[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31603-31607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14771]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-to-government 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 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 
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 (Co-managers) 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 Sec. 223.203 (b)(4) of the ESA 4 
(d) rule (65 FR 42422).
    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 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 31604]]

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

[[Page 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 Co-managers 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

[[Page 31606]]

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 Co-managers, 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 fixed-escapement 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 post-season 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.

[[Page 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 stock-specific 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