[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35842-35856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15137]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648 XA485


Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final determination and discussion of underlying 
biological analysis.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has evaluated the joint resource management plan (RMP) 
for harvest of Puget Sound Chinook salmon provided by the Puget Sound 
Treaty Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 
pursuant to the protective regulations promulgated for Puget Sound 
Chinook salmon under Limit 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for 
salmon and steelhead. The RMP specifies the future management of 
commercial, recreational, subsistence and Tribal salmon fisheries 
potentially affecting listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon from May 1, 
2011, through April 30, 2014. This document serves to notify the public 
that NMFS, by delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce, has 
determined pursuant to the Tribal rule and the government-to-

[[Page 35843]]

government processes therein that implementing and enforcing the RMP 
from May 1, 2011, through April 30, 2014, will not appreciably reduce 
the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook 
salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU).

DATES: The final determination on the RMP was made on May 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the final determination and 
underlying biological analysis should be addressed to Susan Bishop, 
Salmon Management Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 
Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, Washington 98115-0070, or faxed to (206) 
526-6736. The document is also available on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/-State-Tribal-Management/PS-Chinook-RMPs.cfm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Bishop at phone number: 206-526-
4587, Puget Sound Harvest Team Leader or e-mail: [email protected] 
regarding the RMP.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is relevant to the Puget Sound 
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant 
Unit (ESU).

Electronic Access

    The full texts of NMFS' determination and the final Evaluation are 
available on the Internet at the NMFS, Northwest Regional Office Web 
site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/State-Tribal-Management/PS-Chinook-RMPs.cfm.

Background

    In April, 2010, the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and the WDFW (co-
managers) provided a jointly developed RMP that encompasses Strait of 
Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound salmon fisheries affecting the Puget Sound 
Chinook salmon ESU. The RMP encompasses salmon and steelhead fisheries 
within the area defined by the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU, as well 
as the western Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is not within the ESU. The 
RMP is effective from May 1, 2011, through April 30, 2014. Harvest 
objectives specified in the RMP account for fisheries-related mortality 
of Puget Sound Chinook throughout its migratory range, from Oregon and 
Washington to southeast Alaska. The RMP also includes implementation, 
monitoring and evaluation procedures designed to ensure fisheries are 
consistent with these objectives.
    As required by Sec.  223.203(b)(6) of the ESA 4(d) Rule, NMFS must 
determine pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 (redesignated as 50 CFR 223.204) 
and pursuant to the government-to-government processes therein whether 
the RMP for Puget Sound Chinook would appreciably reduce the likelihood 
of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. NMFS must take 
comments on how the RMP addresses the criteria in Sec.  223.203(b)(4) 
in making that determination.

Discussion of the Biological Analysis Underlying the Determination

    The RMP provides a framework for fisheries management measures 
affecting 23 Chinook salmon populations. Twenty-two populations are 
within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, and one population (the Hoko 
River) is located in the western portion of Strait of Juan de Fuca. The 
populations within the ESU and on which the RMP bases its management 
objectives are consistent with those defined by the Puget Sound 
Technical Recovery Team (TRT). For harvest management purposes, the RMP 
distributes the 23 populations among the 15 management units. These 
management units represent the entire range of life history types and 
geographic distribution that comprise the Puget Sound Chinook salmon 
ESU.
    The RMP proposes the implementation of limits to the cumulative 
directed and incidental fishery-related mortality to each Puget Sound 
Chinook salmon population or management unit. The RMP's limits to the 
cumulative fishery-related mortality are expressed as: (1) An 
exploitation rate ceiling; (2) an upper management threshold; (3) a low 
abundance threshold; and (4) a critical exploitation rate ceiling. The 
RMP also contains a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan, which 
will maintain and improve population assessment methodologies and allow 
for the assessment of: Fishing-related impacts on hatchery and 
naturally spawning Chinook salmon populations; the abundance of 
hatchery and naturally spawning fish for each of the identified 
management units; the effectiveness of the fishing regimes and general 
approach; and the regulatory compliance. This information will be used 
to assess whether impacts on listed fish are as predicted pre-season 
and as anticipated in our evaluation. In addition, information from the 
monitoring programs will eventually be used to develop exploitation 
rate objectives for those management units where data are currently 
limited. The RMP also includes provisions for an annual report. This 
report will assess compliance with the RMP objectives and help validate 
parameters used in development of the RMP and the effectiveness of the 
RMP.
    A more detailed discussion of NMFS' evaluation is on the NMFS 
Northwest Regional Office Web site (see Electronic Access, under the 
heading, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Evaluation and 
Pending Determination

    NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the 
availability of its Proposed Evaluation and Pending Determination 
(PEPD) on the RMP for public review and comment on December 29, 2011 
(75 FR 82213) for 30 days. NMFS reopened the comment period on February 
4, 2011, to provide additional opportunity for public comment (76 FR 
6401). Public comment closed February 22, 2011. Eleven commenters 
provided comments to NMFS on the PEPD during this public comment 
period. NMFS has reviewed the comments received and discussed the 
substantive issues with the co-managers. Several of the comments were 
addressed and reflected in NMFS' final Evaluation and Recommended 
Determination (ERD). The co-managers made no modifications to the RMP 
based on public comments received on NMFS' PEPD. NMFS appreciates the 
time and effort of the persons and organizations who submitted comments 
on our PEPD and seeks to respond with clarity to those comments. We 
have grouped comments that are similar and responded to the reviewer's 
comments through our responses below. Comments received in response to 
the NMFS announcement of the PEPD for review are summarized as follows:
    Comment 1--Several commenters expressed diverging opinions on the 
use of the Population Recovery Approach (PRA) in NMFS' evaluation of 
the Puget Sound Chinook RMP. Two commenters recommended that NMFS not 
use the PRA in its evaluation of the RMP pending further review of its 
technical basis and discussion with the broader community involved with 
recovery planning. One of these comments noted that the PRA appears to 
be inconsistent with the terms of the NMFS recovery plan for Puget 
Sound Chinook. Two other commenters expressed support for its use as a 
framework to provide common guidance for NMFS in its regulatory 
assessment of proposed habitat, harvest and hatchery actions under the 
ESA across the Puget Sound Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit 
(ESU); to clarify priorities for recovery actions; and, because they 
view it as

[[Page 35844]]

consistent with a holistic ``All-H'' approach to recovery.
    Response: First, NMFS emphasizes the fundamental scientific and 
technical function served by articulating the structure of a healthy 
Puget Sound Chinook ``family tree'' for rebuilding its long-term 
resiliency and achieving the delisting objectives of the ESA. Puget 
Sound Chinook consists of a large number of independent populations 
distributed across Puget Sound. The NMFS Puget Sound Technical Recovery 
Team described 22 populations within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU 
(Ruckelshaus et al., 2006). In evaluating proposed actions such as 
those under the RMP, NMFS considers the impacts on each affected 
population, how those impacts affect the overall viability of each 
population and ultimately how the distribution of risks across 
populations affect the survival and recovery of the entire ESU. This is 
because the ESU, not the individual populations within the ESU, is 
listed under the ESA. As a scientific matter, not all of the 22 Puget 
Sound Chinook salmon populations or their watersheds will serve the 
same role in recovery of the ESU under the ESA (NMFS 2006a). Different 
populations will be able to tolerate different levels of risk while 
still contributing to the overall healthy ``family tree'' that 
comprises the ESU. This assessment of different risks to individual 
populations within their context to the ESU is explicit in several of 
the ESA 4(d) criteria used to evaluate the RMP under the ESA and 
envisions the use of a PRA-like structure. In fact, in its Supplement 
to the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, NMFS called for a systematic 
approach to identify those Chinook salmon populations that should 
receive the highest priority for recovery activities, with the 
overarching goal of meeting ESU delisting criteria. Key considerations 
identified in the Supplement were the uniqueness, status, and physical 
location of the population, the present condition of the population's 
freshwater, estuarine and adjacent nearshore habitats, and the 
likelihood for preserving and restoring those habitats given present 
and likely future condition.
    NMFS did not suggest that any populations or watersheds should be 
neglected. Although a ``preserve and restore the best'' strategy is 
sensible, all populations and watersheds will still need to be 
sufficiently protected to enable the production of sustainable 
anadromous salmon populations. NMFS has followed through on this 
commitment by developing the PRA, basing the framework on the key 
considerations identified in the Supplement.
    In characterizing the numerous populations which currently comprise 
the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 
also noted the loss of a significant number of populations in the 
Sound--sixteen in fact--and stressed the importance of preserving all 
of the remaining populations in order to retain the resiliency of the 
ESU as a whole in the face of changing and highly variable conditions. 
The PRA does not detract from this objective for any populations, as 
suggested by some commenters, even for Tier 3 populations.
    In light of the twin objectives of meeting the ESA 4(d) criteria 
and maintaining all existing populations, NMFS responds to related 
comments by emphasizing the function of the PRA: It is to use the best 
available information on the relative structure, condition and 
distribution of individual populations ``to develop a biologically 
sound process for identifying which populations, watersheds and 
associated nearshore areas most need immediate protection and 
restoration investments'' (NMFS, 2006a), while at the same time 
emphasizing the need to preserve all of the historical legacy of the 
wild Chinook possible.
    In a closely related matter, NMFS acknowledges that the recovery 
plan for Puget Sound Chinook that was developed by the Shared Strategy 
in Puget Sound and ultimately was adopted by NMFS did not distinguish 
among the roles of various Chinook populations. This approach, which 
essentially assumes all populations would be recovered to equal and low 
risk of extinction, certainly meets ESA recovery criteria--in fact, it 
exceeds it in the sense that more risk to certain populations within 
the ESU is acceptable for ESA recovery than the recovery plan 
envisions. NMFS has deferred to Puget Sound recovery planners in taking 
this approach because it also encompasses other public policies beyond 
those articulated in the ESA, not the least of which supports treaty 
Indian fishing rights, the rebuilding of the ecological productivity of 
the individual watersheds across Puget Sound, and the broader water 
quality and ecological goals of Puget Sound recovery.
    NMFS is currently reviewing public comments received on the PRA and 
will continue to refine and update the PRA as new information becomes 
available. However, the PRA currently represents the best available 
information against which to assess the distribution of identified 
risks across populations to the survival and recovery of the ESU for 
the purposes of evaluating the RMP under the ESA 4(d) criteria. If 
subsequent revision to the PRA substantially changes NMFS' conclusions 
regarding the risk to the ESU, NMFS can ask the co-managers to make the 
necessary adjustments to the RMP or invoke the process leading to the 
withdrawal the ESA 4(d) Rule determination.
    We emphasize that the concepts underlying the PRA apply most 
directly when we exercise certain specific authorities under the ESA as 
a general matter, and in particular as relating to those ESU 
population-specific activities such as managing the near-term effects 
of harvests and hatchery production. In other contexts, including the 
long-term rebuilding of productive riverine and estuarine habitats, we 
will continue to emphasize the importance of achieving broad sense 
recovery of all populations in Puget Sound and Washington's coast, to 
support Tribal treaty rights and recreational and commercial fishing 
goals, and to contribute to the broader habitat-related goals for 
rebuilding the health and productivity of Puget Sound. NMFS 
acknowledges that consultations among Tribal, state and local 
governments and others interested in the PRA will be ongoing.
    Comment 2--Four commenters stated that NMFS did not adequately 
follow, apply, and is inconsistent with the recommendations and goals 
of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) in its consideration of 
hatchery-origin Chinook salmon effects and protective management 
actions needed in the PEPD document. The HSRG itself commented that the 
NMFS proposed analysis failed to adequately address the negative 
impacts of hatchery-origin spawners on these spawning grounds.
    Response: The proposed action triggering the PEPD is the harvest 
management plan proposed by the co-managers that is designed to meet 
the criteria in the ESA 4(d) Rule. The RMP is being evaluated under 
Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule that applies to jointly-developed state and 
Tribal harvest management plans. In addressing the requirements of 
Limit 6, the RMP must adequately address 11 criteria under section 
(b)(4)(i) in Limit 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) 
section 4(d) Rule for listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Table 1 in 
PEPD). Although these criteria are specific to harvest management plans 
rather than hatchery production programs, they require NMFS to assess 
the effects of the RMP on VSP criteria of natural populations within 
the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU including

[[Page 35845]]

diversity. Therefore, NMFS evaluated the effects on genetic diversity 
of hatchery fish that might escape fisheries implemented under the RMP 
and interbreed with fish from natural populations.
    That harvest plan does not include specific harvest measures--such 
as fisheries that selectively harvest hatchery fish and release 
natural-origin fish--to address directly the effects of hatchery origin 
fish on natural origin spawners. Salmon abundance is highly variable 
from year to year, both among Chinook populations and other salmon 
species, requiring managers to formulate fisheries (i.e., location, 
duration, timing, gear type) to respond to the population abundance 
conditions particular to that year. Rather, the RMP provides the 
framework and objectives against which the co-managers must develop 
annual action-specific fishing regimes to protect Puget Sound Chinook 
salmon and meet other management objectives. It should be noted, 
however, that the plan does not preclude such measures either. The 
prior harvest management plan also did not include such measures, yet 
mark-selective recreational Chinook fisheries are implemented 
extensively throughout Puget Sound.
    If the effects of hatchery production on wild stocks are not 
addressed in the RMP, then where are they addressed? The structure of 
the entire ESA 4(d) Rule is key to understanding the answer to this 
question. Limit 5 speaks to the effects of hatchery programs on listed 
salmon, including the effects of hatchery-origin fish on natural 
spawning grounds, in the development and approval of Hatchery Genetic 
Management Plans (HGMPs). Among other things, Limit 5 states that:
    ``(E) The HGMP * * * account for the * * * program's genetic and 
ecological effects on natural populations, including disease transfer, 
competition, predation, and genetic introgression caused by the 
straying of hatchery fish.''
    ``(F) The HGMP describes interrelationships and interdependencies 
with fisheries management'' (Emphasis added).
    NMFS's expectation, which it believes is shared by the co-managers, 
is that the suite of issues associated with the (direct and indirect) 
effects of hatchery stocks on the productivity of natural origin 
spawners will be addressed in the HGMPs now under development for all 
Chinook hatchery programs in Puget Sound. NMFS furthermore fully 
encourages the integration of those hatchery strategies with the other 
relevant ``Hs'', undertaken on a watershed-by-watershed basis, and 
thereby allowing for a tight integration of hatchery strategies, 
harvest strategies, including local strategies for managing stray 
rates, and habitat protection and restoration strategies on a place-
based basis.
    The Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) was originally formed 
to provide recommendations for consideration and potential application 
by the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW (the co-managers) in their 
implementation, as the U.S. v. Washington fish resource management 
agencies, of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs within the Puget 
Sound and Washington Coastal regions. In fulfilling that role, the HSRG 
provided recommendations to the co-managers regarding potential 
hatchery management and operational methods that could reduce the risk 
of adverse effects on natural-origin salmonid populations, while 
meeting the co-managers' specific hatchery production objectives for 
the programs. These recommendations were to be applied at the 
discretion of the co-managers, with the acknowledgement that there may 
be other measures, beyond those developed by the HSRG, which also could 
be implemented to meet the objectives of the hatchery programs. The 
Puget Sound co-managers have implemented the HSRG's recommendations in 
many of their hatchery programs (Washington Recreation and Conservation 
Office 2011), and are in the process of implementing more as funding 
allows, and as agreed by WDFW and Tribal managers for each watershed.
    NMFS strongly supports the work of the HSRG that focuses on adverse 
effects of interbreeding hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish. We 
anticipate that its work will figure prominently in HGMPs that are 
being developed under Limit 5 of the ESA 4(d) Rule. Even though most 
HGMPs in Puget Sound are in development, hatcheries producing most of 
the Chinook subject to harvest under the RMP already have been adjusted 
and are continuing to be adjusted, following HSRG and other best-
science-related findings and recommendations.
    NMFS considers the HSRG's findings and recommendations important to 
the advancement and implementation of measures needed to reduce the 
risk of adverse hatchery-related risks to natural-origin salmon 
populations. These recommendations are not formal ESA standards nor 
will they constitute the sole source of information considered by NMFS 
to render ESA determinations regarding harvest and hatchery actions. 
However, NMFS considers the HSRG's contributions to hatchery-risk 
related science regarding hatchery-origin fish spawning proportions to 
be valuable to our review work. As such, the HSRG's recommendations 
will be fully considered with other best-science-directed information 
in NMFS' ESA 4(d) Rule evaluation and determination documents 
addressing Puget Sound hatchery programs operated by the co-managers 
that affect listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, 
and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon. As mentioned, because of the way 
Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule has been structured, the ESA hatchery effects 
review process is the appropriate venue for addressing the hatchery 
effects-related issues under the ESA.
    The HSRG stated the group's belief that Puget Sound Chinook salmon 
populations will continue to exhibit low productivity unless ``the 
proportion of hatchery-origin fish is taken into account, regardless of 
the rate of recovery of habitat'' and that failing to control hatchery-
origin fish spawning will ``retard productivity improvement and 
progress toward rebuilding natural Chinook populations no matter what 
the current or future condition of habitat''. Two other commenters 
reiterated an assertion attributed to the HSRG that ``by reforming 
hatchery broodstock practices and limiting the proportion of hatchery 
fish reaching the spawning grounds, the science indicates that wild 
salmon production in many river and streams could actually double''.
    The weight of available scientific information suggests that any 
artificial breeding and rearing is likely to result in genetic change 
and fitness reduction in hatchery fish and in the progeny of naturally 
spawning hatchery fish relative to desired levels of diversity and 
productivity for natural populations. There remain uncertainties 
associated with the degree or extent of that change. Nevertheless, 
those risks should be reduced where possible. Although NMFS believes 
further research is necessary to quantify the effects of interbreeding, 
circumstances may exist where the commenters' assertion of a 
``doubling'' of productivity could result.
    However, NMFS cautions against the utility of broad generalizations 
at this time and believes, at a minimum, that the effects must be 
analyzed on a watershed-specific basis. The extent and duration of 
genetic change and fitness loss and the short and long-term 
implications and consequences differ among species, life-history types, 
and for species subjected to different hatchery practices and 
protocols. NMFS believes that actions taken to address the risks of 
interbreeding must be

[[Page 35846]]

considered within the context of these and other factors affecting 
survival and recovery of a population. Extensive habitat loss and 
degradation, and the on-going deterioration of natural habitat 
supporting the survival and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the 
Puget Sound region has deeply degraded the productivity of most 
watersheds. Too often, this habitat degradation presents its own, 
substantial risk that likely dominates in specific basins the factors 
affecting productivity. Productivity may be so low that even 
``doubling,'' while certainly positive, would not substantially improve 
productivity in absolute terms, nor improve the population's viability 
as much as one might assume from the generalized notion of 
``doubling.'' Often the problems with the population are compounded by 
demographic risk (i.e., the sheer fact that there are too few fish) 
which may lead to the conclusion that artificial production in the 
near-term is appropriate as a near-term method to ``recolonize'' 
available habitat. Therefore, relative improvements in productivity 
resulting from changes in the proportion of hatchery fish spawning 
naturally will depend on site specific circumstances and must include 
consideration of the existing demographic risk to the population.
    NMFS believes its position has been clear throughout its listing 
determinations, adopted recovery plans and status reviews. Improvement 
in both habitat condition and hatchery practices is important to 
rebuilding all VSP parameters for wild Chinook populations, including 
productivity. We cannot recover Puget Sound Chinook by only reducing 
the adverse effects of hatchery production, or conversely by ignoring 
these adverse effects and arguing it is just about habitat. For many 
populations where habitat is severely degraded, circumstances are such 
that hatchery reforms will do little to improve overall productivity 
until other critically limiting factors are addressed. However, 
debating the relative magnitude of improvements in productivity that 
might occur from a given set of hatchery reforms is a distraction that 
can impede progress when it is already agreed that such reforms should 
be implemented where possible. Better science will provide better 
information on key questions in the future. In the mean time, recovery 
efforts should focus on site-specific considerations of both habitat 
conditions and hatchery practices and a deliberate strategy to improve 
the overall productivity of the population and the habitats upon which 
it depends.
    Comment 3--Several commenters stated that the ``Genetic Effects'' 
section of the harvest PEPD document (Section 6.4.2), and the document 
in general, do not reflect the best available science regarding the 
effects of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon on the viability (in 
particular, the productivity) of listed natural-origin Chinook salmon 
populations in Puget Sound. They also indicate that the section does 
not effectively reflect NMFS's position regarding the issue of fitness 
and genetic diversity loss effects associated with natural spawning by 
hatchery-origin fish. Suggestions for revising the text in the section 
were provided.
    Response: NMFS has responded to these comments by revising and 
clarifying the description of its understanding of the genetic effects 
associated with hatchery-origin spawners on the natural origin stocks. 
One major facet of rebuilding the long-term productivity and resiliency 
of listed salmon stocks under the ESA is addressing effectively adverse 
effects of hatchery production on naturally spawning populations. 
Studies are showing that interbreeding between hatchery-origin and 
natural-origin fish of various species and hatchery production types 
pass fitness reductions to naturally produced fish, thereby decreasing 
the overall productivity and rate of local adaptation of the naturally 
spawning population over time.
    NMFS assembled the PEPD Section 6.4.2 to address genetic diversity 
and fitness loss issues to the extent that they pertain to harvest 
management actions evaluated in the PEPD. Our intent is to summarize 
the state of the science regarding hatchery fish-related fitness loss 
risks to natural-origin salmonids, with a focus on Chinook salmon 
produced in the Puget Sound region. We believe that inclusion of this 
section is appropriate, as the discussion is relevant to our assessment 
of the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP to address concerns regarding 
hatchery fish that are not caught in the proposed co-manager fisheries 
designed to capture the fish, and that then bypass hatchery release 
sites and escape into natural spawning areas. The initial version of 
section 6.4.2 was modified shortly after it was released for public 
review. NMFS made available the modified, expanded version of the 
section in response to concern expressed by certain reviewers that the 
original section was not adequately detailed regarding the state of the 
science, or reflective of NMFS's position regarding fitness loss risks. 
Comments directed at both versions of section 6.4.2 were subsequently 
received through the public review process.
    As indicated in the modified (second version) genetic diversity 
section of the PEPD, NMFS is addressing hatchery-related fitness loss 
concerns by seeking, in broad terms, to reduce adverse impacts 
associated with the interbreeding of hatchery-origin and natural-origin 
fish. NMFS's mechanism for evaluating and seeking measures to reduce 
identified effects of hatchery programs in the Puget Sound region on 
the viability of natural Chinook salmon populations, including fitness 
effects resulting from hatchery fish spawning, is a separate ESA 
evaluation and determination process specific for Puget Sound region 
hatcheries under Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule (See response to Comment 2). 
Through that process, responses to fitness loss, reduced rates of local 
adaptation, and other genetic and environmental effects of hatchery 
stocks will be considered on a watershed-specific basis, taking into 
account the demographic strength and genetic diversity of the affected 
natural-origin population, the existing and projected productivity of 
habitat in the watershed, the effect of adjustments in hatchery 
production on the implementation of treaty Indian fishing rights, and 
other issues relevant to the viability of the natural-origin 
populations.
    In response to public comments received about this issue, NMFS has 
further modified PEPD section 6.4.2. The new, revised genetic diversity 
section is included in the final Evaluation and Recommended 
Determination (ERD) document for the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP. Our 
objectives for modifying the section were to: (1) Provide an improved 
explanation regarding why inclusion of a discussion about hatchery fish 
genetic diversity effects in the harvest evaluation document is 
appropriate and describe the issues of concern; (2) provide updated, 
expanded information regarding our view of the state of the science 
pertaining to hatchery fish fitness effects in general, and specific to 
Puget Sound Chinook salmon, relying on more detailed coverage of report 
findings cited in our original version of the section (e.g., RIST 2009) 
and data gleaned from newly available and additional studies; and, (3) 
more clearly state NMFS NWR's general position regarding hatchery 
Chinook salmon management and research actions required to 
appropriately address fitness loss risks over the near term, consistent 
with ESA and other mandates. The discussion in the revised section is

[[Page 35847]]

broader than necessary to evaluate the proposed RMP under the Limit 6 
criteria, but NMFS feels the additional information is important given 
the broader questions raised in the public comments and to put in 
better context the varied sources of hatchery effects compared to those 
related to implementation of the RMP.
    Comment 4--Two commenters stated that the section addressing 
genetic diversity effects of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon in the 
Puget Sound action area (Section 6.4.2 of the PEPD) is not relevant to 
the NMFS evaluation of harvest plan effects and should be deleted. They 
indicated that there is no information presented in the co-managers' 
RMP regarding hatchery production levels, fisheries targeting hatchery 
fish, and other hatchery management issues that could be used by NMFS 
to allow for the review presented in Section 6.4.2. Risks to the 
genetic diversity should instead be addressed within the NMFS ESA 
consultation process specifically directed at Puget Sound region salmon 
and steelhead hatchery actions, and considering hatchery-specific 
information presented in the co-manager Puget Sound hatchery RMPs and 
HGMPs proposed for authorization.
    Response: As stated above (See Response to Comment 3), NMFS 
believes that the subject genetic diversity section in the harvest plan 
evaluation document is appropriate because the discussion was relevant 
to our assessment of the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP. The discussion 
addresses general concerns about the effects of hatchery fish that are 
not caught in the co-manager fisheries under review. These hatchery-
origin fish will escape at varying levels and with varying effects into 
natural spawning areas where genetic diversity and fitness effects will 
be important to assess. We have included a modified version of the 
section 6.4.2 in the PEPD document with an improved explanation 
regarding the need for the discussion in the harvest plan effect 
evaluation document and to provide additional context for the varied 
sources of hatchery effects compared to those related to implementation 
of the RMP.
    We agree with the commenters that the appropriate venue for 
addressing the full range of genetic diversity effects, including 
productivity and fitness loss risks, and other effects that may be 
associated with Chinook salmon hatchery programs, is the NMFS ESA 
consultation process under Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule where co-manager 
Puget Sound hatchery RMPs and HGMPs will be reviewed (See Response to 
Comment 2). Included in the evaluation will be consideration of the 
effects of regional hatchery programs on natural-origin Puget Sound 
Chinook salmon population abundance, genetic diversity, fitness, and 
productivity.
    Comment 5--Several commenters indicated that there is uncertainty 
regarding the degree of hatchery-related genetic diversity and fitness 
reduction risks, in general agreement with conclusions presented in the 
versions of PEPD Section 6.4.2 provided. Other commenters strongly 
believe that NMFS over-stated the uncertainty of current scientific 
findings regarding fitness loss effects associated with hatchery-origin 
fish straying in both versions of the section.
    Response: NMFS has modified section 6.4.2 included in the final 
PEPD document for the co-manager harvest plan to more clearly 
articulate our perspective regarding the state of the science and the 
level of certainty pertaining to hatchery fish productivity and fitness 
loss effects and risks to Pacific Northwest anadromous salmonid 
populations in general, and Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations in 
particular.
    Comment 6--Two commenters stated that NMFS should emphasize the 
essential function of hatchery production to enable the exercise of 
treaty-reserved fishing rights.
    Response: Treaty fishing rights stewardship is an important mandate 
for NMFS. The importance of meeting U.S. Federal obligations in this 
regard is highlighted in NMFS's ESA effects evaluation documents for 
Puget Sound harvest and hatchery actions. Extensive loss and 
degradation, and the on-going deterioration of natural habitat 
supporting the survival and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the 
Puget Sound region has deeply degraded the productivity of the system 
and been a major factor in the listing of Puget Sound Chinook 
populations under the ESA (Good et al., 2005, Myers et al., 1998, NMFS, 
2005a; 2006b; 2007; Shared Strategy, 2007). NMFS acknowledges that with 
the existing state of salmon habitat in Puget Sound, hatchery 
production is essential for providing surplus fish for harvest within 
treaty-reserved fisheries in many watersheds. Hatchery production will 
continue to be needed until productivity of the natural populations 
increase sufficiently to support salmon and steelhead abundances 
necessary for sustainable fisheries. Habitat improvements and decreases 
in genetic, ecological, and physical effects from hatchery facility 
operations are important requirements to increase productivity. While 
hatchery production will be required for the foreseeable future, we 
must simultaneously take appropriate steps to reduce its adverse 
effects on natural-origin fish. The tension between the implementation 
of treaty Indian fishing rights and ESA-required conservation measures 
for listed ESUs of salmon was recognized in 1997 with the issuance of 
an order by the secretaries of the U.S. departments of Commerce and 
Interior (Secretarial Order 3206). Generally in this context, the 
Secretarial Order directs NMFS to ``harmonize'' the requirements of the 
ESA with those of treaty reserved fishing rights and outlines 
procedures to do so.
    Comment 7--One commenter stated that certain data regarding 
hatchery-origin Chinook salmon mark rates and stray rates presented in 
the document are inaccurate (re ``pages 175-176, Table 1'').
    Response: The commenter appears to be addressing a table and 
statements included in the RMP and not the NMFS PEPD provided for 
public review and comment. From pages 161 and 162 of the co-manager 
harvest RMP (PSIT and WDFW 2010).
    ``Estimates of hatchery and natural contribution for Issaquah Creek 
are derived from sampling at the hatchery rack. An assumption that the 
hatchery contribution at the rack is the same as the contribution in 
Issaquah Creek was confirmed in 2007 by extensive carcass sampling in 
the creek. These estimates are conservative since juvenile hatchery 
Chinook mark rates are less than 100%. The estimates for mark rate in 
Bear Creek assume that the natural production from Issaquah Creek 
contributes unmarked spawners to Bear Creek in the same proportion as 
that in Issaquah Creek.''
    We have notified the co-managers regarding these potential 
discrepancies in the RMP. These estimates were not integral to the 
evaluation in the PEPD.
    Comment 8--One commenter emphasized the need for NMFS' 
consideration of critical habitat loss and degradation effects on 
natural-origin Chinook salmon ESU productivity in its evaluation, 
holding that those effects are much greater than possible negative 
genetic interactions with hatchery fish. The commenter stated that NMFS 
needs to consider all ``H'' integration in its ESA consultation 
processes to appropriately address all factors affecting recovery, and 
not just hatchery and harvest actions.
    Response: NMFS concurs that habitat loss and degradation are 
limiting factors for the survival and productivity of Puget Sound 
Chinook salmon

[[Page 35848]]

populations. We have acknowledged the important role of these factors 
in depressing salmon population viability in our species status review 
(e.g., Myers et al., 1998) and annual PCSRF Report to Congress 
documents (NMFS, 2005a; 2006b; 2007), and within the baseline 
environmental condition sections of our biological opinions addressing 
regional habitat, harvest, and hatchery actions (e.g., NMFS's recent 
FEMA floodplain effect biological opinion (NMFS 2008)). ``State of 
Salmon Watersheds'' documents produced by the Washington Governor's 
Salmon Recovery Office (e.g., Washington Recreation and Conservation 
Office 2011) are among the resources used by NMFS and available to the 
public indicating the poor condition of regional habitat for salmon, 
and habitat protection and restoration measures needed to benefit 
natural-origin salmon population recovery. We consider this information 
about baseline habitat conditions in forming our determinations in the 
Puget Sound region. In reviewing the effects of hatchery-origin Chinook 
salmon on natural-origin populations and determining appropriate 
protective measures under Limit 5 of the ESA 4(d) Rule, our intention 
is to take into account the existing and projected productivity of 
habitat in the watersheds where the hatchery-origin fish return. 
Appropriate integration of hatchery management with the present 
condition of habitat, and plans for its restoration, will be a key 
objective of the ESA consultation process for Puget Sound hatchery 
programs (See Response to Comment 2).
    Comment 9--Two commenters agreed with some, or most, of the 
statements in Section 6.4.2 of the PEPD. They supported the need to 
implement studies designed to collect empirical data regarding the 
effects of Puget Sound sub-yearling hatchery program-origin Chinook 
salmon on natural populations, including gene flow levels and fitness 
reduction effects. They indicated that study results would show actual, 
likely effects, rather than relying on studies of other species with 
different hatchery life histories to inform needed harvest and hatchery 
risk mitigation measures.
    Response: NMFS concurs that there is a need for additional studies 
to obtain gene flow and fitness loss risk data relevant for 
appropriately guiding risk management strategies for hatchery Chinook 
salmon production for the Puget Sound. A coordinated, programmatic 
approach, spanning regional Chinook salmon population viability and 
habitat conditions, will help guide development of appropriate and 
effective genetic diversity risk management measures for co-manager 
hatcheries. We have recently begun a research, monitoring and 
evaluation initiative in the Puget Sound region (the Puget Sound VSP 
(Viable Salmonid Population) Monitoring Initiative) directed at 
evaluation needs for hatchery programs. Studies implemented to address 
key data gaps may provide better information in support of managing 
genetic diversity risks associated with the production and escapement 
to natural spawning areas of Puget Sound sub-yearling hatchery-origin 
fish. However, NMFS believes the data and body of science is currently 
sufficient to warrant appropriate actions to reduce adverse effects of 
interbreeding when and where they can be implemented.
    Comment 10--One commenter indicated that the conclusions presented 
in NMFS's PEPD document represent a major departure from the agency's 
findings in its 2005 Hatchery Listing Policy (NMFS 2005b) and the 
recent Mitchell Act Hatchery Draft EIS regarding the role of hatchery-
origin fish in wild salmon recovery efforts. Another commenter stated 
that the ESA requires that hatchery-origin fish are not part of the 
solution for recovering natural-origin salmon populations, and alleges 
that NMFS is proposing to treat hatchery-origin strays to natural 
spawning areas at a status equivalent to natural-origin fish.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with these comments and seeks through 
these revisions and responses to clarify its approach. NMFS's 2005 
Hatchery Listing Policy identifies the role hatchery-origin fish 
populations may play in contributing to the viability of listed 
natural-origin salmon and steelhead populations (70 FR 37204, June 28, 
2005). The policy clearly states that self-sustaining natural-origin 
fish populations are the central focus of population viability 
restoration efforts and recovery of listed fish species under the ESA. 
The policy also acknowledged that there are certain circumstances where 
hatchery populations that were no more than moderately diverged from 
donor stock natural-origin populations could contribute in certain 
cases positively to the abundance, diversity, spatial structure and 
productivity of the listed natural-origin populations. Through the 
hatchery population review and Hatchery Policy implementation 
processes, NMFS evaluated the status of all hatchery-origin Chinook 
salmon populations in Puget Sound, determining that fish produced in 26 
hatchery programs were part of the listed ESU and protected with 
natural-origin fish (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005). NMFS further 
evaluated the effects of the listed hatchery-origin populations on 
viability parameters for the natural-origin populations from which they 
were derived, determining that most contributed positively to the 
abundance of associated natural-origin populations, and many also 
contributed to population diversity and spatial structure (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/upload/SHIEER.pdf). These determinations 
are entirely consistent with the NMFS's determinations pertaining to 
the adverse genetic and environmental effects of certain hatchery 
practices, as described above. The NMFS PEPD document incorporates 
these previous determinations regarding the potential contribution of 
certain hatchery populations to natural Chinook salmon population 
viability. However, NMFS's clear intent is to assess effects on the 
natural-origin Chinook salmon populations as the paramount concern 
regarding population and ESU recovery. It is precisely for this reason 
that the recovery exploitation rates used in NMFS's harvest evaluation 
are therefore focused upon and derived from natural-origin production.
    Regarding the issue of consistency between conclusions presented in 
the PEPD document and the NMFS's Draft EIS for Mitchell Act Hatchery 
programs, we emphasize that the former document addresses Puget Sound 
harvest programs, the Chinook populations affected by them, and is in 
response to a RMP structured to meet the requirements of the ESA 4(d) 
Rule. The Draft EIS is structured to meet the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and pertains to Columbia River 
hatchery programs and their effects on salmon and steelhead populations 
in the Columbia River Basin. The two documents have different purposes, 
and evaluate the effects of separate actions on different ESUs and 
DPSs, in distinct habitat settings, and under different resource 
management frameworks. The draft findings presented in NMFS's PEPD 
document reflect evaluations specific for discrete Tribal and state-
managed harvest effects on Puget Sound regional Chinook salmon 
populations based on the criteria of Limit 6 in the salmon and 
steelhead 4(d) Rule, considering their status, and the condition of 
habitat and hatchery production types as context. The draft EIS exposes 
for review effects on the human environment of a broad range of 
alternative hatchery production and management practices in the 
Columbia

[[Page 35849]]

River. Like hatchery programs in the Puget Sound region, hatchery fish 
considered in the Mitchell Act hatchery Draft EIS were evaluated by 
NMFS in 2005 under the Hatchery Listing Policy for inclusion with 
natural-origin populations as part of listed ESUs and DPSs, and many 
were determined through the commensurate Salmon Hatchery Inventory and 
Effects Evaluation Report (SHIEER) process as contributing to the 
abundance, diversity, and spatial structure of natural populations. The 
methods evaluated by NMFS for assessing the effects of harvest on Puget 
Sound Chinook salmon populations (i.e., RERs) are consistent with those 
applied to assessing the effects of harvest to Chinook salmon 
populations in the lower Columbia region that are affected by the 
hatchery programs evaluated in the Draft EIS. For these reasons, and 
considering the contents of the version of Section 6.4.2 provided for 
public review, we do not agree that the two documents are inconsistent 
in their treatment of the role of hatchery-origin salmon in population 
recovery efforts.
    Comment 11--Several commenters raised concerns that harvest actions 
like those within the RMP are evaluated independently of hatchery, 
habitat, and recovery plan actions. They expressed the view that all 
management actions (hatcheries, harvest and habitat) should be assessed 
together. One commenter suggested that existing and planned management 
actions should be reviewed and revised based upon their ability to meet 
necessary conservation and harvest goals for each Puget Sound Chinook 
stock over several time frames: short (potential), mid-term 
(delisting), and long-term (i.e., recovery).
    Response: NMFS understands the sentiment underlying these comments 
and the desirability of linking explicitly strategies for managing 
habitats, hatchery practices and harvest practices in an integrated 
fashion. NMFS furthermore anticipates that the HGMPs will serve as an 
important vehicle by which to undertake such integration on a 
watershed-by-watershed basis, and at a level of specificity that far 
exceeds that which is pertinent to the evaluation of this harvest RMP. 
NMFS must evaluate the RMP that is provided by the co-managers against 
the criteria under Limit 6 in the ESA 4(d) Rule. In its PEPD, NMFS 
evaluated the co-managers plan using the best available information 
regarding the expectation of conditions over the proposed duration of 
the plan, and evaluated the anticipated outcome against NMFS' standards 
for listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule, 
NMFS focuses its inquiry on whether the RMP meets the criteria of Limit 
6 and will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and 
recovery.
    NMFS' proposed evaluation of the RMP discusses a subset of hatchery 
related effects in Section 6.4.2 Genetic Diversity of the PEPD and 
takes into account the effect of habitat and environmental conditions 
in determining stock status and in deriving the standards it uses to 
assess the RMP (see Appendix 1 in the PEPD). As required by the ESA, 
the biological opinion associated with NMFS' determination under the 
ESA 4(d) Rule considers the effects of the proposed RMP in the context 
of other past, present and future habitat, harvest and hatchery actions 
that affect the status and environmental baseline of the listed 
species.
    The commenters describe an integrated approach in the context of 
long-term recovery planning. NMFS agrees with the commenters that 
survival and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU will 
depend, over the long term, on necessary actions in all H sectors. The 
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan describes the types of actions in each 
sector for each Puget Sound watershed that must occur to achieve a 
positive trajectory toward recovery for the ESU and emphasizes the need 
for an integrated approach. If implemented, these actions will have a 
positive effect on Puget Sound Chinook. In order for this to happen, 
the entities with regulatory authority and jurisdiction to implement 
the actions in the various H sectors must work together. The watershed 
planning efforts currently on-going under the aegis of the Puget Sound 
Partnership, state, Tribal and local governments are striving to bring 
together the necessary regulatory authorities to develop integrated 
approaches to recovery planning. NMFS supports these efforts as the 
best opportunity to succeed with integrating habitat, hatchery and 
harvest actions.
    In the meantime, NMFS has taken a precautionary approach to its 
evaluation of the RMP. Unlike harvest actions that are implemented, 
effective and assessed in a matter of days to several years, certain 
habitat and hatchery actions may take much longer to implement and 
generally decades to assess. This timeframe is well outside the 
duration of the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP. Their pace of 
implementation is highly uncertain. Incorporating assumed benefits in 
the near-term for the purposes of evaluating the RMP under Limit 6 of 
the ESA 4(d) Rule given such uncertainty could result in overly risky 
projections of future production. Therefore, in its evaluation NMFS 
assessed the performance of populations in the ESU under recent 
productivity conditions, i.e., assuming that the impacts of hatchery 
and habitat management actions remain consistent with current 
practices.
    Finally, the previous RMP was adopted as the harvest component of 
the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan (NMFS, 2006a) and so is integral 
to the overall approach to recover Puget Sound Chinook. If determined 
to be consistent with the requirements of the ESA salmon and steelhead 
4(d) Rule, the 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP will replace the previous 
RMP as the harvest component of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.
    Comment 12--Several commenters expressed the view that the 
processes for development of the RMP and NMFS' evaluation of it were 
not transparent. One commenter requested peer review of the RMP and 
NMFS' analysis in the evaluation.
    Response: As noted above, NMFS recognizes the complexities of these 
analyses and has sought through this notice and comment period to 
provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to review and comment 
on our draft analysis. NMFS is evaluating the RMP that is provided by 
the co-managers against the criteria under Limit 6 in the ESA 4(d) 
Rule. As required under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule, NMFS published its 
proposed determination on the RMP along `` * * * with a discussion of 
the biological analysis underlying that determination,'' i.e., its 
proposed evaluation, for 30 days in the Federal Register. Based on 
requests from the public for additional time to review and comment on 
the proposed evaluation, NMFS extended public review by an additional 
25 days. NMFS requested public comment on its PEPD in order to (1) seek 
input from the public on its proposed decision; (2) provide 
transparency in explaining the basis of its proposed decision; and, (3) 
provide the opportunity for review of its data, analysis and 
conclusions from the science community, local, state, Tribal 
governments, non-governmental organizations as well as the general 
public. Although no detailed technical comments were received in this 
case, we have received substantive technical comments as a result of 
public review on previous evaluations of RMPs and through similar 
processes for other listed species. We acknowledge that both the 
proposed action and the information used to analyze the potential 
effects of its implementation are extremely complex and

[[Page 35850]]

understandably difficult for the average lay-person to understand. 
Where internal or external review has highlighted areas needing 
clarification we have attempted to provide further explanation. Aside 
from the results, analysis and conclusions presented in the PEPD, 
Appendices 1 and 2 provide additional technical information and 
methodology descriptions to help the reviewer understand in more depth 
the rationale underlying our approach and the derivations of the 
standards NMFS used in the PEPD. In Section 2 and throughout the PEPD 
(e.g., pages 47 and 136-141), we describe further the our key 
assumptions used in the analysis, uncertainties or limitations in 
aspects of the data and modeling tools and how we take them into 
account in our evaluation.
    NMFS' relationship to the RMP is to assess the effects of the RMP 
against the specific criteria of the ESA 4(d) Rule as requested by the 
co-managers when they submitted it to NMFS for evaluation under Limit 6 
of the 4(d) Rule. The RMP framework and objectives consider a broader 
range of resource use objectives, legal obligations and other 
provisions than is within the scope of NMFS' assessment of the criteria 
under the 4(d) Rule. The co-managers may seek a broader peer review of 
the RMP if they choose, but it is not NMFS' responsibility to do so as 
part of its evaluation under the 4(d) Rule. Peer review of the PEPD, 
while it could further validate the science, is not required under the 
4(d) Rule and could not be accomplished without delaying the 
determination beyond the 2011 fishing season. NMFS relied on peer 
reviewed sources in its scientific analysis such as Puget Sound TRT 
documents, the Viable Salmonid Populations document (McElhaney, et al., 
2000), scientific literature cited in the PEPD and collaboration with 
Northwest Fisheries Science Center staff in the development of RERs and 
escapement thresholds.
    Comment 13: Several commenters suggested the increased use of mark-
selective fisheries as a tool for reducing the level of hatchery fish 
on the spawning grounds and avoiding by-catch of other species.
    Response: As discussed in response to Comment 2 above, the RMP does 
not preclude mark-selective fisheries (many are currently in use), but 
does not require them. Nor do the criteria in the ESA 4(d) Rule require 
their inclusion. The PEPD evaluated the effects of implementing the 
RMP's management thresholds and exploitation rates--from whatever 
harvest regime--on natural-origin populations, to the extent 
information was available. The anticipated results of implementing the 
RMP were compared against the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of the 
ESA 4(d) Rule. Through its evaluation of the RMP, NMFS concluded that 
the RMP adequately addressed all the criteria outlined in the ESA 4(d) 
Rule, including implementing and enforcing the RMP, and would not 
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget 
Sound Chinook Salmon ESU.
    The RMP does not include specific details of an annual fishing 
regime, for example where and when fisheries occur; what gear will be 
used; or how harvest is allocated among gears, areas, or fishermen. 
Salmon abundance is highly variable from year to year, both among 
Chinook populations and other salmon species, requiring managers to 
formulate fisheries (i.e., location, duration, timing, gear type) to 
respond to the population abundance conditions particular to that year. 
Rather, the RMP provides the framework and objectives against which the 
co-managers must develop annual action-specific fishing regimes to 
protect Puget Sound Chinook salmon and meet other management 
objectives. Alternative fishing techniques such as mark-selective 
fisheries are not specifically addressed in the RMP since the use of 
the appropriate management measure is dependent on the annual 
circumstances. Even though not addressed in the RMP, many gear-related 
measures, including mark-selective fisheries, have been and would be 
implemented in Puget Sound fisheries that extend fishing opportunity, 
reduce mortality on released animals (including Chinook salmon), or 
reduce such encounters (as with seabirds).
    Even under the prior RMP (which also does not mention mark-
selective fisheries), the use of mark-selective regulations in 
recreational fisheries has increased both in time and areas in Puget 
Sound (Figures 1 and 2). However, releasing fish after being caught 
using nearly any gear type, including those designed for selective 
fishing has some associated mortality associated with it, even if it is 
very low (Columbia River Compact 2004; Ruggerone and June, 1996; Vander 
Haegen, 2002a; Vander Haegen, 2002b; Vander Haegen, 2001; Vander 
Haegen, 2003; also see Appendix B of the Proposed Action in DEIS 
Appendix A (NMFS 2004)). Because of the associated mortality on 
released fish, new areas opened to mark-selective fishing usually 
require a commensurate closure somewhere else in order to maintain 
acceptable or ``level'' impacts to wild stocks in order to meet 
conservation objectives. In most of Puget Sound, these impacts of 
concern occur to populations in critical status (e.g., Nooksack, 
Stillaguamish, Mid-Hood Canal, Dungeness) that have very low allowable 
exploitation rates. In South Puget Sound and Hood Canal, hatchery fish 
currently dominate the catch in areas where fisheries are open. 
However, the catch rates and exploitation rates in Puget Sound 
recreational fisheries are relatively low even when significant mark-
selective fisheries are implemented. The figure below shows how use of 
mark selective fisheries has grown over time. The second figure shows 
the specific months and areas that were open to mark selective fishing 
in 2010. But the annual average Chinook catch per angler in Puget Sound 
marine sport fisheries ranges from 0.04 to 0.3 depending on the area 
(pers. comm. S. Theisfeld, WDFW). Although mark-selective recreational 
fisheries can reduce to some degree the number of hatchery fish that 
stray to spawning areas, to achieve significant fishery-based 
reductions in hatchery strays will likely require development and 
implementation of alternative gears that can capture large numbers of 
fish and provide minimal mortality to fish released. The development 
and progression of these alternative gears along with further expansion 
of mark selective recreational fisheries is part of the annual co-
manager discussions during the preseason process.

[[Page 35851]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20JN11.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20JN11.001

NMFS supports the use of mark-selective fisheries where appropriate to 
extend recreational fishing opportunity. However, the use of mark-
selective fisheries, like any other management tools, depends on the 
specific circumstances and is shaped by the over-riding need to achieve 
conservation objectives. As the commenter points out, other methods may 
better achieve reductions in hatchery contribution, and the potential 
risks of hatchery spawners must be weighed against the specific 
resource use, conservation objectives and watershed characteristics in 
each management area.

    Comment 14: One commenter suggested using confidence intervals or 
some other method to explain how risks are being managed in the face of 
uncertainty.

[[Page 35852]]

    Response: In Section 2 and throughout the PEPD (e.g., pages 47 and 
136-141), we describe our key assumptions in the analysis, 
uncertainties or limitations in aspects of the data and modeling tools 
and how we take them into account in our evaluation. The Fishery 
Regulation and Assessment Model (FRAM) that NMFS used to model the 
exploitation rates and escapements anticipated to result from 
implementation of the RMP is a static model and does not provide 
estimates of uncertainty. Therefore, we modeled a range of abundances 
and fishery scenarios as another way to capture the uncertainty in what 
might occur over the foreseeable future under implementation of the 
RMP. The Rebuilding Exploitation Rates (RERs) that NMFS uses in part to 
assess the effects of the RMP directly incorporate estimates of 
variability in the spawner-recruit parameters, environmental covariates 
and management error (Appendix 2 of the PEPD and NMFS, 2000) and makes 
conservative assumptions about future conditions. For example, we 
assume marine survival will continue to remain low for Puget Sound 
Chinook populations. NMFS will continue to work to improve ways to 
illustrate the uncertainty in the analyses on which it bases its 
decisions.
    NMFS recognized that in this modeling exercise, conservative 
assumptions were made and that there was always the possibility that in 
any individual year the results could be different than the range of 
possibilities considered. As another way to manage uncertainty, NMFS 
and the co-managers regularly evaluate the performance of the RMP and 
build in provisions to make adjustments as new information becomes 
available or problems are detected. In recent years, post-season 
assessment of the previous RMP which is similar to the 2010 Puget Sound 
Chinook RMP generally showed that estimated exploitation rates were 
lower than pre-season projections (NMFS 2009). Generally, the 2011 pre-
season modeled escapement results are within or greater than the range 
of predicted escapements in the PEPD. This can be, in part, attributed 
to the use of risk-averse modeling assumptions in modeling impacts and 
the resultant escapement under the RMP. The RMP contains provisions to 
evaluate the fishery performance under the RMP for bias and make 
necessary adjustments if bias is detected (Chapter 7 of the RMP).
    Finally, although approval of the RMP under the ESA 4(d) Rule would 
authorize take consistent with the management objectives in the RMP, 
that approval is based on the patterns of escapement and exploitation 
rates resulting from NMFS' analysis, anticipated levels of abundance 
over the duration of the RMP and the key assumptions described in the 
PEPD. Based on post-season information, should actual circumstances 
deviate from those considered in the analysis such that the RMP is not 
effective in conserving listed Puget Sound Chinook, NMFS expects that 
the co-managers will take actions under the RMP to provide the 
necessary protections as per its adaptive management provisions, or 
NMFS may withdraw its approval as per the provisions of the 4(d) Rule 
(50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)(v)).
    Comment 15: One commenter requested a shorter time frame of one 
year for the RMP rather than the five years originally proposed to 
reflect more recent information and broader involvement in its 
development.
    Response: The duration of the RMP was shortened by the co-managers 
from an original term through April 2015 to a new term through April 
2014 in response to concerns related to prey available to listed 
Southern Resident killer whales and the need to develop a comprehensive 
review of West Coast fisheries impacts on Southern Residents. However, 
it should be noted that this change in duration was an action taken not 
by NMFS, but by the co-managers following a NMFS request. It is the co-
managers who decide what the duration of the proposed RMP should be, 
and NMFS then evaluates that RMP for a positive or negative 
determination under Limit 6 of the 4(d) ESA Rule. As noted in the 
introduction to these responses, NMFS has discussed with the co-
managers comments received about the process by which the RMP was 
developed.
    Comment 16: The commenter requested that NMFS recognize the 
Sammamish as important to recovery of the ESU and that all natural-
origin Chinook from the WRIA 8 watershed warrant protection under the 
ESA.
    Response: NMFS evaluated the anticipated effects of implementing 
the RMP on all 22 Puget Sound Chinook populations, including the 
Sammamish, in assessing the risk to the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. In its 
evaluation, NMFS determined that the Sammamish and Cedar River 
populations were at low risk from implementation of the RMP. The 
average exploitation rates under the RMP are anticipated to be below 
their surrogate RERs for both populations. The surrogate RER for these 
populations is described in Section 2.3 of the PEPD. Average 
escapements are expected to increase by a small amount under 
implementation of the RMP.
    The listed Puget Sound Chinook ESU includes all runs of Chinook 
salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound, including the 
Straits of Juan de Fuca from the Elwha River eastward, and rivers and 
streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound, and the 
Strait of Georgia in Washington. Also included in the ESU are 26 
artificial propagation programs. All Chinook from these areas warrant 
protection under the ESA. In evaluating proposed actions such as the 
RMP, NMFS considers the impacts on each affected population; how those 
impacts affect the overall viability of each population and ultimately 
how the distribution of risks across populations affect the survival 
and recovery of the entire ESU. This is because the ESU, not the 
individual populations within the ESU, is the listed entity under the 
ESA and not all of the 22 Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations or 
their watersheds have the same role in contributing to the recovery 
under the ESA of the ESU (NMFS, 2006a). This assessment of risks to 
individual populations within their context to the ESU is explicit in 
several of the 4(d) criteria used to evaluate the RMP under the ESA.
    See also response to Comment 1.
    Comment 17: The commenter requested that NMFS not approve the 
proposed change in provisions for Lake Washington Chinook. NMFS should 
keep the exploitation rate ceiling at a 15% rate as it was in the 
previous RMP for Washington fisheries that occur prior to these fish 
entering the Lake Washington watershed (known as ``pre-terminal 
southern U.S. rate'') and allowing no directed fisheries on Lake 
Washington Chinook. (Pre-terminal southern U.S. fisheries are those 
that occur south of the Canadian border and before the terminal area, 
in this case, Lake Washington.)
    Response: There is no change from the prior RMP to the anticipated 
total exploitation rate in southern U.S. fisheries for Chinook 
returning to the Lake Washington basin, although the structure of the 
exploitation rates is adjusted from the prior plan. NMFS' proposed 
evaluation indicates the management objectives proposed in the RMP 
would be adequately protective of Cedar River Chinook. Although the 
provisions are different, the 2010 RMP constrains the overall southern 
U.S exploitation rate to the same level as anticipated under the 
previous RMP. In addition, the escapement goal for the Cedar River is 
higher under the 2010 RMP and the allowable southern U.S. exploitation 
rate at very low abundances is lower. The harvest management

[[Page 35853]]

objectives for the Cedar and Sammamish populations in the previous 2004 
Puget Sound Chinook RMP were a 15 percent pre-terminal (i.e., areas 
outside of Lake Washington) southern U.S. exploitation rate ceiling 
with a 1,550 escapement goal (1,200 to Cedar River and 350 to Northern 
Lake Washington tributaries). Under the previous RMP, no directed 
Chinook fisheries would occur in Lake Washington. Anticipating that 
productivity and abundance would remain low during the term of the 2004 
RMP, the co-managers committed to continuing to implement management 
actions in Lake Washington terminal fisheries which constrained impacts 
on Lake Washington natural Chinook to very low incidental levels, i.e., 
as if the populations were at critical levels (PSIT and WDFW, 2004). 
The total southern U.S. exploitation rate on Lake Washington Chinook 
was not anticipated to exceed 20 percent (Frank and Koenings 2004) 
accounting for incidental impacts in Lake Washington terminal fisheries 
directed at other species. At lower abundance levels, pre-terminal 
southern U.S. fisheries were limited to a 12 percent exploitation rate. 
Actual total southern U.S. exploitation rates under implementation of 
the 2004 RMP averaged 17 percent (2004-2008) (NMFS unpublished data).
    The 2010 Puget Sound Chinook RMP also constrains the overall 
southern U.S. exploitation rate to no greater than 20 percent except 
where the Cedar River is expected to exceed its upper management 
threshold of 1,680 Chinook spawners. The Cedar River escapement goal 
was increased from the goal in the 2004 RMP to account for additional 
capacity downstream of the Landsberg Dam. At Cedar River escapements 
less than 1,680, directed Chinook fisheries will not occur in Lake 
Washington and impacts will be limited to fisheries targeted at other 
species and/or Tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries (PSIT and 
WDFW 2010). Under very low abundances, pre-terminal southern U.S. 
fisheries would be constrained more than under the 2004 RMP, i.e., 10% 
under the 2010 RMP compared with 12% under the 2004 RMP. If Cedar River 
escapements are projected to be above the 1,680 escapement goal, the 
RMP allows for directed Chinook fisheries in Lake Washington but only 
under conservative conditions. The RMP states that ``Directed fisheries 
targeting harvestable surplus for any management unit will be 
implemented cautiously. Consistent forecasts of high abundance, 
substantially above the upper management threshold, and preferably 
corroborated by post-season or in-season assessment, would be necessary 
to initiate such fisheries. Alternatively, a terminal area inseason 
update with consistent performance may be used to identify abundance 
above the upper management threshold. In practice, a substantial 
harvestable surplus must be available, so that the directed fishery is 
of practical magnitude (i.e., there is substantial harvest opportunity 
and the fishery can be managed with certainty not to exceed the harvest 
target). The decision to implement a directed fishery will also 
consider the uncertainty in forecasts and fisheries mortality 
projections. A directed fishery would not be planned to remove a very 
small surplus above the UMT [Upper Management Threshold--1,680 in the 
case of the Cedar River]. Implementing a new directed fishery, in an 
area where one has not recently occurred, will require reasonable 
assurance that abundance has increased to the level that will support a 
fishery. In practice this implies that increased abundance has occurred 
for a period of prior years, and that forecasts are reliable, before 
implementing a new directed fishery.'' (Page 36 of the 2010 RMP.) In 
addition, for the Cedar River, any Chinook-directed fisheries in Lake 
Washington must also be designed to result in spawning escapements 
above 1,680 and increase as abundance increases. Based on these 
conditions and past patterns in escapement, a directed Chinook fishery 
in Lake Washington is unlikely to occur under the 2010 RMP. Escapement 
has exceeded the escapement threshold of 1,680 only once since 1999. 
Pre-season forecasts for 2011 estimate Cedar River escapement will be 
lower than the escapement goal (FRAM model runs 0411 and 0611). 
Finally, the co-managers have not yet developed the inseason update 
required as a precursor to implementing Chinook-directed Lake 
Washington fisheries.
    NMFS' proposed evaluation indicates the management objectives 
proposed in the 2010 RMP would be adequately protective of Cedar River 
Chinook. The escapement trend is increasing and growth rates are stable 
(Table 9 of PEPD), average exploitation rates are not anticipated to 
increase from those observed and anticipated average exploitation rates 
are below the surrogate RER even under extremely low abundance 
conditions (Tables 29 and 30 of PEPD). NMFS' evaluation of the Cedar 
River included southern U.S. exploitation rates approaching the 20 
percent ceiling, i.e., 18-19%. If directed fisheries were to occur, 
based on the RMP requirements, resulting escapements should seed the 
existing habitat based on the limited information available and probe 
the available capacity and productivity at higher abundances. NMFS' 
analysis also assumed that impacts on the Sammamish population were the 
same as that for the Cedar River in southern U.S. fisheries, i.e., the 
co-managers will not target the Sammamish population in Lake Washington 
in isolation of management for the Cedar River Chinook population (page 
46 of the PEPD). Directed Chinook fisheries within Lake Washington 
during the duration of the RMP will be driven by the status of the 
Cedar population. Given the conservative requirements in the 2010 RMP 
to implementing directed fisheries and the results of its evaluation, 
NMFS concludes the proposed management regime would not represent an 
undue risk to the Lake Washington populations.
    See also response to Comment 18.
    Comment 18: The commenter requested that the low abundance 
threshold and upper management thresholds in the RMP be increased for 
the Cedar River to better incorporate watershed-specific information 
reflecting improved conditions and increased capacity in the Cedar 
River and to be more conservative while stocks recover.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the general implication of the comment 
that deriving abundance thresholds based upon the most recent 
watershed-specific data would be preferable. However, in the absence of 
such data, NMFS believes that the escapement thresholds are properly 
conservative for several reasons. Since a sufficient time series of 
data does not exist for the Cedar River that measures the proportion of 
natural-origin spawners in escapements to determine the population 
specific thresholds that reflects the productivity and capacity of the 
watershed, NMFS uses generic escapement thresholds based on guidance in 
the Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP) document (McElhaney et al., 2000) 
to evaluate the potential effect of proposed harvest actions on the 
Cedar River. However, this threshold is similar to or greater than 
rebuilding escapement thresholds that NMFS has derived from population-
specific data for river systems similar to the Cedar River. 
Additionally, the co-managers escapement goal of 1,680 is higher than 
the generic rebuilding threshold of 1,250 used by NMFS. NMFS agrees 
that a population-specific Cedar threshold should be derived as 
sufficient data become available; particularly given the

[[Page 35854]]

additional capacity in the upper watershed. NMFS will evaluate the 
feasibility of deriving a population-specific escapement threshold for 
the Cedar River prior to development of the next Puget Sound Chinook 
harvest plan.
    Average productivity for the Cedar River is currently estimated as 
1.7 recruits/spawner (Table 8 of PEPD) well below the recovery planning 
high productivity target of 3.1. The commenter asserts that more 
spawners are needed to achieve the recovery targets if the productivity 
is lower than the 3.1 target, but this assumes that the spawner-recruit 
curve for recovery has been achieved. It is likely that the current 
spawner-recruit curve is well below that which describes recovery given 
the actions that have been identified for the Cedar River watershed in 
the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan (Shared Strategy, 2006). In that 
case, the situation would be similar to that illustrated for the North 
Fork Stillaguamish in Figure 6, page 69 of the PEPD and the spawner 
capacity would be much lower. Without sufficient data, the actual 
spawner level is unknown. In the meantime, NMFS' assessment based on 
the available information indicates the proposed management objectives 
would be adequately protective of Cedar River Chinook. The escapement 
trend is increasing and growth rates are stable (Table 9 of PEPD), 
average exploitation rates are not anticipated to increase from those 
observed and anticipated average exploitation rates are below the 
surrogate RER even under extremely low abundance conditions (Tables 29 
and 30 of PEPD). If subsequent information substantially changes NMFS' 
conclusions regarding the risk to the ESU, NMFS can ask the co-managers 
to make the necessary adjustments to the RMP or invoke the process 
leading to the withdrawal the ESA 4(d) Rule determination.
    Comment 19: One commenter stated that NMFS' consideration of 
hatchery fish in spawning escapements implied that recovery levels for 
the stocks of concern have already been reached or can easily be 
reached by adding more hatchery fish.
    Response: We respectfully disagree with the commenter (see NMFS's 
2005 Hatchery Listing Policy at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/FR-Notices/2005/upload/70FR37204.pdf). None of the documents, analysis 
or conclusions used in NMFS' evaluation implies that recovery levels 
can be reached solely on the basis of hatchery fish. The escapement 
thresholds that NMFS used in part to assess the effects of the Puget 
Sound Chinook RMP on Puget Sound Chinook represent natural-origin 
spawners. The RERs that NMFS uses are calculated to meet or exceed the 
levels of natural-origin spawners defined by the critical and 
rebuilding thresholds (Appendix 1: VRAP and page 47 of the PEPD). NMFS 
states on page 39 of the PEPD that `` * * * viable thresholds in the 
context of this evaluation are a level of spawning escapement 
associated with rebuilding to recovery, consistent with current 
environmental and habitat conditions. For most populations, the upper 
management thresholds are well below the escapement levels associated 
with recovery * * * but achieving these goals under current 
environmental and habitat conditions is a necessary step to eventual 
recovery when habitat and other conditions are more favorable.'' Tables 
8 and 9 of the PEPD compare the current estimates of total natural and 
natural-origin escapements against the recovery planning targets in the 
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan; demonstrating current levels are well 
below recovery targets for most populations.
    Comment 20: One commenter stated that the lower exploitation rates 
proposed in the RMP for some management units are the result of 
insufficient escapement under the prior plan for some watersheds and, 
secondly, that if escapements had decreased under the prior RMP then 
the harvest plans must be impeding recovery.
    Response: The commenter did not specify which management units were 
of concern, but only two exploitation rate ceilings, those for the 
Nisqually and Skokomish Management Units, are lower in this RMP than 
under the 2004 Puget Sound Chinook RMP. However, the exploitation rates 
were not reduced based on insufficient escapement under the prior plan. 
Escapements under the previous RMP exceeded escapement goals in five of 
six years for the Nisqually and four of six years for the Skokomish. 
Average escapements for these two populations since 1999 are 50 percent 
and 127 percent higher than average escapements prior to listing. 
Escapement trends are stable or increasing for both populations (Table 
9 of the PEPD). Escapement growth rates are higher than growth rates 
for overall abundance (Table 9 of the PEPD), indicating some 
stabilizing influence from harvest management constraints. Declining 
growth rates in natural-origin abundance for both populations indicate 
limitations in a broader range of factors than harvest. The proposed 
exploitation rates for the Nisqually management unit in the 2010 RMP 
were reduced to reflect new information on watershed conditions and 
resource use objectives (page 196 of the RMP). Management of the 
Skokomish Chinook population was changed from a fixed escapement goal 
to an exploitation rate approach, an approach which is generally 
considered more robust to management uncertainty (Feiberg 2004, NMFS 
2004). NMFS sees these changes as responsible responses and consistent 
with an adaptive approach to harvest management.
    In its evaluation, NMFS identified some increased risk for these 
two populations under the exploitation rates proposed in the RMP. NMFS 
considered the history of habitat degradation and hatchery production 
in the watersheds, and the extirpation of the native Chinook runs and 
assessed the potential risks identified for both extant, hatchery 
dominated populations. We concluded that, for these populations, which 
are essential to recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, the focus of 
recovery is on improving watershed conditions, re-introduction of a 
locally-adapted broodstock and transition to a self-sustaining natural-
origin population as the existing Green River lineage broodstock adapts 
to each of the Skokomish and Nisqually watersheds, and as habitat 
conditions improve to support natural production. The timing and 
magnitude of changes in harvest that occur in these watersheds will be 
coordinated with the pace of habitat recovery and with the 
implementation of hatchery actions that reduce the adverse influence of 
the hatchery population on the natural-origin fish. The escapement and 
exploitation rates anticipated to result from the likely implementation 
of the RMP for these populations are consistent with such a 
transitional strategy and would not appreciably reduce the survival and 
recovery of the ESU.
    Comment 21: Several commenters expressed opinions that harvest 
management approaches negatively affect the abundance and productivity 
of populations; that harvest rates proposed in the RMP were too high or 
that reductions in harvest did not mitigate the effects of high 
proportions of hatchery fish spawning naturally. The commenters did not 
provide alternative data or analysis to support their views.
    Response: NMFS has intended through this analysis to examine 
specifically the effects of harvest on escapements of natural-origin 
spawners and other factors, and seeks to explain more precisely its 
approach to the analysis in order to respond to this comment. 
Generally, the PEPD considers the RMP in light of 11 criteria under 
section (b)(4)(i) in Limit 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(ESA) section 4(d) Rule for listed Puget Sound

[[Page 35855]]

Chinook salmon (referred hereafter as the ESA 4(d) Rule). The criteria 
under Limit 4 section (b)(4)(i) are summarized in Table 1, page 3 of 
the PEPD. Of note, requirement ``C'' states, in part, that 
``[M]anagement of fisheries where artificially propagated fish 
predominate must not compromise the management objectives for 
commingled naturally spawned populations.'' Anticipated effects on the 
abundance and productivity of natural origin spawners are described in 
Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the PEPD, to the extent data are available. The 
anticipated effects of implementing the exploitation rate ceiling in 
the RMP are described in Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of the PEPD.
    The RMP proposes implementation of restrictions to the fishery-
related mortality of each Puget Sound Chinook salmon population or 
management unit. The RMP's restrictions to the cumulative fishery-
related mortality are expressed as: (1) An exploitation rate; (2) an 
upper management threshold; (3) a low abundance threshold; and (4) a 
critical exploitation rate ceiling (Table 4 of the PEPD). For select 
management units, Appendix A: Management Unit Status Profiles of the 
RMP describes how these thresholds or exploitation rate limits were 
derived. In the PEPD, NMFS compared the proposed RMP's mortality 
limits, regardless of their basis, to the NMFS-derived critical and 
rebuilding escapement threshold standards and Rebuilding Exploitation 
Rates which have as their basis NMFS' ESA standards relating to the 
natural population. In the PEPD, NMFS modeled and evaluated the 
anticipated impacts of implementing the proposed RMP's exploitation 
rate ceilings consistent with the criteria of the 4(d) Rule.
    The modeling used risk-averse assumptions in determining potential 
impacts and the resultant escapement as described in Appendix 1 of the 
PEPD. The modeling assumed a range of intercepting fisheries to include 
the highest Canadian harvest allowed under the 2008 Pacific Salmon 
Treaty Agreement, as well as those most likely to occur. The modeled 
range of Puget Sound Chinook salmon abundance included abundances 
observed over the last 15 years and a 40 percent reduction from that 
level for all populations. The anticipated results of implementing the 
RMP were compared against the criteria outlined under Limit 6 of the 
ESA 4(d) Rule. Through its proposed evaluation of the RMP, NMFS 
concluded that the RMP adequately addressed all the criteria outlined 
in the ESA 4(d) Rule, including implementing and enforcing the RMP, and 
would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of 
the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. Information provided in the PEPD, 
along with the information included and available by reference, 
provides the reviewer the information necessary to evaluate NMFS' risk 
criteria used to reach this conclusion.
    See also responses to Comments 2-10 related to specific concerns 
about hatchery fish spawning naturally.
    Comment 22: One commenter stated that Chinook management activities 
and uses in shoreline jurisdictions must be consistent with the 
Shoreline Management Act and the local Shoreline Master Programs. The 
commenter did not provide any specific comments on aspects of the RMP 
that were or were not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and 
the local Shoreline Master Programs.
    Response: The Final EIS (NMFS, 2004) addresses all plans and 
policies that are related to the proposed RMP implementation in Section 
1.10, Relationship to Other Plans and Appendix F, Applicable Laws, 
Treaties, Licenses and Permits. The Shoreline Management Act is 
discussed in Appendix F, along with the state Growth Management Act and 
Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2020 Strategy. Additionally, 
discussions about related Federal legislation are found in Appendix F, 
including the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Since Shoreline Master Programs can 
only be implemented if they are consistent with the state Shoreline 
Management Act, Growth Management Act, and other applicable laws, 
policies, and programs, the EIS did not address each individual program 
in the action area, assuming instead that the broader legislations 
would suffice for analysis, and that each local program is in 
compliance with ``parent'' legislation.
    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that 
an EIS identify ``possible conflicts between the proposed action and 
objectives of Federal, regional, state, and local land use plans, 
policies, and controls for the area concerned'' (40 CFR 1502.16(c)). 
The requirement to demonstrate inconsistencies is repeated at 40 CFR 
1506.2(d) and in CEQ's 40 Most Asked Questions at numbers 23a and 23b. 
NMFS's review of the related Federal, state, and regional land use 
plans, policies, and ``controls'' within the action area did not reveal 
any inconsistencies between the proposed action to implement the RMP 
and the objectives of each of these laws, policies, or plans. If any 
inconsistencies were uncovered, this would have been discussed in the 
EIS in either Section 1.10, Relationship to Other Plans or Appendix F, 
Applicable Laws, Treaties, Licenses and Permits.
    The Shoreline Management Act and local Shoreline Master Programs 
guide development of shoreline lands in a manner that will promote and 
enhance the public interest. The RMP does not include specific details 
of an annual fishing regime, for example where and when fisheries 
occur; what gear will be used; or how harvest is allocated among gears, 
areas, or fishermen, and as such does not identify specific shoreline 
areas that could be impacted. Salmon abundance is highly variable from 
year to year, both among Chinook populations and other salmon species, 
requiring managers to formulate fisheries (i.e., location, duration, 
timing, gear type) to respond to the population abundance conditions 
particular to that year. Rather, the RMP provides the framework and 
objectives against which the co-managers must develop annual action-
specific fishing regimes to protect Puget Sound Chinook salmon and meet 
other management objectives. NMFS expects that the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound treaty Tribes will 
implement these annual fishing regimes consistent with any relevant 
provisions of the Shoreline Management Act or Shoreline Master 
Programs. Additionally, NMFS previously analyzed the possible 
environmental and socioeconomic impacts in the Final EIS (NMFS 2004), 
and also assumed for analysis purposes that this RMP would be in 
compliance with all state and other Federal laws, such as the state 
Shoreline Management Act.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES), or through the documents available on the NMFS 
Northwest Regional Office Web site (see Electronic Access, under the 
heading, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

Authority

    Under section 4(d) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1533(d), NMFS, by 
delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce, is required to 
adopt such regulations as it deems necessary and advisable for the 
conservation of the species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and 
steelhead 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as amended) specifies 
categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed 
salmonids or are governed by a program that adequately limits impacts 
on listed

[[Page 35856]]

salmonids, and sets out the criteria for such activities. The Rule 
further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the Rule do 
not apply to actions undertaken in compliance with a RMP developed 
jointly within the continuing jurisdiction of United States v. 
Washington by the State of Washington and the Tribes and determined by 
NMFS to be in accordance with the provisions of 50 CFR 223.203(b)(6) 
(i.e., Limit 6 of the salmon and steelhead 4(d) Rule (65 FR 42422, July 
10, 2000)). In 2005, as part of the final listing determinations for 
sixteen Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast salmon, NMFS 
amended and streamlined the previously promulgated 4(d) protective 
regulations for threatened salmon and steelhead (70 FR 37160, June 28, 
2005). Under these regulations, the same set of fourteen limits was 
applied to all threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead ESU's or DPS's.

    Dated: June 13, 2011.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-15137 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P