Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Upper Columbia Spring-Run Chinook Salmon in the Okanogan River Subbasin, Washington, and Protective Regulations, 63439-63447 [2013-24845]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63439-63447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24845]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 130716626-3805-01]
RIN 0648--BD51


Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of a Nonessential 
Experimental Population of Upper Columbia Spring-Run Chinook Salmon in 
the Okanogan River Subbasin, Washington, and Protective Regulations

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; open comment period; notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose a 
rule to designate and authorize the release of a nonessential 
experimental population (NEP) of Upper Columbia River spring-run (UCR) 
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) under section 10(j) of the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the Okanogan River subbasin, and to 
establish a limited set of take prohibitions for the NEP. Under the 
proposed rule, the geographic boundary for the NEP would be the 
mainstem and all tributaries of the Okanogan River between the Canada-
United States border and to the confluence of the Okanogan River with 
the Columbia River, Washington (hereafter ``Okanogan River NEP Area''). 
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) on this proposed 
action. We seek comment on both this proposed rule and the EA (see 
ADDRESSES section below).

DATES: To allow us adequate time to consider your comments on this 
proposed rule, they must be received no later than December 9, 2013. 
Comments on the EA must be received by December 9, 2013. One public 
meeting will be held at which the public can make comments on the draft 
EA and proposed rule. The meeting will be at Koala Street Grill, 
banquet room, 914 Koala Avenue, Omak, WA, 98841, on November 5 from 
5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2013-0140, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0140, click the 
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or 
attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Chief, Protected 
Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE. Lloyd Blvd.-Suite 1100, Portland, OR 
97232.
     Fax: (503) 230-5441.
    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 part of the 
public record and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. We 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.
    You may access a copy of the draft EA by one of the following:
     Visit NMFS' Reintroduction Web site at: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_steelhead_listings/chinook/upper_columbia_river_spring_run/upper_columbia_river_spring_run_chinook.html.
     Call (503) 736-4721 and request to have a CD or hard copy 
mailed to you.
     Obtain a CD or hard copy by visiting NMFS, 1201 NE. Lloyd 
Blvd. Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
    Please see the draft EA for additional information regarding 
commenting on that document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, 
Portland, OR (503-231-2005) or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301-427-8403).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information Relevant to Experimental Population Designation

    The UCR Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) is 
listed as an endangered species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 
NMFS first designated the UCR Chinook salmon ESU as endangered on March 
24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), reaffirmed this status on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 
37160), and maintained its endangered status after the ESU's 5-year 
review (76 FR 50448, August 15, 2011). ``Take'' of the species is 
prohibited by section 9 of the ESA under most circumstances as defined 
in the ESA.
    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.\1\ Listed spring-run Chinook salmon from this ESU 
currently spawn in three river subbasins in eastern Washington: The 
Methow, Entiat and Wenatchee. A fourth population historically 
inhabited the Okanogan River subbasin, but was extirpated in the 1930s 
because of overfishing, hydropower development, and habitat degradation 
(NMFS 2007). The listed UCR 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Okanogan River is a major tributary of the upper 
Columbia River, entering the Columbia River between Wells and Chief 
Joseph Dams. The majority of the Okanogan River subbasin is in 
Canada (74 percent) with the remainder in Washington State (26 
percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 9, 2007, we adopted a final recovery plan for the UCR 
Chinook salmon ESU (72 FR 57303). The

[[Page 63440]]

recovery plan identifies re-establishment of a population in the 
Okanogan River subbasin as a recovery action (NMFS 2007). More 
specifically, the recovery plan explains that re-establishment of a 
spring-run Chinook salmon population in the Okanogan River subbasin 
would 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 subbasin. 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 UCR Chinook 
salmon and the possible management implications of releasing an 
experimental population in the Okanogan subbasin.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Experimental Populations

    Section 10(j) of the ESA, entitled ``Experimental Populations,'' 
allows the Secretary to authorize the release of populations of listed 
species outside their current range if the release would ``further the 
conservation'' of the listed species. An ``experimental population'' is 
defined by the statute in section 10(j)(1) as one authorized for 
release, ``but only when and at such times as, the population is wholly 
separate geographically from the nonexperimental populations of the 
same species.''
    Before authorizing the release of an experimental population, 
section 10(j)(2)(B) requires that we must ``by regulation identify the 
population and determine, on the basis of the best available 
information, whether or not the population is essential to the 
continued existence of the species.''
    An experimental population is treated as a ``threatened species,'' 
except that ``non-essential populations'' do not receive the benefit of 
certain protections normally applicable to threatened species (ESA 
Section 10(j)(2)(C)). Below we discuss the impact of treating 
experimental populations as threatened species, and of exceptions that 
apply to NEPs.
    For endangered species, section 9 of the ESA automatically 
prohibits take. The ESA defines take to mean harass, harm, pursue, 
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to 
engage in any such conduct. For threatened species, the ESA does not 
automatically extend the Section 9 take prohibitions, but instead 
authorizes the agency to adopt regulations it deems necessary and 
advisable for species conservation, including prohibiting take under 
section 4(d).
    Where, as proposed here, we designate an experimental population of 
an endangered species, the automatic take prohibition no longer 
applies; however, because the experimental population is treated as 
threatened, we must issue protective 4(d) regulations for that 
population as we deem necessary and advisable for the conservation of 
the population. Such regulations may include take prohibitions.
    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) directs all Federal agencies to use their 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.
    Although ESA section 10(j) provides that an experimental population 
is treated as a threatened species, if the experimental population is 
deemed non-essential, section 10(j)(C) requires that we apply the 
section 7(a)(4) consultation provisions to the NEP as if the NEP 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 
section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement would not apply to Federal 
agency actions affecting the NEP. Formal consultation may be required 
for actions in the Okanogan River NEP Area if there are effects on 
other ESA-listed species.
    Only two provisions of ESA section 7 would apply to the proposed 
Okanogan NEP: section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4). Section 7(a)(1) 
requires Federal agencies to use their authorities in furtherance of 
the purposes of the ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation 
of threatened and endangered 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 and do not restrict 
agencies from carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities.
    The USFWS has authorized many experimental populations and 
developed regulations to implement section 10(j), which can be found at 
50 CFR 17.80 through 17.84. We have not promulgated regulations 
implementing section 10(j) of the ESA, and the USFWS regulations do not 
govern NMFS' 10(j) authorizations. However, we considered USFWS 
regulations where appropriate in making the required statutory 
determinations under section 10(j) and in formulating this proposed 
rule. The USFWS implementing regulations contain the following 
provisions:
    The USFWS regulations define an essential experimental population 
as one ``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 non-essential (50 CFR 
17.81). This definition was apparently directly derived from the 
legislative history to the ESA amendments that created section 10(j).
    In determining whether the experimental population will further the 
conservation of the species, the USFWS regulations require that agency 
to consider: (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 establishing 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 (50 CFR 
17.81(b)).
    USFWS regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) also describe four components 
that must be provided in any USFWS regulations promulgated with regard 
to an experimental population under section 10(j). The components are: 
(1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population, 
including its actual or proposed location, actual or anticipated 
migration, number of specimens released or to be released, and other 
criteria appropriate to identify

[[Page 63441]]

the experimental population(s); (2) a finding of 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 measures to isolate and/or contain the 
experimental population designated 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.
    As indicated, we are not bound by the USFWS regulations but we 
consider them as appropriate in the course of making the statutorily 
mandated determinations found in ESA section 10(j). To summarize, the 
statute requires that we determine: (1) Whether the release will 
further the conservation of the species, and (2) whether the population 
is essential or non-essential. In addition, because section 10(j) 
provides that the population will only be experimental when and at such 
times it is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental 
populations of the same species, we must establish that there are such 
times and places when the experimental population is wholly 
geographically separate. Similarly, the statute requires that we 
identify the experimental population; the legislative history indicates 
that the purpose of this requirement is to provide notice as to which 
populations of listed species are experimental (See, Joint Explanatory 
Statement of the Committee of Conference, H.R. Conf. Rep No. 97-835, at 
15 (1982)).

Status of the Species

    UCR Chinook salmon are anadromous fish that migrate as adults from 
the ocean during the spring to spawn in freshwater streams where their 
offspring hatch and rear prior to migrating back to the ocean to forage 
until maturity. At spawning, adults pair to lay and fertilize thousands 
of eggs in freshwater gravel nests or ``redds'' excavated by females. 
Depending on 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. UCR Chinook salmon juveniles spend a year in freshwater areas 
before migrating to the ocean. The physiological and behavioral changes 
required for the transition to salt water result in a distinct 
``smolt'' stage. On their journey to the ocean juveniles migrate 
downstream through a riverine and estuarine corridor between their 
natal lake or stream and the ocean.
    After 2 to 3 years in the ocean, adult UCR 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.
    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 UCR 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 recovery 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 
for each natural population (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 
containing the expression of diverse life history characteristics. 
Diversity is the phenotypic (morphology, behavior, and life-history 
traits) and genotypic (DNA) characteristics within and between 
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, on the other hand, provides populations with the ability to 
survive long-term changes in the environment by providing genetic 
variations that may prove successful under different situations. It is 
the combination of phenotypic and genotypic diversity expressed in a 
natural setting that provides populations with the ability to utilize 
the full range of habitat and environmental conditions and to have the 
resiliency to survive and adapt to long-term changes in the 
environment. 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 a population (NMFS 2007). The ICTRT 
(2008) considers all three extant populations of this ESU at high risk 
of extinction based on their current lack of spatial structure and 
diversity.
    On March 18, 2010, we announced the initiation of 5-year status 
reviews for 16 ESUs of Pacific salmon including the UCR 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).

Analysis of the Statutory Requirements

1. Will authorizing release of an Okanogan UCR Chinook salmon 
experimental population further the conservation of the species?

    The ESA defines ``conservation'' as ``the use of all methods and 
procedures

[[Page 63442]]

which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened 
species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this 
[Act] are no longer necessary.'' We discuss in more detail below each 
of the factors we considered in determining if release of an 
experimental population into the Okanogan River NEP Area would 
``further the conservation'' of UCR Chinook salmon.
    The consideration of whether authorizing release of an experimental 
population will further the conservation of the species raises various 
issues, including the potential negative effects to the ESU posed by 
the release; the likelihood that the experimental population will 
become established and self-sustaining; and the extent to which a self-
sustaining experimental population reduces the threats to the ESU's 
viability. The USFWS regulations also suggest considering whether the 
experimental population will be affected by other state- or federally-
approved actions in the area. This last factor may not be subject to 
precise evaluation, but where possible we intend to take into account 
all factors such as other approved actions that affect whether a 
population can become established and self-sustaining.
    An experimental population can lead to improved spatial structure 
of the species. Here, the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and 
Steelhead Recovery Plan contains specific management strategies for 
recovering UCR Chinook salmon that include securing existing 
populations and reintroducing spring-run Chinook salmon into 
historically occupied habitats in the Okanogan River. The plan 
concludes, and we continue to agree, that establishing an experimental 
population of UCR Chinook salmon in the Okanogan River that persist 
into the foreseeable future is expected to reduce the species' overall 
extinction risk from natural and anthropogenic factors by increasing 
its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity within 
the Upper Columbia River. These expected improvements in the overall 
viability of UCR Chinook salmon, in addition to other actions being 
implemented throughout the Columbia River migration corridor, will 
contribute to the species' near-term viability and recovery.
    Regarding whether the release will result in a successful 
reintroduction, one issue to consider is what is the most appropriate 
source of broodstock to establish an experimental population, and is 
that source available? Reintroduction efforts have the best chance for 
success when the donor population has life history characteristics 
compatible with the anticipated environmental conditions of the habitat 
into which fish will be reintroduced (Araki et al. 2008). Populations 
found in watersheds closest to the reintroduction area are most likely 
to have adaptive traits that will lead to a successful reintroduction, 
and therefore, only spring-run Chinook salmon populations found in the 
Upper Columbia River basin will be used in establishing the 
experimental population in the Okanogan River NEP Area.
    Fish produced from the Methow Composite spring-run Chinook salmon 
program at Winthrop National Fish Hatchery are proposed to be the 
initial source of individuals to establish an experimental population 
of UCR Chinook salmon in the Okanogan River. These fish are from the 
neighboring river subbasin and have evolved in an environment similar 
to that of the Okanogan River NEP Area. 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 subbasin that excess 
eggs and sperm are available to begin raising fish for reintroduction 
into the Okanogan River NEP Area.
    We also consider the suitability of habitat available to the 
experimental population. The Columbia basin as a whole is estimated to 
have supported pre-development spring-run Chinook salmon returns as 
large as 588,000 fish (Chapman 1986). The UCR Chinook salmon ESU 
component of the Columbia basin is estimated to have comprised up to 
68,900 fish (Mullan 1987; UCSRB 2007). The Okanogan population of the 
UCR Chinook salmon ESU is estimated to have historically contained at 
least 500 spring-run Chinook salmon (UCSRB 2007), and the Upper 
Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan estimates 
that the Okanogan still has the capacity for at least 500 spring-run 
Chinook salmon.
    Over the past century, ecosystem processes in the Okanogan and 
other subbasins have been severely impacted, creating a fragmented 
mixture of altered or barren fish and wildlife habitats. Disruptions in 
the hydrologic system have resulted in widespread loss of migratory 
corridors and access to productive habitat (CTCR 2007). Low base stream 
flow and warm summer water temperatures have limited salmonid 
production both currently and historically. Stream flow and fish 
passage in the Okanogan subbasin are affected by a series of dams and 
water diversions.
    The Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery 
Plan nevertheless characterizes the Okanogan subbasin as having the 
potential to support a viable population of spring-run Chinook salmon 
(UCSRB 2007). The recovery plan establishes a framework for 
accomplishing restoration goals for the Okanogan subbasin including 
restoring connectivity throughout their historical range where feasible 
and practical. Short- and long-term actions will protect riparian 
habitat along spawning and rearing streams and establish, restore, and 
protect stream flows suitable for spawning, rearing, and migration. In 
addition, water quality will be protected and restored where feasible 
and practical. In the mainstem Columbia River, implementation of the 
Federal Columbia River Power System ESA section 7 Biological Opinion 
(NMFS 2008a, NMFS 2010) provides a number of new actions and 
continuation of existing programs that will likely continue to increase 
passage survival through the Columbia River passage corridor.
    Based on the available information, we believe that implementation 
of these actions will continue to improve habitat conditions in the 
Okanogan River NEP Area to support reestablishing a potential fourth 
independent population of UCR Chinook salmon. Salmon Creek and Omak 
Creek offer the best spawning and rearing habitat for natural 
production in the subbasin, and major efforts by the CTCR are underway 
to restore tributary habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon in both the 
U.S. and Canadian portions of the Okanogan subbasin.
    In addition to actions taken under the Upper Columbia Spring 
Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, there are many Federal and 
State laws and regulations that will also help ensure the establishment 
and survival of the experimental population by protecting aquatic and 
riparian habitat. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(40 CFR parts 
100 through 149) requires avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for 
the potential adverse effects of dredge and fill activities within the 
nation's waterways. Section 404(b) of the CWA requires that section 404 
permits be granted only in the absence of practicable alternatives to 
the proposed project, that would have a less adverse impact on the 
aquatic ecosystem. CWA section 401 provides protection against adverse 
water quality conditions. In addition, construction and operational 
storm water runoff is subject to restrictions under CWA

[[Page 63443]]

Section 402 and state water quality laws. Also, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
seq.), requires that Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) be identified, and 
Federal action agencies must consult with NMFS on any activity which 
they fund, permit, or carry out that may adversely affect EFH. 
Freshwater EFH for Chinook salmon in the Upper Columbia River basin 
includes the Okanogan subbasin, which is the area where this NEP would 
be introduced. For each of these authorities, we do not assume complete 
implementation and compliance for all actions potentially affecting the 
experimental population or the listed ESU. However, we expect 
compliance and assume, at a minimum, that these authorities provide a 
regulatory regime that tends to encourage actions consistent with that 
regime.
    The habitat improvement actions called for in the Upper Columbia 
Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, in combination with 
the protective measures proposed in this rule, as well as compliance 
with existing Federal, State and local laws, statutes, and regulations, 
including those mentioned above, are expected to contribute to the 
survival of the experimental population in the Okanogan River into the 
foreseeable future. Although any reintroduction effort is likely to 
require supplementation with hatchery-origin fish for several years, we 
conclude there is the potential for a population of spring-run Chinook 
salmon to become established. Furthermore, we conclude that such a 
self-sustaining population of genetically compatible individuals is 
likely to further the conservation of the species as discussed above.

2. Identification of the Experimental Population and Geographic 
Separation From the Nonexperimental Populations of the same Species

    ESA Section 10(j) requires that we identify the population by 
regulation and, as indicated, the Congressional intention was to 
provide notice as to which populations are experimental. The statute 
also provides that the population is only considered experimental when 
and at such times as it is wholly separate geographically from the 
nonexperimental populations of the same species. In this case, the 
analysis and information that identifies the population also 
demonstrates when and where it will be wholly geographically separate 
from other UCR Chinook salmon. Under this proposed rule, the 
experimental population would be defined as the UCR Chinook salmon 
population released in the Okanogan River, and their subsequent 
progeny, when they are geographically located anywhere in the Okanogan 
River NEP Area. When juvenile Okanogan River UCR Chinook salmon pass 
downstream into the Columbia River to the Pacific Ocean, they would no 
longer be geographically separated from the other extant UCR Chinook 
salmon populations, and the ``experimental'' designation would not 
apply, unless and until they return as adults to spawn in the Okanogan 
subbasin.
    More specifically, the released UCR Chinook salmon and their 
progeny would only be part of the experimental population when they are 
present in the Okanogan River NEP Area. UCR Chinook salmon would not be 
part of the experimental population when they are outside the Okanogan 
River NEP Area (including use of migration corridors and if they stray 
to other locations to spawn), even if they originated within the 
Okanogan River NEP Area.
    The Okanogan River NEP Area provides the requisite level of 
geographic separation because spring-run Chinook salmon are currently 
extirpated from this area and straying of fish from other spring-run 
Chinook populations into this area is extremely low (Colville Business 
Council 2010). As a result, the ESU is defined to not include the 
Okanogan River and the status of the ESU does not rely on the Okanogan 
subbasin for recovery. If any other UCR Chinook salmon stray into the 
Okanogan River NEP Area, they would acquire experimental status while 
within that area (i.e., and therefore no longer be covered by the 
``endangered'' listing, nor by the full range of section 9 
prohibitions). Said another way, the ``experimental'' designation is 
geographically based and does not travel with the fish outside the 
Okanogan River NEP Area.
    If the 10(j) authorization and designation were to occur, hatchery-
origin fish used for the reintroduction would be marked, for example, 
with specific fin clips and/or coded-wire tags to evaluate the stray 
rate and allow for brood stock collection of returning NEP adults. It 
may be possible to mark NEP juvenile fish released into the Okanogan 
River NEP Area in an alternative manner (other than coded-wire tags) 
that would distinguish them from other Chief Joseph Hatchery-raised 
Chinook salmon, and we will consider this during the Chief Joseph 
Hatchery annual review. During the Chief Joseph Hatchery annual review 
process, information on fish interactions and stray rates, productivity 
rates of hatchery-origin and natural-origin populations and harvest 
effects are analyzed and evaluated for consistency with best management 
practices for artificial production as developed by the Hatchery 
Scientific Review Group and other science groups in the Pacific 
Northwest. Any such clips or tags would not, however, be for the 
purpose of identifying the NEP since, as discussed above, the 
experimental population is identified based on the geographic location 
of the fish. Indeed, 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, any such unmarked fish 
(juveniles and adults alike) would not be considered members of 
experimental population. They would be considered part of the ESU 
currently listed as endangered. Likewise, any fish that were marked 
before release in the NEP area would not be considered part of the 
experimental population once they left the Okanogan River NEP Area; 
rather, they would be considered part of the ESU currently listed as 
endangered.

3. Is the experimental population essential to the continued existence 
of the species?

    As discussed above, the ESA requires the Secretary, in authorizing 
the release of an experimental population, to determine whether the 
population would be ``essential to the continued existence'' of the 
ESU. The statute does not elaborate on how this determination is to be 
made. However, as noted above, Congress gave some further definition to 
the term when it described an essential experimental population as one 
whose loss ``would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of 
the survival of the species in the wild.'' (see, Joint Explanatory 
Statement of the Committee of Conference, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-835, 
at 15 (1982)). The USFWS incorporated this concept into its definition 
of an essential population.
    Based on the best available information, as required by ESA section 
10(j)(2)(B), we conclude that the proposed experimental population 
would not be one whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of survival of the UCR Chinook salmon ESU.
    The Upper Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan states that 
recovery of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Okanogan subbasin is not a 
requirement for delisting. Based on the recovery plan's recovery 
criteria and

[[Page 63444]]

proposed management strategies, the UCR 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 populations could achieve a 
12-year geometric mean abundance of 2,000 natural-origin fish and the 
Entiat population reaches a 12-year geometric mean abundance of 500 
natural-origin fish, the UCR Chinook salmon ESU would meet the recovery 
criteria for abundance. This would require a minimum productivity of 
between 1.2 and 1.4 recruits per spawner for the 12-year time period 
(NMFS 2007). The extant populations would also need to meet other 
specific criteria, identified in the recovery plan, which would result 
in a moderate or lower risk for spatial structure and diversity. The 
Upper Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan identifies several 
harvest, hatchery management, hydropower and habitat related actions 
that could be taken to improve viability of the three extant UCR 
Chinook salmon populations.
    The Upper Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan estimates 
recovery of the UCR Chinook salmon ESU will take 10 to 30 years without 
the addition of the Okanogan population. Based on the best available 
current evidence and information, we conclude that recovery of the UCR 
Chinook salmon ESU is still likely under the above-discussed 
conditions.
    NMFS' 2011 5-year review states that even though there has been an 
increase in abundance and a decrease in productivity of the UCR Chinook 
salmon ESU, information considered in the review does not indicate a 
change in the biological extinction risk category since the last status 
review in 2005. Neither status review considered the potential for 
spring-run Chinook salmon in the Okanogan subbasin to alter this risk, 
because spring-run Chinook salmon were extirpated from the Okanogan 
subbasin in the 1930s and no spring-run Chinook salmon currently exist 
in the Okanogan subbasin. The status reviews only evaluated the status 
of the extant Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow spring-run Chinook salmon 
populations.
    In summary then, even without the establishment of an Okanogan 
population, the UCR Chinook salmon ESU could possibly be delisted, if 
all threats were being addressed and the species was otherwise 
recovered in all three existing populations. Because we conclude that a 
population of UCR Chinook salmon in the Okanogan River NEP Area is not 
essential for conservation of the ESU, we conclude the proper 
designation is as an NEP. Under Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the ESA we 
cannot designate critical habitat for a NEP.

Additional Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other 
Special Management Considerations

    As indicated above, section 10(j) requires that experimental 
populations be treated as threatened species, except for certain 
portions of section 7 (Section 10(j)(2)(C)) and the fact that critical 
habitat designation is not required. Congress intended that this 
provision would authorize us to issue regulations we deemed necessary 
and advisable to provide for the conservation of the experimental 
population just as it does, under section 4(d), for any threatened 
species (Joint Explanatory Statement, supra, at 15). In addition, when 
amending the ESA to add section 10(j), Congress specifically intended 
to provide broad discretion and flexibility to the Secretary in 
managing experimental populations so as to reduce opposition to 
releasing listed species outside their current range (H.R. Rep. No. 
567, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 34 (1982)). Therefore, we propose to exercise 
the authority to issue protective regulations under section 4(d) for 
the proposed NEP to identify take prohibitions necessary to provide for 
the conservation of the species and otherwise provide assurances to 
people in the NEP area.
    The ESA defines ``take'' to mean: Harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in 
any such conduct. Concurrent with the ESA section 10(j) authorization, 
we propose protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) for the 
experimental population that would prohibit take of UCR Chinook salmon 
that are part of the experimental population except in the following 
circumstances in the Okanogan River NEP Area:
    1. Any activity taken pursuant to a valid permit issued by us under 
50 CFR 223.203(b)(1) and 223.203(b)(7) for educational purposes, 
scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival of the 
species, zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposes.
    2. Aid, disposal, and salvage of fish by authorized agency 
personnel acting in compliance with 50 CFR 223.203(b)(3).
    3. Activities associated with artificial propagation of the 
experimental population under an approved Hatchery Genetic Management 
Plan (HGMP) that complies with the requirements of-50 CFR 
223.203(b)(5).
    4. Any harvest-related activity undertaken by a tribe, tribal 
member, tribal permittee, tribal employee, or tribal agent consistent 
with tribal harvest regulations and an approved Tribal Resource 
Management Plan that complies with the requirements of 50 CFR 223.204.
    5. Any harvest-related activity consistent with State harvest 
regulations and an approved Fishery Management Evaluation Plan that 
complies with the requirements of 50 CFR 223.203(b)(4).
    6. Any take that is incidental \2\ to an otherwise lawful activity. 
Otherwise lawful activities include, but are not limited to, 
agricultural, water management, construction, recreation, navigation, 
or forestry practices, when such activities are in full compliance with 
all applicable laws and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Incidental take refers to takings that result from, but are 
not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity 
conducted by the Federal agency or applicant. See 50 CFR 402.02.

Outside the Okanogan River NEP Area, UCR spring-run Chinook are not 
considered to be part of the NEP (even if they originated there), and 
therefore the take prohibitions applicable to non-experimental UCR 
Chinook salmon apply.

Process for Periodic Review

    If we authorize the release of an experimental population under 
section 10(j), the success of the reintroduction 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 the proposed experimental population. 
The CTCR request also identifies their commitment to additional 
monitoring in the Okanogan subbasin, 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. In addition, results 
of the reintroduction project will be evaluated during the next 5-year 
status review for the UCR Chinook salmon ESU in about 2016.

 Proposed Determinations

    Based on the best available scientific information, we determine 
that the

[[Page 63445]]

release of a NEP of UCR Chinook salmon in the Okanogan River NEP Area 
will further the conservation of UCR Chinook salmon. Fish used for the 
reintroduction will come from the Methow Composite hatchery program 
located at Winthrop National Fish Hatchery. These fish are included in 
the UCR spring-run Chinook salmon ESU and have the best chance to 
survive and adapt to conditions in the Okanogan River subbasin (Jones 
et al. 2011). They are expected to remain geographically separate from 
the UCR Chinook salmon ESU during the life stages in which they remain 
in or return to the Okanogan River; at all times when members of the 
NEP are downstream of the confluence of the Okanogan and Columbia 
Rivers, the experimental designation will not apply. Establishment of a 
fourth population of UCR Chinook salmon in the Okanogan would likely 
contribute to the viability of the ESU as a whole. This experimental 
population release is being implemented as recommended in the Upper 
Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, while at 
the same time ensuring that the reintroduction would not impose undue 
regulatory restrictions on landowners and third parties.
    We further determine, based on the best available scientific 
information, that the proposed experimental population would not be 
essential to the ESU, because absence of the experimental population 
would not reduce the likelihood of survival of the ESU. An Okanogan 
spring-run Chinook salmon population is not a requirement for delisting 
because the population is extirpated. Implementation of habitat actions 
in the Upper Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan are expected 
to increase the viability of the Methow, Wenatchee, and Entiat 
populations to meet ESU recovery criteria without establishment of an 
Okanogan population. We therefore propose that the released population 
be designated a Non-Essential Population.

Public Comment

    We want the final rule to be as effective and accurate as possible, 
and the final EA to evaluate the potential issues and reasonable range 
of alternatives. Therefore, we invite the public, State, Tribal, and 
government agencies, the scientific community, environmental groups, 
industry, local landowners, and all interested parties to provide 
comments on the proposed rule and draft EA (see ADDRESSES section 
above). We request that submitted comments be relevant to the proposed 
release of an experimental population designation and not include 
comments on the Upper Columbia Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery 
Plan or Okanogan subbasin HGMP, which are beyond the scope of the 
action described in this proposed rule. Comments should be as specific 
as possible, provide relevant information or suggested changes, the 
basis for the suggested changes, and any additional supporting 
information where appropriate. For example, you should tell us the 
numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which 
sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists 
or tables would be useful, etc.
    Prior to issuing a final rule, we will take into consideration the 
comments and supporting materials received. The final rule may differ 
from the proposed rule based on this information and other 
considerations. We are interested in all public comments, but are 
specifically interested in obtaining feedback on:
    (1) Whether the Methow Composite stock of UCR Chinook salmon is the 
best fish to use in establishing an experimental population and the 
scientific basis for your comment.
    (2) The proposed geographical boundary of the experimental 
population.
    (3) The extent to which the experimental population would be 
affected by current or future Federal, State, Tribal, or private 
actions within or adjacent to the experimental population area.
    (4) Any necessary management restrictions, protective measures, or 
other management measures that we may not have considered.
    (5) The likelihood that the experimental population will become 
established in the Okanogan River NEP Area.
    (6) Whether the proposed experimental population is essential or 
nonessential.
    (7) Whether the proposed designation furthers the conservation of 
the species and we have used the best available science in making this 
determination.

Information Quality Act and Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review pursuant to the 
Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554) published in 
the Federal Register on January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664). The Bulletin 
established minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for 
public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public 
participation with regard to certain types of information disseminated 
by the Federal Government. The peer review requirements of the OMB 
Bulletin apply to influential or highly influential scientific 
information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. There are no 
documents supporting this proposed rule that meet these criteria.

Classification

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant under 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make 
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    We are certifying that this proposed rule, if implemented, would 
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
    This proposal would designate and authorize the release of a 
nonessential experimental population of Upper Columbia River spring-run 
Chinook salmon into the Okanogan River subbasin. While in the subbasin, 
the NEP would be protected from some types of take, but we would impose 
no prohibitions on the incidental take of the NEP pursuant to otherwise 
legal activities (see below). The effect of the proposal would not 
increase the regulatory burdens associated with the ESA on affected 
entities, including small entities, to conduct otherwise lawful 
activities as a result of reintroduction of UCR Chinook salmon to the 
Okanogan River NEP Area. If this proposal is adopted, the area affected 
by this rule includes the entire Okanogan River subbasin to the extent 
that it

[[Page 63446]]

occurs in Washington state. Private land ownership is significant in 
the NEP area. Land uses are primarily agriculture, livestock grazing, 
and suburban development. Accordingly, the rule, if implemented, may 
impact those uses.
    However, this proposed rule would apply only limited take 
prohibitions as compared with the prohibitions that typically apply to 
listed UCR Chinook salmon; in particular, the proposed rule expressly 
allows take of NEP fish provided that the take is unintentional, not 
due to negligent conduct and incidental to otherwise lawful activity 
(such as recreational, agriculture, and municipal usage), and also 
allows take in other specified activities, such as tribal or state-
regulated harvest. Under the proposed rule, there would only be the 
requirement to confer under ESA section 7, but not the more burdensome 
requirement to consult with respect to the NEP, and no critical habitat 
could be designated for the NEP. Because of the minimal regulatory 
overlay provided by this NEP designation, we do not expect this rule to 
have any significant effect on recreational, agricultural, or 
development activities within the NEP area.
    Because this proposal would require no additional regulatory 
requirements on small entities and would impose little to no regulatory 
requirements for activities within the affected area, the Chief Council 
for Regulation certified that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Accordingly, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required, 
and none has been prepared.

Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, the proposed rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required because this proposed rule: (1) Would not effectively 
compel a property owner to have the government physically invade their 
property, and (2) would not deny all economically beneficial or 
productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This proposed rule 
would substantially advance a legitimate government interest 
(conservation and recovery of a listed fish species) and would not 
present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of 
private property.

Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we have determined that this 
proposed rule does not have federalism implications as that termed is 
defined in E.O. 13132.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that Federal 
agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information from 
the public. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. This proposed rule does 
not include any new collections of information that require approval by 
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with all provisions of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), we have analyzed the impact on the human 
environment and considered a reasonable range of alternatives for this 
proposed rule. We have prepared a draft EA on this proposed action and 
have made it available for public inspection (see ADDRESSES section 
above). All appropriate NEPA documents will be finalized before this 
rule is finalized.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes (E.O. 13175)

    E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, outlines the responsibilities of the Federal Government in 
matters affecting tribal interests. If we issue a regulation with 
tribal implications (defined as having a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes) we 
must consult with those governments or the Federal Government must 
provide funds necessary to pay direct compliance costs incurred by 
tribal governments.
    The CTCR Reservation lies within the experimental population area. 
In 2010 staff members of CTCR met with NMFS' Northwest Region (NWR) 
Protected Resources Division staff. They discussed the Tribe's 
developing proposal to re-introduce spring Chinook salmon in the 
Okanogan subbasin and designate it as a 10(j) experimental population.
    Since that meeting CTCR and NWR staffs have been in frequent 
contact, including to explain the rule-making process and evaluate any 
proposal from the Tribes. These contacts and conversations included 
working together on public meetings held in Okanogan and Omak,WA 
(December 5, 2011), and monthly status/update calls describing activity 
associated with the NEPA and ESA reviews associated with the proposal.
    In addition to frequent contact and coordination among CTCR and 
senior NMFS technical and policy staff, we also discussed hatchery 
production changes affected by the Chief Joseph Hatchery and the 
associated aspects of the 10(j) proposal with the Parties to U.S. v 
Oregon (Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, 
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated 
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Nez Perce Tribe, and 
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation; the States of 
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; and the United States (NMFS, USFWS, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice)). The current 
2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement (2008) 
anticipated the development of the Chief Joseph Hatchery. Footnote 
5 to Table B-1 Spring Chinook Production for Brood Years 2008-
2017 states that the parties to the Agreement ``anticipate that the 
proposed Chief Joseph Hatchery is likely to begin operations during the 
term of this Agreement. The Parties agree to develop options for 
providing . . . spring Chinook salmon eggs to initiate the Chief Joseph 
program when it comes online.'' (p. 99). This will include coordinating 
with the ``Production Advisory Committee'' (PAC) which is responsible 
to ``coordinate information, review and analyze . . . future natural 
and artificial production programs . . . and to submit recommendations 
to the management entities.'' (p. 14) The U.S. v. Oregon Policy 
Committee, in February 2012, approved changes to the Agreement that 
identified the marking and transfer of 200,000 pre-smolts to Okanogan 
River acclimation ponds, and the prioritization of this production, in 
relation to other hatchery programs in the Methow River subbasin. The 
footnote has been modified to reflect these changes. The PAC includes 
technical representatives from `` . . . the Warm Springs Tribe, the 
Umatilla Tribes, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Yakama Nation, and the 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.'' (p. 14). It is these technical 
representatives who will review adult management proposals associated 
with this proposed rule. Those representatives are senior staff from 
the identified tribes and will be in communication with their 
respective governments. We invite meetings with

[[Page 63447]]

tribes to have detailed discussions that could lead to government-to-
government consultation meetings with tribal governments. We will 
continue to coordinate with the affected tribes as we gather public 
comment on this proposed rule and consider next steps.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from National Marine Fisheries Service office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Dated: October 17, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and 
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend part 
223 of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 
forth below.

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).

0
2. In Sec.  223.102 the table for ``Enumeration of threatened marine 
and anadromous species'' add the entry for (c)(30) to read as follows:


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Species \1\                                            Citation(s) for     Citation(s) for
-------------------------------------------------      Where listed           listing         critical habitat
          Common name            Scientific name                           determination       designation(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(30) Upper Columbia River       Oncorhynchus      U.S.A.--WA, only       Insert Federal    N/A.
 spring-run Chinook salmon       tshawytscha.      when, and at such      Register
 (non-essential experimental                       times, as they are     citation and
 population).                                      found in the           date when
                                                   mainstem or            published as a
                                                   tributaries of the     final rule].
                                                   Okanogan River from
                                                   the Canada-United
                                                   States border to the
                                                   confluence of the
                                                   Okanogan River with
                                                   the Columbia River,
                                                   Washington.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  223.301, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  223.301  Special rules--marine and anadromous fishes.

* * * * *
    (c) Okanogan River UCR spring-run Chinook Salmon Experimental 
Population (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
    (1) Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run Chinook salmon located in 
the geographic area identified in paragraph (c)(5) of this section 
shall comprise the Okanogan River nonessential experimental population 
(NEP).
    (2) Prohibitions. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section, the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1538(a)(1)) relating to endangered species apply to UCR spring-run 
Chinook salmon in the NEP area identified in paragraph (c)(5) of this 
section.
    (3) Take of this species that is allowed in the NEP Area. Taking of 
UCR spring-run Chinook salmon that is otherwise prohibited by paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section and 50 CFR 223.203(a) in the NEP area identified 
in paragraph (c)(5) of this section is allowed, provided it falls 
within one of the following categories:
    (i) Any activity taken pursuant to a valid permit issued by us 
under 50 CFR 223.203(b)(1) and Sec.  223.203(b)(7) for educational 
purposes, scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or 
survival of the species, zoological exhibition, and other conservation 
purposes.
    (ii) Aid, disposal, and salvage of fish by authorized agency 
personnel acting in compliance with 50 CFR 223.203(b)(3);
    (iii) Activities associated with artificial propagation of the 
experimental population under an approved Hatchery Genetic Management 
Plan that complies with the requirements of 50 CFR 223.203(b)(5).
    (iv) Any harvest-related activity undertaken by a tribe, tribal 
member, tribal permittee, tribal employee, or tribal agent consistent 
with tribal harvest regulations and an approved Tribal Resource 
Management Plan that complies with the requirements of 50 CFR 223.204.
    (v) Any harvest-related activity consistent with state harvest 
regulations and an approved Fishery Management Evaluation Plan that 
complies with the requirements of 50 CFR 223.203(b)(4).
    (vi) Any take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, 
provided that the taking is unintentional; not due to negligent 
conduct; and incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of 
the otherwise lawful activity. Otherwise lawful activities include 
agricultural, water management, construction, recreation, navigation, 
or forestry practices, when such activities are in full compliance with 
all applicable laws and regulations.
    (4) Prohibited take outside the NEP area. Outside the NEP Area, UCR 
spring-run Chinook are not considered to be part of the NEP, 
irrespective of their origin, and therefore the take prohibitions for 
non-experimental UCR Chinook salmon apply.
    (5) Okanogan River NEP Area. The geographic boundary defining the 
Okanogan River NEP Area for UCR spring-run Chinook salmon is the 
mainstem and all tributaries of the Okanogan River between the Canada-
United States border to the confluence of the Okanogan River with the 
Columbia River. All UCR Chinook salmon in this defined NEP area are 
considered part of the Okanogan River NEP Area, irrespective of where 
they originated. Conversely, when UCR spring-run Chinook salmon are 
outside this defined Okanogan River NEP Area, they are not considered 
part of the Okanogan River NEP.

[FR Doc. 2013-24845 Filed 10-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P