
These management units represent the entire range of life history types
(races) and geographic distribution that comprise the Puget Sound
chinook salmon ESU; (2) the RMP derives exploitation rates based on
conservative, quantifiable standards directly related to recovery,
which take into account scientific uncertainty; (3) in isolating the
effect of harvest on survival and recovery, the approach is valuable in
ensuring that harvest actions do not impede recovery, regardless of the
contribution of the hatcheries, habitat, hydropower.. At the same time,
the approach is linked to the other hatcheries, habitat, hydropower by
taking into account current environmental and habitat conditions; (4)
the proposed objectives are generally consistent with NMFS' rebuilding
exploitation rates (RER), population standards previously used to
assess the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound
chinook salmon ESU. These standards included an assessment of the long-
term effects of exploitation rates at these levels; (5) the RMP
includes specific and integrated monitoring programs to maintain and
improve population assessment methodologies as well as to evaluate the
effectiveness of harvest management actions and objectives. The RMP
also includes provisions for an annual report. This report will assess
compliance with, parameter validation of, and effectiveness of the RMP
objectives.
A more detailed discussion of NMFS' evaluation is on the
Sustainable Fisheries Division 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 April 15, 2004 (69
FR 19975). The comment period closed on May 17, 2004. Three 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.
Comments received from the public in response to the NMFS
announcement of the PEPD for review are summarized as follows:
On Tuesday, May11, 2004, NMFS received e-mail comments from Mr.
Robert Hayman of the Skagit River System Cooperative. The comments were
submitted in the form of electronic versions of three documents:
``NMFSFinalE&DComments504.doc''; ``BYExplRateCalcs2004 PopStatFix
404.xls''; and ``SkgtSFCkProjectn4E&D404.xls''. Under the
implementation of the RMP, the projected range of exploitation rates
for the Skagit summer/fall chinook salmon management unit was estimated
to be 48 to 56 percent (Table 3 in the PEPD). The PEPD qualified this
projection by stating that this range of exploitation rates probably
overestimates the actual rates under the RMP. Mr. Hayman agreed with
this assessment and requested that his three documents be included as
part of the public record on the PEPD ``so that they are available if
further elaboration is needed about the Evaluation and Determination's
assessment of Skagit summer/fall chinook.'' No change to the PEPD was
necessary.
On Tuesday, May11, 2004, NMFS received comments from Mr. Sam
Wright. Mr. Wright commented that the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) should be completed prior to soliciting public review
comments on the PEPD. Mr. Wright's comments were primarily directed at
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The comments addressed
the alternatives of the DEIS and proposed an additional alternative,
which he referred to as Alternative 1A. He asked that these comments on
the DEIS be incorporated by reference. Mr. Wright provided no other
direct comments on the PEPD. The discussion on the various alternatives
is not directly applicable to the PEPD. Mr. Wright's comments
pertaining to the DEIS were addressed in the FEIS process.
On Monday, May 17, 2004, through e-mail, NMFS received comments on
the PEPD from the Washington Trout (WT). The commenter recommends that
NMFS substantively revise the PEPD before a final determination is
developed. The structure of the WT's comments was presented in nine
identified sections. These sections were: Introduction; Minimum Fishery
Regime; Management Objectives and Indicators; Recovery Exploitation
Rates; Upper Management Thresholds; Low Abundance Thresholds; Critical
Exploitation Rate Ceiling; Critical Exploitation Rate Ceiling; and
Other Issues of Concern. In responding to the WT's comments, NMFS will
use a similar structure.
[[Page 12196]]
Response to Comments
Introduction Comments
Comment 1: In the introduction section, the commenter requested
that the PEPD: (1) provide a detailed explanation of key terms and
concepts employed in the RMP. The commenter stated that the PEPD
employs important legalistic and technical-biological terms and
concepts without ever attempting to explain them; (2) provide a
detailed and critical description and assessment of the key assumptions
made by the RMP; (3) clearly describe and characterize the several
kinds of risk that the harvest regime may pose to populations of the
listed Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and to the ESU as a whole;
(4) characterize relevant and critical uncertainties with methods used
in the PEPD; (5) evaluate whether the proposed fishery regime(s)
is(are) described in sufficient detail to permit a clear assessment of
the extent to which the regime is risk-averse to potential impacts on
populations of the listed ESU; (6) clearly describe and explain the
extent to which the proposed harvest regime is risk-averse to harmful
impacts on individual populations of the listed ESU and the ESU as a
whole; and, (7) require the RMP to employ clearly articulated impact-
threshold targets to be attained (or to be avoided), with clearly
articulated management actions that will be taken in response when
critical thresholds are not attained (or not avoided), and clear time
frames for taking corrective actions and for achieving the desired
targets of the corrective actions.
Response: NMFS found these comments too general in nature and
lacking necessary specifics to properly respond. NMFS assumes, given
that that these comments were in the ``introduction'' section, that
many of these comments will be addressed by responding to the more
specific comments that followed in other sections. For a general
response, as required in section (b)(6)(iii) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (ESA) section 4(d) rule for listed Puget Sound chinook
salmon (referred hereafter as the ESA 4(d) rule), the RMP, in NMFS'
opinion, must adequately address eleven criteria under section
(b)(4)(i) in Limit 4. The criteria under Limit 4 section (b)(4)(i) are
summarized in Table 1, page 3 of the PEPD. Compliance with these
criteria does not necessarily require the most conservative response.
The RMP proposes implementation of restrictions to the fishery-related
mortality to each Puget Sound chinook salmon population or management
unit. The RMP's restrictions to the cumulative fishery-related
mortality are expressed as: (1) a rebuilding exploitation rate; (2) an
upper management threshold; (3) a low abundance threshold; and (4) a
critical exploitation rate ceiling (Table 2 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. NMFS did not necessarily evaluate the RMP's definition of
terms or the assumptions the co-managers used in developing the RMP's
mortality limits. In the PEPD, NMFS compared the proposed RMP's
mortality limits, regardless of their basis, to the NMFS-derived
critical and viable threshold standards. NMFS used the best data
available to estimate these critical and viable thresholds for each
population. The PEPD also evaluated the effects of implementing the
RMP's mortality limits. The co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS,
modeled the anticipated impacts of implementing the proposed RMP's
mortality limits. The modeling used risk-averse assumptions in
determining potential impacts and the resultant escapement. The
modeling assumed the fishing regime under the RMP would closely
resemble that planned for 2003, and modeled those fishing regulations
for the southern United States (SUS). The modeling also assumed a range
of intercepting fisheries to include the highest Canadian harvest
allowed under the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) agreement, as well
as those in 2003. The modeled range of Puget Sound chinook salmon
abundance was bounded by the 2003 forecast abundance and a 30 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. NMFS' approach in its evaluation is
conservative, and takes into consideration the uncertainty of the data.
Through its evaluation of the RMP, NMFS Northwest Region's Sustainable
Fisheries Division 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.
Comment 2: The commenter expressed concern regarding the PEPD's
conclusion that the RMP ``would not appreciably reduce the likelihood
of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU.'' The
commenter believes that this finding reflects an opaque standard, open
to any number of subjective interpretations, including the most
minimal.
Response: This language in question in the PEPD is taken directly
from section (b)(6)(i) of the ESA 4(d) rule. The ESA 4(d) rule states
that ``...the [take] prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section
relating to threatened species of salmonids ....... do not apply to
actions undertaken in compliance with a resource management plan
......... provided that: (i) The Secretary has determined ..........
that implementing and enforcing the joint tribal/state plan will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of affected
threatened ESUs'' (50 CFR. 223.203(b)(6)). Some of the criteria
outlined in the ESA 4(d) rule require NMFS to evaluate the RMP's
impacts on individual populations. One of the criteria for Limit 6 of
the ESA 4(d) rule is that harvest actions that impact populations at or
above their viable thresholds must maintain the population or
management unit at or above that level. Overall, along with other on-
going habitat and hatchery programs, the results of harvest actions
since the ESA listing of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU appear to
be maintaining these populations above the viable threshold levels as
required by the ESA 4(d) rule. Another criterion for Limit 6 of the ESA
4(d) rule is that fishing-related mortality on populations above
critical levels, but not at viable levels (as demonstrated with a high
degree of confidence), must not appreciably slow achievement to viable
function. The criterion for populations at or below their critical
thresholds is that fishing-related mortality on the population must not
appreciably increase genetic and demographic risks facing the
population, and does not preclude achievement of viable functions,
unless the RMP demonstrates the likelihood of survival and recovery of
the entire ESU in the wild would not be appreciably reduced by greater
risks to an individual population. Only one population in the ESU, the
North Fork Nooksack River population, is considered to be below its
critical threshold (see Table 9 of the PEPD). For the North Fork
Nooksack River population, NMFS concludes that the risk to the
population will remain within acceptable limits as a result of
[[Page 12197]]
the implementation of the RMP, as required by the ESA 4(d) Rule, for a
population below their critical level. However, the ESU, not the
individual populations within the ESU, is the listed entity under the
ESA. Through its evaluation of the RMP, NMFS Northwest Region's
Sustainable Fisheries Division concluded that the RMP would not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget
Sound Chinook Salmon ESU.
Minimum Fishery Regime Comments
Comment 3: The commenter believes that the PEPD introduces factors
that appear to be extra-biological mitigation for various and specific
anticipated risks to the ESU imposed by the RMP, including what appears
to be consideration of the need for a fair distribution of the burden
of conservation. The commenter suggests that the relationship of the
RMP to Canadian and Alaskan fisheries appears to be NMFS' most explicit
attempt in the PEPD to distribute the conservation burden fairly.
Response: As required in section (b)(6)(iii) of the ESA 4(d) rule,
the RMP must adequately address 11 criteria under section (b)(4)(i) in
Limit 4. How the conservation burden was distributed among the various
sections is not one of the 11 criteria used to evaluate the RMP under
the ESA 4(d) rule. However, to provide the reviewer a better
understanding of the RMP, the PEPD did present the co-managers'
perspective on certain aspects of the RMP. From the co-managers'
perspective, the Minimum Fishery Regime proposed in the RMP addresses
conservation concerns ``while still allowing a reasonable harvest of
non-listed salmon'' (page 17 of the RMP). The PEPD (page 5) incorrectly
alludes that it is the co-managers' perspective that the RMP represents
a fair distribution of the burden of conservation. Reference to the co-
manager's perspective that the RMP represents a fair distribution of
the burden of conservation was removed from the ERD. However, NMFS did
not evaluate the co-managers' perspective of the minimum fisheries
regime. NMFS evaluated the effects of the proposed action, in this case
the implementation of Puget Sound fisheries under the abundance and
non-SUS fisheries anticipated in the next five years. In evaluating the
effects of the action, Canadian impacts are considered in the baseline.
Comment 4: The commenter believes that the recognition of tribal
treaty rights would mandate the acceptance of a base level of fisheries
that must always be allowed, under any circumstance. It was of concern
to the commenter that the RMP would propose that there was no
conceivable circumstance potentially faced by the ESU that would
warrant the complete restriction of fishery impacts on an individual
management unit.
Response: NMFS evaluated the RMP based on what is likely to occur
over the next five fishing seasons, May 1, 2005, to April 30, 2010, the
remaining duration of the RMP. To approve the RMP under the ESA 4(d)
rule, NMFS must conclude that the RMP adequately address the criteria
outlined in the ESA 4(d) rule, including the criterion that
implementing the RMP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit in the
wild, over the entire period of time the proposed harvest management
strategy affects the population. Compliance with these criteria does
not necessarily require the most conservative response. In the PEPD,
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 Northwest Region's Sustainable Fisheries
Division concluded that the RMP adequately addressed all the criteria
outlined in the ESA 4(d) rule, including implementation and that
enforcing the RMP would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The
``complete restriction of fishery impacts on an individual management
unit'' was not necessary to meet the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of
the ESA 4(d) rule. If impacts under the implementation of the RMP are
greater than expected, NMFS can withdraw the ESA 4(d) Rule
determination or ask the co-managers to adjust fisheries to reduce
impacts.
In recognition of tribal management authority and the Federal
Government's trust responsibility to the tribes, NMFS is committed to
considering their judgment and expertise regarding the conservation of
trust resources. Consistent with this commitment and as a matter of
policy, NMFS has sought, where there is appropriate tribal management,
to work with tribal managers to provide limited tribal fishery
opportunities, so long as the risk to the population remains within
acceptable limits.
Comment 5: The commenter suggests that the minimum fisheries regime
proposed in the RMP will not result in significant reductions in either
the total exploitation impacts experienced by management units, or the
Southern United States (SUS) or pre-terminal SUS exploitation rates.
The commenter believes that this inadequacy conflicts with the RMP's
characterization of the minimum fisheries regime as ``extraordinary
fisheries conservation measures'' designed to ``minimize'' impacts on
management units from fisheries.
Response: NMFS did not evaluate the RMP's characterization of the
minimum fisheries regime. The anticipated results of implementing the
RMP, not the RMP's characterization of the minimum fisheries regime,
were compared against the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of the ESA
4(d) rule. Compliance with these criteria does not necessarily require
the most conservative response. The RMP proposes implementation of
restrictions to the 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) a rebuilding
exploitation rate; (2) an upper management threshold; (3) a low
abundance threshold; and (4) a critical exploitation rate ceiling
(Table 2 of the PEPD). The co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS,
modeled the anticipated impacts of implementing the RMP, which uses
these four harvest mortality limits in combination to manage the
fisheries. Table 3 of the PEPD provides the anticipated range of
exploitation rates and anticipated escapements for Puget Sound chinook
salmon under the implementation of the RMP. In addition, in the RMP,
the co-managers also presented data that suggest that significant
reductions in the exploitation rate in some systems have not resulted
in substantially higher returns of natural-origin chinook salmon.
Although, this has not been conclusively demonstrated for many
populations, it is suggestive that habitat, not fishery-related
mortality, may be the limiting factor on production in some systems.
Comment 6: The commenter states that the description of the various
SUS exploitation rates is confusing. As an example, the commenter
suggests that a comparison of Table 2 with Table 5 fails to clarify
what, if any, the changes in fishery regimes would occur under the
minimum fishery regime.
Response: For most management units, the RMP's critical
exploitation rate ceiling imposes an upper limit on southern United
States (SUS) exploitation rates when spawning escapement for a
management unit is projected to fall below its low abundance threshold
or if Canadian fisheries make it difficult or impossible to achieve the
RMP's rebuilding
[[Page 12198]]
exploitation rate. The co-managers define ``impossible'' if the
northern fisheries by themselves impose an exploitation rate above the
rebuilding exploitation rate or reduce abundance so that either the
upper management threshold or the low abundance threshold could not be
achieved even with zero SUS fishing. The co-managers define
``difficult'' if, in order to achieve a total exploitation rate less
than the rebuilding exploitation rate, or escapement above the upper
management threshold, SUS fisheries directed at abundant un-listed
chinook and other species would have to be constrained (W. Beattie,
NWIFC, e-mail to K. Schultz, NMFS, August 6, 2004). The RMP provides a
general description of the fisheries that will represent the lowest
level of fishing mortality on listed chinook salmon proposed by the co-
managers. A general description of these minimal fisheries is outlined
in Appendix C: Minimum Fisheries Regime of the RMP. In modeling the
fisheries, instances where the RMP's critical exploitation rate ceiling
was imposed on a management unit can be identified by reviewing the
anticipated escapement or exploitation rates. If the anticipated
escapement was below the RMP's low abundance threshold or if the
exploitation rate was greater than the RMP's rebuilding exploitation
rate, then the modeling exercise imposed the RMP's critical
exploitation rate ceiling. Table 2 in the PEPD are the RMP's management
objectives (rebuilding exploitation rate, upper management threshold,
low abundance thresholds, and the critical exploitation rate ceiling),
by management units and populations. Table 2 in the PEPD shows the
change in the exploitation rate under the RMP's rebuilding exploitation
rate and the exploitation rate under the minimum fishery regime, the
critical exploitation rate ceiling. Table 5 in the PEPD are the most
likely total exploitation rates, southern United States (SUS)
exploitation rates, and escapements within the modeled forecasts under
the implementation of the RMP by Puget Sound chinook salmon management
unit or population. To assist the reader, a column was added to Table 5
of the ERD and to the tables in Appendix A of the ERD that identify the
management units in which the RMP's critical exploitation rate ceiling
for that management unit was implemented during modeling.
Comment 7: The commenter stated that under the RMP's minimum
fishery regime, additional conservation measures on the SUS fisheries
may be considered by the co-managers ``where analysis can demonstrate
that additional conservation measures in fisheries would contribute
substantially to recovery of a management unit ''. The commenter
suggests that the RMP and the PEPD make no attempt to define or
identify what would constitute a ``substantial'' contribution to
recovery.
Response: The co-managers propose that where analysis can
demonstrate that additional conservation measures in fisheries would
contribute substantially to recovery of a management unit, the co-
managers may, at their discretion, and in concert with other specific
habitat and enhancement actions, implement them (see page 34 of the
RMP). The need to define or identify what would constitute a
substantial contribution to recovery is not needed to evaluate the RMP
under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) rule. The co-managers, in cooperation
with NMFS, have modeled the anticipated impacts of the implementation
of the RMP. Appendix A of the PEPD contains the model run results. The
analysis of the anticipated results of implementing the RMP, without
the inclusion of these possible additional conservation measures in
fisheries, was evaluated against the criteria under Limit 6 of the ESA
4(d) rule. If the actual escapement outcome during the next five years
is below that modeled, NMFS will meet with the co-managers to discuss
possible additional management actions the co-managers may take.
Additionally, NMFS may reconsider revoking the ESA 4(d) determination.
However, the co-managers have instituted additional management measures
under low abundance conditions in the past to decrease fishery impacts.
The demonstrated willingness of the co-managers to constrain fisheries
over the past 15 years, without certainty of substantial benefit to the
ESU, gives NMFS some confidence in their future response to a
population with a declining status.
Comment 8: Table 2 of the PEPD summarizes the relationship between
the various management objectives and exploitation rates for each
management unit. The commenter believes that Table 2 is confusing and
potentially misleading. In Table 2, some of the RERs [rebuilding
exploitation rates] are expressed as pre-terminal SUS and SUS rates,
without clearly identifying that the rate does not include impacts from
Canadian and Alaskan Fisheries.
Response: The categorization of the exploitation rates within the
Table 2 of the PEPD is clearly identified as either total, southern
United States (SUS), or pre-terminal southern United States (PT SUS).
Additionally, Footnote 2 of Table 2 of the PEPD reads, in part, as
follows: ``The SUS fishery includes all fisheries south of the border
with Canada that may harvest listed Puget Sound chinook salmon. The SUS
fishery includes both pre-terminal SUS and terminal SUS fisheries. The
co-managers define a pre-terminal fishery as a ``fishery that harvests
significant numbers of fish from more than one region of origin'' (page
65 of the RMP). The co-managers define a terminal fishery as a
``fishery, usually operating in an area adjacent to or in the mouth of
a river, which harvests primarily fish from the local region of origin,
but may include more than one management unit'' (page 65 of the RMP).
The terminal SUS fisheries will vary by management unit and may occur
in freshwater and marine areas.'' A similar description of the
categorization of the exploitation rates can be found within the main
body of the PEPD, on page 7.
Comment 9: The commenter suggested that the RMP's critical
exploitation rate ceilings are ``driven by policy considerations'' and
not by biological (i.e., conservation) considerations. The commenter
believes that these ``policy considerations'' are not described in the
RMP and that their legal basis is not explicitly described, explained,
and/or justified.
Response: Although the RMP's critical exploitation rate ceilings
were primarily based on policy concerns, biological and conservation
considerations were also taken into account by the co-managers in
developing the ceilings. All other harvest mortality limits in the RMP
(rebuilding exploitation rates, upper management thresholds, and low
abundance thresholds) were derived using biological consideration
rather than policy-driven parameters. NMFS compared the proposed RMP's
mortality limits, regardless of their basis, to the NMFS-derived
standards. NMFS' evaluation focused on the effects of implementing the
RMP's mortality limits. The co-managers, in cooperation with NMFS,
modeled the anticipated impacts of implementing the RMP. A description
of the co-managers' policy considerations used to develop the RMP's
critical exploitation rate ceilings was not needed to evaluate the
impacts of the RMP under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) rule. In recognition
of tribal management authority and the Federal Government's trust
responsibility to the tribes, NMFS is committed to considering their
judgment and expertise regarding the conservation of trust resources.
Consistent with this commitment and as a matter of policy, NMFS has
sought, where there is appropriate tribal management, to work
[[Page 12199]]
with tribal managers to provide limited tribal fishery opportunities,
so long as the risk to the population remains within acceptable limits.
Management Objectives and Indicators Comments
Comment 10: The commenter states that the RMP proposes to manage
harvest on the basis of the status of individual populations. The
commenter suggests that the substance of the proposed regime overstates
the extent to which the RMP is supportive of recovery within five
management units: Nooksack, Skagit Summer/Fall chinook, Skagit spring
chinook, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish. The commenter believes that in
none of these four [five] management units is the maximum
(``recovery'') exploitation rate based directly upon an estimate of the
maximum allowable rate sustainable by the weakest component stock. The
commenter believes that this reliance on management unit rates
contradicts the claim by the RMP and the PEPD that the RMP proposes a
harvest management regime in which exploitation rates are restricted by
the weakest component population.
Response: For most management units with multiple populations, the
objectives in the RMP are based on the management for the weakest
component (e.g. see Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profile of the
RMP for the Snohomish Management Unit). In NMFS' evaluation of the RMP,
the management unit's anticipated exploitation rate was applied to all
populations within that management unit. When available, the
anticipated exploitation rates on individual populations were compared
to the corresponding population-specific NMFS-derived rebuilding
exploitation rates. NMFS also derived a rebuilding exploitation rate
for the Nooksack Management Unit, which contains two populations,
because data was insufficient to develop a population-specific
rebuilding exploitation rates. In this case, the anticipated
exploitation rates for the Nooksack Management Unit were compared to
the corresponding management unit-specific NMFS-derived rebuilding
exploitation rate. Additionally, the anticipated population-specific
escapements were compared to NMFS-derived critical and viable
thresholds or to the generic guidance provided by the Viable Salmonid
Populations document (VSP) (NMFS 2000b as cited in the PEPD). This
approach evaluates the anticipated impacts of the RMP on weakest
component population within each management unit. Results showed that
the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates for the weakest
population within a given management units were generally met and often
below the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates. However, it also
needs to be noted that although populations contribute fundamentally to
the structure and diversity of the ESU, it is the ESU, not an
individual population, which is the listed entity under the ESA.
Recovery Exploitation Rates Comments
Comment 11: The commenter stated that the PEPD inappropriately
references the draft risk assessment procedure (RAP) document of May
30, 2000. The commenter suggested that the method described in this
citation was superceded by a method described in a document titled
``Viable Risk Assessment Procedure''. The commenter indicated that the
latter document employed a harvest model more suitable for population
viability modeling needed to assess harvest impacts on listed salmon
populations.
Response: The method outlined in NMFS' document titled ``A risk
assessment procedure for evaluating harvest mortality of Pacific
salmonids,'' dated May 30, 2000, is commonly referred to as the RAP
model. Subsequent updates and improvements to the original RAP model
resulted in the current model, known as the Viable Risk Assessment
Procedure (VRAP) model. The VRAP model is what NMFS used to derive the
rebuilding exploitation rates to evaluate the RMP. Unlike the RAP
model, the VRAP model lacks complete documentation. However, the method
used by NMFS to derive the rebuilding exploitation rates using the VRAP
model are accurately described in NMFS' RAP document, as cited in the
PEPD. The ERD was modified to make this clearer to the reader.
Comment 12: The commenter challenges the PEPD's assertion that
harvest at or below NMFS-derived RERs ``will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of rebuilding that population, assuming current
environmental conditions based on specific risk criteria''. The
commenter suggests that no details are provided by NMFS regarding
assumptions and calculations in support of this finding. Consequently,
the commenter believes that it is impossible for the reviewer to know
what ``specific risk criteria'' were employed, and to thereby judge the
appropriateness of NMFS' finding.
Response: As stated on page 25 in the PEPD, NMFS-derived rebuilding
exploitation rates were developed by using a simulation model to
identify an exploitation rate for an individual population that meets
specific criteria related to both survival and recovery, given the
specified thresholds and estimated spawner/recruit parameters. The
simulation used the population-specific threshold levels to identify an
exploitation rate that met the following criteria: (a) the percentage
of escapements less than the critical threshold value increase by less
than five percentage points relative to no fishing, and either (b) the
escapement at the end of the 25-year simulation exceeded the viable
threshold at least 80 percent of the time or (c) the percentage of
escapements less than the viable escapement threshold at the end of the
25-year simulation differed from the no-fishing baseline by less than
10 percentage points. The PEPD references Appendix C: Technical Methods
- Derivation of Chinook Management Objectives and Fishery Impact
Modeling Methods of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on
the proposed determination for a detailed explanation of rebuilding
exploitation rate derivation. The PEPD also references NMFS' RAP
modeling document, cited as NMFS 2000a, for additional information on
how NMFS derived these rebuilding exploitation rates. Information
provided in the PEPD, along with the information included and available
by reference, provides the reviewer the information necessary to
ability to evaluate NMFS' risk criteria.
Upper Management Thresholds Comments
Comment 13: The commenter suggests that there is little real data
available to the co-managers or NMFS on which to base firm, robust
estimates of the current carrying capacity. The commenter stated that
any estimate of a critical management threshold such as the maximum
sustainable harvest (MSH) escapement level will inevitably be extremely
uncertain. The commenter believes that it is extremely risky to employ
such an uncertain point estimate as a management target, without at
least acknowledging the uncertainty, which in practical terms should
mean adjusting the target in a conservative direction relative to the
risks associated with the uncertainty. The commenter believes that the
PEPD fails to raise or discuss any critical considerations of these
kinds about the approach taken by the RMP for estimating these
escapement reference points and employing them in the proposed harvest
management regime.
Response: In the PEPD, NMFS used the best estimate of the level of
[[Page 12200]]
escapement that produces maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of the system.
This level of escapement was referred to as the viable threshold in the
evaluation. NMFS completed a comprehensive analysis to derive viable
thresholds for a subset of Puget Sound chinook salmon populations
(Table 8 of the PEPD). These viable thresholds are based on a spawner-
recruit analysis of historical catch and escapement data and include
environmental variants. NMFS used these viable thresholds to determine
the NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates. The NMFS-derived
rebuilding exploitation rates were set so that escapement would meet or
exceed the viable threshold at least 80 percent of the time at the end
of 25 years. By using at least 80 percent, one would on average obtain
an escapement level greater than the MSY. During this fishery impact
simulation modeling, NMFS assumed low marine survival rates for the
salmon populations, which is conservative and risk adverse.
Additionally, the RMP's rebuilding exploitation rates or escapement
goals may be modified in response to the most current information about
the productivity and status of populations, or in response to better
information about management error. There is also uncertainty in the
risk analysis simulation about actual exploitation rates beyond the
duration of the RMP. The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates are
based on simulations over a more conservative 25-year period, whereas
the RMP's duration is for a much shorter duration. In other words, NMFS
compared the RMP to NMFS' standards which were developed on simulations
assuming fish would be harvested at a given rate over a 25-year period.
NMFS' approach in evaluating the RMP is conservative and considers the
uncertainty of the data and simulation outcomes.
Comment 14: The commenter suggests that the impact of past (over-)
harvest on aggregate stocks (management units) is not taken into
consideration in the estimation of stock-recruitment relationships.
Response: Development of data with which to manage Puget Sound
chinook salmon has been an ongoing effort. Work towards a comprehensive
approach to Puget Sound salmon harvest began in the late 1980s. A
comprehensive chinook salmon management plan was implemented initially
in 1997 by the co-managers. Revisions to the management framework have
been made in subsequent years as new information became available.
Subsequent Puget Sound chinook salmon escapements indicate that the
reduced exploitation rates and other harvest management actions
resulting from the implementation of these harvest plans have
contributed to the stabilization and increase in Puget Sound chinook
salmon escapement. The RMP has replaced the old escapement goals with
rebuilding exploitation rates for several management units, and updated
the escapement goals for others. However, the role of past harvest in
current condition of the resource is not the primary consideration of
the PEPD. The focus of the NMFS' evaluation is whether implementing and
enforcing the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
ESU over a range of possible abundance and fishing conditions
anticipated in the next five years. In the PEPD, NMFS evaluated the
RMP's response to low abundance and concluded that implementing and
enforcing the RMP would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU.
Comment 15: The commenter states that the RMP establishes upper
management thresholds for populations or management units using methods
such as ``standard spawner-recruit calculations , empirical
observations of relative escapement levels and catches, or Monte Carlo
simulations that buffer for error and variability ''. The commenter
suggests that the RMP's harvest thresholds, derived through these
simulations, are not appropriately risk-averse.
Response: The co-managers' method in establishing the RMP's upper
management thresholds is risk-averse by acknowledging and attempting to
account for known uncertainties. Many of the RMP's upper management
thresholds were derived where sufficient data was available to use the
classic spawner-recruit functions, augmented by incorporating
environmental covariates. In addition, the spawner-recruit functions
are fit by applying deviates from predicted calendar year escapements
to observed escapements rather than the deviates of the estimated
returns to predicted returns. Additionally, in the PEPD, NMFS compared
the RMP's upper management thresholds to the NMFS-derived or VSP-
derived viable thresholds and found that they were similarly
conservative and risk-averse.
Comment 16: The commenter believes that the NMFS should not accept
a 20-percent probability of not attaining a viable threshold within
four to eight chinook generations.
Response: The NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates were set
to result in attainment of the viable threshold in at least 80 percent
of the simulation runs by the end of 25 years (see response to Comment
13). NMFS' use of 25 years is conservative, as four to eight
generations (number of generations in 25 years) is not a very long time
to expect a population to respond to a change. Additionally, by using
at least 80-percent as a condition, one would on average obtain an
escapement level greater than this floor. NMFS' use of an 80 percent
chance of achieving the viable threshold is reasonable. This approach
is conservative considering uncertainty of the data and simulations.
Comment 17: The commenter believes that inability to detect a
difference between harvest and no harvest regimes should not suffice as
a justification for harvesting [declining] stocks.
Response: One of the criteria that must be adequately addressed to
approve the RMP under the ESA 4(d) rule is that NMFS must conclude that
implementing the RMP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (emphasis
added). In its evaluation, NMFS estimated the impacts on the
populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU under a no-
harvest regime and compares those results to the impacts associated
with implementing the RMP. This comparison is necessary to assess
whether or not implementation of the RMP will appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of affected threatened ESU than if
the action did not occur. NMFS-derived rebuilding exploitation rates
were developed by using a simulation model to identify an exploitation
rate for an individual population that meets specific criteria related
to both survival and recovery, given the specified thresholds and
estimated spawner/recruit parameters. The simulation used the
population-specific threshold levels to identify an exploitation rate
that met certain conditions (see response to Comment 12). One of those
conditions is whether the percentage of escapements less than the
critical threshold value increase by less than five percentage points
relative to the baseline. The baseline assumes no salmon fisheries.
This approach recognizes that a population may improve or decline
irrespective of the proposed action being evaluated. In situations
where freshwater or estuarine survival is severely compromised by
degraded habitat, even the total elimination of the harvest may not
[[Page 12201]]
improve the population's productivity or status. If the risk assessment
concludes that the percentage probability of escapements falling below
the critical threshold will increase by less than five percentage
points relative to the baseline, then it is reasonable to conclude that
implementing the RMP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The focus of NMFS'
evaluation is on whether the difference is appreciable between the
impacts associated with the implementation of the RMP and those that
would still occur under the baseline.
Comment 18: The commenter believes that the PEPD relies upon
questionable and controversial estimates of current habitat capacity to
justify estimates of upper management thresholds.
Response: NMFS uses the best data available and continues to
encourage the co-managers to improve and expand their data collection.
Habitat capacity estimation is accomplished using several methods, and
comparisons between results from the different methods are made to help
evaluate the RMP. See response to Comment 19.
Comment 19: The commenter suggests that the PEPD relies on
Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) modeling estimates of spawner-
recruit functions to argue that ``further harvest constraint will not,
by itself, effect an increase above the asymptote associated with
current productivity, until habitat conditions improve.'' The commenter
believes that the EDT model has received very critical reviews from the
Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel and from the Columbia Basin
Independent Science Advisory Panel.
Response: Calculating a rebuilding exploitation rate ideally
requires knowledge of a spawner-recruit relationship based on
escapement, age composition, coded-wire tag distribution, environmental
parameters, and management error. These types of data are available for
several management units (Table 8 of the PEPD). For populations with
insufficient data to develop a spawner-recruit relationship, generic
guidance from the VSP paper or, when available, analyses of habitat
capacity (such as the EDT methodology) have been used to assist NMFS in
evaluating the RMP's proposed thresholds. NMFS uses the best scientific
data available in this evaluation. Habitat capacity is difficult to
measure and estimation is now accomplished by several different
methods. NMFS acknowledge that all models have strengths and
weaknesses. NMFS has made appropriate comparisons of the models and
their outputs to help evaluate the RMP's upper management thresholds.
Low Abundance Thresholds Comments
Comment 20: The commenter states that the RMP defines a low
abundance threshold as ``a spawning escapement level, set intentionally
above the point of biological instability, which triggers extraordinary
fisheries conservation measures'' to minimize fishery related impacts
and increase spawning escapement. The commenter believes that the RMP's
claim that the low abundance thresholds are set above the point of
biological instability is misleading.
Response: As required in section (b)(6)(iii) of the ESA 4(d) rule,
the RMP must adequately address eleven criteria under section (b)(4)(i)
in Limit 4. The analysis of the anticipated results of implementing the
RMP, not the RMP's characterization, was compared against the criteria
defined under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) rule (see response to Comment 5).
After taking into account uncertainty, the critical threshold is
defined as a point under current conditions below which: (1)
depensatory processes are likely to reduce the population below
replacement; (2) the population is at risk from inbreeding depression
or fixation of deleterious mutations; or (3) productivity variation due
to demographic stochasticity becomes a substantial source of risk (see
page 15 of NMFS 2000b as cited in the PEPD). NMFS-derived critical
thresholds ranged from 200 to 1,650 fish. These critical thresholds may
be revised as additional information becomes available on how an
individual population responds to low abundance. NMFS finds that the
RMP's low abundance thresholds are generally set at or above what are
considered to be critical thresholds (point of biological instability)
for the chinook populations based on a survey of the literature and
population-specific assessments. However, NMFS recognizes these
thresholds are likely to vary over time as habitat conditions change.
Comment 21: The commenter believes that the SUS exploitation rates
will generally increase when the minimum fishery regime (equating to
the RMP's critical exploitation rate ceiling) is triggered. This might
occur under circumstances when total abundances are low enough that
escapements are projected to be below a population or management unit's
low abundance threshold. This outcome is relative to the circumstance
when the regime is triggered due to the total RER being exceeded even
though escapements are expected to be above the low abundance
threshold.
Response: For most management units, the RMP's critical
exploitation rate ceiling imposes an upper limit on SUS exploitation
rates when spawning escapement for a management unit is projected to
fall below its low abundance threshold or if Canadian fisheries make it
difficult or impossible to achieve the RMP's rebuilding exploitation
rate. Modeling exercises by the co-managers demonstrate the potential
for imposing the RMP's critical exploitation rate ceiling for several
management units for the duration of the RMP (see response to Comment
6). The proposed critical exploitation rates are ceilings that are not
to be exceeded. The commenter suggests the SUS exploitation rates will
be increased to meet the ceiling when the RMP's critical exploitation
rate ceiling is imposed. This is not NMFS' understanding of the co-
managers' plans for implementing the RMP, nor was this outcome used as
an assumption in how the fisheries were modeled. During modeling, if
the SUS fisheries' impacts were already below the RMP's critical
exploitation rate ceiling, the co-managers in modeling future fisheries
did not increase the impacts of the SUS fisheries to reach this
ceiling. If impacts under the implementation of the RMP are greater
than expected, NMFS can withdraw the ESA 4(d) rule determination or ask
the co-managers to adjust the fisheries' impacts.
Comment 22: The biological importance of the low abundance
thresholds was also of concern to the commenter. The commenter
suggested that neither the RMP nor the PEPD clearly define the ``point
of biological instability'' (critical threshold) or provide a clear
quantitative explanation of how the proposed low abundance threshold
levels are determined. The commenter further suggested that the PEPD
does not provide any evidence that the RMP's low abundance thresholds
are set far enough above putative points of biological instability to
provide a precautionary and properly risk-averse margin of safety when
they are crossed from above.
Response: See response to Comment 20.
Comment 23: The commenter stated that the RMP defines the point of
instability as ``that level of abundance (i.e., spawning escapement)
that incurs substantial risk to genetic integrity, or exposes the
population to depensatory mortality factors.'' The commenter believes
that with other critical terms employed in the RMP and the PEPD, no
[[Page 12202]]
explanation is provided or even attempted regarding what is meant by a
``substantial'' risk or how such a level of risk is determined.
Response: NMFS did not evaluate the RMP's definition of the point
of instability. NMFS' evaluation focused on the effects of implementing
the RMP's mortality limits, regardless of their basis. In the PEPD,
NMFS compared the RMP's low abundance thresholds against NMFS-derived
or VSP-derived critical thresholds threshold (see response to Comment
20 for NMFS' definition of a critical threshold). The co-managers'
basis in the development of the RMP's low abundance thresholds was not
needed to make this comparison. In the PEPD, NMFS concludes that the
RMP's low abundance thresholds are generally set at or above what are
defined as, or considered to be, the critical thresholds.
Critical Exploitation Rate Ceiling Comments
Comment 24: The commenter expressed concern that the application of
an exploitation-rate ceiling in response to crossing a critical-
abundance threshold from above would be based on policy objectives
rather than biological considerations.
Response: See responses to Comments 9 and 21.
Comment 25: The commenter expressed concern about an apparent
disconnect between the descriptions of the Critical ER (exploitation
rate) Ceilings and their apparent actual effects on impact rates. The
commenter suggested that no discussion is offered in the PEPD on how a
minimally acceptable level of access was determined, who determined it,
or why.
Response: The RMP does include discussion on how a minimally
acceptable level of access was determined. See responses to Comments 5
and 21.
Comment 26: The commenter suggested that the association of the
Critical ER Ceilings with RERs and the low abundance thresholds creates
the implication of a two-tiered harvest regime for each MU (management
unit), with separate impact-rate schedules above and below the
thresholds. However, there is little indication that the provisions of
the RMP would necessarily affect any significant difference in overall
impacts on an MU, no matter what level of abundance it reaches, or
whether or not Critical ER Ceilings are imposed.
Response: See response to Comment 5 and 21.
Other Issues of Concern Comments
Comment 27: The commenter believes that the range of variability in
chinook salmon productivity is not fully considered. The commenter
suggests that the PEPD uncritically accepts the likely range of
abundances of adult chinook returns under the six-year RMP
implementation period chosen by the co-managers for their modeling of
the impacts of implementing the RMP. The commenter believes that the
PEPD fails to require that the co-managers adopt more risk-averse
modeling assumptions in estimating the likely impacts on listed chinook
of the implementation of the RMP.
Response: As mentioned earlier, Table 3 of the PEPD provides the
anticipated range of exploitation rates and anticipated escapements for
Puget Sound chinook salmon under the implementation of the RMP. Two
variables were used in the modeling of the future fisheries to provide
these anticipated ranges of exploitation rates and anticipated
escapements. These modeling variables were abundance of returning
salmon and impacts associated with the level of Canadian fisheries. The
range of abundance was chosen by NMFS in consultation with the co-
managers and based on an examination of abundance and survival
conditions in past years. The modeled salmon abundance in 2003 was used
to estimate the upper end of the annual abundance returns under the
implementation of the RMP. A 30-percent reduction in the 2003 abundance
was used to represent the lower range of modeled returns. This range of
modeled abundance is similar to the variation in observed abundance for
the ESU over the last fourteen years. However, this range is considered
conservative given the increasing escapement trend in recent years.
Given the general trend of stable to increasing abundance, it is likely
that if the actual abundance in the next five years falls outside this
range, the actual abundance would most likely be greater. Under the
implementation of the RMP, it is unclear if Canadian conservation
actions will continue or if impacts will increase to maximum levels
allowed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. In modeling the Canadian
fisheries, the impacts similar to fisheries in 2003 were used to
represent the lower range of anticipated impacts. Maximum harvest
levels allowed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty were modeled to
represent the upper range of impacts associated with Canadian
fisheries. Fisheries can not go above this level under the terms of the
Pacific Salmon Treaty. The evaluation used the modeling based on the
maximum harvest levels under the Pacific Salmon Treaty as the most
likely to occur within this range. Canadian impacts, under the
agreement of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, may not be greater than the
level assumed as the most likely to occur.
Comment 28: The commenter believes negative impacts of hatchery
chinook salmon on natural-origin chinook salmon are ignored,
misinterpreted, or inappropriately accepted. The commenter expressed
that the Kendall Creek Hatchery is currently operating without ESA take
authorization. The commenter suggests that the PEPD's assertions that
the Kendall Creek hatchery population ``retains the genetic
characteristics of the wild population,'' or that hatchery production
at Kendall Creek ``buffers genetic and demographic risks'' to wild
North Folk (NF) Nooksack River chinook salmon are precisely the
assertions that NMFS has yet to make any determination over.
Response: In its recent proposed revision of the Puget Sound
chinook salmon ESA listing, NMFS has proposed that the Kendal Creek
Hatchery population be determined to be part of the Puget Sound Chinook
Salmon ESU 69 Fed. Reg. 33102, 33129 (June 14, 2004). NMFS has proposed
the Kendall Creek Hatchery chinook population conservation-directed
program may provide substantial benefits to VSP parameters for the
North Fork Nooksack River spring chinook salmon population (see section
6.2.1 of the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report,
An Evaluation of the Effects of Artificial Propagation on the Status
and Likelihood of Extinction of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead Under
the Federal Endangered Species Act, as posted on the NMFS, NWR's web-
site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1srd/Prop_Determins/Inv_Effects_Rpt/6_PSoundChinook.pdf, as accessed on December 15, 2004). The North
Fork Nooksack River spring chinook salmon population is a unique
population that will likely be considered important for recovery of the
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU to a viable level. The program likely
benefits the abundance, diversity, and spatial structure of the North
Fork Nooksack River population. NMFS and the co-managers recognize that
the Kendall Creek hatchery-origin fish spawning in the South Fork
Nooksack River are a risk, not a benefit to the South Fork Nooksack
River population. This was one of the reasons that the co-managers
reduced the Kendall Creek early chinook salmon hatchery production by
50 percent in
[[Page 12203]]
2003 (W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to K. Schultz, NMFS, August 6, 2004).
However, the Kendall Creek Hatchery, and the other chinook hatchery
programs in Puget Sound are currently under review by NMFS for our
evaluation and determination under limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) rule.
Therefore, this finding regarding the Kendall Creek Hatchery chinook
population is considered preliminary. The ERD was modified to reflect
that the Puget Sound hatchery programs are being reviewed by a separate
Limit 6 determination of the ESA 4(d) rule.
Comment 29: The commenter believes that the RMP lacks clarity in
describing how it recognizes ``Viable'' and ``Critical'' concepts.
Response: See response to Comment 20 for NMFS' definition of a
critical threshold, which is consistent with the VSP paper for a
critical threshold. The regulations in the ESA 4(d) Rule require that
the RMP must use the concepts of ``viable'' and ``critical'' thresholds
in a manner so that fishery management actions; (1) recognize
significant differences in risk associated with viable and critical
population threshold states, and (2) respond accordingly to minimize
long-term risks to population persistence. The RMP defines its own
upper management and low abundance thresholds, but these are readily
comparable to the NMFS-derived or VSP-derived viable and critical
thresholds. The ESA 4(d) rule also requires that harvest actions that
impact populations that are currently at or above their viable
thresholds must maintain the population or management unit at or above
that level. Fishing-related mortality on populations above critical
levels but not at viable levels (as demonstrated with a high degree of
confidence) must not appreciably slow rebuilding to viable function.
Fishing-related mortality to populations functioning at or below their
critical thresholds must not appreciably increase genetic and
demographic risks facing the population and must be designed to permit
achievement of viable functions, unless the RMP demonstrates the
likelihood of survival and recovery of the entire ESU in the wild would
not be appreciably reduced by greater risks to an individual
population. Table 9 in the PEPD is the post-listing threshold
classification and escapement trend since listing for Puget Sound
chinook salmon populations. In the PEPD, NMFS found the RMP was
responsive to the populations' status, when compared to the critical or
viable thresholds, as required by the ESA 4(d) rule.
Comment 30: The commenter believes that there is a lack of
consistency between the PEPD and RMP. The commenter received and
reviewed information from WDFW regarding the co-managers' 2004 fishing
plan, outlining model predictions of expected impacts and escapements
for all management units. The commenter suggested that several of the
exploitation-rate and escapement predictions fall well outside the
range of likely impacts and escapements described in Table 3 of the
PEPD.
Response: NMFS, in cooperation with the co-managers, have modeled
the anticipated impacts of the implementation of the RMP. 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. In recent years, the post-season assessment
has generally shown that estimated exploitation rates are lower than
pre-season projections, with the escapement often higher than predicted
pre-season (W. Beattie, NWIFC, e-mail to K. Schultz, NMFS, August 6,
2004). If impacts under the implementation of the RMP are greater than
expected, NMFS can withdraw the ESA 4(d) rule determination or ask the
co-managers to adjust fisheries to reduce impacts. Generally, the 2004
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 (see response to
Comment 27).
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES), or through the documents available on the
Sustainable Fisheries web site (see Electronic Access, under the
heading SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Authority
Under section 4 of the ESA, NMFS, by delegated authority from the
Secretary, 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)
specifies categories of activities that are adequately regulated to
provide for the conservation of listed 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 by the State of
Washington and the Tribes and determined by NMFS to be in accordance
with the salmon and steelhead 4 (d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000).
Dated: March 4, 2005.
Maria Boroja,
Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected
Resources,National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-4839 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S