[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31600-31603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14770]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[I.D. 052301C]


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), 
provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the 
Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes (Co-managers) for harvest of Hood Canal 
and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon pursuant to the 
protective regulations promulgated for Hood Canal summer-run chum 
salmon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The RMP (the harvest 
component of the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative - An 
Implementation Plan to Recover Summer Chum Salmon in the Hood Canal and 
Strait of Juan de Fuca Region [SCSCI]) specifies the future management 
of commercial, recreational, and tribal salmon fisheries that 
potentially affect listed Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon.
    This document serves to notify the public that NMFS, by delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Commerce, has determined that 
implementing and enforcing the RMP will not appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of survival and recovery of the Hood Canal summer-run chum 
salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). This document also 
includes a summary of the underlying biological analysis used in the 
determination (Evaluation).

DATES:  The final determination on the take limit was made on April 27, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: Sustainable Fisheries Division, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, Washington 98115-0070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Keith Schultz at: 206/526-4447, or e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d0608041905431e0e05180119172d03020c0c430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1aaa4a8b5a9efb2a2a9b4adb5bb81afaea0a0efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a> regarding the RMP.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This notice is relevant to the Hood Canal 
Summer-Run Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) ESU.

Electronic Access

    The full texts of NMFS' determination, and the final Evaluation are 
available on the Internet at the NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division 
wed site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/limit6/index.html.
    The Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative - An Implementation 
Plan to Recover Summer Chum Salmon in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan 
de Fuca Region is available on the Internet at the State of Washington, 
Department of Fish and Wildlife web site: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/chum/chum.htm.

Background

    The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-
Point Treaty Tribes provided NMFS a jointly developed RMP for Hood 
Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon. The RMP 
encompasses Washington Coastal and Puget Sound salmon fisheries 
affecting the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU. Harvest objectives 
specified in the RMP account for fisheries-related mortality throughout 
the migratory range of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer 
chum salmon, from Northern British Columbia, Canada to South Puget 
Sound. The RMP also includes implementation, monitoring and evaluation 
procedures designed to ensure fisheries are consistent with these 
objectives.
    On March 13, 2001, at 66 FR 14551, NMFS published a notice of 
availability for public review and comment on its evaluation of how the 
Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon RMP addressed the criteria in 
Sec. 223.203(b)(4) of the ESA 4(d) rule (65 FR 42477).
    As required by Sec. 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 Hood Canal summer-run 
chum salmon would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and 
recovery of the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon ESU and other 
affected threatened ESUs. NMFS must take comments on how the RMP 
addresses

[[Page 31601]]

the criteria in Sec. 223.203(b)(4) in making that determination.

Discussion of the Biological Analysis Underlying the Determination

    The RMP establishes a harvest regime referred to as the Base 
Conservation Regime (BCR). Under the BCR, summer chum salmon are caught 
incidentally in fisheries targeting other, more abundant and healthy 
populations. Most of these fisheries require the catch-and-release of 
summer chum salmon. The RMP's management actions affect all salmon 
fisheries which impact listed Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, 
including Canadian salmon fisheries.
    The BCR is comprised of the following elements: (1) A base set of 
fishery-specific management actions for fisheries in U.S. and Canadian 
pre-terminal, Washington terminal and Washington extreme terminal 
areas; (2) Management unit and population abundance and escapement 
critical thresholds that trigger review of and possible adjustment of 
the management actions; (3) Expected fishery specific exploitation rate 
targets and ranges based on the application of the BCR on the Hood 
Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon management units; 
and (4) Overall management performance standards based on natural 
production against which to assess success of the Summer Chum Salmon 
Conservation Initiative and the harvest strategy, and make necessary 
adjustments. The actions required depend both on the status of the 
management unit and the populations within them, with the most 
conservative controls prevailing.
    In any given year, the results of these management actions are 
designed to produce exploitation rates within the range of 3.3 to 15.3 
percent on summer chum salmon bound for the Hood Canal and 2.8 to 11.8 
percent on the Strait of Juan de Fuca populations. It is NMFS's 
determination that exploitation rates within these ranges, with the 
average annual exploitation rate near the mid-point, will not 
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU 
in the wild. Although in any one year, fisheries may be managed for 
exploitation rates lower than this range, the upper end of the 
exploitation rate ranges may not be exceeded. If post-season analysis 
indicates that the range has been exceeded, the RMP requires Co-
managers to take the necessary actions to identify the reasons for 
exceeding the ranges and to minimize this occurring the following year. 
At the time of the five-year plan review, the annual exploitation rates 
for the previous five-year period are not to be clustered towards 
either extreme of the range. The expected average annual exploitation 
rate is 10.9 percent on summer chum salmon bound for the Hood Canal and 
8.8 percent on the Strait of Juan de Fuca populations. As stated 
previously, it is NMFS' determination that the exploitation rates 
proposed in the RMP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of 
survival and recovery of the ESU in the wild.
    The BCR will remain in place until such time as the Co-managers 
incorporate the population recovery goals into the management 
structure. At that time, the Co-managers will discuss with NMFS what 
terms of the existing plan will continue.
    The RMP includes a monitoring and evaluation plan to assess 
fishing-related impacts to Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, the 
abundance of naturally spawning fish for each of the identified 
management units, the effectiveness of the fishing regimes and general 
approach, and regulatory compliance. The RMP also requires a progress 
report to be completed annually, with a more comprehensive plan review 
every five years. This information will be used by NMFS and the Co-
managers annually to assess whether impacts to listed fish are as 
expected, and to revise the RMP as necessary.
    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 Recommended Determination

    NMFS published notice of its proposed evaluation and recommended 
determination on the RMP for public review and comment on March 13, 
2001 (66 FR 14551). The public comment period closed on March 30, 2001. 
NMFS received comments from one representative of an organization 
concerning this notice. NMFS has reviewed comments received by the 
closing date and no issues were raised which required modifying the 
proposed evaluation and recommended determination. Based on its 
evaluation and taking into account the public comments, NMFS issued 
(April 27, 2001) its final determination on the Hood Canal summer-run 
chum salmon RMP.
    Those comments related to NMFS' proposed evaluation and recommended 
determination (Evaluation) are summarized here.
    The March 13, 2001, Federal Register Notice (66 FR 14551) requested 
comments concerning NMFS' proposed evaluation and recommended 
determination of the RMP (harvest component of the SCSCI). Issues 
raised by the commenter that related directly to the RMP or addressed 
the habitat or hatchery components of the Summer Chum Salmon 
Conservation Initiative required no response because this was not the 
subject of NMFS' evaluation. The comments received were organized into 
five general categories; Critical Thresholds; Abundance and Escapement; 
Monitoring; Supplementation; and Population Growth Rate. NMFS' response 
to comments followed this same structure.

1. Critical Thresholds

    Comment: The commenter suggested that the critical thresholds 
established by the RMP are too low. The commenter argued that 
increasing the critical thresholds would increase straying to areas 
where stocks are now extinct, introduce more salmon carcasses 
(nutrients) into the systems and compensate for catastrophic events.
    Response: The RMP established critical thresholds for the five 
management units. The critical thresholds are based on the lowest 
abundance observed from 1974 to 1998 which produced a positive observed 
return (number of spawners was greater than the number of parents), 
plus a buffer of 25 percent of the difference between the highest and 
lowest observed abundances. The buffer was added to take into account 
management and forecast uncertainties, and environmental variation. 
NMFS' (2000a) Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) document describes four 
key parameters for evaluating the status of salmonid populations. These 
parameters are: (1) population size (abundance); (2) population growth 
rate (productivity); (3) spatial structure; and (4) diversity. These 
parameters include the issues raised by the commenter. Section 4(I)(B) 
of the proposed determination document addressed adequately each of the 
VSP parameters for the Hood Canal summer chum salmon population. The 
critical thresholds were derived prior to the availability of the paper 
on VSP, but meet or exceed the guidelines, and are generally 
conservative when compared to the size of the populations historically 
(NMFS 2000b).

2. Abundance and Escapement

    Comment: NMFS received three comments under this category. One 
addressed the RMP directly (the level of terminal versus pre-terminal 
harvest)

[[Page 31602]]

and required no response because this was not the subject of NMFS's 
evaluation. One comment addressed the need for increased abundance and 
escapement to encourage natural straying into adjacent streams. 
Supplementation and reintroduction approach are described in the 
Artificial Production section of the SCSCI and was not part of the 
review of this RMP (the harvest component of the SCSCI). This issue was 
also addressed adequately in the critical threshold discussion in the 
response to the previous comment and in the proposed evaluation and 
recommended determination document (dated March 13, 2001) in the VSP 
parameters analysis. The last comment under this category was the 
commenter's comment that the criteria for ``renewing'' harvest should 
be that the average abundance must be higher than the critical 
threshold for at least three life cycles (the commenter suggested nine 
years).
    Response: The RMP establishes an annual harvest regime (called the 
Base Conservation Regime) for Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca 
terminal and Washington pre-terminal salmon fisheries. The harvest 
management strategy during this regime is designed to minimize 
incidental take of listed Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, while 
providing opportunity for fisheries directed at other species. Very 
specific fishing restrictions are outlined in the RMP. These 
restrictions include closure of all summer chum salmon directed 
fisheries, delayed or truncated fishery openings for other salmonid 
species, chum salmon non-retention in fisheries directed at other 
species, and area closures around freshwater spawning tributaries. All 
state and tribal fisheries will operate in compliance with the Base 
Conservation Regime (BCR), and with any modifications made in response 
to the critical status for one or more management units or populations. 
The BCR will remain in place until such time as the Co-managers 
(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point 
Treaty Tribes) incorporate the population recovery goals into the 
management structure. It is anticipated that the BCR will be in place 
for the foreseeable future. However, as an implementation term, Co-
managers will provide NMFS with an assessment report on the anticipated 
impacts associated with any new harvest regime (including direct take) 
on the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon ESU. The Co-managers and NMFS 
will meet and discuss the results of the anticipated impacts of any new 
harvest regime prior to implementation. At that time, NMFS will 
determine if the new harvest regime is consistent with Limit 6 of the 
ESA 4(d) Rule.

3. Monitoring

    Comment: The commenter suggested that the use of exploitation rate 
is not an adequate method to assess the ``run health.''
    Response: The RMP uses several population-specific, performance 
indicators to assess the effectiveness of the RMP. The performance 
indicators include: abundance, productivity, escapement, and management 
actions. The combined status of all these indicators are used to 
determine ``run health''. These indicators are explained in more detail 
in the RMP and in the proposed evaluation and recommended determination 
document. Performance indicators also include indicators for monitoring 
the fisheries. The primary monitoring indicator is the estimates of 
exploitation rates obtained from the fisheries. Secondary fishery 
indicators include catch and catch rate, fishing effort, non-landed 
fishing-related mortality, and catch and escapement composition (size, 
age, mark rates, etc.).
    Comment: The commenter suggested that the abundance numbers used in 
the RMP cannot be validated.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that there are data gaps in the summer 
chum salmon escapement and harvest information. However, the RMP and 
NMFS' evaluation used the best available scientific information. 
Currently, over 90 percent of the spawning grounds are surveyed. Catch 
is estimated by intensively sub-sampling a proportion of the harvest. 
More importantly, an exploitation rate approach is more resilient to 
data uncertainty and environmental variability than a fixed goal 
approach.
    Comment: The commenter's suggested the elimination of gill nets as 
a gear type.
    Response: This comment is directed at the RMP and not NMFS' 
proposed evaluation and recommended determination. No response was 
necessary.
    Comment: The final comment in this category addressed the 
commenter's concern over the commitment of the Co-managers to conduct 
the required monitoring.
    Response: The Co-managers have designed the BCR management actions 
to provide sufficient protection for summer-run chum populations at the 
current levels of monitoring. The Co-managers have committed to 
maintaining the core elements of the monitoring programs, while 
recognizing that additional monitoring activities are important and are 
actively seeking funds to support them. However, as an implementation 
term, NMFS required all sampling, monitoring, assessment, evaluation, 
enforcement and reporting tasks or assignments related to harvest 
management in the RMP be conducted by the Co-managers as required in 
the RMP. The RMP requires the Co-managers to maintain fishery sampling 
at 1998 levels or above. The RMP also calls for specific and integrated 
monitoring programs to maintain and improve population assessment 
methodologies as well as evaluating the effectiveness of harvest 
management actions and objectives.

4. Supplementation

    All comments received under this category addressed hatchery 
operations (supplementation) and fall outside the harvest component of 
the SCSCI (the RMP). No response was necessary.

5. Population Growth Rate

    Comment: Two of the three comments received under this category 
addressed the RMP or hatchery operations and not NMFS' proposed 
evaluation and recommended determination of the harvest component of 
the SCSCI (the RMP). No response was necessary. The commenter also 
suggested that the proposed average exploitation rates could be reduced 
further by selective fishing methods.
    Response: Selective fishing is a key aspect of the RMP. During the 
BCR, no direct take of Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon is allowed. 
Summer chum salmon are caught incidentally in fisheries targeting other 
abundant and healthy populations. Most of these fisheries require the 
non-retention of summer chum salmon. The proposed RMP management 
actions affect all salmon fisheries which impact listed Hood Canal 
summer-run chum salmon, including Canadian salmon fisheries. In any 
given year, the results of these management actions are designed to 
produce exploitation rates within the range of 3.3 to 15.3 percent on 
summer chum salmon bound for the Hood Canal and 2.8 to 11.8 percent on 
the Strait of Juan de Fuca populations. Although in any one year, 
fisheries may be managed for exploitation rates lower than this range, 
the upper end of the exploitation rate ranges may not be exceeded. At 
the time of the five-year plan review, the annual exploitation rates 
for the previous five-year period are not to be clustered towards 
either extreme of the range. The expected average annual exploitation 
rate is 10.9 percent on summer chum salmon bound for the

[[Page 31603]]

Hood Canal and 8.8 percent on the Strait of Juan de Fuca populations.
    NMFS' analysis indicates that the proposed fishing regime (BCR) 
would not result in escapement significantly less than if fishing had 
not occurred at all. These exploitation rates were evaluated by NMFS 
and found to meet the requirements of Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. 
This included the NMFS' recommended determination that the RMP will not 
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the ESU 
in the wild. Based on this analysis, excluding populations that are 
below the critical thresholds (which require Co-managers to investigate 
additional harvest management measures), a further reduction in the BCR 
average exploitation rate is not needed to meet the Limit 6, ESA 4(d) 
Rule requirements.

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 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) 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 (joint plan) and 
determined by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 
4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000).

    Dated: June 7, 2001.
Chris Mobley,
Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-14770 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22 -S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>