Endangered and Threatened Species: Authorizing Release of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Upper Columbia Spring-Run Chinook Salmon in the Okanogan River Basin Under the Endangered Species Act, 42658-42663 [2011-18015]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42658
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this finding
are the staff members of the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority: The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 21, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–17864 Filed 7–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 110615334–1325–01]
RIN 0648–XA311
Endangered and Threatened Species:
Authorizing Release of a Nonessential
Experimental Population of Upper
Columbia Spring-Run Chinook Salmon
in the Okanogan River Basin Under the
Endangered Species Act
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; Request for Information.
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), will be
considering a proposal to authorize a
nonessential experimental population of
Upper Columbia (UC) spring-run
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) in the Okanogan River and
its tributaries in Okanogan County,
Washington under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
The geographic boundaries of the
experimental population area would
likely include the entire Okanogan River
subbasin and a portion of the mainstem
Columbia River from the confluence of
the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers
upstream to the base of Chief Joseph
Dam. We will consider the best
available information to determine if
reintroduction of Chinook salmon is
biologically feasible and will promote
the conservation of the UC spring-run
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:35 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Chinook salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU). This advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)
identifies policy and technical issues for
consideration and evaluation, and
solicits comments regarding them.
DATES: Comments and information
regarding the designation process may
be sent to us (see ADDRESSES), no later
than 5 p.m. Pacific Time on September
19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to
Chief, Protected Resources Division,
NMFS, 1201 NE. Lloyd Blvd.—Suite
1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments
may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to
503–230–5441 or submitted on the
Internet via the Federal Rulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
We may elect not to post comments that
contain obscene or threatening content.
All personal identifying information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
We will accept anonymous comments
(enter N/A in the required fields, if you
wish to remain anonymous). You may
submit attachments to electronic
comments in Microsoft Word, Excel,
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Murray, NMFS, Northwest Region,
Portland, OR 503–231–2378; or Dwayne
Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, Silver Spring, MD 301–713–
1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Rulemaking Background
We first listed the Upper Columbia
(UC) spring-run Chinook salmon ESU as
endangered under the ESA on March 24,
1999 (64 FR 14308), and reaffirmed this
status on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160).
ESA Section 9 ‘‘take’’ prohibitions
currently apply to the UC spring-run
Chinook salmon ESU because of its
endangered status.
The listed ESU currently includes all
naturally spawned populations of
spring-run Chinook salmon in
accessible reaches of Columbia River
tributaries between Rock Island and
Chief Joseph Dams, excluding the
Okanogan River. Listed spring-run
Chinook salmon from this ESU
currently spawn in three river basins in
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
eastern Washington: The Methow,
Entiat and Wenatchee. A fourth
population historically inhabited the
Okanogan River Basin, but was
extirpated in the 1930s because of
overfishing, hydropower development,
and habitat degradation (NMFS, 2007).
The designated critical habitat of UC
spring-run Chinook salmon similarly
includes all accessible reaches of
Columbia River tributaries between
Rock Island and Chief Joseph Dams, but
excludes the Okanogan River. We did
not include the Okanogan River Basin in
any critical habitat designation because
the Okanogan population of spring-run
Chinook salmon no longer existed.
The listed UC spring-run Chinook
salmon ESU also includes six artificial
propagation programs: The Twisp River,
Chewuch River, Methow Composite,
Winthrop National Fish Hatchery,
Chiwawa River, and White River spring
Chinook salmon hatchery programs.
On October 9, 2007, we adopted a
final recovery plan for the UC springrun Chinook salmon ESU (72 FR 57303).
The recovery plan identifies three extant
populations in this ESU (the Methow,
Wenatchee, and Entiat) and an historic,
extirpated population in the Okanogan
River Basin (NMFS, 2007). The recovery
plan identifies re-establishment of a
population in the Okanogan River Basin
as a recovery action (NMFS, 2007). Reestablishment of a spring-run Chinook
salmon population in the Okanogan
River Basin could aid recovery of this
ESU by increasing abundance, by
improving spatial structure, and by
reducing the risk of extinction to the
ESU as a whole.
On November 22, 2010, we received
a letter from the Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Reservation (CTCR)
requesting that we authorize the release
of an experimental population of springrun Chinook salmon in the Okanogan
River Basin. The CTCR has also initiated
discussions on this topic with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
Bonneville Power Administration, the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), and the Okanagan Nations
Alliance of Canada. The CTCR’s request
included a large amount of information
on the biology of UC spring-run
Chinook salmon and the possible
management implications of releasing
an experimental population in the
Okanogan Basin.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Section 10(j) of the ESA allows the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to
authorize the release of populations of
listed species outside their current range
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
if the release would ‘‘further the
conservation’’ of the listed species. The
statute refers to such a population as
‘‘experimental.’’ We may only authorize
an experimental population by
regulation, and the regulation must
identify the population and determine,
on the basis of the best available
information, whether the population is
‘‘essential to the continued existence of
the species’’ (section 10(j)(B)). Section
10(j) provides that an experimental
population is treated as a ‘‘threatened
species,’’ except that populations
authorized as ‘‘non-essential’’
experimental populations do not receive
the benefits of certain protections
normally applicable to threatened
species. Below we discuss the impact of
treating experimental populations as
threatened species, and of exceptions
that apply to non-essential experimental
populations.
For endangered species, Section 9 of
the ESA automatically prohibits take.
The ESA defines take to mean harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to engage
in any such conduct. For threatened
species, the ESA does not automatically
prohibit take, but instead authorizes the
agency to adopt regulations it deems
necessary and advisable for species
conservation (ESA section 4(d)). Such
4(d) regulations may include the take
prohibitions of section 9.
If we authorize an experimental
population of a threatened species, and
there is an existing regulation under
ESA section 4(d), that existing
regulation will apply to the
experimental population. If, however,
we authorize an experimental
population of an endangered species,
there are no protective regulations in
place until we adopt regulations under
section 4(d). This would be the case for
an experimental population of UC
spring-run Chinook salmon, which are
listed as endangered.
Section 7 of the ESA provides for
Federal interagency cooperation and
consultation to conserve listed species,
ensure survival, help in recovery of the
species, and protect designated critical
habitat. Section 7(a)(1) mandates all
Federal agencies to determine how to
use their existing authorities to further
the purposes of the ESA in aiding the
recovery of listed species. Section
7(a)(2) requires all Federal agencies, in
consultation with NMFS, to ensure that
any action they authorize, fund or carry
out is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species
or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical
habitat. Section 7 applies equally to
endangered and threatened species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:35 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies
to confer (rather than consult) with
NMFS on actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed to be listed. The
results of a conference are advisory in
nature and do not restrict agencies from
carrying out, funding, or authorizing
activities.
Although ESA Section 10(j) provides
that an experimental population is
treated as a threatened species, if the
experimental population is authorized
as non-essential, ESA section 10(j)(C)
requires that we apply the ESA Section
7 consultation provisions as if it were a
species proposed to be listed, rather
than a species that is listed (unless it is
located within a National Wildlife
Refuge or National Park, in which case
it is treated as listed). This means that
the ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation
requirement would not apply to a nonessential experimental population in the
Okanogan Basin. Only two provisions of
ESA Section 7 would apply—section
7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4).
We have not promulgated regulations
implementing ESA Section 10(j), or
authorized any experimental
populations to date. The USFWS has
authorized many experimental
populations and developed regulations
to implement Section 10(j) at 50 CFR
17.80 through 17.84. While USFWS’
regulations do not apply to NMFS’ 10(j)
authorizations, they can help inform our
authorization process. We will consider
the factors contained in the USFWS’
regulations in determining whether to
establish an experimental population of
spring-run Chinook in the Okanogan
River. The USFWS implementing
regulations contain the following
provisions:
• The USFWS regulations define an
essential experimental population as
‘‘an experimental population whose loss
would be likely to appreciably reduce
the likelihood of the survival of the
species in the wild.’’ All other
experimental populations are classified
as nonessential. This definition was
apparently derived from the legislative
history to the ESA amendments that
created § 10(j). See, Joint Explanatory
Statement of the Committee of
Conference, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97–835,
at 15 (1982).
• In finding whether the experimental
population will further the conservation
of the species the Secretary shall
consider (50 CFR 17.81(b)): (1) Any
possible adverse effects on extant
populations of a species as a result of
removal of individuals, eggs, or
propagules for introduction elsewhere,
(2) the likelihood that any such
experimental population will become
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42659
established and survive in the
foreseeable future, (3) the relative effects
that establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of
the species, and (4) the extent to which
the introduced population may be
affected by existing or anticipated
Federal or State actions or private
activities within or adjacent to the
experimental population area.
• USFWS regulations also describe
four components that will be provided
in any regulations promulgated with
regard to an experimental population
under ESA Section 10(j). The
components are (50 CFR 17.81(c)): (1)
Appropriate means to identify the
experimental population, including, but
not limited to, its actual or proposed
location, actual or anticipated
migration, number of specimens
released or to be released, and other
criteria appropriate to identify the
experimental population(s); (2) a
finding, on whether the experimental
population is, or is not, essential to the
continued existence of the species in the
wild; (3) management restrictions,
protective measures, or other special
management concerns of that
population, which may include but are
not limited to, measures to isolate and/
or contain the experimental population
authorized in the regulation from
natural populations; and (4) a process
for periodic review and evaluation of
the success or failure of the release and
the effect of the release on the
conservation and recovery of the
species.
Biological Considerations
Pacific salmon and steelhead are
anadromous fish that migrate as adults
from the ocean to spawn in freshwater
lakes and streams where their offspring
hatch and rear prior to migrating back
to the ocean to forage until maturity.
The migration and spawning times vary
considerably between and within
species and populations (Groot and
Margolis, 1991). At spawning, adults
pair to lay and fertilize thousands of
eggs in freshwater gravel nests or
‘‘redds’’ excavated by females.
Depending on lake/stream temperatures,
eggs incubate for several weeks to
months before hatching as ‘‘alevins’’ (a
larval life stage dependent on food
stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac
absorption, alevins emerge from the
gravel as young juveniles called ‘‘fry’’
and begin actively feeding. Depending
on the species and location, juveniles
may spend from a few hours to several
years in freshwater areas before
migrating to the ocean. The
physiological and behavioral changes
required for the transition to salt water
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
42660
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
result in a distinct ‘‘smolt’’ stage in most
species. On their journey juveniles must
migrate downstream through a riverine
and estuarine corridor between their
natal lake or stream and the ocean. En
route to the ocean, the juveniles may
spend from a few days to several weeks
in the estuary, depending on the
species.
Juveniles and subadult salmon and
steelhead typically spend from one to
five years foraging over thousands of
miles in the North Pacific Ocean before
returning to spawn. Spawning
migrations known as ‘‘runs’’ occur
throughout the year, varying by species
and location. Most adult fish return or
‘‘home’’ with great fidelity to spawn in
their natal stream, although some do
stray to non-natal streams. Pacific
salmon species die after spawning.
The homing fidelity of salmon and
steelhead has resulted in discrete
independent populations distributed
among watersheds (McElhany et al.,
2000). Portions of the populations will,
however, stray into adjacent watersheds
to spawn. Straying results in regular
genetic exchange among populations,
creating genetic similarities among
populations in adjacent watersheds.
Salmon ESUs that are made up of
several independent populations spread
over a wide geographic area tend to be
at lower risk of extinction than single
population ESUs (McElhany et al.,
2000).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Life
History
After 2 to 3 years in the ocean, adult
UC spring-run Chinook salmon begin
returning from the ocean in the early
spring, with the run into the Columbia
River peaking in mid-May (NMFS,
2007). Spring-run Chinook salmon enter
the Upper Columbia River tributaries
from April through July. After
migration, they hold in these tributaries
until spawning occurs in the late
summer, peaking in mid to late August.
Juvenile spring-run Chinook salmon
spend a year in freshwater before
migrating to salt water in the spring of
their second year of life.
UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon
Recovery Plan
Section 4(f) of the ESA requires the
Secretary of Commerce to develop
recovery plans for all listed species
unless the Secretary determines that
such a plan will not promote the
conservation of a listed species. Prior to
developing recovery plans for salmon in
the interior Columbia River Basin, we
assembled a team of scientists from
Federal and state agencies, tribes, and
academia. This group, known as the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:35 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Interior Columbia Technical Recovery
Team (ICTRT), was tasked with
identifying population structure and
recommending recovery criteria (also
known as delisting criteria) for ESAlisted salmon and steelhead in the
Middle Columbia, Upper Columbia, and
Snake River basins. The ICTRT
recommended specific abundance and
productivity goals for each population
in the UC spring-run Chinook salmon
ESU. The team also identified the
current risk level of each population
based on the gap between recent
abundance and productivity and the
desired goals. The ICTRT (2008)
considered all three extant populations
to be at high risk of extinction based on
their current abundance and
productivity levels.
The ICTRT also recommended spatial
structure and diversity metrics that
would reflect an ESU at low risk of
extinction (ICTRT, 2007). Spatial
structure refers to the geographic
distribution of a population and the
processes that affect the distribution.
Populations with restricted distribution
and few spawning areas are at a higher
risk of extinction from catastrophic
environmental events (e.g., a single
landslide) than are populations with
more widespread and complex spatial
structure. A population with complex
spatial structure typically has multiple
spawning areas that facilitate the
expression of gene flow and life history
characteristics. Population diversity
concerns the phenotypic (morphology,
behavior, and life-history traits) and
genotypic (DNA) characteristics of
populations. Phenotypic diversity
allows more diverse populations to use
a wider array of environments and
protects populations against short-term
temporal and spatial environmental
changes. Genotypic diversity (DNA), on
the other hand, provides populations
with the ability to survive long-term
changes in the environment. It is the
combination of phenotypic and
genotypic diversity expressed in a
natural setting that provides
populations with the ability to adapt to
long-term changes. The mixing of
hatchery fish (or excessive numbers of
out-of-basin stocks) with naturally
produced fish on spawning grounds can
decrease genetic diversity within the
population (NMFS, 2007). The ICTRT
(2008) considers all three extant
population of this ESU at high risk of
extinction based on their current lack of
spatial structure and diversity.
On October 9, 2007, we published a
final recovery plan for the UC springrun Chinook salmon ESU (72 FR 57303).
The plan contains specific recovery
criteria that, when met, would allow
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
this ESU to be removed from the list of
threatened and endangered species. The
plan identifies specific abundance and
productivity goals for the extant
populations (Entiat, Wentachee, and
Methow) as well as specific population
spatial structure and diversity criteria.
The recovery criteria are very similar to
those recommended by the ICTRT. The
plan states ‘‘Recovery of spring Chinook
salmon in the Okanogan Subbasin is not
a requirement for delisting because the
Interior Columbia Basin Technical
Recovery Team determined that this
population was extinct. However, this
plan recognizes that if a major spawning
area could be established in the
Okanogan using an Upper Columbia
spring-run Chinook stock, then the ESU
would be at a lower risk of extinction.’’
The recovery plan also contains specific
management strategies for achieving the
objectives defined by the recovery
criteria.
UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon
Current Status
On March 18, 2010, we announced
the initiation of 5-year status reviews for
16 ESUs of Pacific salmon including the
UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (75
FR 13082). As part of this review, our
Northwest Fisheries Science Center
compiled and issued a report on the
newest scientific information on the
viability of this ESU. The report states,
‘‘The Upper Columbia Spring-run Chinook
salmon ESU is not currently meeting the
viability criteria (adapted from the ICTRT) in
the Upper Columbia Recovery Plan. Increases
in natural origin abundance relative to the
extremely low spawning levels observed in
the mid-1990s are encouraging; however,
average productivity levels remain extremely
low. Large-scale directed supplementation
programs are underway in two of the three
extant populations in the ESU. These
programs are intended to mitigate short-term
demographic risks while actions to improve
natural productivity and capacity are
implemented. While these programs may
provide short-term demographic benefits,
there are significant uncertainties regarding
the long-term risks of relying on high levels
of hatchery influence to maintain natural
populations’’ (Ford et al., 2010).
All extant populations are still
considered to be at high risk of
extinction based on the abundance/
productivity and spatial structure/
diversity metrics. When the risk levels
for these attributes are integrated, the
overall risk of extinction for this ESU is
high (Ford et al., 2010). Will Release of
an ‘‘Experimental Population’’ Further
Conservation of UC Spring-run Chinook
Salmon?
Before authorizing the release of an
experimental population, we must find
that such a release will further the
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
conservation of the species. In making
this finding, we use the best information
available to assess the four
considerations described above from 50
CFR 17.81(b). Below we describe
information relevant to each of these
considerations.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Possible Adverse Effects of Removing
Individuals From Elsewhere To
Establish the Experimental Population
During our analysis of the CTCR’s
ESA 10(j) authorization request, we will
consider the most appropriate source of
fish to establish an experimental
population. It is likely that this source
would be excess hatchery-reared
Chinook salmon from the Methow
Composite program. These fish are from
the neighboring river basin and have
evolved in an environment similar to
that of the Okanogan Basin. They are
likely to be the most similar genetically
to the extirpated Okanogan spring-run
Chinook salmon population. For the
past several years, enough adult salmon
from this hatchery program have
returned to the Methow Basin that
excess eggs and sperm are available to
begin raising fish for reintroduction into
the Okanogan Basin. If this stock were
chosen as the appropriate donor
population, we would issue necessary
permits under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A)
prior to any reintroduction effort. It is
not expected that the use of eggs and
sperm from excess hatchery fish would
have any adverse effects on the natural
population of UC spring-run Chinook
salmon in the Methow Basin because
they exceed the minimum number of
adults needed to maintain hatchery
production. Although the Methow
Composite program seems the most
likely source of fish for reintroduction,
there are other potential sources. The
CTCR’s 10(j) authorization request
identified the Methow Composite
program as the most appropriate source
population.
The Likelihood That the Experimental
Population Would Become Established
and Survive in the Foreseeable Future
Human development of the Okanogan
Basin along with commercial and
recreational fisheries led to the
extirpation of UC spring-run Chinook
salmon (NMFS, 2007), and to the 1997
listing of Upper Columbia River
steelhead (62 FR 43937) that currently
persist in the Okanogan Basin. In recent
years, there have been numerous habitat
improvement projects completed in the
U.S. and Canadian portions of the
Okanogan River and its tributaries. The
CTCR’s 10(j) authorization request
includes information on several of these
projects. We will consider the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:35 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
information in the request and other
information available to determine if
there is suitable habitat in the Okanogan
Basin for natural reproduction of springrun Chinook salmon. Although any
reintroduction effort is likely to require
supplementation with hatchery-origin
fish for several years, we will consider
the likelihood that a population of
spring-run Chinook salmon could
become established and eventually
persist, without hatchery
supplementation.
Potential Effects That Establishment of
an Experimental Population Might Have
on the Recovery of the Species
The establishment of a fourth
population of UC spring-run Chinook
salmon could potentially improve
viability of this ESU by increasing
overall ESU abundance and improving
ESU spatial structure. An ESU
consisting of four rather than three
independent populations faces lower
risk of extinction from natural events
such as landslides, extreme floods,
earthquakes, and volcanic activity. If we
authorize an experimental population
under ESA section 10(j), and if the
reintroduction were successful, any
contributions that the experimental
population might make to viability of
the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU
as a whole would be evaluated in future
reviews of this ESU’s status. The
recovery plan for the species states
recovery of spring Chinook salmon in
the Okanogan Subbasin is not a
requirement for delisting. The recovery
plan also contains specific management
strategies for achieving the objectives
defined by the recovery criteria. The
CTCR’s 10(j) request provides a detailed
discussion of its view on this
consideration.
The Extent to Which an Introduced
Population May Be Affected by Existing
Federal or State Actions, or Private
Activities Within or Adjacent to the
Experimental Population Area
There are numerous human activities,
including agriculture, forestry,
irrigation, urban development,
transportation management, and
recreational fishing occurring in the
Okanogan River Basin that could
potentially affect an introduced
population of spring-run Chinook
salmon. Some of these activities have
been altered to reduce their effects on
anadromous fish and their habitat due
to the presence of ESA-listed UC
steelhead in the Okanogan River Basin.
Nevertheless, it is likely that the
cumulative impacts of these activities
will render some portions of the
Okanogan river Basin unsuitable for
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42661
spring-run Chinook salmon. We plan to
consider the available information to
determine what effect these activities
might have on an introduced population
of spring-run Chinook salmon. The
CTCR’s 10(j) authorization request
provides a detailed discussion of their
view on this consideration.
Issues Related to Regulations
Authorizing an Experimental
Population
In this section we discuss issues
related to the four components that will
be provided in any regulations
promulgated with regard to an
experimental population authorization
under ESA Section 10(j) (50 CFR
17.81(c)). The CTCR’s 10(j) request
provides a detailed discussion of their
views on these issues.
Appropriate Means To Identify the
Experimental Population
For an experimental population of UC
spring-run Chinook salmon to receive a
10(j) authorization, we would need to
ensure that the candidate experimental
population would be geographically
separate from other members of this
ESU when the fish are present in the
Okanogan River Basin and in the
portion of the Columbia River upstream
of its confluence with Okanogan River
to the base of Chief Joseph Dam.
Currently, spring-run Chinook salmon
are extirpated from this area and
straying of fish from other populations
into this area is extremely low. If the
ESA 10(j) authorization were to occur,
hatchery-origin fish used for the
reintroduction would be marked, for
example, with specific fin clips and
coded-wire tags. Future adult and
juvenile spring-run Chinook salmon in
this area would be considered to be
members of the experimental
population. It may be possible to mark
these fish in a manner that would
distinguish them from other hatcheryraised Chinook salmon, and we will
consider this during the development of
our proposal. If the reintroduction is
successful, and fish begin reproducing
naturally, their offspring would not be
distinguishable from fish from other
Chinook salmon populations. Outside of
the experimental population area, e.g.,
in the Columbia River below the
Okanogan or in the ocean, we would
consider these unmarked fish to be
members of the listed ESU (that is, we
would not consider them to be part of
the experimental population).
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
42662
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Whether the Experimental Population Is
Essential to the Continued Existence of
the Species
In authorizing an experimental
population under ESA section 10(j), we
must determine whether the population
is essential to the continued existence of
the species in the wild. We have
proposed to use the same definition as
is in the USFWS regulations at 50 CFR
17.80 (see above). The UC spring-run
Chinook salmon ESU is currently at
high risk of extinction. Based on the
recovery plan’s criteria and proposed
management strategies, the UC springrun Chinook salmon ESU could recover
to the point where listing under the ESA
is no longer necessary solely with
contributions from the three extant
populations. Specifically, if the
Wenatchee and Methow population
could achieve a 12-year geometric mean
abundance of 2,000 fish and the Entiat
reach a 12-year geometric mean
abundance of 500 fish, the ESU would
meet the recovery criteria for
abundance. This would require a
minimum productivity of between 1.2
and 1.4 for the 12-year time period
(NMFS, 2007). The extant populations
would also need to meet specific
criteria, identified in the recovery plan,
which would result in a moderate or
lower risk for spatial structure and
diversity. At this point, the ESU would
be considered viable and could possibly
be delisted, if all threats were being
addressed. The Upper Columbia
Recovery Plan identifies several harvest,
hatchery management, hydropower and
habitat related actions that could be
taken to improve viability of the three
extant spring-run Chinook salmon
populations. The plan also clearly states
that recovery of spring-run Chinook
salmon in the Okanogan Basin is not a
requirement for delisting. For these
reasons, if this action goes forward it is
possible that a reintroduced population
in the Okanogan Basin could be
considered ‘‘nonessential.’’
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Management Restrictions, Protective
Measures, and Other Special
Management Considerations
When authorizing experimental
populations, we consider whether the
population will require management
restrictions, protective measures, or
other special management
considerations. If we authorize an
experimental population of spring-run
Chinook salmon in the Okanogan River
Basin, we may establish protective
regulations under section 4(d) of the
ESA. The regulations we may consider
are discussed below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:35 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
A Process for Periodic Review
If we authorize the release of an
experimental population under ESA
section 10(j), the success of the
reintroduction effort is likely to be
assessed by certain ongoing monitoring
programs and new programs developed
specifically for this purpose. The CTCR
request identifies ongoing monitoring
and evaluation programs such as the
WDFW monitoring program at Wells
Dam (located on the mainstem
Columbia River downstream of the
confluence with the Methow River) that
could be slightly modified to include
monitoring of an experimental
population. The CTCR request also
identifies additional monitoring
activities in the Okanogan Basin,
including spawning ground and carcass
surveys, weir counts, and video
surveillance at Zosel Dam (located at
river mile 79 of the Okanogan River, just
south of Osoyoos Lake and the U.S.–
Canada border). As data are collected
through these monitoring efforts, NMFS,
the CTCR, and other potential project
partners can evaluate the success of the
program.
If the reintroduction were successful,
we expect that the experimental
population’s status in terms of
abundance, productivity, spatial
structure and diversity would be
evaluated in a manner similar to the
three extant populations in the UC
spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. We
would likely request that the ICTRT
recommend recovery criteria for this
population as they have for the three
extant populations. Any contribution
that the nonessential experimental
population could make to the ESU as a
whole would eventually be considered
in a 5-year periodic review as required
by ESA section 4(c)(2)(A).
Potential Regulations
Any population authorized by the
Secretary to be an experimental
population shall be treated as if it were
a threatened species (for the purposes of
ESA section 7, nonessential
experimental populations are treated as
proposed for listing). This means the
agency shall establish regulations under
section 4(d) of the ESA it deems
necessary and appropriate with respect
to such population. The protective
regulations adopted for experimental
populations may contain prohibitions
and exceptions related to that
population. In the authorization request,
the CTCR asked us to establish limited
take prohibitions for this experimental
population. In short, the CTCR has
requested that we generally prohibit
take of members of the population, but
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
allow: (1) Take that is incidental to an
otherwise lawful activity, (2) incidental
take that occurs as a result of lawful
tribal and recreational fishing for nonlisted fish; (3) direct harvest of adult
salmon in the case that such harvest is
required to reduce the proportion of
hatchery-origin fish (as compared to
naturally-produced fish) returning to
spawning grounds; (4) direct take of
adults needed for hatchery brood stock,
and (5) direct or indirect take that
occurs as a result of scientific research,
monitoring, or evaluation. We will
consider the Tribe’s request in
developing any proposal. Another
option would be to apply our current
4(d) protective regulations for
threatened salmon and steelhead in
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (50 CFR
223.203).
Information Solicited
Authorizing the release of an
experimental salmon population under
ESA section 10(j) is a relatively new
activity for NMFS. We believe it is
important to engage the public early in
the rulemaking process. This ANPR is a
key first step, and we encourage all
interested parties to submit comments
regarding the issues raised in this
notice. Similar to the UFWS process, we
plan to consult with the WDFW, local
government entities, affected Federal
agencies, and private landowners in the
experimental population area if we
develop a proposal. We will also
conduct meetings with affected parties
prior to developing our proposal. If we
move forward with developing a
proposal, we will conduct a review of
the reintroduction and experimental
population designation under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
At this time, we seek information on
the following:
(1) Possible adverse effects of
removing individuals from a donor
population to begin the experimental
population. Excess fish from the
Methow Composite hatchery program
appear to be the most likely source of
individuals to begin the reintroduction.
Currently, we are unaware of any
adverse effects of removing these excess
hatchery fish. We solicit information on
any possible adverse effects we may not
have considered;
(2) Other possible sources of springrun Chinook salmon to begin the
reintroduction;
(3) The likelihood that the
experimental population will become
established in the Okanogan Basin;
(4) The likelihood that the
experimental population could
eventually persist without substantial
hatchery supplementation;
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(5) How the establishment of the
experimental population may contribute
to recovery of the UC spring-run
Chinook salmon ESU as a whole;
(6) The extent to which the
experimental population would be
affected by current or future Federal,
state, or private actions within or
adjacent to the experimental population
area;
(7) Current programs within the
experimental population area that
protect fish or aquatic habitats;
(8) Whether the experimental
population would be essential to the
continued existence of the UC springrun Chinook salmon ESU. The
information currently available
indicates that the experimental
population is likely to be ‘‘nonessential’’
for the reasons discussed above. We
solicit information to support this
conclusion as well as any information to
the contrary;
(9) Any necessary management
restrictions, protective measures, or
other management measures that we
have not considered;
(10) Monitoring or evaluation actions
that may be needed to assess the success
of the reintroduction;
(11) How, if the reintroduction were
successful, the experimental
population’s contribution to overall ESU
viability might be assessed; and
(12) Names, expertise, and contact
information for potential peer reviewers
for this designation. We seek
individuals with expertise in salmon
biology, population ecology, and/or
reintroductions of at-risk species.
We seek the above information as
soon as possible but by no later than
September 19, 2011.
References
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The complete citations for the
references used in this document, as
well as the CTCR ESA 10(j)
authorization request can be obtained by
contacting us directly or via the Internet
(see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Dated: July 13, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–18015 Filed 7–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:35 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket: 110627355–1354–01]
RIN 0648–BB08
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Northeast
(NE) Multispecies Fishery; Framework
Adjustment 46
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to
implement measures in Framework
Adjustment (FW) 46 to the NE
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). FW 46 was developed and
submitted to NMFS for approval by the
New England Fishery Management
Council (Council) to address haddock
catch in the Atlantic herring fishery.
The proposed rule would increase the
haddock incidental catch cap allocated
to the Atlantic midwater trawl herring
fishery to 1 percent of the Georges Bank
(GB) haddock Acceptable Biological
Catch (ABC) and to 1 percent of the Gulf
of Maine (GOM) haddock ABC. In
addition, this action would modify the
cap accountability measures (AMs) such
that, upon attainment of the cap, the
midwater trawl herring fleet could not
catch or land herring in excess of the
incidental catch limit (2,000 lb (907.2
kg)) in or from the appropriate haddock
stock area. This action is intended to
allow the herring fishery to fully utilize
available herring quota, while providing
incentives for the midwater trawl
fishery to minimize haddock catch.
DATES: Comments must be received by
August 3, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by 0648–BB08, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Melissa
Vasquez.
• Mail: Paper, disk, or CD–ROM
comments should be sent to Patricia A.
Kurkul, Regional Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 55
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930. Mark the outside of the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42663
envelope, ‘‘Comments on the Proposed
Rule for NE Multispecies Framework
Adjustment 46.’’
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter
N/A in the required fields, if you wish
to remain anonymous). You may submit
attachments to electronic comments in
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of FW 46, its Regulatory
Impact Review (RIR), a draft of the
environmental assessment (EA)
prepared for this action, and the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
prepared by the Council are available
from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management
Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2,
Newburyport, MA 01950. The IRFA
assessing the impacts of the proposed
measures on small entities and
describing steps taken to minimize any
significant economic impact on such
entities is summarized in the
Classification section of this proposed
rule. The FW 46 EA/RIR/IRFA are also
accessible via the Internet at https://
www.nefmc.org/nemulti/ or
https://www.nero.noaa.gov. Written
comments regarding the burden-hour
estimates or other aspects of the
collection-of-information requirements
contained in this rule should be
submitted to the Regional Administrator
at the address above and to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
by e-mail at
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax
to (202) 395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Vasquez, Fishery Policy
Analyst, phone: 978–281–9166, fax:
978–281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Council initiated FW 46 to revise
the haddock incidental catch cap for the
Atlantic herring fishery to allow for the
full utilization of available herring
quota, while providing incentives for
the midwater trawl herring fishery to
minimize haddock catch. FW 43 to the
NE Multispecies FMP (71 FR 46871;
August 15, 2006) established an
exempted fishery in 2006 to allow for
the incidental catch of NE multispecies
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42658-42663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18015]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 110615334-1325-01]
RIN 0648-XA311
Endangered and Threatened Species: Authorizing Release of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of Upper Columbia Spring-Run
Chinook Salmon in the Okanogan River Basin Under the Endangered Species
Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), will be
considering a proposal to authorize a nonessential experimental
population of Upper Columbia (UC) spring-run Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Okanogan River and its tributaries in
Okanogan County, Washington under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended. The geographic boundaries of the experimental
population area would likely include the entire Okanogan River subbasin
and a portion of the mainstem Columbia River from the confluence of the
Columbia and Okanogan Rivers upstream to the base of Chief Joseph Dam.
We will consider the best available information to determine if
reintroduction of Chinook salmon is biologically feasible and will
promote the conservation of the UC spring-run Chinook salmon
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). This advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) identifies policy and technical issues for
consideration and evaluation, and solicits comments regarding them.
DATES: Comments and information regarding the designation process may
be sent to us (see ADDRESSES), no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Time on
September 19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Chief, Protected Resources Division,
NMFS, 1201 NE. Lloyd Blvd.--Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments
may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 503-230-5441 or submitted on
the Internet via the Federal Rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without
change. We may elect not to post comments that contain obscene or
threatening content. All personal identifying information (for example,
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
We will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Murray, NMFS, Northwest Region,
Portland, OR 503-231-2378; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, Silver Spring, MD 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Rulemaking Background
We first listed the Upper Columbia (UC) spring-run Chinook salmon
ESU as endangered under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), and
reaffirmed this status on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). ESA Section 9
``take'' prohibitions currently apply to the UC spring-run Chinook
salmon ESU because of its endangered status.
The listed ESU currently includes all naturally spawned populations
of spring-run Chinook salmon in accessible reaches of Columbia River
tributaries between Rock Island and Chief Joseph Dams, excluding the
Okanogan River. Listed spring-run Chinook salmon from this ESU
currently spawn in three river basins in eastern Washington: The
Methow, Entiat and Wenatchee. A fourth population historically
inhabited the Okanogan River Basin, but was extirpated in the 1930s
because of overfishing, hydropower development, and habitat degradation
(NMFS, 2007).
The designated critical habitat of UC spring-run Chinook salmon
similarly includes all accessible reaches of Columbia River tributaries
between Rock Island and Chief Joseph Dams, but excludes the Okanogan
River. We did not include the Okanogan River Basin in any critical
habitat designation because the Okanogan population of spring-run
Chinook salmon no longer existed.
The listed UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU also includes six
artificial propagation programs: The Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow
Composite, Winthrop National Fish Hatchery, Chiwawa River, and White
River spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs.
On October 9, 2007, we adopted a final recovery plan for the UC
spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (72 FR 57303). The recovery plan
identifies three extant populations in this ESU (the Methow, Wenatchee,
and Entiat) and an historic, extirpated population in the Okanogan
River Basin (NMFS, 2007). The recovery plan identifies re-establishment
of a population in the Okanogan River Basin as a recovery action (NMFS,
2007). Re-establishment of a spring-run Chinook salmon population in
the Okanogan River Basin could aid recovery of this ESU by increasing
abundance, by improving spatial structure, and by reducing the risk of
extinction to the ESU as a whole.
On November 22, 2010, we received a letter from the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) requesting that we authorize
the release of an experimental population of spring-run Chinook salmon
in the Okanogan River Basin. The CTCR has also initiated discussions on
this topic with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
Bonneville Power Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Bureau of Reclamation, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), and the Okanagan Nations Alliance of Canada. The CTCR's request
included a large amount of information on the biology of UC spring-run
Chinook salmon and the possible management implications of releasing an
experimental population in the Okanogan Basin.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Section 10(j) of the ESA allows the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) to authorize the release of populations of listed species
outside their current range
[[Page 42659]]
if the release would ``further the conservation'' of the listed
species. The statute refers to such a population as ``experimental.''
We may only authorize an experimental population by regulation, and the
regulation must identify the population and determine, on the basis of
the best available information, whether the population is ``essential
to the continued existence of the species'' (section 10(j)(B)). Section
10(j) provides that an experimental population is treated as a
``threatened species,'' except that populations authorized as ``non-
essential'' experimental populations do not receive the benefits of
certain protections normally applicable to threatened species. Below we
discuss the impact of treating experimental populations as threatened
species, and of exceptions that apply to non-essential experimental
populations.
For endangered species, Section 9 of the ESA automatically
prohibits take. The ESA defines take to mean harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in
any such conduct. For threatened species, the ESA does not
automatically prohibit take, but instead authorizes the agency to adopt
regulations it deems necessary and advisable for species conservation
(ESA section 4(d)). Such 4(d) regulations may include the take
prohibitions of section 9.
If we authorize an experimental population of a threatened species,
and there is an existing regulation under ESA section 4(d), that
existing regulation will apply to the experimental population. If,
however, we authorize an experimental population of an endangered
species, there are no protective regulations in place until we adopt
regulations under section 4(d). This would be the case for an
experimental population of UC spring-run Chinook salmon, which are
listed as endangered.
Section 7 of the ESA provides for Federal interagency cooperation
and consultation to conserve listed species, ensure survival, help in
recovery of the species, and protect designated critical habitat.
Section 7(a)(1) mandates all Federal agencies to determine how to use
their existing authorities to further the purposes of the ESA in aiding
the recovery of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires all Federal
agencies, in consultation with NMFS, to ensure that any action they
authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 applies equally
to endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal
agencies to confer (rather than consult) with NMFS on actions that are
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to
be listed. The results of a conference are advisory in nature and do
not restrict agencies from carrying out, funding, or authorizing
activities.
Although ESA Section 10(j) provides that an experimental population
is treated as a threatened species, if the experimental population is
authorized as non-essential, ESA section 10(j)(C) requires that we
apply the ESA Section 7 consultation provisions as if it were a species
proposed to be listed, rather than a species that is listed (unless it
is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, in which
case it is treated as listed). This means that the ESA Section 7(a)(2)
consultation requirement would not apply to a non-essential
experimental population in the Okanogan Basin. Only two provisions of
ESA Section 7 would apply--section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4).
We have not promulgated regulations implementing ESA Section 10(j),
or authorized any experimental populations to date. The USFWS has
authorized many experimental populations and developed regulations to
implement Section 10(j) at 50 CFR 17.80 through 17.84. While USFWS'
regulations do not apply to NMFS' 10(j) authorizations, they can help
inform our authorization process. We will consider the factors
contained in the USFWS' regulations in determining whether to establish
an experimental population of spring-run Chinook in the Okanogan River.
The USFWS implementing regulations contain the following provisions:
The USFWS regulations define an essential experimental
population as ``an experimental population whose loss would be likely
to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in
the wild.'' All other experimental populations are classified as
nonessential. This definition was apparently derived from the
legislative history to the ESA amendments that created Sec. 10(j).
See, Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 97-835, at 15 (1982).
In finding whether the experimental population will
further the conservation of the species the Secretary shall consider
(50 CFR 17.81(b)): (1) Any possible adverse effects on extant
populations of a species as a result of removal of individuals, eggs,
or propagules for introduction elsewhere, (2) the likelihood that any
such experimental population will become established and survive in the
foreseeable future, (3) the relative effects that establishment of an
experimental population will have on the recovery of the species, and
(4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected by
existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private activities
within or adjacent to the experimental population area.
USFWS regulations also describe four components that will
be provided in any regulations promulgated with regard to an
experimental population under ESA Section 10(j). The components are (50
CFR 17.81(c)): (1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental
population, including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed
location, actual or anticipated migration, number of specimens released
or to be released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the
experimental population(s); (2) a finding, on whether the experimental
population is, or is not, essential to the continued existence of the
species in the wild; (3) management restrictions, protective measures,
or other special management concerns of that population, which may
include but are not limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the
experimental population authorized in the regulation from natural
populations; and (4) a process for periodic review and evaluation of
the success or failure of the release and the effect of the release on
the conservation and recovery of the species.
Biological Considerations
Pacific salmon and steelhead are anadromous fish that migrate as
adults from the ocean to spawn in freshwater lakes and streams where
their offspring hatch and rear prior to migrating back to the ocean to
forage until maturity. The migration and spawning times vary
considerably between and within species and populations (Groot and
Margolis, 1991). At spawning, adults pair to lay and fertilize
thousands of eggs in freshwater gravel nests or ``redds'' excavated by
females. Depending on lake/stream temperatures, eggs incubate for
several weeks to months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life
stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac
absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles called
``fry'' and begin actively feeding. Depending on the species and
location, juveniles may spend from a few hours to several years in
freshwater areas before migrating to the ocean. The physiological and
behavioral changes required for the transition to salt water
[[Page 42660]]
result in a distinct ``smolt'' stage in most species. On their journey
juveniles must migrate downstream through a riverine and estuarine
corridor between their natal lake or stream and the ocean. En route to
the ocean, the juveniles may spend from a few days to several weeks in
the estuary, depending on the species.
Juveniles and subadult salmon and steelhead typically spend from
one to five years foraging over thousands of miles in the North Pacific
Ocean before returning to spawn. Spawning migrations known as ``runs''
occur throughout the year, varying by species and location. Most adult
fish return or ``home'' with great fidelity to spawn in their natal
stream, although some do stray to non-natal streams. Pacific salmon
species die after spawning.
The homing fidelity of salmon and steelhead has resulted in
discrete independent populations distributed among watersheds (McElhany
et al., 2000). Portions of the populations will, however, stray into
adjacent watersheds to spawn. Straying results in regular genetic
exchange among populations, creating genetic similarities among
populations in adjacent watersheds. Salmon ESUs that are made up of
several independent populations spread over a wide geographic area tend
to be at lower risk of extinction than single population ESUs (McElhany
et al., 2000).
UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Life History
After 2 to 3 years in the ocean, adult UC spring-run Chinook salmon
begin returning from the ocean in the early spring, with the run into
the Columbia River peaking in mid-May (NMFS, 2007). Spring-run Chinook
salmon enter the Upper Columbia River tributaries from April through
July. After migration, they hold in these tributaries until spawning
occurs in the late summer, peaking in mid to late August. Juvenile
spring-run Chinook salmon spend a year in freshwater before migrating
to salt water in the spring of their second year of life.
UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan
Section 4(f) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to
develop recovery plans for all listed species unless the Secretary
determines that such a plan will not promote the conservation of a
listed species. Prior to developing recovery plans for salmon in the
interior Columbia River Basin, we assembled a team of scientists from
Federal and state agencies, tribes, and academia. This group, known as
the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT), was tasked with
identifying population structure and recommending recovery criteria
(also known as delisting criteria) for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead
in the Middle Columbia, Upper Columbia, and Snake River basins. The
ICTRT recommended specific abundance and productivity goals for each
population in the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. The team also
identified the current risk level of each population based on the gap
between recent abundance and productivity and the desired goals. The
ICTRT (2008) considered all three extant populations to be at high risk
of extinction based on their current abundance and productivity levels.
The ICTRT also recommended spatial structure and diversity metrics
that would reflect an ESU at low risk of extinction (ICTRT, 2007).
Spatial structure refers to the geographic distribution of a population
and the processes that affect the distribution. Populations with
restricted distribution and few spawning areas are at a higher risk of
extinction from catastrophic environmental events (e.g., a single
landslide) than are populations with more widespread and complex
spatial structure. A population with complex spatial structure
typically has multiple spawning areas that facilitate the expression of
gene flow and life history characteristics. Population diversity
concerns the phenotypic (morphology, behavior, and life-history traits)
and genotypic (DNA) characteristics of populations. Phenotypic
diversity allows more diverse populations to use a wider array of
environments and protects populations against short-term temporal and
spatial environmental changes. Genotypic diversity (DNA), on the other
hand, provides populations with the ability to survive long-term
changes in the environment. It is the combination of phenotypic and
genotypic diversity expressed in a natural setting that provides
populations with the ability to adapt to long-term changes. The mixing
of hatchery fish (or excessive numbers of out-of-basin stocks) with
naturally produced fish on spawning grounds can decrease genetic
diversity within the population (NMFS, 2007). The ICTRT (2008)
considers all three extant population of this ESU at high risk of
extinction based on their current lack of spatial structure and
diversity.
On October 9, 2007, we published a final recovery plan for the UC
spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (72 FR 57303). The plan contains specific
recovery criteria that, when met, would allow this ESU to be removed
from the list of threatened and endangered species. The plan identifies
specific abundance and productivity goals for the extant populations
(Entiat, Wentachee, and Methow) as well as specific population spatial
structure and diversity criteria. The recovery criteria are very
similar to those recommended by the ICTRT. The plan states ``Recovery
of spring Chinook salmon in the Okanogan Subbasin is not a requirement
for delisting because the Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery
Team determined that this population was extinct. However, this plan
recognizes that if a major spawning area could be established in the
Okanogan using an Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook stock, then the ESU
would be at a lower risk of extinction.'' The recovery plan also
contains specific management strategies for achieving the objectives
defined by the recovery criteria.
UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Current Status
On March 18, 2010, we announced the initiation of 5-year status
reviews for 16 ESUs of Pacific salmon including the UC spring-run
Chinook salmon ESU (75 FR 13082). As part of this review, our Northwest
Fisheries Science Center compiled and issued a report on the newest
scientific information on the viability of this ESU. The report states,
``The Upper Columbia Spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is not
currently meeting the viability criteria (adapted from the ICTRT) in
the Upper Columbia Recovery Plan. Increases in natural origin
abundance relative to the extremely low spawning levels observed in
the mid[hyphen]1990s are encouraging; however, average productivity
levels remain extremely low. Large-scale directed supplementation
programs are underway in two of the three extant populations in the
ESU. These programs are intended to mitigate short[hyphen]term
demographic risks while actions to improve natural productivity and
capacity are implemented. While these programs may provide
short[hyphen]term demographic benefits, there are significant
uncertainties regarding the long[hyphen]term risks of relying on
high levels of hatchery influence to maintain natural populations''
(Ford et al., 2010).
All extant populations are still considered to be at high risk of
extinction based on the abundance/productivity and spatial structure/
diversity metrics. When the risk levels for these attributes are
integrated, the overall risk of extinction for this ESU is high (Ford
et al., 2010). Will Release of an ``Experimental Population'' Further
Conservation of UC Spring-run Chinook Salmon?
Before authorizing the release of an experimental population, we
must find that such a release will further the
[[Page 42661]]
conservation of the species. In making this finding, we use the best
information available to assess the four considerations described above
from 50 CFR 17.81(b). Below we describe information relevant to each of
these considerations.
Possible Adverse Effects of Removing Individuals From Elsewhere To
Establish the Experimental Population
During our analysis of the CTCR's ESA 10(j) authorization request,
we will consider the most appropriate source of fish to establish an
experimental population. It is likely that this source would be excess
hatchery-reared Chinook salmon from the Methow Composite program. These
fish are from the neighboring river basin and have evolved in an
environment similar to that of the Okanogan Basin. They are likely to
be the most similar genetically to the extirpated Okanogan spring-run
Chinook salmon population. For the past several years, enough adult
salmon from this hatchery program have returned to the Methow Basin
that excess eggs and sperm are available to begin raising fish for
reintroduction into the Okanogan Basin. If this stock were chosen as
the appropriate donor population, we would issue necessary permits
under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) prior to any reintroduction effort. It is
not expected that the use of eggs and sperm from excess hatchery fish
would have any adverse effects on the natural population of UC spring-
run Chinook salmon in the Methow Basin because they exceed the minimum
number of adults needed to maintain hatchery production. Although the
Methow Composite program seems the most likely source of fish for
reintroduction, there are other potential sources. The CTCR's 10(j)
authorization request identified the Methow Composite program as the
most appropriate source population.
The Likelihood That the Experimental Population Would Become
Established and Survive in the Foreseeable Future
Human development of the Okanogan Basin along with commercial and
recreational fisheries led to the extirpation of UC spring-run Chinook
salmon (NMFS, 2007), and to the 1997 listing of Upper Columbia River
steelhead (62 FR 43937) that currently persist in the Okanogan Basin.
In recent years, there have been numerous habitat improvement projects
completed in the U.S. and Canadian portions of the Okanogan River and
its tributaries. The CTCR's 10(j) authorization request includes
information on several of these projects. We will consider the
information in the request and other information available to determine
if there is suitable habitat in the Okanogan Basin for natural
reproduction of spring-run Chinook salmon. Although any reintroduction
effort is likely to require supplementation with hatchery-origin fish
for several years, we will consider the likelihood that a population of
spring-run Chinook salmon could become established and eventually
persist, without hatchery supplementation.
Potential Effects That Establishment of an Experimental Population
Might Have on the Recovery of the Species
The establishment of a fourth population of UC spring-run Chinook
salmon could potentially improve viability of this ESU by increasing
overall ESU abundance and improving ESU spatial structure. An ESU
consisting of four rather than three independent populations faces
lower risk of extinction from natural events such as landslides,
extreme floods, earthquakes, and volcanic activity. If we authorize an
experimental population under ESA section 10(j), and if the
reintroduction were successful, any contributions that the experimental
population might make to viability of the UC spring-run Chinook salmon
ESU as a whole would be evaluated in future reviews of this ESU's
status. The recovery plan for the species states recovery of spring
Chinook salmon in the Okanogan Subbasin is not a requirement for
delisting. The recovery plan also contains specific management
strategies for achieving the objectives defined by the recovery
criteria. The CTCR's 10(j) request provides a detailed discussion of
its view on this consideration.
The Extent to Which an Introduced Population May Be Affected by
Existing Federal or State Actions, or Private Activities Within or
Adjacent to the Experimental Population Area
There are numerous human activities, including agriculture,
forestry, irrigation, urban development, transportation management, and
recreational fishing occurring in the Okanogan River Basin that could
potentially affect an introduced population of spring-run Chinook
salmon. Some of these activities have been altered to reduce their
effects on anadromous fish and their habitat due to the presence of
ESA-listed UC steelhead in the Okanogan River Basin. Nevertheless, it
is likely that the cumulative impacts of these activities will render
some portions of the Okanogan river Basin unsuitable for spring-run
Chinook salmon. We plan to consider the available information to
determine what effect these activities might have on an introduced
population of spring-run Chinook salmon. The CTCR's 10(j) authorization
request provides a detailed discussion of their view on this
consideration.
Issues Related to Regulations Authorizing an Experimental Population
In this section we discuss issues related to the four components
that will be provided in any regulations promulgated with regard to an
experimental population authorization under ESA Section 10(j) (50 CFR
17.81(c)). The CTCR's 10(j) request provides a detailed discussion of
their views on these issues.
Appropriate Means To Identify the Experimental Population
For an experimental population of UC spring-run Chinook salmon to
receive a 10(j) authorization, we would need to ensure that the
candidate experimental population would be geographically separate from
other members of this ESU when the fish are present in the Okanogan
River Basin and in the portion of the Columbia River upstream of its
confluence with Okanogan River to the base of Chief Joseph Dam.
Currently, spring-run Chinook salmon are extirpated from this area and
straying of fish from other populations into this area is extremely
low. If the ESA 10(j) authorization were to occur, hatchery-origin fish
used for the reintroduction would be marked, for example, with specific
fin clips and coded-wire tags. Future adult and juvenile spring-run
Chinook salmon in this area would be considered to be members of the
experimental population. It may be possible to mark these fish in a
manner that would distinguish them from other hatchery-raised Chinook
salmon, and we will consider this during the development of our
proposal. If the reintroduction is successful, and fish begin
reproducing naturally, their offspring would not be distinguishable
from fish from other Chinook salmon populations. Outside of the
experimental population area, e.g., in the Columbia River below the
Okanogan or in the ocean, we would consider these unmarked fish to be
members of the listed ESU (that is, we would not consider them to be
part of the experimental population).
[[Page 42662]]
Whether the Experimental Population Is Essential to the Continued
Existence of the Species
In authorizing an experimental population under ESA section 10(j),
we must determine whether the population is essential to the continued
existence of the species in the wild. We have proposed to use the same
definition as is in the USFWS regulations at 50 CFR 17.80 (see above).
The UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is currently at high risk of
extinction. Based on the recovery plan's criteria and proposed
management strategies, the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU could
recover to the point where listing under the ESA is no longer necessary
solely with contributions from the three extant populations.
Specifically, if the Wenatchee and Methow population could achieve a
12-year geometric mean abundance of 2,000 fish and the Entiat reach a
12-year geometric mean abundance of 500 fish, the ESU would meet the
recovery criteria for abundance. This would require a minimum
productivity of between 1.2 and 1.4 for the 12-year time period (NMFS,
2007). The extant populations would also need to meet specific
criteria, identified in the recovery plan, which would result in a
moderate or lower risk for spatial structure and diversity. At this
point, the ESU would be considered viable and could possibly be
delisted, if all threats were being addressed. The Upper Columbia
Recovery Plan identifies several harvest, hatchery management,
hydropower and habitat related actions that could be taken to improve
viability of the three extant spring-run Chinook salmon populations.
The plan also clearly states that recovery of spring-run Chinook salmon
in the Okanogan Basin is not a requirement for delisting. For these
reasons, if this action goes forward it is possible that a reintroduced
population in the Okanogan Basin could be considered ``nonessential.''
Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special
Management Considerations
When authorizing experimental populations, we consider whether the
population will require management restrictions, protective measures,
or other special management considerations. If we authorize an
experimental population of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Okanogan
River Basin, we may establish protective regulations under section 4(d)
of the ESA. The regulations we may consider are discussed below.
A Process for Periodic Review
If we authorize the release of an experimental population under ESA
section 10(j), the success of the reintroduction effort is likely to be
assessed by certain ongoing monitoring programs and new programs
developed specifically for this purpose. The CTCR request identifies
ongoing monitoring and evaluation programs such as the WDFW monitoring
program at Wells Dam (located on the mainstem Columbia River downstream
of the confluence with the Methow River) that could be slightly
modified to include monitoring of an experimental population. The CTCR
request also identifies additional monitoring activities in the
Okanogan Basin, including spawning ground and carcass surveys, weir
counts, and video surveillance at Zosel Dam (located at river mile 79
of the Okanogan River, just south of Osoyoos Lake and the U.S.-Canada
border). As data are collected through these monitoring efforts, NMFS,
the CTCR, and other potential project partners can evaluate the success
of the program.
If the reintroduction were successful, we expect that the
experimental population's status in terms of abundance, productivity,
spatial structure and diversity would be evaluated in a manner similar
to the three extant populations in the UC spring-run Chinook salmon
ESU. We would likely request that the ICTRT recommend recovery criteria
for this population as they have for the three extant populations. Any
contribution that the nonessential experimental population could make
to the ESU as a whole would eventually be considered in a 5-year
periodic review as required by ESA section 4(c)(2)(A).
Potential Regulations
Any population authorized by the Secretary to be an experimental
population shall be treated as if it were a threatened species (for the
purposes of ESA section 7, nonessential experimental populations are
treated as proposed for listing). This means the agency shall establish
regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA it deems necessary and
appropriate with respect to such population. The protective regulations
adopted for experimental populations may contain prohibitions and
exceptions related to that population. In the authorization request,
the CTCR asked us to establish limited take prohibitions for this
experimental population. In short, the CTCR has requested that we
generally prohibit take of members of the population, but allow: (1)
Take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, (2) incidental
take that occurs as a result of lawful tribal and recreational fishing
for non-listed fish; (3) direct harvest of adult salmon in the case
that such harvest is required to reduce the proportion of hatchery-
origin fish (as compared to naturally-produced fish) returning to
spawning grounds; (4) direct take of adults needed for hatchery brood
stock, and (5) direct or indirect take that occurs as a result of
scientific research, monitoring, or evaluation. We will consider the
Tribe's request in developing any proposal. Another option would be to
apply our current 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmon and
steelhead in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (50 CFR 223.203).
Information Solicited
Authorizing the release of an experimental salmon population under
ESA section 10(j) is a relatively new activity for NMFS. We believe it
is important to engage the public early in the rulemaking process. This
ANPR is a key first step, and we encourage all interested parties to
submit comments regarding the issues raised in this notice. Similar to
the UFWS process, we plan to consult with the WDFW, local government
entities, affected Federal agencies, and private landowners in the
experimental population area if we develop a proposal. We will also
conduct meetings with affected parties prior to developing our
proposal. If we move forward with developing a proposal, we will
conduct a review of the reintroduction and experimental population
designation under the National Environmental Policy Act.
At this time, we seek information on the following:
(1) Possible adverse effects of removing individuals from a donor
population to begin the experimental population. Excess fish from the
Methow Composite hatchery program appear to be the most likely source
of individuals to begin the reintroduction. Currently, we are unaware
of any adverse effects of removing these excess hatchery fish. We
solicit information on any possible adverse effects we may not have
considered;
(2) Other possible sources of spring-run Chinook salmon to begin
the reintroduction;
(3) The likelihood that the experimental population will become
established in the Okanogan Basin;
(4) The likelihood that the experimental population could
eventually persist without substantial hatchery supplementation;
[[Page 42663]]
(5) How the establishment of the experimental population may
contribute to recovery of the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU as a
whole;
(6) The extent to which the experimental population would be
affected by current or future Federal, state, or private actions within
or adjacent to the experimental population area;
(7) Current programs within the experimental population area that
protect fish or aquatic habitats;
(8) Whether the experimental population would be essential to the
continued existence of the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. The
information currently available indicates that the experimental
population is likely to be ``nonessential'' for the reasons discussed
above. We solicit information to support this conclusion as well as any
information to the contrary;
(9) Any necessary management restrictions, protective measures, or
other management measures that we have not considered;
(10) Monitoring or evaluation actions that may be needed to assess
the success of the reintroduction;
(11) How, if the reintroduction were successful, the experimental
population's contribution to overall ESU viability might be assessed;
and
(12) Names, expertise, and contact information for potential peer
reviewers for this designation. We seek individuals with expertise in
salmon biology, population ecology, and/or reintroductions of at-risk
species.
We seek the above information as soon as possible but by no later
than September 19, 2011.
References
The complete citations for the references used in this document, as
well as the CTCR ESA 10(j) authorization request can be obtained by
contacting us directly or via the Internet (see ADDRESSES and FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Dated: July 13, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-18015 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
