Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[I.D. 052301D]

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 Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife

(WDFW) and the Puget Sound Treaty

Tribes pursuant to the protective

regulations promulgated for Puget

Sound chinook salmon under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The

RMP specifies the future management of

commercial, recreational and tribal

salmon fisheries that potentially affect

listed Puget Sound chinook salmon.

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-togovernment processes therein that

implementing and enforcing the RMP

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 April 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Sustainable Fisheries

Division, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,

Seattle, Washington 98115–0070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Bishop at: 206/526–4587, or email: susan.bishop@noaa.govregarding

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

wed site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

1sustfsh/limit6/index.html.

Background

In February of this year, the WDFW

and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (Comanagers) provided a jointly developed

RMP that encompasses Washington

coastal and Puget Sound salmon

fisheries affecting the Puget Sound

chinook salmon ESU. The RMP is the

harvest management component of a

larger Puget Sound management and

conservation planning effort called

Comprehensive Chinook. Harvest

objectives specified in the RMP account

for fisheries-related mortality of Puget

Sound chinook throughout its migratory

range DBU*COM003*MDNM 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. On March 5, 2001, at

66 FR 13293, 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

§ 223.203 (b)(4) of the ESA 4 (d) rule (65

FR 42422).

As required by § 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 § 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, representing significant

improvements from past management

practices, 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 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

31604 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

impede recovery, regardless of the

contribution of the other Hs (hatcheries,

habitat, hydropower). At the same time,

the approach is linked to the other Hs

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 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

evaluate the effectiveness of harvest

management actions and objectives. The

RMP also includes provisions for annual

progress reports and a 5–year

comprehensive plan evaluation. These

reports will assess compliance with,

parameter validation of, and

effectiveness of the RMP objectives. The

inclusion of new information through

monitoring and evaluation provides

greater assurance that objectives will be

achieved in future seasons.

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 and the Co-managers recognize

that there is a need for more information

regarding the Puget Sound ESU. For this

reason, the application of Limit 6 of the

ESA 4 (d) rule to the RMP is in effect

from May 1, 2001, through April 30,

2003. Prior to the end of that period,

NMFS will evaluate all of the

information obtained and determine

whether to extend the application of

Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) rule to the RMP.

This document also includes a summary

of the underlying biological analysis

used in the determination (Evaluation).

NMFS published notice of its

proposed Evaluation and recommended

determination on the RMP for public

review and comment on March 5, 2001

(66 FR 13293). During the 21-day public

comment period, three organizations

and one private citizen submitted

comments to NMFS. Several of the

comments were addressed in NMFS’

final Evaluation and Recommended

Determination document, but no

changes were required to the RMP.

Based on its Evaluation and taking into

account the public comments, NMFS

issued (April 27,2001) its final

determination on the Puget Sound

chinook RMP.

Those comments related to NMFS’

proposed evaluation and recommended

determination (Evaluation) are

summarized here. Similar comments

have been combined where appropriate.

Comments and Responses

Comment 1: Several comments spoke

to the legality of the listing itself, the

ESA 4(d) rule, the treatment of hatchery

fish under the ESA, and the allowance

of direct take.

Response: NMFS understands the

concerns of the commenters on these

issues, but they are not relevant to the

Evaluation itself. NMFS addressed these

issues in its response to public comment

at the time of promulgation of the ESA

4(d) rule, the decision to list, and in

various NMFS technical documents and

reports.

Comment 2: Two commenters stated

that they were denied the opportunity to

provide meaningful comment on the

Evaluation because of (1) difficulty in

locating the Evaluation on the website

and (2) the availability of the Evaluation

but not the RMP itself.

Response: The website address for

NMFS Northwest Region as well as the

telephone number and email address of

the NMFS contact person were included

in the Federal Register notice, dated

March 5, 2001. When the FRN was first

published, NMFS received several calls

and e-mails from reviewers asking for

assistance in locating and printing the

Evaluation. The difficulties were found

to be a combination of software and web

design problems, which NMFS

corrected and improved by the second

day of notification. The FRN also listed

the same contact information in order to

obtain further information on the RMP.

The RMP was, in fact, provided to

several reviewers on request. The

timeliness in which the problems were

solved and the availability of NMFS

staff to assist reviewers resulted in no

substantial effect on the opportunity to

review and comment.

Comment 3: Commenters expressed

concern (1) about a 2-year approval of

the RMP despite acknowledged data

uncertainties, asserting that the RMP

fails to meet the requirements of the

ESA 4(d) rule, and (2) it constituted an

inconsistency in the treatment of fishery

activities versus habitat activities.

Response: Limit 6 of the ESA 4 (d)

rule requires that NMFS determine

whether (1) the RMP addresses the

criteria as referenced in either Limit 4

or 5, and (2) that the RMP does not

appreciably reduce the likelihood of

survival and recovery. NMFS has

determined that the Puget Sound

chinook RMP does adequately address

each of the criteria as referenced in

Limit 4, and that it would not

appreciably reduce the survival and

recovery of the Puget Sound chinook

ESU. The ESA requires that in making

that decision, NMFS must use the best

available scientific information.

However, NMFS recognizes that there

will be some uncertainty associated

with whatever information is available,

and considers the degree of uncertainty

when making its decisions. To address

these uncertainties, the data analyses

incorporated variability around the

productivity and capacity stock-recruit

parameters, survival variables and

management error (NMFS 2000b,

WDFW/PSTT 2001). In making its

decision on the RMP, NMFS determined

that the data uncertainties did not

represent a significant risk in the short

term to the ESU, and that the benefits

to the ESU in immediate

implementation of the plan outweighed

the risks represented by the uncertainty

in the data. NMFS believes that the 2–

year time limit is an adequate amount

of time to address the data uncertainties

without increased risk to the ESU, and

that it corresponds with the current

schedule for completion of the tasks

assigned to the Puget Sound and

Olympic Peninsula Technical Recovery

Team (TRT), including establishment of

recovery goals.

The ESA 4 (d) rule does not specify

the duration that take limits must be

applied for activities approved under

any of the Limits in the 4 (d) rule. This

approach is consistent with the

implementation of other sections of the

ESA. For example, both the section 7

biological opinions and section 10

permits that NMFS has issued have

varied from single year to multi-year

duration. Therefore, the two-year

application of take limits for the RMP

and the treatment of data uncertainty do

not represent inconsistency in treatment

among the activities considered under

the 4 (d) rule.

Comment 4: One commenter

expressed concern about a lack of viable

thresholds for several of the populations

where natural production occurs.

Response: The RMP identified viable

thresholds for all of the management

units where natural production occurs

and self-sustaining natural production

occurred historically, and for all

populations for which the Co-managers

believed data were sufficient. Where the

Co-managers believed data were

insufficient to define viable thresholds

for individual populations, populations

were aggregated and a viable threshold

was determined for the management

unit as a whole. This is consistent with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31605

the ESA 4 (d) rule which allows

populations to be aggregated into

management units ‘‘when dictated by

information scarcity.’’ (4 (d) rule Limit

4, Criteria 1). NMFS derived viable

thresholds for several populations

where the Co-managers felt the data

were insufficient, and determined that

the RMP objectives for the management

unit were sufficiently protective of the

individual populations, and the ESU as

a whole. However, NMFS does not

believe the original Evaluation was clear

on this point and has revised it to clarify

this information.

Comment 5: Two of the commenters

expressed concern that the Evaluation

inadequately addresses the lack of

recovery goals and management

objectives for productivity in the RMP.

Response: The ESA 4(d) rule does not

require that a RMP include recovery

goals. This is taken up in the separate

recovery planning process. The 4 (d)

rule does require that the viable and

critical thresholds be consistent with

the concepts in the Viable Salmon

Populations document

(VSP)(McElhaney et al. 2000). There is

very limited direct information on the

current capacity and productivity of

most chinook systems in Puget Sound to

define explicit objectives for

productivity. However, information on

productivity and capacity can be

inferred by deriving population

dynamic relationships for management

units and populations based on

available escapement, survival and age

data. Productivity and capacity are

components within the formulas used to

derive several of the management

objectives in the RMP, and all of NMFS’

RER standards. In areas where this

information was not available, the RMP

escapement and exploitation rate

management objectives used

escapement goals adopted in the Puget

Sound Salmon Management Plan that

were based on information from the

1960s and 1970s. The Puget Sound

Salmon Management Plan (PSSMP)

goals are probably conservative in that

they likely overestimate the current

capacity and productivity of the

chinook habitat when compared with

current habitat condition. NMFS

evaluated these escapement goals

against its own population standards

and VSP guidance. Using this approach,

NMFS concluded the objectives in the

RMP were consistent with the concepts

in the VSP document as required by the

4 (d) rule criteria.

Comment 6: One commenter

expressed concern that the Evaluation

did not adequately address the impacts

of fishing on spatial structure since the

RMP did not define take targets for

spatial structure. It suggested there

should be impact studies of fishing

actions on the spatial structure of

chinook salmon populations.

Response: Providing adequate spatial

structure for salmonid populations

requires that the habitat is of sufficient

quality and quantity, that it is

connected, and that the timing and

biological characteristics of the salmon

themselves provide for the use of the

available habitat. Fishing activities can

affect the return timing and biological

characteristics of the fish (age, size, sex),

and in some cases the pattern of

spawning. Generally, this occurs when

a certain segment of the population is

disproportionately harvested over a

period of time. However, as stated in the

Evaluation, there is currently no

information to indicate that these

fisheries are having deleterious effects

on specific segments of the populations,

and certainly not to the ESU as a whole.

For example, NMFS’ status review

(Myers et al., 1998) did not discern any

trends in size, weight, fecundity or other

life history traits for Puget Sound

chinook that might be a result of fishing

activities. NMFS sees no reason to

change its conclusion on this issue.

However, NMFS agrees with the

commenter that the potential effects of

fishing activities on spatial structure

should continue to be monitored and

evaluated for shifts in run or spawning

timing, or biological characteristics

attributable to fishing activities. Such

monitoring was included in the

implementation terms accompanying

the final determination.

Evaluating spatial structure at the

ESU level, NMFS concluded that the

management units represent the full

complement of the natural chinook

populations within Puget Sound and

include all principal life history traits

(spring, summer and fall runs).

Comment 7: One of the commenters

expressed concern about the quality of

the coded wire tag (CWT) data

underlying the derivations of the

rebuilding exploitation rates (RERs) and

their connection to the Maximum

Sustainable Yield (MSY) escapement

goals established in the PSSMP.

Response: The MSY-based RERs in

the RMP use current information on

spawning escapement, age structure and

survival. They are not based on the

PSSMP escapement goals. At this time,

CWT data provide the best available

information to estimate survival rates by

age and mortality rates by fishery. Wild

stock tagging in Puget Sound has been

tried in several areas, but the resulting

mortality has been high, and there have

not been enough wild juveniles

captured to result in sufficient tag

recoveries to estimate stock composition

of fisheries or population distribution

with confidence. However, where both

wild and hatchery stocks of the same

outmigrant type have been tagged

successfully, significant differences in

distribution or exploitation rate between

the two groups have not been detected.

The simulation models used to assess

the RERs incorporated uncertainty.

Until more direct estimates are

available, this represents the best

available scientific information.

Management performance will be

evaluated annually and the management

objectives will be revised as significant

new information becomes available.

Comment 8: Commenters expressed

concern about the magnitude of the

exploitation rate and escapement

threshold objectives, especially relative

to the PSSMP escapement goals.

Response: For the purposes of

evaluating the RMP under the

requirements of the ESA 4 (d) rule, it is

not appropriate to comment on the

objectives of the RMP relative to those

in other management plans. NMFS

evaluated the RMP management

objectives against NMFS’ independently

derived population standards and the

guidelines provided by the VSP

document. NMFS’ guidelines and

standards were developed through a

thorough review of the ecological,

conservation and salmonid literature

(McElhaney et al., 2000) or through

independent analysis of spawner-recruit

relationships based on the best available

estimates of escapement, hatchery

contribution to escapement, natural

production and survival.

Acknowledging data uncertainties,

NMFS’ analysis incorporated variability

in capacity, productivity, management

error and survival (NMFS 2000b). NMFS

concluded that the RMP objectives are

consistent with NMFS’ guidelines.

Comment 9: One commenter

questioned the need for exploitation rate

objectives for Category 2 populations

(those systems where established

chinook populations existed historically

but have largely been replaced by

hatchery production) and the inclusion

of the Hoko River chinook in the RMP.

Response: One of the ESA 4 (d) rule

criteria is to establish escapement or

exploitation rate objectives for each of

the populations or management units

within the ESU. It is up to the Comanagers how to structure these

objectives. Exploitation rate objectives

for Category 2 populations were

included in the RMP provided to NMFS

for review and evaluation consistent

with that criterion. NMFS believes that

it is important to establish management

objectives for these populations since

31606 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

they may play an important role in

recovery. Hatchery contribution to the

natural escapement of these populations

is probably significant. However,

information on the amount of

contribution is limited for most of these

systems. As more information becomes

available on stray rates, and the

hatchery and harvest programs are

successfully integrated, the management

objectives may be revised and refined to

better reflect the natural production of

the systems.

The harvest management component

of the Comprehensive Chinook

Management Plan was provided to

NMFS for evaluation as an RMP under

Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule. However, it was

developed as part of a larger planning

effort by the Co-managers, unrelated to

ESA, that encompasses the western

Strait of Juan de Fuca, where the Hoko

River is located, and the rest of Puget

Sound. The Hoko River chinook

population is not part of the Puget

Sound chinook salmon ESU, and NMFS

did not include it in its evaluation of the

RMP under Limit 6 of the 4 (d) rule.

Comment 10: Two commenters

expressed concern about the inclusion

of hatchery fish in determining whether

escapement thresholds have been

achieved.

Response: The composition of

escapement thresholds is described in

Table 1 of the Evaluation. Escapement

thresholds are defined in terms of

natural origin recruits for six of the ten

management units managed for natural

production. Three of the remaining four

of these management units use hatchery

production to maintain and rebuild the

associated chinook populations. In areas

with significant hatchery production, it

is currently difficult or impossible to

distinguish between hatchery-origin and

wild-origin fish on the spawning

grounds. Mass-marking programs have

been or will be implemented for most

hatcheries releasing chinook in Puget

Sound, allowing separation of returning

hatchery and natural origin adults.

However, marked adults will not return

for several years. In addition, there are

not currently hatchery contribution

guidelines in place for the proportion of

hatchery fish on the spawning grounds.

Both the Hatchery and Genetic

Management Plans which NMFS is in

the process of developing with the Comanagers, and ultimately the recovery

plan for Puget Sound chinook will

address this issue. When this

information is available, management

objectives may be revised, as per the

evaluation requirements of the RMP.

Comment 11: One commenter

expressed confusion over the terms used

to describe escapement threshold and

exploitation rate objectives in the

Evaluation, and asked for more

specificity on the actions that would be

taken should escapements fall below the

thresholds.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the

use of the different terms in the

Evaluation may have been confusing

and has revised the Evaluation to clarify

the definition and use of these terms.

Long-term abundance and low

abundance thresholds are terms the

state and tribal Co-managers use in the

RMP to describe lower and upper

escapement objectives for fisheries

management. Critical and viable

thresholds are terms used by NMFS in

its ESA 4(d) rule and in the VSP

document for ESA purposes. NMFS

evaluates the long-term and low

abundance management objectives

provided in the RMP against its

guidelines for viable and critical

thresholds to see whether the RMP

thresholds, used for a variety of fishery

management objectives, meet the

requirements under ESA. The

exploitation rate objectives are in terms

of brood year exploitation rates.

Examples of the types of fishery

actions that would be taken should

escapements fall below their lower

abundance thresholds are captured in

section H of the Evaluation, and in

appendices A and C of the RMP. The

actions taken must be appropriate to the

circumstances and will vary depending

on the population, distribution of

fishery mortality and the cause of the

failure to meet the escapement

objectives. A generic, one-size-fits-all

response is rarely the most beneficial to

either the resource or fishery objectives.

Fishery closures and restrictions are

among the actions listed in the RMP,

and increasingly among the actions the

Co-managers have voluntarily taken in

recent years in response to declines in

chinook abundance.

Comment 12: One commenter

disagreed with NMFS’ statement that an

exploitation rate rather than a fixedescapement goal approach would result

in rebuilding of Puget Sound chinook

populations. The commenter uses an

example from the Snohomish system to

support its position.

Response: The comments reflect a

misunderstanding of the analyses used

to derive the objectives in the RMP and

the implementation of those objectives.

The exploitation rates are designed to

provide an 80–percent probability of

exceeding the upper escapement

threshold (the viable or long-term

escapement threshold) within 25 years,

starting from the existing levels of

spawning escapement. In other words,

resulting in a high probability of

rebuilding chinook populations to

viable escapement levels, not merely

meeting the critical or low-abundance

escapement thresholds as asserted by

the commenter. This approach is

designed such that the upper

escapement level will increase as

habitat capacity increases, integrating

harvest with habitat recovery and

restoration actions. In effect, this

provision guards against inappropriately

increasing exploitation rates when

habitat capacity or productivity

increases. The exploitation rates are

maximum rates that fisheries may be

managed below, but cannot be

exceeded. In fact, managers have

consistently set annual exploitation

rates below exploitation rate objectives

over the last several years. If

management units and populations do

not rebuild as expected, the RMP

contains provisions to revise

exploitation rates if the data evaluation

shows that fishery activities are

impeding rebuilding.

Some of the information the

commenter uses to support its assertion

is incorrect. The 1996 Puget Sound run

size of Snohomish summer/fall chinook

wild adults was approximately 5,200

rather than the 8,000 originally

reported. The revised estimate was

based on the results of an otolith

marking study that enables managers to

better distinguish between hatchery and

wild spawners. With a run size of 5,200,

the spawning escapement of 5,250

would not have been achieved even

with closure of all fisheries in Puget

Sound. The exploitation rate in

southern U.S. fisheries was very low,

estimated to be less than 10 percent.

With this correction, the data appear to

support the contention of the Evaluation

that exploitation rates have contributed

to higher escapement in years of higher

return. In both 1996 and 1998, the postseason return was higher than preseason

estimates, the exploitation rates

remained very low, and the

escapements were correspondingly

higher. In 1996, the pre-season run size

expectation was 4,200, the post-season

return was 5,200, and the escapement

was 4,851. In 1998, the preseason

terminal run size was expected to be

5,600, the post-season return was 6,400,

and the escapement was 6,304. Based on

this information, NMFS sees no need to

change its evaluation of the RMP.

Comment 13: The commenter stated

that the Evaluation does not address

what it perceived are inconsistencies

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) policies

regarding overfishing and the use of

biological reference points.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31607

Response: NMFS’ evaluation of an

RMP must conclude that it is consistent

with the requirements of the ESA as

defined by Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule for

Puget Sound chinook. It does not

involve procedures under the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Stocks listed

under the ESA is one of three

exceptions to the application of the

general overfishing criteria under

Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast

Salmon Plan (FMP) (PFMC 2000).

Instead, fishery actions are

automatically required to be consistent

with the jeopardy standards and

recovery objectives for listed stocks. As

explained in the FMP, the jeopardy

standards and recovery plans developed

by NMFS for listed populations are

considered interim rebuilding plans.

Although NMFS’ jeopardy standards

and recovery plans may not by

themselves recover listed populations to

historical MSY levels within 10 years,

they are sufficient to stabilize

populations until freshwater habitats

and their dependent populations can be

restored and estimates of MSY

developed consistent with recovered

habitat conditions. As species are

delisted, the Pacific Fisheries

Management Council will establish

conservation objectives with subsequent

overfishing criteria and manage to

maintain the stocks at or above MSY

levels (PFMC 2000).

Comment 14: One commenter stated

that the Evaluation failed to adequately

address the uncertainty in fisheries

management models, and failed to

consider the effect of fishing on life

history traits such as body size and age

structure.

Response: NMFS agrees that having

finer resolution fishery impact models is

desirable, but is often limited by the

level of available information. The

commenter appears to suggest that the

current fishery models are not fishery,

time, or stock specific, nor do they

contain information on maturation rates,

age, or stock distribution. In fact, the

Fisheries Regulation and Assessment

Model (FRAM) used in fishery planning

assesses stock-specific fishing mortality

by time step (3–month blocks), fishery

(catch area by general gear type) and age

(ages 2–5). The model estimates stockspecific mortality using age-specific

exploitation rates, maturation rates by

size category, and stock distribution

data, based on CWT recoveries. The

model developed by the WDFW in the

early 1970’s, to which the commenter

refers, was a pioneering effort in harvest

management models. However, it was

developed prior to the advent of the

CWT data system and the stock specific

data on catch composition and stock

distribution that it provides. The current

models, including FRAM, are significant

improvements over the initial WDFW

effort due to both increased knowledge

and greater computing power.

The commenter relied on information

for California chinook populations to

infer the same effects on Puget Sound

chinook. However, although NMFS

concurs that fishing activities may select

for body size, and may, therefore, have

an indirect effect on age structure,

NMFS’ status review (Myers et al., 1998)

did not discern any trends in size,

weight, fecundity or other life history

traits for Puget Sound chinook that

might be a result of fishing activities. If,

however, deleterious effects are

detected, the RMP commits to taking the

appropriate measures such as gear

modification or adoption of size limits.

The RMP identifies the need to conduct

analysis of harvest regulations for

existence of size or sex selectivity and

the extent of the potential impact.

Therefore, NMFS does not agree with

the commenter’s assessment and sees no

need to revise its conclusion.

Comment 15: One commenter

suggested that without more detail on

the parameters and assumptions made

in the simulation modeling, it could not

verify the Evaluation’s conclusion that

the RMP was sufficiently risk averse.

Response: As part of its evaluation,

NMFS compared the RMP objectives

with its own population standards and

viability guidelines for the Puget Sound

chinook ESU. The approach and

assumptions for the derivation of these

standards can be found in two previous

biological opinions, the 2000-2001

Pacific Fisheries Management Council

and Puget Sound fisheries (NMFS

2000a) and the implementation of the

1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement

(NMFS 1999), and the VSP document

(McElhaney et al., 2000). The first two

documents are available on the NMFS

Northwest Region web site and the VSP

document is available on the NMFS

Northwest Fisheries Science Center web

site. Any of the three documents is also

available on request.

Comment 16: The commenter suggests

that by managing many units

simultaneously for extinction

probabilities, the overall extinction

probability for the ESU will be greater

than the extinction probability for any

individual population.

Response: NMFS disagrees with the

commenter’s conclusion for several

reasons. First, the commenter’s formula

assumes that the population dynamics

of the 21 Puget Sound chinook

populations are independent. In fact,

population abundance is highly

correlated. Second, the commenter fails

to take into account the function of

lower abundance thresholds in reducing

extinction probabilities. The simulation

models used to derive the exploitation

rate objectives assumed that the rates

would be applied at all abundance

levels, when, in fact, fisheries will be

further constrained when abundance

falls below the low abundance

thresholds. Finally, the commenter fails

to note that the lower abundance

thresholds against which the

exploitation rates are derived are

generally higher than quasi-extinction

thresholds used in formal viability

assessment. Therefore, the derivation of

the management objectives does not

involve assessment of absolute

extinction probabilities, but rather

probabilities of declining below a level

significantly higher than extinction,

and, in fact, in most cases, significantly

higher than VSP critical abundance

thresholds, for each population.

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 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. 01–14771 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S