Domestic Fisheries; Management Strategy Evaluation for Sacramento River Winter Chinook Salmon, 3783-3785 [2014-01239]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3783
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Notices
Country
Gross1 Subsidy ($/lb)
Program(s)
Net 2 Subsidy
($/lb)
Consumer Subsidy ....................................................................................
Total ..........................................
Switzerland ......................................
0.00
0.00
Deficiency Payments .................................................................................
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
[FR Doc. 2014–01302 Filed 1–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC958
Domestic Fisheries; Management
Strategy Evaluation for Sacramento
River Winter Chinook Salmon
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of a
Management Strategy Evaluation;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) has
requested that the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) take into
consideration alternative harvest control
rules for Sacramento River winter
Chinook salmon (winter-run), a species
listed as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
impacted by ocean salmon fisheries that
the Council and NMFS manage. The
Council is concerned that the existing
control rule may be unnecessarily
restrictive in years of low winter-run
abundance, particularly when the 3-year
average escapement drops below 500
fish. The current control rule specifies
zero fishery impacts at this level of
abundance rather than the de minimis
impacts that are allowed under fishery
control rules that limit impacts on other
ESA listed species. The Council has
expressed interest in exploring
alternatives that would provide some
limited harvest opportunity on other
Chinook salmon stocks when winter-run
abundance is low, without significantly
increasing the risk to winter-run. To
help facilitate consideration of such
alternatives, NMFS is requesting public
comment on alternative harvest control
rules analyzed in a Management
Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for winterrun. These alternative harvest control
rules include the current control rule
implemented by NMFS on May 1, 2012,
as part of the ESA consultation standard
on the ocean salmon fishery and
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:50 Jan 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
additional control rules that reduce the
impact rate at low abundance.
DATES: Information and comments on
the alternative control rules described in
this notice must be received at the
appropriate address (see ADDRESSES), no
later than 5:00 p.m., on April 23, 2014.
We encourage the public’s involvement
in selecting and providing rationale for
a preferred control rule that may be
taken into consideration during the
annual salmon management process.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2013–0154, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=
NOAA–NMFS–2013–0154, click the
‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the
required fields, and enter or attach your
comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Heidi Taylor, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA
90802. Include the identifier ‘‘NOAA–
NMFS–2013–0154’’ in the comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heidi Taylor, NMFS WCR, 562–980–
4039.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sacramento River winter Chinook
salmon were first listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act in
1989 (54 FR 32085) and their status was
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
changed to endangered in 1994 (59 FR
440). Under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, NMFS consulted with itself
on the effects of the federally-managed
ocean salmon fishery on the winter-run
stock and, in April 2010, completed the
Biological Opinion on the Authorization
of Ocean Salmon Fisheries Pursuant to
the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery
Management Plan (Salmon FMP) and
Additional Protective Measures as it
affects the Sacramento River Winter
Chinook Salmon (winter-run)
Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU)
(NMFS 2010) (2010 Opinion). In the
2010 Opinion, NMFS found that, given
the current management structure of the
fishery and the measures in place to
protect winter-run, it was expected that
adult spawning returns of winter-run
cohorts would be reduced 10 to 25
percent as a result of impacts associated
with incidental harvest in the ocean
salmon fishery. These impacts occur
primarily as a result of removal of age3 winter-run, almost exclusively south
of Point Arena, CA, when fishing
activity is permitted in those areas, and
in conjunction with the seasonal and
size restrictions previously adopted to
minimize impacts to winter-run
consistent with the proposed action for
ocean salmon fisheries management
under the salmon FMP (NMFS 2010).
The results from the O’Farrell et al.
(2012a) cohort reconstruction indicate
that the majority of these impacts were
associated with the recreational salmon
fishery in this area. The analysis also
indicates that the ocean fishery spawner
reduction rate 1 has averaged 20 percent
in years when ocean salmon fisheries
south of point Arena occur (O’Farrell et
al., 2012a), regardless of the spawning
abundance of winter-run.
Over the last decade, this winter-run
population (and consequently the entire
ESU) has had years of positive growth
(cohort replacement rates greater than
1.0) while sustaining ocean fishery
impacts. The population increased to as
many as 17,000 spawners in 2006.
Therefore, NMFS concluded that the
anticipated impacts of the fishery, based
on past performance of both the fishery
1 The spawner reduction rate is defined as the
reduction in a cohort’s ‘‘potential adult spawning
escapement owing to ocean fisheries, relative to its
escapement potential in the absence of ocean
fishing’’ (O’Farrell et al. 2012).
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
3784
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
and the winter-run population, were not
expected to reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of the species
during periods when the winter-run
population is stable or increasing. To a
large degree, the consultation standards
and management measures described in
the 2010 Opinion, which were designed
to protect winter-run specifically as well
as address other stocks of Chinook
salmon, have served to reduce fishery
impacts on the winter-run Chinook
salmon population to a level that is
consistent with an expectation of
survival and recovery for the species.
However, NMFS identified that the
proposed action analyzed in the 2010
Opinion did not include measures that
would avoid or constrain the fishery’s
impacts on winter-run during periods of
decline or increased extinction risk.
Without any explicit means to further
constrain impacts after consideration of
winter-run abundance in the fishery
management process, the potential
exists for total spawner reduction rates
associated with the ocean salmon
fishery to approach, or exceed, 25
percent during periods of time when
risks of extinction are significantly
increased. Therefore, NMFS concluded
that the proposed operation of the
fishery without consideration of
additional protective measures that
would be implemented when winterrun are at low abundance was not
sufficient to ensure that the fishery was
not likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of
winter-run.
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
(RPA)
The ESA requires that, where NMFS
concludes through consultation that a
proposed action is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a listed
species, NMFS identify one or more
RPAs to such action. By regulation, an
RPA is defined as ‘‘alternative actions
identified during formal consultation
that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action, that can be implemented
consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency’s legal authority and
jurisdiction, that is economically and
technologically feasible, and that the
Director [NMFS] believes would avoid
the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of listed species or
resulting in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat’’ (50 CFR
402.02).
NMFS’ approach when developing
the RPA in the 2010 Opinion was to
address the foundation of the jeopardy
conclusion, which is the lack of explicit
controls in the ocean salmon fishery
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:50 Jan 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
management process to constrain and
reduce impacts when the abundance of
winter-run is depressed and the
extinction risk is increased. Specifically,
the purpose of the RPA was to establish
a long-term management framework that
accounts each year for the abundance of
winter-run and specifies a level of
fishery impact that is responsive to that
abundance and consistent with the
requirement to avoid jeopardy.
However, at the time of the 2010
Opinion, the information and analyses
required to establish specific
management objectives or acceptable
impact targets given various conditions,
and the tools needed to incorporate
those criteria into the fishery
management process were not available.
Additional analytical effort was
required before this framework could be
developed and implemented. Therefore,
the RPA required NMFS to develop a
winter-run management framework that
(1) meets the objective of the RPA, (2)
is practical given the ocean salmon
fishery management process as
described in the Salmon FMP, and (3)
that the framework be available for
consideration in time for
implementation as the consultation
standard for the ocean salmon fishery
for winter-run for the 2012 fishing
season.
For the interim between issuance of
the 2010 Opinion and implementation
of the new framework, NMFS
determined that the winter-run
population had been in significant
decline since 2006, and concluded that
conservative management measures
should be taken and fishery impacts
reduced pending completion of the new
management framework. The 2010
Opinion provided options to the
Council and NMFS to either increase
size limits or reduce fishing effort
(seasonal closures) in the recreational
fishery in 2010 and 2011 to produce a
qualitative constraint and reduction in
winter-run impacts (see NMFS 2010 for
explanation of interim RPA rationale).
Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)
In order to develop the management
framework required by the 2010 RPA,
the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science
Center Salmon Assessment Team
(Team) engaged in an effort to develop
the analytical tools required to evaluate
various fishery exploitation control rule
alternatives in a formal Management
Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process. The
term ‘‘Management Strategy Evaluation’’
is being used to represent all aspects of
the analytical work developed to
support the decision-making process.
The purpose of the MSE was to simulate
winter-run population dynamics as well
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
as monitoring, assessment, and
implementation of the fishery
management system under a variety of
prospective fishery management control
rules. The control rules specify the
allowable level of incidental take of
winter-run (age-3 impact rate south of
Point Arena, CA) for ocean fisheries in
a given year. For example, a control rule
which allows a fixed annual fishing
impact rate could be simulated and
compared to other control rules that
specify reduced allowable impact rates
when population abundance is low. The
goal of this simulation work was to
evaluate the relative performance of
various control rules in terms of
conservation and fishery criteria.
In order to perform the simulations,
the Team developed a model for winterrun such that the prescribed fishing
impact rate under a control rule could
be directly input as a source of mortality
(with its attendant uncertainty). This
mortality affected spawning abundance,
leading directly to the generation of the
next cohort, and on throughout the
population simulation (Winship et al.
2012). The MSE evaluated three control
rules with constant age-3 fishery impact
rate target scenarios representing: no
impact (0 percent), estimated historical
fishery impact rate (25 percent), and
current era fishery impact rate (20
percent). The MSE also considered other
variations of control rules with
decreasing age-3 fishery impact rates at
decreasing population abundance levels
(Winship et al., 2012). These are
described in the paragraph titled
‘‘Public Comment and Availability of
the winter-run Management Strategy
Evaluation’’ below. The performance of
alternative control rules was compared
in terms of established population
performance criteria and the
implications for ocean fisheries. A paper
consistent with the Winship et al. (2012)
report describing the winter-run MSE
was subsequently published (Winship et
al., 2013).
Public Comment and Availability of the
Winter-Run Management Strategy
Evaluation
NMFS seeks input from the public on
the control rules analyzed in the MSE as
described in Winship et al. 2012 (‘‘the
MSE report’’), particularly on whether
commenters prefer one of those control
rules over the others, and the reasons for
such preference. The comment period
will conclude at 5:00 p.m. on April 23,
2014, NMFS will consider all comments
received by the end of the comment
period as we move forward to consider
potential changes to the management
approach. The MSE report (Winship et
al., 2012) is available at the following
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Notices
Web site https://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/SRWC_MSE_2012_02_
28.pdf and by mail upon request. NMFS
is specifically interested in comments
and information regarding a preferred
control rule analyzed in the MSE for
ocean salmon fisheries south of Point
Arena that is responsive to the
abundance of the species. The control
rules are described in the MSE report as
‘‘management strategies’’ and are as
follows: management strategy 1 allowed
for a zero age-3 impact rate,
management strategy 2 used a historical
impact rate of 25 percent, management
strategy 3 used the current era impact
rate of 20 percent, and management
strategies 4 through 6 required a
reduction in impact rates at certain
abundance thresholds. The control rule
included in the current RPA (referred to
as ‘‘management strategy SWR’’ in the
Winship et al. 2012 addendum,
beginning on page 57 of the document
at https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/
uploads/SRWC_MSE_2012_02_28.pdf
was also analyzed with results
presented in Winship et al. 2012
(addendum); we welcome comments on
this control rule as well.
SWFSC–491, 68p. Available at: https://
docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/
NMFS/SWFSC/TM_NMFS_SWFSC/
NOAA–TM–NMFS–SWFSC–491.pdf.
O’Farrell, M.R., S.D. Allen, and M.S. Mohr.
2012b. The winter-run harvest model
(WRHM). U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA
Tech. Memo. NOAA–TM–NMFS–
SWFSC–489, 17p. Available at: https://
docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/
NMFS/SWFSC/TM_NMFS_SWFSC/
NOAA–TM–NMFS–SWFSC–489.pdf.
Winship, A.J., M.R. O’Farrell, and M.S. Mohr.
2012. Management strategy evaluation
for Sacramento River winter Chinook
salmon. Report available at: https://
www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/
SRWC_MSE_2012_02_28.pdf.
Winship, A.J., M.R. O’Farrell, and M.S. Mohr.
2013. Management strategy evaluation
applied to the conservation of an
endangered population subject to
incidental take. Biological Conservation
158:155–166.
Dated: January 16, 2014.
Sean F. Corson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–01239 Filed 1–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
References
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Lindley, S.T., R.S. Schick, E. Mora, P.B.
Adams, J.J. Anderson, S. Greene, C.
Hanson, B.P. May, D.R. McEwan, R.B.
MacFarlane, C. Swanson, and J.G.
Williams. 2007. Framework for assessing
viability of threatened and endangered
Chinook salmon and steelhead in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin. San
Francisco Estuary and Watershed
Science 5(1), Article 4: 26 pages.
Available at: https://
repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol5/
iss1/art4.
NMFS. 2010. Biological Opinion on the
Authorization of Ocean Salmon Fisheries
Pursuant to the Pacific Coast Salmon
Fishery Management Plan and
Additional Protective Measures as it
affects Sacramento River Winter Chinook
Salmon. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southwest Region. April 30,
2010. Available at: https://
www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/
Final_Harvest_BiOp_April2010.pdf.
NMFS. 2012. Final Implementation of the
2010 Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative Sacramento River winter-run
Chinook Management Framework for the
Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery
Management Plan. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Southwest Region.
April 30, 2102. Available at: https://
www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/
30APR2012_Sacramento_Winter_run_
RPA_Implementation.pdf
O’Farrell, M.R., M.S. Mohr, A.M. Grover, and
W.H. Satterthwaite. 2012a. Sacramento
River winter Chinook cohort
reconstruction: analysis of ocean fishery
impacts. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA
Tech. Memo. NOAA–TM–NMFS–
Department of the Navy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:50 Jan 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
Meeting of the Board of Advisors to
the Presidents of the Naval
Postgraduate School and the Naval
War College
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of Open Meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), notice is
hereby given that the following meeting
of the Board of Advisors (BOA) to the
Presidents of the Naval Postgraduate
School (NPS) and the Naval War College
(NWC) and its two subcommittees will
be held. This meeting will be open to
the public.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Wednesday, February 19, 2014, from
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and on Thursday,
February 20, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Zone.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
900 N. Glebe Road, Arlington, VA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Jaye Panza, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA, 93943–5001, telephone
number 831–656–2514.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee examines the effectiveness
with which the NPS and the NWC are
accomplishing its missions. The agenda
is as follows:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3785
(1) February 19, 2014: General
deliberations and inquiry by the NWC
BOA Subcommittee and its parent
committee NPS/NWC BOA into its
programs and mission priorities; reaccreditation preparedness;
administration; state of morale of the
student body, faculty, and staff; fiscal
affairs; and any other matters relating to
the operations of the NWC as the board
considers pertinent.
(2) February 20, 2014: The purpose of
the meeting is to elicit the advice of the
NPS BOA subcommittee on the Naval
Service’s Postgraduate Education
Program and the collaborative exchange
and partnership between the NPS and
the Air Force Institute of Technology.
With its parent committee NPS/NWC
BOA, the board will inquire into
programs and curricula; instruction;
administration; state of morale of the
student body, faculty, and staff; fiscal
affairs; as well as reviewing the updates
on recommendations cited in the 2012
Navy Inspector General’s report. The
committee will review any other matters
relating to the operations of the NPS as
the board considers pertinent.
Individuals without a DoD
Government Common Access Card
require an escort at the meeting
location. For access, information, or to
send written statements for
consideration at the committee meeting
must contact Ms. Jaye Panza, Naval
Postgraduate School, 1 University
Circle, Monterey, CA 93943–5001 or by
fax 831–656–3145 by February 7, 2014.
Dated: January 15, 2014.
N. A. Hagerty-Ford,
Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate
General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–01265 Filed 1–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[Case No. CD–009]
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Decision and
Order Granting a Waiver to Indesit
Company from the Department of
Energy Residential Clothes Dryer Test
Procedure
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision and order.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) gives notice of the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3783-3785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01239]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XC958
Domestic Fisheries; Management Strategy Evaluation for Sacramento
River Winter Chinook Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of a Management Strategy Evaluation;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has requested
that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) take into
consideration alternative harvest control rules for Sacramento River
winter Chinook salmon (winter-run), a species listed as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and impacted by ocean salmon
fisheries that the Council and NMFS manage. The Council is concerned
that the existing control rule may be unnecessarily restrictive in
years of low winter-run abundance, particularly when the 3-year average
escapement drops below 500 fish. The current control rule specifies
zero fishery impacts at this level of abundance rather than the de
minimis impacts that are allowed under fishery control rules that limit
impacts on other ESA listed species. The Council has expressed interest
in exploring alternatives that would provide some limited harvest
opportunity on other Chinook salmon stocks when winter-run abundance is
low, without significantly increasing the risk to winter-run. To help
facilitate consideration of such alternatives, NMFS is requesting
public comment on alternative harvest control rules analyzed in a
Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for winter-run. These alternative
harvest control rules include the current control rule implemented by
NMFS on May 1, 2012, as part of the ESA consultation standard on the
ocean salmon fishery and additional control rules that reduce the
impact rate at low abundance.
DATES: Information and comments on the alternative control rules
described in this notice must be received at the appropriate address
(see ADDRESSES), no later than 5:00 p.m., on April 23, 2014. We
encourage the public's involvement in selecting and providing rationale
for a preferred control rule that may be taken into consideration
during the annual salmon management process.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2013-0154, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0154, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Heidi Taylor, NMFS, 501
W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the
identifier ``NOAA-NMFS-2013-0154'' in the comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi Taylor, NMFS WCR, 562-980-4039.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sacramento River winter Chinook salmon were first listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1989 (54 FR 32085) and
their status was changed to endangered in 1994 (59 FR 440). Under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, NMFS consulted with itself on
the effects of the federally-managed ocean salmon fishery on the
winter-run stock and, in April 2010, completed the Biological Opinion
on the Authorization of Ocean Salmon Fisheries Pursuant to the Pacific
Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (Salmon FMP) and Additional
Protective Measures as it affects the Sacramento River Winter Chinook
Salmon (winter-run) Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) (NMFS 2010)
(2010 Opinion). In the 2010 Opinion, NMFS found that, given the current
management structure of the fishery and the measures in place to
protect winter-run, it was expected that adult spawning returns of
winter-run cohorts would be reduced 10 to 25 percent as a result of
impacts associated with incidental harvest in the ocean salmon fishery.
These impacts occur primarily as a result of removal of age-3 winter-
run, almost exclusively south of Point Arena, CA, when fishing activity
is permitted in those areas, and in conjunction with the seasonal and
size restrictions previously adopted to minimize impacts to winter-run
consistent with the proposed action for ocean salmon fisheries
management under the salmon FMP (NMFS 2010). The results from the
O'Farrell et al. (2012a) cohort reconstruction indicate that the
majority of these impacts were associated with the recreational salmon
fishery in this area. The analysis also indicates that the ocean
fishery spawner reduction rate \1\ has averaged 20 percent in years
when ocean salmon fisheries south of point Arena occur (O'Farrell et
al., 2012a), regardless of the spawning abundance of winter-run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The spawner reduction rate is defined as the reduction in a
cohort's ``potential adult spawning escapement owing to ocean
fisheries, relative to its escapement potential in the absence of
ocean fishing'' (O'Farrell et al. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last decade, this winter-run population (and consequently
the entire ESU) has had years of positive growth (cohort replacement
rates greater than 1.0) while sustaining ocean fishery impacts. The
population increased to as many as 17,000 spawners in 2006. Therefore,
NMFS concluded that the anticipated impacts of the fishery, based on
past performance of both the fishery
[[Page 3784]]
and the winter-run population, were not expected to reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of the species during periods when
the winter-run population is stable or increasing. To a large degree,
the consultation standards and management measures described in the
2010 Opinion, which were designed to protect winter-run specifically as
well as address other stocks of Chinook salmon, have served to reduce
fishery impacts on the winter-run Chinook salmon population to a level
that is consistent with an expectation of survival and recovery for the
species.
However, NMFS identified that the proposed action analyzed in the
2010 Opinion did not include measures that would avoid or constrain the
fishery's impacts on winter-run during periods of decline or increased
extinction risk. Without any explicit means to further constrain
impacts after consideration of winter-run abundance in the fishery
management process, the potential exists for total spawner reduction
rates associated with the ocean salmon fishery to approach, or exceed,
25 percent during periods of time when risks of extinction are
significantly increased. Therefore, NMFS concluded that the proposed
operation of the fishery without consideration of additional protective
measures that would be implemented when winter-run are at low abundance
was not sufficient to ensure that the fishery was not likely to
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of winter-
run.
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA)
The ESA requires that, where NMFS concludes through consultation
that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species, NMFS identify one or more RPAs to such action. By
regulation, an RPA is defined as ``alternative actions identified
during formal consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that can be
implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal
authority and jurisdiction, that is economically and technologically
feasible, and that the Director [NMFS] believes would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or
resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat'' (50 CFR 402.02).
NMFS' approach when developing the RPA in the 2010 Opinion was to
address the foundation of the jeopardy conclusion, which is the lack of
explicit controls in the ocean salmon fishery management process to
constrain and reduce impacts when the abundance of winter-run is
depressed and the extinction risk is increased. Specifically, the
purpose of the RPA was to establish a long-term management framework
that accounts each year for the abundance of winter-run and specifies a
level of fishery impact that is responsive to that abundance and
consistent with the requirement to avoid jeopardy. However, at the time
of the 2010 Opinion, the information and analyses required to establish
specific management objectives or acceptable impact targets given
various conditions, and the tools needed to incorporate those criteria
into the fishery management process were not available. Additional
analytical effort was required before this framework could be developed
and implemented. Therefore, the RPA required NMFS to develop a winter-
run management framework that (1) meets the objective of the RPA, (2)
is practical given the ocean salmon fishery management process as
described in the Salmon FMP, and (3) that the framework be available
for consideration in time for implementation as the consultation
standard for the ocean salmon fishery for winter-run for the 2012
fishing season.
For the interim between issuance of the 2010 Opinion and
implementation of the new framework, NMFS determined that the winter-
run population had been in significant decline since 2006, and
concluded that conservative management measures should be taken and
fishery impacts reduced pending completion of the new management
framework. The 2010 Opinion provided options to the Council and NMFS to
either increase size limits or reduce fishing effort (seasonal
closures) in the recreational fishery in 2010 and 2011 to produce a
qualitative constraint and reduction in winter-run impacts (see NMFS
2010 for explanation of interim RPA rationale).
Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)
In order to develop the management framework required by the 2010
RPA, the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center Salmon Assessment Team
(Team) engaged in an effort to develop the analytical tools required to
evaluate various fishery exploitation control rule alternatives in a
formal Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process. The term
``Management Strategy Evaluation'' is being used to represent all
aspects of the analytical work developed to support the decision-making
process. The purpose of the MSE was to simulate winter-run population
dynamics as well as monitoring, assessment, and implementation of the
fishery management system under a variety of prospective fishery
management control rules. The control rules specify the allowable level
of incidental take of winter-run (age-3 impact rate south of Point
Arena, CA) for ocean fisheries in a given year. For example, a control
rule which allows a fixed annual fishing impact rate could be simulated
and compared to other control rules that specify reduced allowable
impact rates when population abundance is low. The goal of this
simulation work was to evaluate the relative performance of various
control rules in terms of conservation and fishery criteria.
In order to perform the simulations, the Team developed a model for
winter-run such that the prescribed fishing impact rate under a control
rule could be directly input as a source of mortality (with its
attendant uncertainty). This mortality affected spawning abundance,
leading directly to the generation of the next cohort, and on
throughout the population simulation (Winship et al. 2012). The MSE
evaluated three control rules with constant age-3 fishery impact rate
target scenarios representing: no impact (0 percent), estimated
historical fishery impact rate (25 percent), and current era fishery
impact rate (20 percent). The MSE also considered other variations of
control rules with decreasing age-3 fishery impact rates at decreasing
population abundance levels (Winship et al., 2012). These are described
in the paragraph titled ``Public Comment and Availability of the
winter-run Management Strategy Evaluation'' below. The performance of
alternative control rules was compared in terms of established
population performance criteria and the implications for ocean
fisheries. A paper consistent with the Winship et al. (2012) report
describing the winter-run MSE was subsequently published (Winship et
al., 2013).
Public Comment and Availability of the Winter-Run Management Strategy
Evaluation
NMFS seeks input from the public on the control rules analyzed in
the MSE as described in Winship et al. 2012 (``the MSE report''),
particularly on whether commenters prefer one of those control rules
over the others, and the reasons for such preference. The comment
period will conclude at 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2014, NMFS will consider
all comments received by the end of the comment period as we move
forward to consider potential changes to the management approach. The
MSE report (Winship et al., 2012) is available at the following
[[Page 3785]]
Web site https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/SRWC_MSE_2012_02_28.pdf and by mail upon request. NMFS is specifically interested in
comments and information regarding a preferred control rule analyzed in
the MSE for ocean salmon fisheries south of Point Arena that is
responsive to the abundance of the species. The control rules are
described in the MSE report as ``management strategies'' and are as
follows: management strategy 1 allowed for a zero age-3 impact rate,
management strategy 2 used a historical impact rate of 25 percent,
management strategy 3 used the current era impact rate of 20 percent,
and management strategies 4 through 6 required a reduction in impact
rates at certain abundance thresholds. The control rule included in the
current RPA (referred to as ``management strategy SWR'' in the Winship
et al. 2012 addendum, beginning on page 57 of the document at https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/SRWC_MSE_2012_02_28.pdf was
also analyzed with results presented in Winship et al. 2012 (addendum);
we welcome comments on this control rule as well.
References
Lindley, S.T., R.S. Schick, E. Mora, P.B. Adams, J.J. Anderson, S.
Greene, C. Hanson, B.P. May, D.R. McEwan, R.B. MacFarlane, C.
Swanson, and J.G. Williams. 2007. Framework for assessing viability
of threatened and endangered Chinook salmon and steelhead in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed
Science 5(1), Article 4: 26 pages. Available at: https://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol5/iss1/art4.
NMFS. 2010. Biological Opinion on the Authorization of Ocean Salmon
Fisheries Pursuant to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management
Plan and Additional Protective Measures as it affects Sacramento
River Winter Chinook Salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Region. April 30, 2010. Available at: https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Final_Harvest_BiOp_April2010.pdf.
NMFS. 2012. Final Implementation of the 2010 Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative Sacramento River winter-run Chinook Management Framework
for the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. April 30, 2102.
Available at: https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/30APR2012_Sacramento_Winter_run_RPA_Implementation.pdf
O'Farrell, M.R., M.S. Mohr, A.M. Grover, and W.H. Satterthwaite.
2012a. Sacramento River winter Chinook cohort reconstruction:
analysis of ocean fishery impacts. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech.
Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-491, 68p. Available at: https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NMFS/SWFSC/TM_NMFS_SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-491.pdf.
O'Farrell, M.R., S.D. Allen, and M.S. Mohr. 2012b. The winter-run
harvest model (WRHM). U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-
NMFS-SWFSC-489, 17p. Available at: https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NMFS/SWFSC/TM_NMFS_SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-489.pdf.
Winship, A.J., M.R. O'Farrell, and M.S. Mohr. 2012. Management
strategy evaluation for Sacramento River winter Chinook salmon.
Report available at: https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/SRWC_MSE_2012_02_28.pdf.
Winship, A.J., M.R. O'Farrell, and M.S. Mohr. 2013. Management
strategy evaluation applied to the conservation of an endangered
population subject to incidental take. Biological Conservation
158:155-166.
Dated: January 16, 2014.
Sean F. Corson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-01239 Filed 1-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
