[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19528-19530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09337]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG053


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

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

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this 
notice announces that NMFS intends to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) to inform its decision of whether to determine that a 
resource management plan (RMP) jointly developed by the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Puget Sound Tribes 
(Tribes), collectively the co-managers, meets requirements under Limit 
6 of the

[[Page 19529]]

ESA 4(d) rule for the ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon 
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), which is listed as threatened 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The purpose of the RMP is to 
manage commercial, recreational, ceremonial, and subsistence salmon 
fisheries potentially affecting the Puget Sound Chinook ESU within the 
marine and freshwater areas of Puget Sound, from the entrance of the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca inward, including fisheries under the 
jurisdiction of the Pacific Salmon Commission's Fraser River Panel. In 
order for NMFS to make a positive determination under Limit 6 on the 
RMP, NMFS must conclude that the RMP's management framework is 
consistent with the criteria under Limit 6. Limit 6 applies to RMPs 
developed jointly by the States of Washington, Oregon and/or Idaho and 
the Tribes within the continuing jurisdiction of United States v. 
Washington or United States v. Oregon. NMFS provides this notice to 
advise other agencies and the public of our plan to analyze effects 
related to approval and implementation of the RMP and to obtain 
suggestions and information that may be useful to the scope of issues 
and alternatives to include in the EIS.

DATES: Written or electronic scoping comments must be received at the 
appropriate address or email mailbox (see ADDRESSES) on or before June 
4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Barry A. Thom, Regional 
Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard. Suite 
1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may also be sent by email to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emi Kondo, NMFS West Coast Region, 
telephone: 503-736-4739, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU was listed as threatened under 
the ESA in 1999 (64 FR 14308, March 24, 1999). The definition of the 
ESU has been revised twice to include specific artificial propagation 
programs (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005; 79 FR 20802, April 14, 2014). The 
current description of the ESU includes naturally spawned Chinook 
salmon originating from rivers flowing into Puget Sound from the Elwha 
River (inclusive) eastward, including rivers in Hood Canal, South 
Sound, North Sound, and the Strait of Georgia; also included are 
Chinook salmon from 26 artificial propagation programs (79 FR 20802, 
April 14, 2014).
    Puget Sound Chinook salmon have a complex life history, migrating 
from their natal streams throughout Puget Sound to the Pacific Ocean, 
where they generally spend one to three years before returning to their 
natal streams, primarily as three- and four-year-old adults. In their 
ocean migration, they travel north along the west coast into Canadian, 
and at times as far north as Alaskan, waters. In doing so, they are 
caught in a broad range of fisheries, which are managed by an array of 
agencies, bodies, and governments including NMFS, the States of 
Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, more than 20 Native American tribal 
jurisdictions, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the 
Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the Pacific Salmon 
Commission.
    Section 4(d) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531(d)) requires the Secretary 
of Commerce (Secretary) to adopt such regulations that are deemed 
necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as 
threatened. Such protective regulations may include any or all of the 
prohibitions that apply automatically to protect endangered species 
under ESA section 9(a)(1). Those section 9(a)(1) prohibitions, in part, 
make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) the 
relevant listed species. In 2000, NMFS published a rule, under section 
4(d), that specified take prohibitions for several ESA-listed salmon 
ESUs, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon (65 FR 42422, July 10, 
2000). NMFS did not find it necessary and advisable to apply the take 
prohibitions described in section 9(a)(1)(B) and 9(a)(1)(C) to 
specified categories of activities that contribute to conserving listed 
salmonids or are governed by a program that adequately limits impacts 
on listed salmonids; therefore, the 4(d) rule included 13 limits on the 
application of the ESA section 9(a)(1) take prohibitions. Limit 6 of 
the 4(d) rule applies to activities in compliance with joint tribal/
state plans (e.g., RMPs) developed within the continuing jurisdiction 
of United States v. Washington or United States v. Oregon. The co-
managers developed an RMP that NMFS determined was consistent with 
Limit 6 and was implemented from 2011 to 2014. Since the expiration of 
that RMP after 2014 fisheries, the fishery has since been managed on a 
year-to-year basis. The co-managers are currently developing an updated 
RMP, the Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest 
Management Component, to guide conservation and harvest of Puget Sound 
Chinook salmon in Washington for 10 years.
    Once the co-managers have submitted the RMP for NMFS' approval, 
NMFS must make a determination under Limit 6 of the 4(d) rule whether 
the co-managers' RMP meets the criteria of the 4(d) rule and whether it 
does or does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and 
recovery of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)(i)). 
This determination is a Federal action that requires review under NEPA.

Environmental Impact Statement

    NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies 
conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to 
determine if the actions may significantly affect the human 
environment. NMFS has determined that an EIS should be prepared under 
NEPA for the purpose of informing our determination under Limit 6 of 
the 4(d) rule. We will prepare an EIS in accordance with NEPA 
requirements, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); NEPA implementing 
regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508); and other Federal laws, regulations, 
and policies.
    The Proposed Action for analysis in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement is NMFS's approval of a Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource 
Management Plan which NMFS determines would adequately address the 
criteria established for Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) rule for the ESA-
listed Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. NMFS' purpose for the proposed 
action is to respond to the co-manager's request for an exemption from 
the take prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA for commercial, 
recreational, and tribal salmon harvest programs included in an RMP for 
approval under Limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) rule for the ESA-listed Puget 
Sound Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). NMFS' need 
for the proposed action is two-fold: To ensure the sustainability and 
recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon; and to facilitate, as 
appropriate, tribal treaty and non-tribal fishing opportunities as 
described under the RMP, consistent with tribal treaty rights and court 
rulings in United States v. Washington.

Development of Initial Alternatives

    NMFS has preliminarily identified the following three alternatives 
for the public to consider.
    Mixed Escapement and Exploitation Rate Alternative (Proposed 
Action):

[[Page 19530]]

Make a 4(d) determination on an RMP that utilizes a mixture of 
management-unit-specific escapement thresholds and exploitation rate 
ceilings.
    Fixed Management Unit Escapement Goal Alternative: Make a 4(d) 
determination on an RMP that sets fixed escapement goals for Puget 
Sound Chinook management units.
    No-action Alternative (No-fishing Alternative): Under this 
alternative, NMFS would not make a determination on the RMP; therefore, 
there would be no authorized take of Puget Sound Chinook salmon in 
Puget Sound salmon fisheries through the 4(d) rule. Although this 
alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, 
a No-action Alternative is required in our NEPA analysis.

Request for Comments

    NMFS requests data, comments, pertinent information, or suggestions 
from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific 
community, tribes, the business community, or any other interested 
party regarding the proposed action discussed in this notice. We will 
consider all comments we receive that are relevant to the proposed 
action and relevant to complying with the requirements of NEPA. We 
particularly seek specific comments concerning:
    (1) The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that 
implementation of any reasonable alternative could have on endangered 
and threatened species, and other non-ESA-listed species and their 
habitats;
    (2) Other reasonable alternatives (in addition to the initial 
alternatives presented in this notice), and their associated effects. 
NMFS is particularly interested in alternatives that include ecosystem 
considerations, including the conservation and harvest of Puget Sound 
Chinook salmon, recovery of the ESA-listed Southern Resident killer 
whales, and needs of other wildlife;
    (3) Measures that would minimize and mitigate potentially adverse 
effects of the proposed action; and
    (4) Other plans or projects that might be relevant to this project.
    The EIS will analyze the effects that the various alternatives 
would have on salmon and fish species in Puget Sound, as well as the 
other aspects of the human environment. These aspects may include other 
fish, habitat, marine nutrient transport, seabirds, marine mammals, 
marine invertebrates, ESA-listed species, vegetation, socioeconomics, 
environmental justice, cultural resources, and the cumulative impacts 
of the alternatives.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR 1500-1508; and 
Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, 82 FR 4306.

    Dated: April 26, 2018.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-09337 Filed 5-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P