Revisions to Hatchery Programs Included as Part of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act, 81822-81837 [2020-26287]
Download as PDF
81822
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC RECOVERY ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL DOWNLISTINGS AND DELISTINGS) IN FY
2019 AND FY 2020—Continued
[As of September 30, 2020]
Federal Register
Citation
Publication date
Title
Action(s)
4/27/2020 .....................
Removing Arenaria .........................................
cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort)
From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
Removing San Benito Evening-Primrose
(Camissonia benitensis) From the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Reclassification of Morro Shoulderband Snail
(Helminthoglypta walkeriana) From Endangered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule.
Reclassification of Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat
From Endangered to Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
Reclassification of Layia carnosa (Beach
Layia) From Endangered To Threatened
Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule.
Reclassifying the Virgin Islands Tree Boa
From Endangered To Threatened With a
Section 4(d) Rule.
Proposed Rule—Delisting ...............................
85 FR 23302–23315.
Proposed Rule—Delisting ...............................
85 FR 33060–33078.
Final Rule—Delisting ......................................
85 FR 35574–35594.
Proposed Rule—Downlisting ..........................
85 FR 44821–44835.
Proposed Rule—Downlisting ..........................
85 FR 50991–51006.
Proposed Rule—Downlisting ..........................
85 FR 61684–61700.
Proposed Rule—Downlisting ..........................
85 FR 61700–61717.
06/01/2020 ...................
06/11/2020 ...................
07/24/2020 ...................
08/19/2020 ...................
9/30/2020 .....................
9/30/2020 .....................
When a petitioned action is found to
be warranted but precluded, the Service
is required by the Act to treat the
petition as resubmitted on an annual
basis until a proposal or withdrawal is
published. If the petitioned species is
not already listed under the Act, the
species becomes a ‘‘candidate’’ and is
reviewed annually in the Candidate
Notice of Review. The number of
candidate species remaining in FY 2020
is the lowest it has been since 1975. For
these species, we are working on
developing a species status assessment,
preparing proposed listing
determinations, or preparing notwarranted 12-month findings.
Another way that we have been
expeditious in making progress in
adding and removing qualified species
to and from the Lists is that we have
made our actions as efficient and timely
as possible, given the requirements of
the Act and regulations and constraints
relating to workload and personnel. We
are continually seeking ways to
streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as batching
related actions together for publication.
Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these
efforts also contribute toward our
expeditious progress in adding and
removing qualified species to and from
the Lists.
The monarch butterfly will be added
to the candidate list, and we will
continue to evaluate this species as new
information becomes available.
Continuing review will determine if a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
change in status is warranted, including
the need to make prompt use of
emergency listing procedures.
A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the
monarch butterfly species assessment
form and other supporting documents
(see ADDRESSES, above).
New Information
We intend that any proposed listing
rule for the monarch butterfly will be as
accurate as possible. Therefore, we will
continue to accept additional
information and comments from all
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning this
finding. We request that you submit any
new information concerning the
taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of,
status of, threats to, or conservation
actions for the monarch butterfly to the
person specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it
becomes available. New information
will help us monitor this species and
make appropriate decisions about its
conservation and status. We encourage
all stakeholders to continue cooperative
monitoring and conservation efforts.
The list of the references cited in the
petition finding is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under docket number FWS–R3–ES–
2020–0103 and upon request from the
person specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–27523 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 201123–0313; RTID 0648–
XE804]
Revisions to Hatchery Programs
Included as Part of Pacific Salmon and
Steelhead Species Listed Under the
Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
References Cited
PO 00000
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment
Team.
Sfmt 4700
We, NMFS, announce updates
to the descriptions of Pacific salmon
and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.)
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
species that are currently listed as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).
Updates include the addition or removal
of specific hatchery programs, as well as
clarifying changes to the names of
specific hatchery programs included as
part of the listings of certain Pacific
salmon and steelhead species. These
changes are informed by our most recent
ESA 5-year reviews, which were
completed in 2016. We are not changing
the ESA-listing status of any species
under NMFS’s jurisdiction, or
modifying any critical habitat
designation. The updates also include
minor changes in terminology to
standardize species descriptions.
DATES: This final rule is effective
December 17, 2020.
ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources
Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard,
Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Markle, NMFS, West Coast
Region, Protected Resources Division,
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100,
Portland, OR 97232, by phone at (503)
230–5433, or by email at robert.markle@
noaa.gov. You may also contact Maggie
Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, (301) 427–8403. Copies of
the 5-year status reviews can be found
on our website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/2016-5year-reviews-28-listed-species-pacificsalmon-steelhead-and-eulachon.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the ESA provides for
NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to make determinations
as to the endangered or threatened
status of ‘‘species’’ in response to
petitions or on their own initiative. In
accordance with the ESA, we (NMFS)
make determinations as to the
threatened or endangered status of
species by regulation. These regulations
provide the text for each species’ listing
and include the content required by the
ESA section 4(c)(1). We enumerate and
maintain a list of species under our
jurisdiction which we have determined
to be threatened or endangered at 50
CFR 223.102 (threatened species) and 50
CFR 224.101 (endangered species)
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘NMFS
Lists’’). The FWS maintains two master
lists of all threatened and endangered
species, i.e., both species under NMFS’s
jurisdiction and species under FWS’s
jurisdiction (the ‘‘FWS Lists’’) at 50 CFR
17.11 (threatened and endangered
animals) and 50 CFR 17.12 (threatened
and endangered plants). The term
‘‘species’’ for listing purposes under the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
ESA includes the following entities:
Species, subspecies, and, for vertebrates
only, ‘‘distinct population segments
(DPSs).’’ Steelhead are listed as DPSs
and Pacific salmon are listed as
‘‘evolutionarily significant units
(ESUs),’’ which are essentially
equivalent to DPSs for the purpose of
the ESA.
For West Coast salmon and steelhead,
many of the ESU and DPS descriptions
include fish originating from specific
artificial propagation programs (e.g.,
hatcheries) that, along with their
naturally-produced counterparts, are
included as part of the listed species.
NMFS’ Policy on the Consideration of
Hatchery-Origin Fish in Endangered
Species Act Listing Determinations for
Pacific Salmon and Steelhead (Hatchery
Listing Policy) (70 FR 37204, June 28,
2005) guides our analysis of whether
individual hatchery programs should be
included as part of the listed species.
The Hatchery Listing Policy states that
hatchery programs will be considered
part of an ESU/DPS if they exhibit a
level of genetic divergence relative to
the local natural population(s) that is
not more than what occurs within the
ESU/DPS. In applying the Hatchery
Listing Policy, we use a variety of
sources to reach conclusions about
divergence.
Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires
regular review of listed species to
determine whether a species should be
delisted, reclassified, or retain its
current classification (16 U.S.C.
1533(c)(2)). We completed our most
recent 5-year review of the status of
ESA-listed salmon ESUs and steelhead
DPSs in California, Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington in 2016 (81 FR 33468, May
26, 2016). As part of the 5-year review,
we reviewed the classification of all
West Coast salmon and steelhead
hatchery programs, guided by our
Hatchery Listing Policy. We considered
the origin for each hatchery stock, the
location of release of hatchery fish, and
the degree of known or inferred genetic
divergence between the hatchery stock
and the local natural population(s). A
NMFS internal memorandum (Jones
2015) explains the results of our
hatchery program review. Jones (2015)
found that, based on the best scientific
evidence available, some hatchery
programs should be reclassified, that is,
added to or removed from the
description of the relevant ESUs/DPSs.
On October 21, 2016, we proposed to
revise the NMFS Lists based on the
aforementioned review and we solicited
public comments (81 FR 72759). The
proposed revisions to listed species
descriptions included:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81823
(1) Adding new hatchery programs
that meet the Hatchery Listing Policy
criteria for inclusion, or adding
programs that resulted from dividing
existing listed hatchery programs into
separate programs with new names;
(2) Removing hatchery programs that
have been terminated and do not have
any fish remaining from the program, or
removing previously listed hatchery
programs that were subsumed by
another listed program;
(3) Revising some hatchery program
names for clarity or to standardize
conventions for naming programs; and
(4) Making minor changes in
terminology to standardize species
descriptions.
The approach we used in the
proposed rule and this final rule to
determine which hatchery programs are
included within an ESU or DPS is
consistent with the approach taken in
the 2016 status review. That is, as part
of our status reviews, we reviewed
hatchery programs under our Hatchery
Listing Policy and concluded that some
changes to the list of hatchery programs
included in certain ESUs and DPSs were
warranted. Those changes included
updates to hatchery program names as
well as the inclusion of new programs
and the removal of programs that had
been discontinued. However, as
indicated in the 2016 status review,
none of these changes resulted in a
change to the listing status of an ESU or
DPS because none of the changes
affected the extinction risk of the ESU
or DPS.
Comments Received in Response to the
Proposed Rule and Responses
We received 23 comments on the
proposed rule via www.regulations.gov,
letter, or email. These comments were
submitted by individuals, state agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and
tribes or tribal representatives. Many of
the submissions included similar
comments, and several were form
letters. We reviewed all comments for
substantive issues or new information
and identified several broad issues of
concern. In the text below we have
organized comments by major issue
categories, summarized the comments
for brevity and clarity, and addressed
similar comments with common
responses where possible. After
considering all comments, we made
changes or clarifications in the final rule
as explained below.
Comment 1—Genetic and Ecological
Risk of Hatchery Programs: Numerous
commenters stated their opposition to
the release of hatchery fish into areas
with natural populations. They also
opposed adding new hatchery programs
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
81824
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
to ESA-listed ESUs or DPSs.
Commenters stated that NMFS is failing
to adequately address the deleterious
genetic and ecological effects of
hatchery fish, and requested that we
convene a panel of experts to revise and
update our Hatchery Listing Policy.
Response: This final rule arises from
our obligation under ESA section 4(c)(2)
to regularly assess the status of listed
species and determine whether they
should be de-listed or changed in
classification from threatened to
endangered or vice-versa. 16 U.S.C.
1531(c)(2). In 2016, we assessed the
composition of salmonid ESUs and
DPSs pursuant to the requirements of
the ESA and our Hatchery Listing Policy
to determine whether any changes were
warranted.
The Hatchery Listing Policy was
developed, in part, in response to the
lawsuit Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans
(2001) (Alsea decision), where a U.S.
District Court ruled that NMFS cannot
exclude hatchery fish from an ESA
listing if NMFS determines that such
fish comprise part of the listed ESU/DPS
under the applicable ESA standards.
The Hatchery Listing Policy was
subsequently upheld in the lawsuit
Trout Unlimited v. Lohn (2009). In that
case, the court upheld NMFS’
determination to include both hatchery
and natural fish in a listed steelhead
DPS, despite the potential threats posed
by hatchery fish. The court noted that
the listing process comprises two
distinct phases: The initial decision
regarding the composition of the DPS,
and the subsequent decision whether to
list the DPS.
Our recommendation to include a
hatchery program in an ESA-listed ESU
or DPS does not reflect a de-emphasis of
the risks from hatchery programs. The
Hatchery Listing Policy guiding our
recommendation acknowledges such
risks and their impacts on the adaptive
genetic diversity, reproductive fitness,
and productivity of the ESU. If we
determine that a hatchery program
warrants inclusion in an ESU or DPS,
we consider effects of the hatchery fish
on the natural fish comprising the ESU/
DPS in determining how the ESU/DPS
should be classified under ESA section
4(c). For the hatchery programs that are
being added, a summary of findings
from this analysis can be found in Jones
(2015).
The Hatchery Listing Policy states
that hatchery programs will be
considered part of an ESU/DPS if they
exhibit a level of genetic divergence
relative to the local natural
population(s) that is not more than what
occurs within the ESU/DPS. We are not
changing or weakening our application
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
of this moderate divergence criterion
relative to how we have applied it in the
past.
We do not believe there is a need to
revise our Hatchery Listing Policy, and
reiterate that the policy does recognize
the risks from hatchery programs and
allows us to evaluate them in a manner
commensurate with the potential
benefits of the programs.
Of note, many hatchery programs
have undergone or are undergoing
review under our ESA section 4(d)
regulations at 50 CFR 223.203(d)(5) (4(d)
Rule). When NMFS determines that a
Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan
(HGMP) meets the 4(d) Rule
requirements and approves the HGMP,
then the ESA’s prohibitions against take
of threatened species do not apply to
program activities. When we list a
hatchery program under the ESA, it
does not automatically receive an
exemption from the ESA’s prohibitions
against take. In evaluating whether to
approve an HGMP under the 4(d) Rule,
NMFS carries out consultation under
ESA section 7 to ensure that HGMP
implementation is not likely to
jeopardize any listed species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat.
This provides another means for NMFS
to evaluate the effects of hatchery fish
on the ESU/DPS to which they belong
and recommend management measures
to improve hatchery operations.
Comment 2—Use of Best Available
Science: Numerous commenters stated
that the Hatchery Listing Policy and the
moderate divergence criterion are not
consistent with the best available
science. Three commenters stated that
use of a criterion that focuses solely on
genetics—without attention to life
history, ecology, and population
demographics—is inadequate. Related
comments questioned the current
relevance of supporting documents
including the Jones (2011, 2015) memos
and two reports, the Salmon and
Steelhead Assessment Group’s
(SSHAG), ‘‘Hatchery Broodstock
Summaries and Assessments for Chum,
Coho, and Chinook,’’ and the Salmonid
Hatchery Inventory and Effects
Evaluation Report (SHIEER) titled ‘‘An
Evaluation of the Effects of Artificial
Propagation on the Status and
Likelihood of Extinction of West Coast
Salmon and Steelhead under the
Federal Endangered Species Act’’
(SSHAG 2003, SHIEER 2004).
Response: The best available
information upon which to determine
whether hatchery programs should be
included in a salmon ESU or steelhead
DPS is referenced in Jones (2015). This
report, in conjunction with individual
HGMPs and associated section 7
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
consultations, is the most
comprehensive and current information
available. In the few cases where
commenters provided new information,
we considered the information (see
Revisions to Threatened Species
Descriptions and Revisions to
Endangered Species Descriptions,
below). In most cases, commenters
provided no new information for us to
consider. Under the Hatchery Listing
Policy, we base our determinations of
species status under the ESA on the
status of the entire ESU/DPS, including
hatchery fish. We recognize that
important genetic resources
representing the ecological and genetic
diversity of species can reside in
hatchery fish as well as natural fish. We
apply the Hatchery Listing Policy in
support of the conservation of naturallyspawning salmon and the ecosystems
upon which they depend, consistent
with section 2(b) of the ESA.
Comment 3—Justification for the Rule
and Data Sources: Numerous comments
asserted that the proposed rule did not
provide adequate justification to
support our proposed revisions.
Comments requested more detail about
the criteria, data, and analytical
methods that we used to evaluate each
hatchery program. Several comments
asked how the level of divergence
between hatchery and natural
populations is measured. Other
comments stated that pHOS (proportion
of spawners of hatchery origin) and PNI
(the proportionate natural influence in a
natural salmon or steelhead population)
metrics should have been explained and
evaluated in the proposed rule. In sum,
the commenters requested that we more
clearly link our proposed revisions to
supporting documentation, including
the 5-year status reviews and relevant
HGMPs.
Response: We apply the best available
information when determining whether
a hatchery program should be included
in an ESU or DPS. The primary sources
of information that NMFS considers in
defining each ESU/DPS, including
recently approved HGMPs, are
referenced in Jones (2015), which was
cited in the proposed rule. NMFS’ most
recent 5-year reviews (81 FR 33468, May
26, 2016), which were also cited in the
proposed rule, describe relationships,
risks, benefits, and uncertainties of
specific hatchery stocks relative to
natural populations of ESUs/DPSs.
Links to these 5-year reviews can be
found on our website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/2016-5year-reviews-28-listed-species-pacificsalmon-steelhead-and-eulachon). For
many species, data are not available to
quantitatively assess the level of genetic
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
divergence between a hatchery stock
and natural populations, and so
surrogate information must be used.
We agree that the pHOS and PNI
metrics are helpful in assessing the
effects of hatchery programs and we did
evaluate the most recently available
pHOS and PNI information. The widelyused demographic metrics pHOS, pNOB
(proportion of broodstock of natural
origin) and PNI are typically used as
measures of genetic risk associated with
program operations. In the absence of
historical genetic databases, we use
these metrics extensively in making
decisions regarding levels of divergence.
A summary of the analysis of these
metrics for each hatchery program can
be found in Jones (2015).
Comment 4—Need for Approved
HGMPs: A commenter stated that the
listed ESU/DPS should only include
hatchery programs that have been
evaluated under the ESA. The
commenter asserted that the proposed
rule ‘‘notably leaves out the critical
details within approved HGMPs that
link to broodstock source, breeding and
rearing protocols, monitoring and
genetics,’’ and ‘‘without that
information any inclusion of additional
hatcheries, or even previously included
hatcheries, lacks the scientific rigor that
is required to include a hatchery
population within the DPS/ESU.’’
Response: Under our Hatchery Listing
Policy, we assess whether hatchery
programs should be included in an ESU
or DPS based on the best available
scientific information and the standards
identified in the policy. By contrast,
evaluation of an HGMP under the ESA
is a separate process from our listing
determinations under ESA section 4(c).
HGMP reviews involve a separate, legal
determination as to whether a hatchery
program qualifies for an exemption from
the ESA’s take prohibition. The
inclusion of a hatchery program in a
listing does not authorize the
propagation of that hatchery stock, and
each hatchery program must still
undergo ESA review before it can be
exempted from the ESA’s take
prohibition.
Comment 5—Reproductive Fitness of
Hatchery Fish: A commenter asked,
‘‘Where are the documents that set forth
the reproduction success rates of the
genetically similar hatchery fish to
establish whether they can promote
wild fish recovery?’’
Response: The relevant information
associated with the decision herein is
whether the level of genetic divergence
of the hatchery stock is not more than
what occurs within the natural
population. Consequently, reproductive
success was not evaluated. An
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
evaluation of available reproductive
success information would occur during
our consideration of an HGMP.
Comment 6—Conservation Value of
Hatchery Programs Using Local
Broodstock: Several commenters stated
that NMFS has acknowledged the
limited conservation value of segregated
hatchery programs using broodstocks
derived from local populations, yet has
adopted a standard that encompasses
virtually all hatchery programs using
local broodstock. Several commenters
also recommended that we exclude
‘‘segregated’’ hatchery programs because
they serve no conservation purpose
(e.g., the Deep River Net PenWashougal, Klaskanine Hatchery,
Bonneville Hatchery, and Cathlamet
Channel Net Pen Programs within the
Lower Columbia River ESU). The
commenter stated that high stray rates
from these segregated hatchery
programs result in the fish from these
programs appearing to be ‘‘no more than
moderately diverged’’ from natural
populations, while the listed natural
populations decrease in fitness and
recovery potential as a result of genetic
introgression from the hatchery strays.
Response: The fundamental issue in
determining the listing status of a
hatchery program is its divergence from
natural populations, not the purpose of
the hatchery (i.e., conservation or
harvest). Including a hatchery program
in an ESU or DPS listing does not
endorse its use for any purpose, but
rather acknowledges that fish from the
program are within the range of genetic
diversity exhibited by naturally
produced fish in the ESU/DPS. Many
hatchery programs designed without
conservation intent use local
broodstock. We evaluate any potential
impact associated with the release of
hatchery program fish in the wild
during our consideration of an HGMP.
Comment 7—Genetic Introgression:
Several commenters stated that genetic
introgression (the transfer of genetic
information) between hatchery and
natural fish increases the likelihood that
hatchery stocks will qualify for
inclusion in an ESU/DPS listing when
using the moderate divergence criterion.
One commenter provided an analysis
for Puget Sound steelhead, calculating
Fst/Gst for five listed natural
populations and two unlisted,
segregated hatchery programs derived
from Chambers Creek hatchery
broodstock. The commenter noted that
in their example, NMFS correctly
declined to list the segregated steelhead
programs under the ESA, due to their
high degree of domestication. The
commenter stated that absent
biologically credible, measurable
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81825
criteria for determining divergence,
decisions to either include or exclude
hatchery populations from listing will
be arbitrary and inconsistent.
Response: As stated above, NMFS is
required to use the best available
information when making ESA listing
decisions. The ESA requires that we
conduct status reviews for listed species
every 5 years. Prior to our review, we
publish a Federal Register notice
requesting information pertinent to our
reviews. We then review this
information to inform our assessment of
the species’ ESA status. As part of that
assessment, we consider species
composition, including whether any
hatchery programs should be included
in the listed entity.
For many listed ESUs/DPSs, metrics
such as Fst, or even pHOS and PNI (as
mentioned in an earlier comment) are
not available. As a result, mandating a
quantitative genetics approach to our
listing decisions is impossible due to
such data limitations. As mentioned
above, we are required to decide
whether or not to include a hatchery
program as part of a listed ESU/DPS
using the best available information.
The analysis of Puget Sound steelhead
provided by the commenter noted above
provides a good example of the
limitations of genetic data. Based on
molecular genetic markers, winter
steelhead derived from Chambers Creek
hatchery broodstock do not appear to be
substantively diverged from other
naturally-spawning populations,
suggesting that such hatchery fish may
warrant listing as part of the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS. However, fish
from this hatchery program are not
listed due to domestication, which has
occurred over several generations and
resulted in a noticeably earlier run
timing and poorer productivity than
natural typical Puget Sound steelhead
populations.
In our analysis we use a qualitative
categorization scheme based on SSHAG
(2003), which we believe is the best way
to consistently evaluate hatchery
programs at this time. We categorize
each hatchery program as category 1
through category 4, based on the
program’s degree of divergence from the
natural population. Programs designated
category 1 and 2 are included as part of
the listed ESU/DPS because they have a
minimal to moderate level of genetic
divergence based on the best available
information. Furthermore, our
determination whether to include a
hatchery program in a listing, as we
mentioned above, is not to be conflated
with program purpose or program type.
Comment 8—Release Location: A
commenter inquired about how release
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
81826
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
location affects our evaluation of the
listing status of a hatchery program. The
commenter stated that ‘‘if fish used in
a hatchery program are of ESU origin
and within the accepted divergence
limits of the ESU, then it would seem
that these fish, biologically, are part of
the ESU, no matter the location of
release from a hatchery program.’’
Response: We agree in circumstances
where those release locations are within
the ESU/DPS range, and this idea is the
impetus for many of our decisions to
add certain hatchery programs to the
listing. However, there are a few
exceptions, largely for reintroduction
programs where listed fish are moved to
a separate geographic location and used
to create a stock that adapts, over time,
to the new geographic location (i.e.,
coho salmon in the Upper Columbia and
Snake River Basins).
Comment 9—Puget Sound Steelhead
Hatchery Program Divergence: One
commenter stated that the Jones (2015)
memo cited in the proposed rule seems
to carry forward estimates of divergence
between hatchery and natural
production from the 2003 SSHAG
document, which were overestimated
out of caution, due to a lack of data. The
commenter stated that more recent
information is available in revised
HGMPs for Puget Sound steelhead, for
example the proportion of natural-origin
broodstock used in each hatchery
program and the proportion of hatchery
fish found in carcass surveys of the
rivers. The degree of gene flow inferred
from these revised HGMPs indicates
that the ‘moderate’ divergence
classification (category 2 in the Jones
2015 memo) should be replaced with
‘minimal’ divergence (category 1 in the
Jones 2015 memo).
Response: There are only a few
steelhead programs in Puget Sound
where hatchery and natural fish are
integrated. In Table 4 of Jones (2015),
we identified three programs that are
ongoing; the Green River Natural, the
White River Supplementation, the
Elwha River. We are adding the new
Fish Restoration Facility program to the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS. All of these
are classified as category 1’s with the
exception of the Green River Natural
program, which is classified as a
category 1 or 2. Thus, we think our
listing decisions are in line with the
commenter’s statement.
Comment 10—Experimental
Populations: Two commenters stated
that hatchery fish used for experimental
populations should ‘‘not necessarily’’ be
excluded from listing. The commenters
pointed out that hatchery fish used to
establish an experimental population
may meet the criteria for inclusion in an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
ESU/DPS and could potentially be used
later for recovery.
Response: The ESA includes
provisions in section 10 for designating
experimental populations (50 CFR 17.80
through 17.86). All such populations
have potential value for the recovery of
salmon and steelhead, but ESA section
10(j) requires that they be designated
either as essential or nonessential for
recovery. Nonessential experimental
populations (NEP) are treated as
proposed for listing under the ESA for
purposes of section 7 of the ESA, while
essential populations are treated as a
threatened species. To date, all salmon/
steelhead hatchery programs associated
with experimental populations are
designated as nonessential. Under the
ESA, NEPs do not receive the same level
of protection as populations listed as
threatened or endangered. Thus, we
believe it was more consistent with the
ESA’s treatment of NEPs to consider
their associated hatchery programs as
not listed. In the future, new salmon
hatchery programs could be considered
essential for recovery and thus
experimental populations could include
such hatchery fish in the listing.
Comment 11—Winthrop National
Fish Hatchery Program and Okanogan
NEP: Two commenters requested
clarification regarding the Winthrop
National Fish Hatchery Program in the
Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook
salmon ESU. One comment stated that
‘‘it is unclear if the designated [section]
10(j) NEP program is included as part of
this Winthrop National Fish Hatchery
Program’’ and requested that NMFS
include language in the species listing
to eliminate any ambiguity. The other
comment recommended that we include
in the listing the Chief Joseph Hatchery
Program that uses ESA-listed broodstock
from the Winthrop National Fish
Hatchery Program for rearing and
release in the Okanogan NEP. This
second commenter asserted that the fish
at the Chief Joseph Hatchery are still of
ESU origin and within the acceptable
divergence level, and therefore should
carry the protections of the ESA prior to
their release into the NEP.
Response: The Okanogan NEP and the
Winthrop National Fish Hatchery share
a common broodstock, however the
Okanogan NEP fish are reared in a
separate hatchery (Chief Joseph
Hatchery), and are released in a
different river basin located outside the
geographic range of the ESU. The Jones
memo (2015) documents that the
Winthrop National Fish Hatchery
Program provides fish for the Okanogan
spring Chinook salmon reintroduction.
We agree that spring Chinook salmon
from the Winthrop National Fish
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Hatchery being reared in the Chief
Joseph hatchery should still be included
as part of the Upper Columbia River
spring-run Chinook salmon listing.
However, upon release into the
Okanogan River basin these fish would
no longer be considered part of the
endangered Upper Columbia spring-run
Chinook salmon ESU. Consistent with
our regulations at 50 CFR 223.102(e),
such fish would instead be considered
members of the threatened NEP of
Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook
salmon when, and at such times as, they
are found in the mainstem or tributaries
of the Okanogan River from the CanadaUnited States border to the confluence
of the Okanogan River with the
Columbia River, Washington.
Comment 12—STEP Programs: A
commenter stated that Salmon and
Trout Enhancement Programs (STEP)
should be excluded from listing, stating
that these programs lack monitoring of
broodstock, release sites and strategies,
and return rates.
Response: We base our listing
determinations on the best scientific
information available. While monitoring
data may be limited for STEP programs,
we have evaluated the origin and
history of their broodstocks and
conclude that several programs warrant
inclusion in the ESU/DPS listing.
Comment 13—Lower Columbia River
Chinook Salmon Programs: One
commenter stated that the Lower
Columbia River Chinook salmon
Cathlamet Channel Net Pens program
and the Lower Columbia River coho
salmon Clatsop County Fisheries Net
Pen program should not be included in
the Lower Columbia River Chinook
salmon ESU. The basis for this comment
is that these net pen programs produce
Chinook salmon for selective harvest
purposes and not for conservation.
Response: Non-biological
considerations, including whether a
hatchery program is planned to
contribute to ESU recovery or to harvest,
are not a factor in listing decisions. In
this case, based on available biological
information, spring-run Chinook salmon
from net pens in the lower Columbia
River are not more than moderately
diverged from the Lower Columbia
River Chinook Salmon ESU.
Comment 14—Cowlitz River Spring
Chinook Salmon Hatchery: A comment
stated that the Cowlitz River spring-run
Chinook salmon hatchery program is
not listed and thus two programs that
use this stock, Cathlamet net pens
program and the Friends of the Cowlitz
program, should be removed from
listing.
Response: The commenter is in error.
The Cowlitz River spring-run Chinook
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
salmon hatchery program is included in
the Lower Columbia River Chinook
Salmon ESU and is listed under the ESA
(50 CFR 223.102).
Comment 15—Lower Columbia River
Coho Salmon Description: The Lower
Columbia River coho salmon ESU
description contains Eagle Creek
National Fish Hatchery Program,
Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Hatchery
Program, and Kalama River Type N
Program, which provide broodstock
sources to reintroduce coho in the
Clearwater and Grande Ronde basins. A
comment suggested adding to the ESU
description that the listing ‘‘excludes
Clearwater and Grande Ronde
production groups.’’
Response: Snake River coho salmon
were extirpated in the Snake River basin
by 1986. Coho salmon were
reintroduced to the Clearwater subbasin
in 1994 and the Grande Ronde/Lostine
subbasin in 2017 using broodstock from
the Lower Columbia River ESU. Lower
Columbia River coho salmon are
described in the CFR as ‘‘naturally
spawned coho salmon originating from
the Columbia River and its tributaries
downstream from the Big White Salmon
and Hood Rivers (inclusive) and any
such fish originating from the
Willamette River and its tributaries
below Willamette Falls.’’ By this
definition, Lower Columbia River coho
salmon occurring in the Snake River
basin are excluded from the listing and
we see no need to add the commenter’s
proposed new language.
Comment 16—Snake River Sockeye
Salmon Hatchery Programs: One
comment stated that only the Redfish
Lake Captive Broodstock Program is
listed, and the recently-added ‘‘smolt
production program’’ is not listed but
should be.
Response: The commenter is correct.
The Redfish Lake Captive Broodstock
Program currently produces the eggs
used in the new smolt production
program. Therefore, the smolts
produced for this new hatchery program
are a category 1a (Jones 2015) and
should be included in the Snake River
sockeye salmon ESU. We will list this
program under Idaho Department of
Fish and Game’s program name, the
‘‘Snake River Sockeye Salmon Hatchery
Program.’’
Comment 17—Upper Salmon River
Steelhead Programs: A commenter
stated that the Upper Salmon River
programs are similar to the Little
Salmon River in that the programs are
in the process of changing stocks that do
not utilize B-run steelhead from
Dworshak Hatchery.
Response: Currently these programs
still use some fish from the Dworshak
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
National Fish Hatchery for broodstock.
Thus, these fish should be listed
because the ‘‘parent’’ program is listed.
NMFS may reconsider this listing
decision once the programs in the
Upper Salmon River no longer use
Dworshak National Fish Hatchery
steelhead.
Comment 18—Dollar Creek Programs:
A commenter suggested removing the
Dollar Creek Program because it is
subset of the McCall Hatchery.
Response: Dollar Creek is an egg box
program that has its own HGMP. We
will identify this program individually
in the listing description because it is
managed by a separate entity, it has a
separate HGMP, and it is a separate line
item in the 2018–2027 U.S. v. Oregon
Management Agreement (U.S. v. OR).
Identifying this program separately
allows us to better track program
implementation. In the proposed rule
we identified this as the Dollar Creek
Program, but have renamed it the South
Fork Salmon River Eggbox Program as it
is more consistent with the description
in U.S. v. OR.
Comment 19—Listing Status of
Panther Creek: A commenter stated that
we are treating populations in Panther
Creek and Lookingglass Creek
inconsistently. The commenter asked if
functionally-extirpated populations that
have been reestablished with ‘‘within
ESU’’ stock (but not ‘withinpopulation’) would be considered to be
recovered?
Response: We are listing Panther
Creek because the fish released there are
from an already listed hatchery program
within the same ESU, and this is
consistent with how we have handled
other reintroduction programs within
the same ESU/DPS for the purpose of
reintroducing fish into functionally
extirpated populations (e.g.,
Lookingglass in the Grande Ronde River
Basin).
Comment 20—Wells Fish Hatchery
Program Description: One commenter
stated that the Wells Fish Hatchery
program releases Columbia River
steelhead smolts directly into the
Columbia River and other locations, so
it is not clear why in the listing
language the Methow and Okanogan are
listed in parentheses and the Columbia
River is excluded. The commenter
recommends deleting ‘in the Methow
and Okanogan’ in the listing language.
Response: The Wells Program has
three separate components: Releases
into the Methow River, the Twisp River,
and the Columbia River. The Methow
River and Twisp River releases use
Methow River steelhead. Previously, the
rationale for excluding the Columbia
River release was because it uses Wells
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81827
hatchery stock, which was created using
fish from all steelhead populations
returning to the Upper Columbia. Given
the Wells stock is not representative of
any one single population, we have
decided not to list components of the
Wells Program that propagate this stock.
Comment 21—Upper Willamette River
Chinook Salmon: A commenter stated
that the Jones (2015) memo did not
adequately address the relationships
between hatchery and natural
populations of Chinook salmon and
steelhead in the Willamette River. The
commenter stated that recent genetic
analysis by Oregon State University and
the FWS suggests that the ‘‘Willamette
River population is more appropriate
(sic) considered one stock and not
divided between Upper Willamette and
Lower Columbia River.’’ The commenter
suggests a more accurate delineation
would be ‘‘Willamette River stock’’ and
‘‘Columbia River stock.’’ Furthermore,
the commenter stated that Jones (2015)
did not analyze this new genetic data,
nor did it analyze proposed HGMPs for
hatchery populations under the
Willamette Biological Opinion or the
Portland General Electric Hydropower
Settlement Agreement, which requires
long term changes to the hatchery
populations and releases.
Response: This comment addresses
how the Upper Willamette River
Chinook salmon and Lower Columbia
River Chinook salmon ESUs are defined,
which is not the subject of this
rulemaking.
Comment 22—ESU Description:
Several comments requested that we
revise ESU/DPS descriptions for various
reasons.
Response: This final rule addresses
hatchery programs associated with
listed ESU/DPSs. Our recentlycompleted 5-year reviews did not
recommend modifications to the
composition of any ESU/DPS apart from
the modifications related to hatchery
programs addressed in this final rule.
Comment 23—Naming of Hatchery
Programs: A commenter stated that it is
unclear what strategy NMFS used to
name the different hatchery programs
included in the proposed changes.
Response: We acknowledge that
naming conventions are not always
consistent. Hatchery program names
sometimes include reference to stocking
location and sometimes they do not. For
programs with submitted HGMPs, we
use program names provided in the
HGMP. In general, our intention is to
use program names that are commonly
accepted and which provide sufficient
description to identify the program.
Comment 24—Consistency with Alsea
Decision: A commenter stated that the
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
81828
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
proposed rule is inconsistent with the
Alsea decision.
Response: NMFS issued the ‘‘Interim
Policy on Artificial (Hatchery)
Propagation of Pacific Salmon under the
Endangered Species Act’’ (Interim
Policy) in 1993. The Interim Policy
provided that hatchery salmon and
steelhead would not be listed under the
ESA unless they were found to be
essential for recovery of a listed species
(i.e., if the hatchery population
contained a substantial portion of the
remaining genetic diversity of the
species). The result of this policy was
that a listing determination for a species
depended solely upon the relative
health of the naturally spawning
component of the species. In most cases,
hatchery fish were not relied upon to
contribute to recovery, and therefore
were not listed.
As explained above, a federal court
ruled in the Alsea decision that NMFS
made an improper distinction under the
ESA by excluding certain hatchery
programs from the listing of Oregon
Coast coho salmon, even though NMFS
had determined that these hatchery
programs were otherwise a part of the
same ESU as the listed natural
populations. The Court set aside NMFS’
1998 listing of Oregon Coast coho
salmon because it impermissibly
excluded hatchery fish within the ESU
from listing and therefore listed an
entity that was not a species, subspecies
or DPS. While the Alsea decision only
addressed Oregon Coast coho salmon, it
prompted NMFS to reconsider the
inclusion of hatchery fish in ESA
listings for other West Coast salmon and
steelhead species.
In 2005, NMFS issued the Hatchery
Listing Policy, which superseded the
Interim Policy. Under the Hatchery
Listing Policy, hatchery stocks with a
level of genetic divergence relative to
the local natural populations that is no
more than what occurs within the DPS
are: (a) Considered part of the DPS; (b)
considered in determining whether the
DPS should be listed under the ESA;
and (c) to be included in any listing of
the DPS. Thus, the proposed rule and
this final rule are consistent with the
Alsea decision.
Comment 25—Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) Compliance: A
commenter suggested that updates to
the list of hatchery programs included
with listed ESU/DPSs is in violation of
the APA because relevant data were not
made available to the public.
Response: This rule was published as
a proposed rule (81 FR 72759, October
21, 2016) and the public was entitled to
contact NMFS and request additional
information. We provided links to our
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
most recent 5-year status reviews and
Jones (2015) memos as well as NMFS
staff contact information to obtain any
additional supporting information.
Comment 26—ESA Compliance:
Several commenters stated that the
proposed rule does not comply with the
requirements of section 4 of the ESA
and requested that we re-issue the
proposed rule and re-open for public
comment. Commenters also stated that
to update the list of hatchery programs
included with listed ESU/DPSs, NMFS
must engage in consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Response: As noted in the
Background section above, in
accordance with section 4(c)(2)(A) of the
ESA, we completed our most recent 5year reviews of the status of ESA-listed
salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs in
California, Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington in 2016 (81 FR 33468, May
26, 2016). At that time, we evaluated
hatchery stocks associated with the
relevant ESUs/DPS as part of a hatchery
program review (Jones 2015), which in
turn informed the overall ESA status
reviews. Our evaluation addressed a
number of factors regarding hatchery
fish, including the degree of known or
inferred genetic divergence between the
hatchery stock and the local natural
population(s) as well as the role and
impacts of hatchery programs on key
viability parameters such as abundance,
productivity, spatial structure, and
diversity. As a result of those 2016
status reviews, we concluded that the
species membership of several salmonid
hatchery programs warranted revision
and advised the public that we would
make those revisions through a
subsequent rulemaking (i.e., this
Federal Register document).
ESA sections 4 and 7 serve different
purposes. Under section 4, NMFS
determines whether a species should be
listed as endangered or threatened based
on section 4’s standards. Under ESA
section 7, Federal agencies must engage
in consultation with NMFS or the FWS
prior to authorizing, funding, or
carrying out actions that may affect
listed species. It would not make sense
for NMFS to carry out section 7
consultation over whether to list a
species, as section 7 only applies to
species that are already listed.
Comment 27—National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Compliance: Multiple commenters
stated that the proposed rule violates
NEPA and NMFS must prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Response: ESA listing decisions are
non-discretionary actions by the agency
which are exempt from the requirement
to prepare an environmental assessment
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
or EIS under NEPA. See NOAA
Administrative Order 216 6.03(e)(1) and
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675
F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981).
Summary of Changes Made Between
the Proposed and Final Rules
Please refer to the proposed rule (81
FR 72759) for details on the rationale for
our decision for each affected hatchery
program. We carefully considered all
comments received in response to the
proposed rule and, as a result, have
made the appropriate changes in this
final rule. Below we summarize the
changes made between the proposed
and final rules.
Threatened Species at 50 CFR 223.102
Revisions to Threatened Species
Descriptions
Salmon, Chinook (Puget Sound ESU)
In response to the proposed rule we
received numerous comments
requesting name changes to listed
hatchery programs to ensure
consistency with HGMPs. A few
comments corrected errors we had made
in the proposed rule. In response to
these comments, we made the following
changes between the proposed and final
rules:
(1) We had proposed updating the
name of the Keta Creek Hatchery
Program to the Fish Restoration Facility
Program. Instead, we are removing the
Keta Creek Hatchery Program from
listing, as it never existed and was
previously listed in error. However, we
are adding the Fish Restoration Facility
Program, which is a new program.
(2) We had proposed to add the
Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip)
Hatchery-Skykomish Program. We want
to correct the description of this action.
This update is not the addition of a new
program but rather a program name
change from the existing Tulalip Bay
Program to the Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin
(Tulalip) Hatchery-Skykomish Program.
(3) We had proposed updating the
name of the Harvey Creek Hatchery
Program to the Brenner Creek Hatchery
Program. In fact, the Harvey Creek and
Brenner Creek hatchery programs are
two distinct programs based on
geography and run-timing. The Harvey
Creek Hatchery Program (summer-run
and fall-run) was already listed as part
of the ESU. The updated listing
language will better describe these
programs as the Harvey Creek Hatchery
Program (summer-run), and the now
distinct Brenner Creek Hatchery
Program (fall-run).
(4) We are changing the name of the
Marblemount Hatchery Program (springrun subyearlings and summer-run). This
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
81829
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
considered to be part of the listed
Imnaha River Program.
(2) We proposed to add the Dollar
Creek Program. We will be adding this
new program, but it will be named the
South Fork Salmon River Eggbox
Program.
program is now considered to be two
distinct programs: The Marblemount
Hatchery Program (spring-run) and
Marblemount Hatchery Program
(summer-run). This name change was
not described in the proposed rule.
(5) We are changing the names of
several other programs and these
changes were not described in the
proposed rule. We are changing the
names of: The Whitehorse Springs Pond
Program to the Whitehorse Springs
Hatchery Program (summer-run); the
Diru Creek Program to the Clarks Creek
Hatchery Program; the Issaquah
Hatchery Program to the Issaquah Creek
Hatchery Program; the White
Acclimation Pond Program to the White
River Acclimation Pond Program; the
Clear Creek Program to the Clear Creek
Hatchery Program; and the Kalama
Creek Program to the Kalama Creek
Hatchery Program.
(6) There was a typographical error in
the proposed rule referring to the
‘‘Hamma Hatchery Program.’’ The
correct name for this program is the
Hamma Hamma Hatchery Program.
Salmon, Coho (Lower Columbia River
ESU)
We are making two changes that differ
from those described in the proposed
rule.
(1) We removed the Kalama River
Type-S Coho Program because it was
terminated.
(2) The North Fork Toutle River
Hatchery Program will now be named
the North Fork Toutle River Type-S
Hatchery Program.
Steelhead (Puget Sound DPS)
We are changing the name of the
Hood Canal Steelhead Supplementation
Off-station Projects in the Dewatto,
Skokomish, and Duckabush Rivers
Program to the Hood Canal
Supplementation Program.
Salmon, Chinook (Snake River Spring/
Summer-Run ESU)
We are making two changes that differ
from those described in the proposed
rule.
(1) We proposed updating the name of
the Big Sheep Creek Program to the Big
Sheep Creek-Adult outplanting from
Imnaha Program. Instead, we are
removing this program from listing as a
separate program, because it is now
Steelhead (Snake River Basin DPS)
We are making three changes that
differ from those described in the
proposed rule.
(1) We are adding the South Fork
Clearwater Hatchery Program, as
proposed, but we correct the name for
this program to be the South Fork
Clearwater (Clearwater Hatchery) B-run
Program.
(2) We are removing the individual
listings of the Lolo Creek Program and
the North Fork Clearwater Program,
because they are now considered to be
part of the listed Dworshak National
Fish Hatchery Program.
(3) We had proposed to add the
Squaw Creek, Yankee Fork, and
Pahsimeroi River Programs as discrete
programs. In fact, these releases of listed
hatchery fish are considered to be part
of the Salmon River B-run Program and
so we are not listing these tributary
release sites as individual programs.
Endangered Species at 50 CFR 224.101
Revisions to Endangered Species
Descriptions
Salmon, Chinook (Upper Columbia
River Spring-Run ESU)
We are adding the new Chief Joseph
spring Chinook Hatchery Program
(Okanogan release). For further
explanation, see Issue—Winthrop
National Fish Hatchery Program and
Okanogan NEP in the response to
comments, above.
Salmon, Sockeye (Snake River ESU)
In the proposed rule we
recommended minor changes in
terminology to standardize species
descriptions in regulations, but we did
not propose any changes in hatchery
programs included in this ESU. In
response to comments, we are adding
the Snake River Sockeye Salmon
Hatchery Program.
In Table 1 we summarize this final
rule’s revisions to hatchery programs
associated with listed species
descriptions for Pacific salmon and
steelhead species listed under the ESA.
TABLE 1—WEST COAST SALMON AND STEELHEAD HATCHERY PROGRAMS ADDRESSED IN THIS FINAL RULE
ESU/DPS (listing status), and name of
hatchery program
Run
timing
Location of release
(watershed, state)
Type of update
Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon
(Threatened):
Klaskanine Hatchery Program ...............
Fall (Tule) ...........
Klaskanine River (OR) .............
Add .....................
Deep River Net Pens-Washougal Program.
Bonneville Hatchery Program ................
Fall (Tule) ...........
Deep River (WA) .....................
Add .....................
Fall (Tule) ...........
Add .....................
Cathlamet Channel Net Pens Program
Spring .................
Lower Columbia River Gorge
(OR).
Lower Columbia River (WA/
OR).
Spring .................
Cascade River (WA) ................
Name Change ....
Marblemount Hatchery Program (summer-run).
Summer ..............
Skagit River (WA) ....................
Name Change ....
Harvey Creek Hatchery Program (summer-run).
Brenner Creek Hatchery Program (fallrun).
Whitehorse Springs Hatchery Program
(summer-run).
Issaquah Creek Hatchery Program .......
Summer ..............
Stillaguamish River (WA) .........
Name Change ....
Fall ......................
Stillaguamish River (WA) .........
Add .....................
Summer ..............
Stillaguamish River (WA) .........
Name Change ....
Fall ......................
Sammamish River (WA) ..........
Name Change ....
White River Acclimation Pond Program
Spring .................
White River (WA) .....................
Name Change ....
Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Threatened):
Marblemount Hatchery Program (springrun).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Add .....................
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
Reason for update
Existing release now classified
rate and distinct program.
Existing release now classified
rate and distinct program.
Existing release now classified
rate and distinct program.
Existing release now classified
rate and distinct program.
as a sepaas a sepaas a sepaas a sepa-
Previously listed as Marblemount Hatchery
Program (spring subyearlings and summer-run).
Previously listed as Marblemount Hatchery
Program (spring subyearlings and summer-run).
Previously listed as Harvey Creek Hatchery
(summer-run and fall-run).
Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program.
Previously listed as Whitehorse Springs
Pond Program.
Previously listed as Issaquah Hatchery Program.
Previously listed as White Acclimation Pond
Program.
17DER1
81830
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—WEST COAST SALMON AND STEELHEAD HATCHERY PROGRAMS ADDRESSED IN THIS FINAL RULE—Continued
ESU/DPS (listing status), and name of
hatchery program
Run
timing
Location of release
(watershed, state)
Type of update
Clarks Creek Hatchery Program ............
Fall ......................
Puyallup River (WA) ................
Name Change ....
Clear Creek Hatchery Program .............
Kalama Creek Hatchery Program ..........
Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip) HatcherySkykomish Program.
Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip) HatcheryCascade Program.
Soos Creek Hatchery Program (Subyearlings and Yearlings).
Fall ......................
Fall ......................
Summer ..............
Name Change ....
Name Change ....
Name Change ....
Add .....................
New program.
Fall ......................
Nisqually River (WA) ...............
Nisqually River (WA) ...............
Skykomish River/Tulalip Bay
(WA).
Snohomish River/Tulalip Bay
(WA).
Green River (WA) ....................
Previously listed
Program.
Previously listed
Previously listed
Previously listed
Name Change ....
Icy Creek Hatchery ................................
Fall ......................
Green River (WA) ....................
Remove ..............
Keta Creek Hatchery Program ...............
N/A .....................
Green River (WA) ....................
Remove ..............
Fish Restoration Facility Program ..........
Hupp Springs Hatchery-Adult Returns to
Minter Creek Program.
Rick’s Pond Hatchery .............................
Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Endangered):
Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery
(Supplementation and Captive
Broodstock).
Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon
(Threatened):
Idaho Power Program ............................
Fall ......................
Spring .................
Green River (WA) ....................
Minter Creek, Carr Inlet (WA) ..
Add .....................
Name Change ....
Fall ......................
Skokomish River (WA) ............
Remove ..............
Previously listed as two programs: the Soos
Creek Hatchery Subyearlings Program
and the Soos Creek Hatchery Yearlings
Program.
Program now considered part of the listed
Soos Creek Hatchery Program.
Program never existed and was previously
listed in error.
New program.
Previously listed as Hupp Springs Hatchery
Program.
Program terminated.
Winter .................
Sacramento River (CA) ...........
Add .....................
New program.
Fall ......................
Salmon River (ID) ....................
Name Change ....
Previously listed as Oxbow Hatchery Program.
Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program.
New program.
New program.
Program now considered part of the listed
Imnaha River Program.
Spring .................
Reason for update
as Diru Creek Hatchery
as Clear Creek Program.
as Kalama Creek Program.
as Tulalip Bay Program.
Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook
salmon (Threatened):
South Fork Salmon River Eggbox Program.
Panther Creek Program .........................
Yankee Fork Program ............................
Big Sheep Creek Program .....................
Summer ..............
South Fork Salmon River (ID)
Add .....................
Spring/Summer ..
Spring/Summer ..
Spring/Summer ..
Salmon River (ID) ....................
Yankee Fork (ID) .....................
Imnaha River (OR) ..................
Add .....................
Add .....................
Remove ..............
Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook
salmon (Endangered):
Nason Creek Program ...........................
Chewuch River Program ........................
Spring .................
Spring .................
Wenatchee River (WA) ............
Chewuch River (WA) ...............
Add .....................
Remove ..............
Chief Joseph spring Chinook Hatchery
Program (Okanogan release).
Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon
(Threatened):
McKenzie River Hatchery Program .......
Spring .................
Okanogan (WA) .......................
Add .....................
Spring .................
McKenzie River (OR) ...............
Name Change ....
North Santiam River Program ................
Spring .................
North Fork Santiam River (OR)
Name Change ....
Molalla River Program ...........................
Spring .................
Molalla River (OR) ...................
Name Change ....
South Santiam River Program ...............
Spring .................
South Fork Santiam River
(OR).
Name Change ....
Willamette Hatchery Program ................
Spring .................
Name Change ....
Clackamas Hatchery Program ...............
Spring .................
Middle Fork Willamette River
(OR).
Clackamas River (OR) .............
Name Change ....
Fall ......................
Big Creek (OR) ........................
Add .....................
New program.
Summer ..............
Summer ..............
Hamma Hamma River (WA) ....
Sequim Bay (WA) ....................
Remove ..............
Remove ..............
Program terminated.
Program terminated.
N/A .....................
SF Klaskanine River (OR) .......
Add .....................
N/A .....................
Youngs Bay (OR) ....................
Add .....................
N/A .....................
N/A .....................
Kalama River (WA) ..................
Big Creek (OR) ........................
Remove ..............
Name Change ....
Late ....................
Sandy River (OR) ....................
Name Change ....
Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program.
Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program.
Program terminated.
Previously listed as Big Creek Hatchery Program (ODFW Stock #13).
Previously listed as Sandy Hatchery Program (ODFW Stock #11).
Columbia River chum salmon (Threatened):
Big Creek Hatchery Program .................
Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon
(Threatened):
Hamma Hamma Fish Hatchery Program
Jimmycomelately Creek Fish Hatchery
Program.
Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Threatened):
Clatsop County Fisheries/Klaskanine
Hatchery.
Clatsop County Fisheries Net Pen Program.
Kalama River Type-S Coho Program ....
Big Creek Hatchery Program .................
Sandy Hatchery Program .......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
New program.
Program now considered part of the listed
Methow Composite Program.
New program.
Previously listed as McKenzie River Hatchery Program (ODFW Stock #23).
Previously listed as Marion Forks Hatchery/
North Fork Santiam Hatchery Program
(ODFW Stock #21).
Previously listed as South Santiam Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock #24) in the South
Fork Santiam River and Mollala River.
Previously listed as South Santiam Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock #24) in the South
Fork Santiam River and Mollala River.
Previously listed as Willamette Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock #22).
Previously listed as Clackamas Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock #19).
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
81831
TABLE 1—WEST COAST SALMON AND STEELHEAD HATCHERY PROGRAMS ADDRESSED IN THIS FINAL RULE—Continued
ESU/DPS (listing status), and name of
hatchery program
Run
timing
Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Complex
Hatchery Program.
N/A .....................
North Fork Toutle River Type-S Hatchery Program.
Oregon Coast coho salmon (Threatened):
Cow Creek Hatchery Program ...............
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast
coho salmon ESU (Threatened):
Cole Rivers Hatchery Program ..............
Ozette Lake sockeye (Threatened):
Umbrella Creek/Big River Hatcheries
Program.
Snake River sockeye (Endangered):
Snake River Sockeye Salmon Hatchery
Program.
California Central Valley steelhead (Threatened):
Mokelumne River Hatchery ....................
Lower Columbia River steelhead (Threatened):
Clackamas Hatchery Late Winter-run
Program.
Sandy Hatchery Late Winter-run Program.
Hood River Winter-run Program ............
Location of release
(watershed, state)
Type of update
Reason for update
Lower Columbia River Gorge
(OR).
Name Change ....
N/A .....................
North Fork Toutle River ...........
Name Change ....
Previously listed as Bonneville/Cascade/
Oxbow Complex (ODFW Stock #14)
Hatchery.
Previously listed as North Fork Toutle River
Hatchery Program.
N/A .....................
South Fork Umpqua River
(OR).
Name Change ....
Previously listed as Cow Creek Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock #18).
N/A .....................
Rogue River (OR) ....................
Name Change ....
Previously listed as Cole Rivers Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock #52).
N/A .....................
Lake Ozette (WA) ....................
Name Change ....
Previously listed as two programs: The Umbrella Creek Hatchery Program and the
Big River Hatchery Program.
N/A .....................
Upper Salmon River (ID) .........
Add .....................
New program.
Winter .................
Mokelumne River (CA) ............
Add .....................
New program.
Late Winter .........
Clackamas River (OR) .............
Name Change ....
Late Winter .........
Sandy River (OR) ....................
Name Change ....
Winter .................
Hood River (OR) ......................
Name Change ....
Previously listed as Clackamas Hatchery
Late Winter-run Program (ODFW Stock
#122).
Previously listed as Sandy Hatchery Late
Winter-run Program (ODFW Stock #11).
Previously listed as Hood River Winter-run
Program (ODFW Stock #50).
New program.
New program.
Upper Cowlitz River Wild Program ........
Tilton River Wild Program ......................
Middle Columbia River steelhead (Threatened):
Deschutes River Program ......................
Late Winter .........
Late Winter .........
Upper Cowlitz River (WA) .......
Upper Cowlitz River (WA) .......
Add .....................
Add .....................
Summer ..............
Deschutes River (OR) .............
Name Change ....
Umatilla River Program ..........................
Summer ..............
Umatilla River (OR) .................
Name Change ....
Puget Sound steelhead (Threatened):
Fish Restoration Facility Program ..........
Hood Canal Supplementation Program
Winter .................
Winter .................
Green River (WA) ....................
Hood Canal (WA) ....................
Add .....................
Name Change ....
New program.
Previously listed as Hood Canal Steelhead
Supplementation Off-station Projects in
the Dewatto, Skokomish, and Duckabush
Rivers.
Snake River Basin steelhead (Threatened):
Salmon River B-run Program .................
Summer (B) ........
Salmon River (ID) ....................
Add .....................
South Fork Clearwater (Clearwater
Hatchery) B-run program.
East Fork Salmon River Natural Program.
Lolo Creek Program ...............................
Summer (B) ........
SF Clearwater River (ID) .........
Add .....................
Summer (A) ........
Salmon River (ID) ....................
Name Change ....
Summer (B) ........
Clearwater River (ID) ...............
Remove ..............
North Fork Clearwater Program .............
Summer (B) ........
Clearwater River (ID) ...............
Remove ..............
Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Program.
Summer (A) ........
Imnaha River (OR) ..................
Name Change ....
Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program.
Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program.
Previously listed as East Fork Salmon River
Program.
Now considered part of the listed Dworshak
National Fish Hatchery Program.
Now considered part of the listed Dworshak
National Fish Hatchery Program.
Previously listed as Little Sheep Creek/
Imnaha River Hatchery Program (ODFW
Stock #29).
Summer ..............
Okanogan River (WA) .............
Name Change ....
Upper Columbia River steelhead (Threatened):
Okanogan River Program ......................
Previously listed as Deschutes River Program (ODFW Stock #66).
Previously listed as Umatilla River Program
(ODFW Stock #91).
Previously listed as Omak Creek Program.
Note: Updates to listing descriptions consist of three types: ‘‘Add’’ (a new program that meets Hatchery Listing Policy criteria, or an existing program that was divided into separate programs); ‘‘Remove’’ (a program terminated or now considered to be part of another listed program); or ‘‘Name Change’’ (a change to the name
of a hatchery program that already was listed). N/A indicates that run-timing is not specified for the program.
References
Classification
Copies of previous Federal Register
notices and related reference materials
are available on the internet at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/rules-andregulations, https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/, or
upon request (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
As noted in the Conference Report on
the 1982 amendments to the ESA,
economic impacts cannot be considered
when assessing the status of a species.
Therefore, the economic analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the
listing process. In addition, this final
rule is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866. This rule does
not contain a collection of information
requirement for the purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
81832
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, we determined that this rule
does not have significant federalism
effects and that a federalism assessment
is not required. In keeping with the
intent of the Administration and
Congress to provide continuing and
meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual
state and Federal interest, this final rule
will be shared with the relevant state
agencies. The revisions may have some
benefit to state and local resource
agencies in that the ESA-listed species
addressed in this rulemaking are more
clearly and consistently described.
Civil Justice Reform
The Department of Commerce has
determined that this final rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. In
keeping with that order, we are revising
our descriptions of ESA-listed species to
improve the clarity of our regulations.
communities of Indian tribal
governments and imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those
communities, NMFS must consult with
those governments or the Federal
Government must provide the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments. This final rule does not
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments or
communities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this final rule. Nonetheless, during our
preparation of the proposed and final
rules, we solicited information from
tribal governments and tribal fish
commissions. We informed potentially
affected tribal governments of the
proposed rule and considered their
comments in formulation of the final
rule. We will continue to coordinate on
future management actions pertaining to
the listed species addressed in this final
rule.
List of Subjects
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in
section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered
when assessing species for listing. Based
on this limitation of criteria for a listing
decision and the opinion in Pacific
Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d
829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded
that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing
actions. (See NOAA Administrative
Order 216–6.)
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Transportation.
50 CFR Part 224
Administrative practice and
procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
Dated: November 23, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Executive Order 13084 requires that if
NMFS issues a regulation that
significantly or uniquely affects the
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, we amend 50 CFR parts 223
and 224 as follows:
Scientific name
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
*
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
*
Fishes
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B,
§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C.
1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
§ 223.206(d)(9).
2. In § 223.102, amend the table in
paragraph (e) by revising the entries for
‘‘Salmon, Chinook (Lower Columbia
River ESU);’’ ‘‘Salmon, Chinook (Puget
Sound ESU);’’ ‘‘Salmon, Chinook (Snake
River fall-run ESU);’’ ‘‘Salmon, Chinook
(Snake River spring/summer-run ESU);’’
‘‘Salmon, Chinook (Upper Willamette
River ESU);’’ ‘‘Salmon, chum (Columbia
River ESU);’’ ‘‘Salmon, chum (Hood
Canal summer-run ESU);’’ ‘‘Salmon,
coho (Lower Columbia River ESU);’’
‘‘Salmon, coho (Oregon Coast ESU);’’
‘‘Salmon, coho (Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast ESU);’’
‘‘Salmon, sockeye (Ozette Lake ESU);’’
‘‘Steelhead (California Central Valley
DPS);’’ ‘‘Steelhead (Central California
Coast DPS);’’ ‘‘Steelhead (Lower
Columbia River DPS);’’ ‘‘Steelhead
(Middle Columbia River DPS);’’
‘‘Steelhead (Puget Sound DPS);’’
‘‘Steelhead (Snake River Basin DPS);’’
and ‘‘Steelhead (Upper Columbia River
DPS)’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened
marine and anadromous species.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Description of listed entity
*
1. The authority citation for part 223
continues to read as follows:
■
*
Species 1
Common name
PART 223—THREATENED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
*
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
*
17DER1
*
Critical
habitat
*
ESA rules
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Species 1
Common name
Scientific name
*
Salmon, Chinook (Lower
Columbia River ESU).
*
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Salmon, Chinook (Puget
Sound ESU).
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Salmon, Chinook (Snake
River fall-run ESU).
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
Description of listed entity
*
*
*
Naturally spawned Chinook salmon originating from
the Columbia River and its tributaries downstream
of a transitional point east of the Hood and White
Salmon Rivers, and any such fish originating from
the Willamette River and its tributaries below Willamette Falls. Not included in this DPS are: (1)
Spring-run Chinook salmon originating from the
Clackamas River; (2) fall-run Chinook salmon
originating from Upper Columbia River bright
hatchery stocks, that spawn in the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, and in other
tributaries upstream from the Sandy River to the
Hood and White Salmon Rivers; (3) spring-run
Chinook salmon originating from the Round Butte
Hatchery (Deschutes River, Oregon) and spawning in the Hood River; (4) spring-run Chinook
salmon originating from the Carson National Fish
Hatchery and spawning in the Wind River; and
(5) naturally spawned Chinook salmon originating
from the Rogue River Fall Chinook Program. This
DPS does include Chinook salmon from the following artificial propagation programs: The Big
Creek Tule Chinook Program; Astoria High
School Salmon-Trout Enhancement Program
(STEP) Tule Chinook Program; Warrenton High
School STEP Tule Chinook Program; Cowlitz
Tule Chinook Program; North Fork Toutle Tule
Chinook Program; Kalama Tule Chinook Program; Washougal River Tule Chinook Program;
Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery (NFH) Tule
Chinook Program; Cowlitz Spring Chinook Program in the Upper Cowlitz River and the Cispus
River; Friends of the Cowlitz Spring Chinook Program; Kalama River Spring Chinook Program;
Lewis River Spring Chinook Program; Fish First
Spring Chinook Program; Sandy River Hatchery
Program; Deep River Net Pens-Washougal Program; Klaskanine Hatchery Program; Bonneville
Hatchery Program; and the Cathlamet Channel
Net Pens Program.
Naturally spawned Chinook salmon originating from
rivers flowing into Puget Sound from the Elwha
River (inclusive) eastward, including rivers in
Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the
Strait of Georgia. Also, Chinook salmon from the
following artificial propagation programs: The
Kendall Creek Hatchery Program; Marblemount
Hatchery Program (spring-run); Marblemount
Hatchery Program (summer-run); Brenner Creek
Hatchery Program (fall-run); Harvey Creek Hatchery Program (summer-run); Whitehorse Springs
Hatchery Program (summer-run); Wallace River
Hatchery Program (yearlings and subyearlings);
Issaquah Creek Hatchery Program; White River
Hatchery Program; White River Acclimation Pond
Program; Voights Creek Hatchery Program;
Clarks Creek Hatchery Program; Clear Creek
Hatchery Program; Kalama Creek Hatchery Program; George Adams Hatchery Program; Hamma
Hamma Hatchery Program; Dungeness/Hurd
Creek Hatchery Program; Elwha Channel Hatchery Program; Skookum Creek Hatchery Springrun Program; Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip)
Hatchery-Cascade
Program;
North
Fork
Skokomish River Spring-run Program; Soos
Creek Hatchery Program (subyearlings and yearlings); Fish Restoration Facility Program; Bernie
Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip) Hatchery-Skykomish Program; and Hupp Springs Hatchery-Adult Returns
to Minter Creek Program.
Naturally spawned fall-run Chinook salmon originating from the mainstem Snake River below
Hells Canyon Dam and from the Tucannon River,
Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, Salmon
River, and Clearwater River subbasins. Also, fallrun Chinook salmon from the following artificial
propagation programs: The Lyons Ferry Hatchery
Program; Fall Chinook Acclimation Ponds Program; Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program; and
the Idaho Power Program.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Critical
habitat
81833
ESA rules
*
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
*
226.212
223.203
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.212
223.203
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.205
223.203
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
81834
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Species 1
Common name
Scientific name
Salmon, Chinook (Snake
River spring/summer-run
ESU).
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Salmon, Chinook (Upper
Willamette River ESU).
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
*
Salmon, chum (Columbia
River ESU).
*
Oncorhynchus keta .........
Salmon, chum (Hood
Canal summer-run ESU).
Oncorhynchus keta .........
Salmon, coho (Lower Columbia River ESU).
Oncorhynchus kisutch .....
Salmon, coho (Oregon
Coast ESU).
Oncorhynchus kisutch .....
Salmon, coho (Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU).
Oncorhynchus kisutch .....
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
Description of listed entity
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Critical
habitat
ESA rules
Naturally spawned spring/summer-run Chinook
salmon originating from the mainstem Snake
River and the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde
River, Imnaha River, and Salmon River subbasins. Also, spring/summer-run Chinook salmon
from the following artificial propagation programs:
The Tucannon River Program; Lostine River Program; Catherine Creek Program; Lookingglass
Hatchery Program; Upper Grande Ronde Program; Imnaha River Program; McCall Hatchery
Program; Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation
Enhancement Program; Pahsimeroi Hatchery
Program; Sawtooth Hatchery Program; Yankee
Fork Program; South For Salmon River Eggbox
Program; and the Panther Creek Program.
Naturally spawned spring-run Chinook salmon originating from the Clackamas River and from the
Willamette River and its tributaries above Willamette Falls. Also, spring-run Chinook salmon from
the following artificial propagation programs: The
McKenzie River Hatchery Program; Willamette
Hatchery Program; Clackamas Hatchery Program; North Santiam River Program; South
Santiam River Program; and the Mollala River
Program.
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.205
223.203
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.212
223.203
*
*
*
Naturally spawned chum salmon originating from
the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon. Also, chum salmon from the
following artificial propagation programs: The
Grays River Program; Washougal River Hatchery/
Duncan Creek Program; and the Big Creek
Hatchery Program.
Naturally spawned summer-run chum salmon originating from Hood Canal and its tributaries as well
as from Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood
Canal and Dungeness Bay (inclusive). Also, summer-run chum salmon from the following artificial
propagation programs: The Lilliwaup Creek Fish
Hatchery Program; and the Tahuya River Program.
Naturally spawned coho salmon originating from the
Columbia River and its tributaries downstream
from the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers (inclusive) and any such fish originating from the
Willamette River and its tributaries below Willamette Falls. Also, coho salmon from the following
artificial propagation programs: The Grays River
Program; Peterson Coho Project; Big Creek
Hatchery Program; Astoria High School SalmonTrout Enhancement Program (STEP) Coho Program; Warrenton High School STEP Coho Program; Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program in the
Upper and Lower Cowlitz Rivers; Cowlitz Game
and Anglers Coho Program; Friends of the Cowlitz Coho Program; North Fork Toutle River TypeS Hatchery Program; Kalama River Type-N Coho
Program; Lewis River Type-N Coho Program;
Lewis River Type-S Coho Program; Fish First
Wild Coho Program; Fish First Type-N Coho Program; Syverson Project Type-N Coho Program;
Washougal River Type-N Coho Program; Eagle
Creek National Fish Hatchery Program; Sandy
Hatchery Program; Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow
Complex Hatchery Program; Clatsop County
Fisheries Net Pen Program; and the Clatsop
County Fisheries/Klaskanine Hatchery Program.
Naturally spawned coho salmon originating from
coastal rivers south of the Columbia River and
north of Cape Blanco. Also, coho salmon from
the Cow Creek Hatchery Program.
Naturally spawned coho salmon originating from
coastal streams and rivers between Cape Blanco,
Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. Also, coho
salmon from the following artificial propagation
programs: The Cole Rivers Hatchery Program;
Trinity River Hatchery Program; and the Iron Gate
Hatchery Program.
*
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
*
226.212
223.203
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.212
223.203
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.212
223.203
76 FR 35755, June 20,
2011.
226.212
223.203
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.210
223.203
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Species 1
Common name
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Critical
habitat
81835
ESA rules
Scientific name
Description of listed entity
Salmon, sockeye (Ozette
Lake ESU).
Oncorhynchus nerka .......
Naturally spawned sockeye salmon originating from
the Ozette River and Ozette Lake and its tributaries. Also, sockeye salmon from the Umbrella
Creek/Big River Hatchery Program.
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.212
223.203
*
Steelhead (California Central Valley DPS).
*
Oncorhynchus mykiss .....
*
71 FR 834, Jan. 5, 2006
*
226.211
223.203
Steelhead (Central California Coast DPS).
Oncorhynchus mykiss .....
71 FR 834, Jan. 5, 2006
226.211
223.203
Steelhead (Lower Columbia River DPS).
Oncorhynchus mykiss .....
71 FR 834, Jan. 5, 2006
226.212
223.203
Steelhead (Middle Columbia River DPS).
Oncorhynchus mykiss .....
*
*
*
Naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss
(steelhead) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries; excludes such fish originating from San Francisco
and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries. This
DPS includes steelhead from the following artificial propagation programs: The Coleman National
Fish Hatchery Program; Feather River Fish
Hatchery Program; and the Mokelumne River
Hatchery Program.
Naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss
(steelhead) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Russian River
to and including Aptos Creek, and all drainages
of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward
to Chipps Island at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Also, steelhead
from the following artificial propagation programs:
The Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Program, and
the Kingfisher Flat Hatchery Program (Monterey
Bay Salmon and Trout Project).
Naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss
(steelhead) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from rivers between
the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers (inclusive) and the
Willamette and Hood Rivers (inclusive); excludes
such fish originating from the upper Willamette
River basin above Willamette Falls. This DPS includes steelhead from the following artificial propagation programs: The Cowlitz Trout Hatchery
Late Winter-run Program (Lower Cowlitz); Kalama
River Wild Winter-run and Summer-run Programs;
Clackamas Hatchery Late Winter-run Program;
Sandy Hatchery Late Winter-run Program; Hood
River Winter-run Program; Lewis River Wild Laterun Winter Steelhead Program; Upper Cowlitz
Wild Program; and the Tilton River Wild Program.
Naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss
(steelhead) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Columbia
River and its tributaries upstream of the Wind and
Hood Rivers (exclusive) to and including the Yakima River; excludes such fish originating from the
Snake River basin. This DPS includes steelhead
from the following artificial propagation programs:
The Touchet River Endemic Program; Yakima
River Kelt Reconditioning Program (in Satus
Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, and
Upper Yakima River); Umatilla River Program;
and the Deschutes River Program. This DPS
does not include steelhead that are designated as
part of an experimental population.
71 FR 834, Jan. 5, 2006
226.212
223.203
*
Steelhead (Puget Sound
DPS).
*
Oncorhynchus mykiss .....
*
*
*
Naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss
(steelhead) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from rivers flowing into
Puget Sound from the Elwha River (inclusive)
eastward, including rivers in Hood Canal, South
Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia.
Also, steelhead from the following artificial propagation programs: The Green River Natural Program; White River Winter Steelhead Supplementation Program; Hood Canal Supplementation
Program; Lower Elwha Fish Hatchery Wild
Steelhead Recovery Program; and the Fish Restoration Facility Program.
*
72 FR 26722, May 11,
2007.
*
226.212
223.203
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
81836
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Species 1
Common name
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Critical
habitat
ESA rules
Scientific name
Description of listed entity
Steelhead (Snake River
Basin DPS).
Oncorhynchus mykiss .....
Naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss
(steelhead) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Snake River
basin. Also, steelhead from the following artificial
propagation programs: The Tucannon River Program; Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Program;
East Fork Salmon River Natural Program; Little
Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Hatchery Program;
Salmon River B-run Program; and the South Fork
Clearwater (Clearwater Hatchery) B-run Program.
71 FR 834, Jan. 5, 2006
226.212
223.203
*
Steelhead (Upper Columbia River DPS).
*
Oncorhynchus mykiss .....
*
*
*
Naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss
(steelhead) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Columbia
River and its tributaries upstream of the Yakima
River to the U.S.-Canada border. Also, steelhead
from the following artificial propagation programs:
The Wenatchee River Program; Wells Complex
Hatchery Program (in the Methow River); Winthrop National Fish Hatchery Program; Ringold
Hatchery Program; and the Okanogan River Program.
*
71 FR 834, Jan. 5, 2006
*
226.212
223.203
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1 Species
includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
*
*
*
*
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
*
PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
4. In § 224.101, amend the table in
paragraph (h) by revising the entries for
‘‘Salmon, Chinook (Sacramento River
winter-run ESU)’’; ‘‘Salmon, Chinook
(Upper Columbia River spring-run
ESU)’’; ‘‘Salmon, coho (Central
■
3. The authority citation for part 224
continues to read as follows:
■
Species 1
Common name
Scientific name
*
*
*
Salmon, Chinook (Sacramento River winter-run
ESU).
*
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Salmon, Chinook (Upper
Columbia River springrun ESU).
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Salmon, coho (Central
California Coast ESU).
Oncorhynchus kisutch .....
Salmon, sockeye (Snake
River ESU).
Oncorhynchus nerka .......
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
*
Fishes
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
*
*
Naturally spawned winter-run Chinook salmon originating from the Sacramento River and its tributaries. Also, winter-run Chinook salmon from the
following artificial propagation programs: The Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (Supplementation and Captive Broodstock).
Naturally spawned spring-run Chinook salmon originating from Columbia River tributaries upstream
of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief
Joseph Dam (excluding the Okanogan River
subbasin). Also, spring-run Chinook salmon from
the following artificial propagation programs: The
Twisp River Program; Chief Joseph spring Chinook Hatchery Program (Okanogan release);
Methow Program; Winthrop National Fish Hatchery Program; Chiwawa River Program; White
River Program; and the Nason Creek Program.
Naturally spawned coho salmon originating from rivers south of Punta Gorda, California to and including Aptos Creek, as well as such coho salmon originating from tributaries to San Francisco
Bay. Also, coho salmon from the following artificial propagation programs: The Don Clausen Fish
Hatchery Captive Broodstock Program; the Scott
Creek/King Fisher Flats Conservation Program;
and the Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Program.
Naturally spawned anadromous and residual sockeye salmon originating from the Snake River
basin. Also, sockeye salmon from the Redfish
Lake Captive Broodstock Program and the Snake
River Sockeye Salmon Hatchery Program.
PO 00000
§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered
marine and anadromous species.
*
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Description of listed entity
*
California Coast ESU);’’ and ‘‘Salmon,
sockeye (Snake River ESU)’’ to read as
follows:
*
*
Critical
habitat
ESA rules
*
*
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
*
226.204
NA
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.212
NA
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005; 77 FR 19552,
Apr. 2, 2012.
226.210
NA
70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005.
226.205
NA
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Species 1
Common name
Scientific name
*
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Description of listed entity
*
*
*
*
*
Critical
habitat
81837
ESA rules
*
1 Species
includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2020–26287 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 180117042–8884–02; RTID
0648–XA672]
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
NMFS closes the Atlantic
bluefin tuna (BFT) General category
fishery for the December subquota
period, and thus for the remainder of
2020. The intent of this closure is to
prevent further overharvest of the
adjusted December subquota, and the
overall adjusted General category quota.
DATES: Effective 11:30 p.m., local time,
December 14, 2020, through December
31, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah McLaughlin, 978–281–9260,
Nicholas Velseboer 978–675–2168, or
Larry Redd, 301–427–8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations implemented under the
authority of the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et
seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by
persons and vessels subject to U.S.
jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part
635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S.
BFT quota recommended by the
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
among the various domestic fishing
categories, per the allocations
established in the 2006 Consolidated
Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan (2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2,
2006) and amendments, and in
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Dec 16, 2020
Jkt 253001
accordance with implementing
regulations.
Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a
closure notice with the Office of the
Federal Register for publication when a
BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is
projected to be reached. Retaining,
possessing, or landing BFT under that
quota category is prohibited on and after
the effective date and time of a closure
notice for that category, for the
remainder of the fishing year, until the
opening of the subsequent quota period
or until such date as specified.
The baseline General category quota is
555.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the
General category time periods (January,
June through August, September,
October through November, and
December) is allocated a ‘‘subquota’’ or
portion of the annual General category
quota. The baseline subquotas for each
time period are as follows: 29.5 mt for
January; 277.9 mt for June through
August; 147.3 mt for September; 72.2 mt
for October through November; and 28.9
mt for December.
Closure of the December 2020 General
Category Fishery
NMFS has determined that the
General category December subquota of
28.9 mt has been reached and exceeded
(i.e., 32.7 mt have been landed as of
December 14, 2020), as has the overall
adjusted General category quota of 846.5
mt, and that the fishery should be
closed. Through this action, we are
closing the General category BFT fishery
effective 11:30 p.m., December 14, 2020,
through December 31, 2020. Therefore,
retaining, possessing, or landing large
medium or giant BFT by persons aboard
vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas
General category and HMS Charter/
Headboat category (while fishing
commercially) must cease at 11:30 p.m.
local time on December 14, 2020. The
General category will reopen
automatically on January 1, 2021, for the
January 2021 subquota period. This
action applies to those vessels permitted
in the General category, as well as to
those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted
vessels with a commercial sale
endorsement when fishing
commercially for BFT, and is taken
consistent with the regulations at
§ 635.28(a)(1). The intent of this closure
is to prevent further overharvest of the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
adjusted December subquota, and the
adjusted 2020 General category quota.
Fishermen may catch and release (or
tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject
to the requirements of the catch-andrelease and tag-and-release programs at
§ 635.26. All BFT that are released must
be handled in a manner that will
maximize their survival, and without
removing the fish from the water,
consistent with requirements at
§ 635.21(a)(1). For additional
information on safe handling, see the
‘‘Careful Catch and Release’’ brochure
available at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/
outreach-and-education/careful-catchand-release-brochure/.
Monitoring and Reporting
Dealers are required to submit
landings reports within 24 hours of a
dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by
dealers compromises NMFS’ ability to
timely implement actions such as quota
and retention limit adjustment, as well
as closures, and may result in
enforcement actions. Additionally, and
separate from the dealer reporting
requirement, General and HMS Charter/
Headboat category vessel owners are
required to report the catch of all BFT
retained or discarded dead within 24
hours of the landing(s) or end of each
trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov,
using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or
calling (888) 872–8862 (Monday
through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30
p.m.).
NMFS will need to account for 2020
landings and dead discards within the
adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with
ICCAT recommendations, and
anticipates having sufficient quota to do
that based on anticipated underharvest
due to landings of some quota categories
being substantially less than the
available quotas for those categories.’’
Could add ‘‘(e.g., the Purse Seine, Trap,
and Longline categories).
Classification
NMFS issues this action pursuant to
section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. This action is taken pursuant to
regulations at 50 CFR part 635, which
were issued pursuant to section 304(c)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, and is
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81822-81837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26287]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 201123-0313; RTID 0648-XE804]
Revisions to Hatchery Programs Included as Part of Pacific Salmon
and Steelhead Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce updates to the descriptions of Pacific
salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.)
[[Page 81823]]
species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Updates include the addition or
removal of specific hatchery programs, as well as clarifying changes to
the names of specific hatchery programs included as part of the
listings of certain Pacific salmon and steelhead species. These changes
are informed by our most recent ESA 5-year reviews, which were
completed in 2016. We are not changing the ESA-listing status of any
species under NMFS's jurisdiction, or modifying any critical habitat
designation. The updates also include minor changes in terminology to
standardize species descriptions.
DATES: This final rule is effective December 17, 2020.
ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard,
Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Markle, NMFS, West Coast
Region, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100,
Portland, OR 97232, by phone at (503) 230-5433, or by email at
[email protected]. You may also contact Maggie Miller, NMFS,
Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403. Copies of the 5-year
status reviews can be found on our website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/2016-5-year-reviews-28-listed-species-pacific-salmon-steelhead-and-eulachon.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the ESA provides for NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) to make determinations as to the endangered or
threatened status of ``species'' in response to petitions or on their
own initiative. In accordance with the ESA, we (NMFS) make
determinations as to the threatened or endangered status of species by
regulation. These regulations provide the text for each species'
listing and include the content required by the ESA section 4(c)(1). We
enumerate and maintain a list of species under our jurisdiction which
we have determined to be threatened or endangered at 50 CFR 223.102
(threatened species) and 50 CFR 224.101 (endangered species) (hereafter
referred to as the ``NMFS Lists''). The FWS maintains two master lists
of all threatened and endangered species, i.e., both species under
NMFS's jurisdiction and species under FWS's jurisdiction (the ``FWS
Lists'') at 50 CFR 17.11 (threatened and endangered animals) and 50 CFR
17.12 (threatened and endangered plants). The term ``species'' for
listing purposes under the ESA includes the following entities:
Species, subspecies, and, for vertebrates only, ``distinct population
segments (DPSs).'' Steelhead are listed as DPSs and Pacific salmon are
listed as ``evolutionarily significant units (ESUs),'' which are
essentially equivalent to DPSs for the purpose of the ESA.
For West Coast salmon and steelhead, many of the ESU and DPS
descriptions include fish originating from specific artificial
propagation programs (e.g., hatcheries) that, along with their
naturally-produced counterparts, are included as part of the listed
species. NMFS' Policy on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in
Endangered Species Act Listing Determinations for Pacific Salmon and
Steelhead (Hatchery Listing Policy) (70 FR 37204, June 28, 2005) guides
our analysis of whether individual hatchery programs should be included
as part of the listed species. The Hatchery Listing Policy states that
hatchery programs will be considered part of an ESU/DPS if they exhibit
a level of genetic divergence relative to the local natural
population(s) that is not more than what occurs within the ESU/DPS. In
applying the Hatchery Listing Policy, we use a variety of sources to
reach conclusions about divergence.
Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires regular review of listed
species to determine whether a species should be delisted,
reclassified, or retain its current classification (16 U.S.C.
1533(c)(2)). We completed our most recent 5-year review of the status
of ESA-listed salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs in California, Oregon,
Idaho, and Washington in 2016 (81 FR 33468, May 26, 2016). As part of
the 5-year review, we reviewed the classification of all West Coast
salmon and steelhead hatchery programs, guided by our Hatchery Listing
Policy. We considered the origin for each hatchery stock, the location
of release of hatchery fish, and the degree of known or inferred
genetic divergence between the hatchery stock and the local natural
population(s). A NMFS internal memorandum (Jones 2015) explains the
results of our hatchery program review. Jones (2015) found that, based
on the best scientific evidence available, some hatchery programs
should be reclassified, that is, added to or removed from the
description of the relevant ESUs/DPSs.
On October 21, 2016, we proposed to revise the NMFS Lists based on
the aforementioned review and we solicited public comments (81 FR
72759). The proposed revisions to listed species descriptions included:
(1) Adding new hatchery programs that meet the Hatchery Listing
Policy criteria for inclusion, or adding programs that resulted from
dividing existing listed hatchery programs into separate programs with
new names;
(2) Removing hatchery programs that have been terminated and do not
have any fish remaining from the program, or removing previously listed
hatchery programs that were subsumed by another listed program;
(3) Revising some hatchery program names for clarity or to
standardize conventions for naming programs; and
(4) Making minor changes in terminology to standardize species
descriptions.
The approach we used in the proposed rule and this final rule to
determine which hatchery programs are included within an ESU or DPS is
consistent with the approach taken in the 2016 status review. That is,
as part of our status reviews, we reviewed hatchery programs under our
Hatchery Listing Policy and concluded that some changes to the list of
hatchery programs included in certain ESUs and DPSs were warranted.
Those changes included updates to hatchery program names as well as the
inclusion of new programs and the removal of programs that had been
discontinued. However, as indicated in the 2016 status review, none of
these changes resulted in a change to the listing status of an ESU or
DPS because none of the changes affected the extinction risk of the ESU
or DPS.
Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule and Responses
We received 23 comments on the proposed rule via
www.regulations.gov, letter, or email. These comments were submitted by
individuals, state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and tribes
or tribal representatives. Many of the submissions included similar
comments, and several were form letters. We reviewed all comments for
substantive issues or new information and identified several broad
issues of concern. In the text below we have organized comments by
major issue categories, summarized the comments for brevity and
clarity, and addressed similar comments with common responses where
possible. After considering all comments, we made changes or
clarifications in the final rule as explained below.
Comment 1--Genetic and Ecological Risk of Hatchery Programs:
Numerous commenters stated their opposition to the release of hatchery
fish into areas with natural populations. They also opposed adding new
hatchery programs
[[Page 81824]]
to ESA-listed ESUs or DPSs. Commenters stated that NMFS is failing to
adequately address the deleterious genetic and ecological effects of
hatchery fish, and requested that we convene a panel of experts to
revise and update our Hatchery Listing Policy.
Response: This final rule arises from our obligation under ESA
section 4(c)(2) to regularly assess the status of listed species and
determine whether they should be de-listed or changed in classification
from threatened to endangered or vice-versa. 16 U.S.C. 1531(c)(2). In
2016, we assessed the composition of salmonid ESUs and DPSs pursuant to
the requirements of the ESA and our Hatchery Listing Policy to
determine whether any changes were warranted.
The Hatchery Listing Policy was developed, in part, in response to
the lawsuit Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans (2001) (Alsea decision),
where a U.S. District Court ruled that NMFS cannot exclude hatchery
fish from an ESA listing if NMFS determines that such fish comprise
part of the listed ESU/DPS under the applicable ESA standards. The
Hatchery Listing Policy was subsequently upheld in the lawsuit Trout
Unlimited v. Lohn (2009). In that case, the court upheld NMFS'
determination to include both hatchery and natural fish in a listed
steelhead DPS, despite the potential threats posed by hatchery fish.
The court noted that the listing process comprises two distinct phases:
The initial decision regarding the composition of the DPS, and the
subsequent decision whether to list the DPS.
Our recommendation to include a hatchery program in an ESA-listed
ESU or DPS does not reflect a de-emphasis of the risks from hatchery
programs. The Hatchery Listing Policy guiding our recommendation
acknowledges such risks and their impacts on the adaptive genetic
diversity, reproductive fitness, and productivity of the ESU. If we
determine that a hatchery program warrants inclusion in an ESU or DPS,
we consider effects of the hatchery fish on the natural fish comprising
the ESU/DPS in determining how the ESU/DPS should be classified under
ESA section 4(c). For the hatchery programs that are being added, a
summary of findings from this analysis can be found in Jones (2015).
The Hatchery Listing Policy states that hatchery programs will be
considered part of an ESU/DPS if they exhibit a level of genetic
divergence relative to the local natural population(s) that is not more
than what occurs within the ESU/DPS. We are not changing or weakening
our application of this moderate divergence criterion relative to how
we have applied it in the past.
We do not believe there is a need to revise our Hatchery Listing
Policy, and reiterate that the policy does recognize the risks from
hatchery programs and allows us to evaluate them in a manner
commensurate with the potential benefits of the programs.
Of note, many hatchery programs have undergone or are undergoing
review under our ESA section 4(d) regulations at 50 CFR 223.203(d)(5)
(4(d) Rule). When NMFS determines that a Hatchery and Genetic
Management Plan (HGMP) meets the 4(d) Rule requirements and approves
the HGMP, then the ESA's prohibitions against take of threatened
species do not apply to program activities. When we list a hatchery
program under the ESA, it does not automatically receive an exemption
from the ESA's prohibitions against take. In evaluating whether to
approve an HGMP under the 4(d) Rule, NMFS carries out consultation
under ESA section 7 to ensure that HGMP implementation is not likely to
jeopardize any listed species or destroy or adversely modify its
critical habitat. This provides another means for NMFS to evaluate the
effects of hatchery fish on the ESU/DPS to which they belong and
recommend management measures to improve hatchery operations.
Comment 2--Use of Best Available Science: Numerous commenters
stated that the Hatchery Listing Policy and the moderate divergence
criterion are not consistent with the best available science. Three
commenters stated that use of a criterion that focuses solely on
genetics--without attention to life history, ecology, and population
demographics--is inadequate. Related comments questioned the current
relevance of supporting documents including the Jones (2011, 2015)
memos and two reports, the Salmon and Steelhead Assessment Group's
(SSHAG), ``Hatchery Broodstock Summaries and Assessments for Chum,
Coho, and Chinook,'' and the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects
Evaluation Report (SHIEER) titled ``An Evaluation of the Effects of
Artificial Propagation on the Status and Likelihood of Extinction of
West Coast Salmon and Steelhead under the Federal Endangered Species
Act'' (SSHAG 2003, SHIEER 2004).
Response: The best available information upon which to determine
whether hatchery programs should be included in a salmon ESU or
steelhead DPS is referenced in Jones (2015). This report, in
conjunction with individual HGMPs and associated section 7
consultations, is the most comprehensive and current information
available. In the few cases where commenters provided new information,
we considered the information (see Revisions to Threatened Species
Descriptions and Revisions to Endangered Species Descriptions, below).
In most cases, commenters provided no new information for us to
consider. Under the Hatchery Listing Policy, we base our determinations
of species status under the ESA on the status of the entire ESU/DPS,
including hatchery fish. We recognize that important genetic resources
representing the ecological and genetic diversity of species can reside
in hatchery fish as well as natural fish. We apply the Hatchery Listing
Policy in support of the conservation of naturally-spawning salmon and
the ecosystems upon which they depend, consistent with section 2(b) of
the ESA.
Comment 3--Justification for the Rule and Data Sources: Numerous
comments asserted that the proposed rule did not provide adequate
justification to support our proposed revisions. Comments requested
more detail about the criteria, data, and analytical methods that we
used to evaluate each hatchery program. Several comments asked how the
level of divergence between hatchery and natural populations is
measured. Other comments stated that pHOS (proportion of spawners of
hatchery origin) and PNI (the proportionate natural influence in a
natural salmon or steelhead population) metrics should have been
explained and evaluated in the proposed rule. In sum, the commenters
requested that we more clearly link our proposed revisions to
supporting documentation, including the 5-year status reviews and
relevant HGMPs.
Response: We apply the best available information when determining
whether a hatchery program should be included in an ESU or DPS. The
primary sources of information that NMFS considers in defining each
ESU/DPS, including recently approved HGMPs, are referenced in Jones
(2015), which was cited in the proposed rule. NMFS' most recent 5-year
reviews (81 FR 33468, May 26, 2016), which were also cited in the
proposed rule, describe relationships, risks, benefits, and
uncertainties of specific hatchery stocks relative to natural
populations of ESUs/DPSs. Links to these 5-year reviews can be found on
our website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/2016-5-year-reviews-28-listed-species-pacific-salmon-steelhead-and-eulachon). For many
species, data are not available to quantitatively assess the level of
genetic
[[Page 81825]]
divergence between a hatchery stock and natural populations, and so
surrogate information must be used.
We agree that the pHOS and PNI metrics are helpful in assessing the
effects of hatchery programs and we did evaluate the most recently
available pHOS and PNI information. The widely-used demographic metrics
pHOS, pNOB (proportion of broodstock of natural origin) and PNI are
typically used as measures of genetic risk associated with program
operations. In the absence of historical genetic databases, we use
these metrics extensively in making decisions regarding levels of
divergence. A summary of the analysis of these metrics for each
hatchery program can be found in Jones (2015).
Comment 4--Need for Approved HGMPs: A commenter stated that the
listed ESU/DPS should only include hatchery programs that have been
evaluated under the ESA. The commenter asserted that the proposed rule
``notably leaves out the critical details within approved HGMPs that
link to broodstock source, breeding and rearing protocols, monitoring
and genetics,'' and ``without that information any inclusion of
additional hatcheries, or even previously included hatcheries, lacks
the scientific rigor that is required to include a hatchery population
within the DPS/ESU.''
Response: Under our Hatchery Listing Policy, we assess whether
hatchery programs should be included in an ESU or DPS based on the best
available scientific information and the standards identified in the
policy. By contrast, evaluation of an HGMP under the ESA is a separate
process from our listing determinations under ESA section 4(c). HGMP
reviews involve a separate, legal determination as to whether a
hatchery program qualifies for an exemption from the ESA's take
prohibition. The inclusion of a hatchery program in a listing does not
authorize the propagation of that hatchery stock, and each hatchery
program must still undergo ESA review before it can be exempted from
the ESA's take prohibition.
Comment 5--Reproductive Fitness of Hatchery Fish: A commenter
asked, ``Where are the documents that set forth the reproduction
success rates of the genetically similar hatchery fish to establish
whether they can promote wild fish recovery?''
Response: The relevant information associated with the decision
herein is whether the level of genetic divergence of the hatchery stock
is not more than what occurs within the natural population.
Consequently, reproductive success was not evaluated. An evaluation of
available reproductive success information would occur during our
consideration of an HGMP.
Comment 6--Conservation Value of Hatchery Programs Using Local
Broodstock: Several commenters stated that NMFS has acknowledged the
limited conservation value of segregated hatchery programs using
broodstocks derived from local populations, yet has adopted a standard
that encompasses virtually all hatchery programs using local
broodstock. Several commenters also recommended that we exclude
``segregated'' hatchery programs because they serve no conservation
purpose (e.g., the Deep River Net Pen-Washougal, Klaskanine Hatchery,
Bonneville Hatchery, and Cathlamet Channel Net Pen Programs within the
Lower Columbia River ESU). The commenter stated that high stray rates
from these segregated hatchery programs result in the fish from these
programs appearing to be ``no more than moderately diverged'' from
natural populations, while the listed natural populations decrease in
fitness and recovery potential as a result of genetic introgression
from the hatchery strays.
Response: The fundamental issue in determining the listing status
of a hatchery program is its divergence from natural populations, not
the purpose of the hatchery (i.e., conservation or harvest). Including
a hatchery program in an ESU or DPS listing does not endorse its use
for any purpose, but rather acknowledges that fish from the program are
within the range of genetic diversity exhibited by naturally produced
fish in the ESU/DPS. Many hatchery programs designed without
conservation intent use local broodstock. We evaluate any potential
impact associated with the release of hatchery program fish in the wild
during our consideration of an HGMP.
Comment 7--Genetic Introgression: Several commenters stated that
genetic introgression (the transfer of genetic information) between
hatchery and natural fish increases the likelihood that hatchery stocks
will qualify for inclusion in an ESU/DPS listing when using the
moderate divergence criterion. One commenter provided an analysis for
Puget Sound steelhead, calculating Fst/Gst for five listed natural
populations and two unlisted, segregated hatchery programs derived from
Chambers Creek hatchery broodstock. The commenter noted that in their
example, NMFS correctly declined to list the segregated steelhead
programs under the ESA, due to their high degree of domestication. The
commenter stated that absent biologically credible, measurable criteria
for determining divergence, decisions to either include or exclude
hatchery populations from listing will be arbitrary and inconsistent.
Response: As stated above, NMFS is required to use the best
available information when making ESA listing decisions. The ESA
requires that we conduct status reviews for listed species every 5
years. Prior to our review, we publish a Federal Register notice
requesting information pertinent to our reviews. We then review this
information to inform our assessment of the species' ESA status. As
part of that assessment, we consider species composition, including
whether any hatchery programs should be included in the listed entity.
For many listed ESUs/DPSs, metrics such as Fst, or even pHOS and
PNI (as mentioned in an earlier comment) are not available. As a
result, mandating a quantitative genetics approach to our listing
decisions is impossible due to such data limitations. As mentioned
above, we are required to decide whether or not to include a hatchery
program as part of a listed ESU/DPS using the best available
information. The analysis of Puget Sound steelhead provided by the
commenter noted above provides a good example of the limitations of
genetic data. Based on molecular genetic markers, winter steelhead
derived from Chambers Creek hatchery broodstock do not appear to be
substantively diverged from other naturally-spawning populations,
suggesting that such hatchery fish may warrant listing as part of the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS. However, fish from this hatchery program are
not listed due to domestication, which has occurred over several
generations and resulted in a noticeably earlier run timing and poorer
productivity than natural typical Puget Sound steelhead populations.
In our analysis we use a qualitative categorization scheme based on
SSHAG (2003), which we believe is the best way to consistently evaluate
hatchery programs at this time. We categorize each hatchery program as
category 1 through category 4, based on the program's degree of
divergence from the natural population. Programs designated category 1
and 2 are included as part of the listed ESU/DPS because they have a
minimal to moderate level of genetic divergence based on the best
available information. Furthermore, our determination whether to
include a hatchery program in a listing, as we mentioned above, is not
to be conflated with program purpose or program type.
Comment 8--Release Location: A commenter inquired about how release
[[Page 81826]]
location affects our evaluation of the listing status of a hatchery
program. The commenter stated that ``if fish used in a hatchery program
are of ESU origin and within the accepted divergence limits of the ESU,
then it would seem that these fish, biologically, are part of the ESU,
no matter the location of release from a hatchery program.''
Response: We agree in circumstances where those release locations
are within the ESU/DPS range, and this idea is the impetus for many of
our decisions to add certain hatchery programs to the listing. However,
there are a few exceptions, largely for reintroduction programs where
listed fish are moved to a separate geographic location and used to
create a stock that adapts, over time, to the new geographic location
(i.e., coho salmon in the Upper Columbia and Snake River Basins).
Comment 9--Puget Sound Steelhead Hatchery Program Divergence: One
commenter stated that the Jones (2015) memo cited in the proposed rule
seems to carry forward estimates of divergence between hatchery and
natural production from the 2003 SSHAG document, which were
overestimated out of caution, due to a lack of data. The commenter
stated that more recent information is available in revised HGMPs for
Puget Sound steelhead, for example the proportion of natural-origin
broodstock used in each hatchery program and the proportion of hatchery
fish found in carcass surveys of the rivers. The degree of gene flow
inferred from these revised HGMPs indicates that the `moderate'
divergence classification (category 2 in the Jones 2015 memo) should be
replaced with `minimal' divergence (category 1 in the Jones 2015 memo).
Response: There are only a few steelhead programs in Puget Sound
where hatchery and natural fish are integrated. In Table 4 of Jones
(2015), we identified three programs that are ongoing; the Green River
Natural, the White River Supplementation, the Elwha River. We are
adding the new Fish Restoration Facility program to the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS. All of these are classified as category 1's with the
exception of the Green River Natural program, which is classified as a
category 1 or 2. Thus, we think our listing decisions are in line with
the commenter's statement.
Comment 10--Experimental Populations: Two commenters stated that
hatchery fish used for experimental populations should ``not
necessarily'' be excluded from listing. The commenters pointed out that
hatchery fish used to establish an experimental population may meet the
criteria for inclusion in an ESU/DPS and could potentially be used
later for recovery.
Response: The ESA includes provisions in section 10 for designating
experimental populations (50 CFR 17.80 through 17.86). All such
populations have potential value for the recovery of salmon and
steelhead, but ESA section 10(j) requires that they be designated
either as essential or nonessential for recovery. Nonessential
experimental populations (NEP) are treated as proposed for listing
under the ESA for purposes of section 7 of the ESA, while essential
populations are treated as a threatened species. To date, all salmon/
steelhead hatchery programs associated with experimental populations
are designated as nonessential. Under the ESA, NEPs do not receive the
same level of protection as populations listed as threatened or
endangered. Thus, we believe it was more consistent with the ESA's
treatment of NEPs to consider their associated hatchery programs as not
listed. In the future, new salmon hatchery programs could be considered
essential for recovery and thus experimental populations could include
such hatchery fish in the listing.
Comment 11--Winthrop National Fish Hatchery Program and Okanogan
NEP: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the Winthrop
National Fish Hatchery Program in the Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook
salmon ESU. One comment stated that ``it is unclear if the designated
[section] 10(j) NEP program is included as part of this Winthrop
National Fish Hatchery Program'' and requested that NMFS include
language in the species listing to eliminate any ambiguity. The other
comment recommended that we include in the listing the Chief Joseph
Hatchery Program that uses ESA-listed broodstock from the Winthrop
National Fish Hatchery Program for rearing and release in the Okanogan
NEP. This second commenter asserted that the fish at the Chief Joseph
Hatchery are still of ESU origin and within the acceptable divergence
level, and therefore should carry the protections of the ESA prior to
their release into the NEP.
Response: The Okanogan NEP and the Winthrop National Fish Hatchery
share a common broodstock, however the Okanogan NEP fish are reared in
a separate hatchery (Chief Joseph Hatchery), and are released in a
different river basin located outside the geographic range of the ESU.
The Jones memo (2015) documents that the Winthrop National Fish
Hatchery Program provides fish for the Okanogan spring Chinook salmon
reintroduction. We agree that spring Chinook salmon from the Winthrop
National Fish Hatchery being reared in the Chief Joseph hatchery should
still be included as part of the Upper Columbia River spring-run
Chinook salmon listing. However, upon release into the Okanogan River
basin these fish would no longer be considered part of the endangered
Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. Consistent with our
regulations at 50 CFR 223.102(e), such fish would instead be considered
members of the threatened NEP of Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook
salmon when, and at such times as, they are found in the mainstem or
tributaries of the Okanogan River from the Canada-United States border
to the confluence of the Okanogan River with the Columbia River,
Washington.
Comment 12--STEP Programs: A commenter stated that Salmon and Trout
Enhancement Programs (STEP) should be excluded from listing, stating
that these programs lack monitoring of broodstock, release sites and
strategies, and return rates.
Response: We base our listing determinations on the best scientific
information available. While monitoring data may be limited for STEP
programs, we have evaluated the origin and history of their broodstocks
and conclude that several programs warrant inclusion in the ESU/DPS
listing.
Comment 13--Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon Programs: One
commenter stated that the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon Cathlamet
Channel Net Pens program and the Lower Columbia River coho salmon
Clatsop County Fisheries Net Pen program should not be included in the
Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU. The basis for this comment is
that these net pen programs produce Chinook salmon for selective
harvest purposes and not for conservation.
Response: Non-biological considerations, including whether a
hatchery program is planned to contribute to ESU recovery or to
harvest, are not a factor in listing decisions. In this case, based on
available biological information, spring-run Chinook salmon from net
pens in the lower Columbia River are not more than moderately diverged
from the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU.
Comment 14--Cowlitz River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery: A comment
stated that the Cowlitz River spring-run Chinook salmon hatchery
program is not listed and thus two programs that use this stock,
Cathlamet net pens program and the Friends of the Cowlitz program,
should be removed from listing.
Response: The commenter is in error. The Cowlitz River spring-run
Chinook
[[Page 81827]]
salmon hatchery program is included in the Lower Columbia River Chinook
Salmon ESU and is listed under the ESA (50 CFR 223.102).
Comment 15--Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon Description: The Lower
Columbia River coho salmon ESU description contains Eagle Creek
National Fish Hatchery Program, Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Hatchery
Program, and Kalama River Type N Program, which provide broodstock
sources to reintroduce coho in the Clearwater and Grande Ronde basins.
A comment suggested adding to the ESU description that the listing
``excludes Clearwater and Grande Ronde production groups.''
Response: Snake River coho salmon were extirpated in the Snake
River basin by 1986. Coho salmon were reintroduced to the Clearwater
subbasin in 1994 and the Grande Ronde/Lostine subbasin in 2017 using
broodstock from the Lower Columbia River ESU. Lower Columbia River coho
salmon are described in the CFR as ``naturally spawned coho salmon
originating from the Columbia River and its tributaries downstream from
the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers (inclusive) and any such fish
originating from the Willamette River and its tributaries below
Willamette Falls.'' By this definition, Lower Columbia River coho
salmon occurring in the Snake River basin are excluded from the listing
and we see no need to add the commenter's proposed new language.
Comment 16--Snake River Sockeye Salmon Hatchery Programs: One
comment stated that only the Redfish Lake Captive Broodstock Program is
listed, and the recently-added ``smolt production program'' is not
listed but should be.
Response: The commenter is correct. The Redfish Lake Captive
Broodstock Program currently produces the eggs used in the new smolt
production program. Therefore, the smolts produced for this new
hatchery program are a category 1a (Jones 2015) and should be included
in the Snake River sockeye salmon ESU. We will list this program under
Idaho Department of Fish and Game's program name, the ``Snake River
Sockeye Salmon Hatchery Program.''
Comment 17--Upper Salmon River Steelhead Programs: A commenter
stated that the Upper Salmon River programs are similar to the Little
Salmon River in that the programs are in the process of changing stocks
that do not utilize B-run steelhead from Dworshak Hatchery.
Response: Currently these programs still use some fish from the
Dworshak National Fish Hatchery for broodstock. Thus, these fish should
be listed because the ``parent'' program is listed. NMFS may reconsider
this listing decision once the programs in the Upper Salmon River no
longer use Dworshak National Fish Hatchery steelhead.
Comment 18--Dollar Creek Programs: A commenter suggested removing
the Dollar Creek Program because it is subset of the McCall Hatchery.
Response: Dollar Creek is an egg box program that has its own HGMP.
We will identify this program individually in the listing description
because it is managed by a separate entity, it has a separate HGMP, and
it is a separate line item in the 2018-2027 U.S. v. Oregon Management
Agreement (U.S. v. OR). Identifying this program separately allows us
to better track program implementation. In the proposed rule we
identified this as the Dollar Creek Program, but have renamed it the
South Fork Salmon River Eggbox Program as it is more consistent with
the description in U.S. v. OR.
Comment 19--Listing Status of Panther Creek: A commenter stated
that we are treating populations in Panther Creek and Lookingglass
Creek inconsistently. The commenter asked if functionally-extirpated
populations that have been reestablished with ``within ESU'' stock (but
not `within-population') would be considered to be recovered?
Response: We are listing Panther Creek because the fish released
there are from an already listed hatchery program within the same ESU,
and this is consistent with how we have handled other reintroduction
programs within the same ESU/DPS for the purpose of reintroducing fish
into functionally extirpated populations (e.g., Lookingglass in the
Grande Ronde River Basin).
Comment 20--Wells Fish Hatchery Program Description: One commenter
stated that the Wells Fish Hatchery program releases Columbia River
steelhead smolts directly into the Columbia River and other locations,
so it is not clear why in the listing language the Methow and Okanogan
are listed in parentheses and the Columbia River is excluded. The
commenter recommends deleting `in the Methow and Okanogan' in the
listing language.
Response: The Wells Program has three separate components: Releases
into the Methow River, the Twisp River, and the Columbia River. The
Methow River and Twisp River releases use Methow River steelhead.
Previously, the rationale for excluding the Columbia River release was
because it uses Wells hatchery stock, which was created using fish from
all steelhead populations returning to the Upper Columbia. Given the
Wells stock is not representative of any one single population, we have
decided not to list components of the Wells Program that propagate this
stock.
Comment 21--Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon: A commenter
stated that the Jones (2015) memo did not adequately address the
relationships between hatchery and natural populations of Chinook
salmon and steelhead in the Willamette River. The commenter stated that
recent genetic analysis by Oregon State University and the FWS suggests
that the ``Willamette River population is more appropriate (sic)
considered one stock and not divided between Upper Willamette and Lower
Columbia River.'' The commenter suggests a more accurate delineation
would be ``Willamette River stock'' and ``Columbia River stock.''
Furthermore, the commenter stated that Jones (2015) did not analyze
this new genetic data, nor did it analyze proposed HGMPs for hatchery
populations under the Willamette Biological Opinion or the Portland
General Electric Hydropower Settlement Agreement, which requires long
term changes to the hatchery populations and releases.
Response: This comment addresses how the Upper Willamette River
Chinook salmon and Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESUs are
defined, which is not the subject of this rulemaking.
Comment 22--ESU Description: Several comments requested that we
revise ESU/DPS descriptions for various reasons.
Response: This final rule addresses hatchery programs associated
with listed ESU/DPSs. Our recently-completed 5-year reviews did not
recommend modifications to the composition of any ESU/DPS apart from
the modifications related to hatchery programs addressed in this final
rule.
Comment 23--Naming of Hatchery Programs: A commenter stated that it
is unclear what strategy NMFS used to name the different hatchery
programs included in the proposed changes.
Response: We acknowledge that naming conventions are not always
consistent. Hatchery program names sometimes include reference to
stocking location and sometimes they do not. For programs with
submitted HGMPs, we use program names provided in the HGMP. In general,
our intention is to use program names that are commonly accepted and
which provide sufficient description to identify the program.
Comment 24--Consistency with Alsea Decision: A commenter stated
that the
[[Page 81828]]
proposed rule is inconsistent with the Alsea decision.
Response: NMFS issued the ``Interim Policy on Artificial (Hatchery)
Propagation of Pacific Salmon under the Endangered Species Act''
(Interim Policy) in 1993. The Interim Policy provided that hatchery
salmon and steelhead would not be listed under the ESA unless they were
found to be essential for recovery of a listed species (i.e., if the
hatchery population contained a substantial portion of the remaining
genetic diversity of the species). The result of this policy was that a
listing determination for a species depended solely upon the relative
health of the naturally spawning component of the species. In most
cases, hatchery fish were not relied upon to contribute to recovery,
and therefore were not listed.
As explained above, a federal court ruled in the Alsea decision
that NMFS made an improper distinction under the ESA by excluding
certain hatchery programs from the listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon,
even though NMFS had determined that these hatchery programs were
otherwise a part of the same ESU as the listed natural populations. The
Court set aside NMFS' 1998 listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon because
it impermissibly excluded hatchery fish within the ESU from listing and
therefore listed an entity that was not a species, subspecies or DPS.
While the Alsea decision only addressed Oregon Coast coho salmon, it
prompted NMFS to reconsider the inclusion of hatchery fish in ESA
listings for other West Coast salmon and steelhead species.
In 2005, NMFS issued the Hatchery Listing Policy, which superseded
the Interim Policy. Under the Hatchery Listing Policy, hatchery stocks
with a level of genetic divergence relative to the local natural
populations that is no more than what occurs within the DPS are: (a)
Considered part of the DPS; (b) considered in determining whether the
DPS should be listed under the ESA; and (c) to be included in any
listing of the DPS. Thus, the proposed rule and this final rule are
consistent with the Alsea decision.
Comment 25--Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Compliance: A
commenter suggested that updates to the list of hatchery programs
included with listed ESU/DPSs is in violation of the APA because
relevant data were not made available to the public.
Response: This rule was published as a proposed rule (81 FR 72759,
October 21, 2016) and the public was entitled to contact NMFS and
request additional information. We provided links to our most recent 5-
year status reviews and Jones (2015) memos as well as NMFS staff
contact information to obtain any additional supporting information.
Comment 26--ESA Compliance: Several commenters stated that the
proposed rule does not comply with the requirements of section 4 of the
ESA and requested that we re-issue the proposed rule and re-open for
public comment. Commenters also stated that to update the list of
hatchery programs included with listed ESU/DPSs, NMFS must engage in
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Response: As noted in the Background section above, in accordance
with section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA, we completed our most recent 5-year
reviews of the status of ESA-listed salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs in
California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington in 2016 (81 FR 33468, May 26,
2016). At that time, we evaluated hatchery stocks associated with the
relevant ESUs/DPS as part of a hatchery program review (Jones 2015),
which in turn informed the overall ESA status reviews. Our evaluation
addressed a number of factors regarding hatchery fish, including the
degree of known or inferred genetic divergence between the hatchery
stock and the local natural population(s) as well as the role and
impacts of hatchery programs on key viability parameters such as
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. As a result
of those 2016 status reviews, we concluded that the species membership
of several salmonid hatchery programs warranted revision and advised
the public that we would make those revisions through a subsequent
rulemaking (i.e., this Federal Register document).
ESA sections 4 and 7 serve different purposes. Under section 4,
NMFS determines whether a species should be listed as endangered or
threatened based on section 4's standards. Under ESA section 7, Federal
agencies must engage in consultation with NMFS or the FWS prior to
authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions that may affect listed
species. It would not make sense for NMFS to carry out section 7
consultation over whether to list a species, as section 7 only applies
to species that are already listed.
Comment 27--National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance:
Multiple commenters stated that the proposed rule violates NEPA and
NMFS must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Response: ESA listing decisions are non-discretionary actions by
the agency which are exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or EIS under NEPA. See NOAA Administrative
Order 216 6.03(e)(1) and Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d
825 (6th Cir. 1981).
Summary of Changes Made Between the Proposed and Final Rules
Please refer to the proposed rule (81 FR 72759) for details on the
rationale for our decision for each affected hatchery program. We
carefully considered all comments received in response to the proposed
rule and, as a result, have made the appropriate changes in this final
rule. Below we summarize the changes made between the proposed and
final rules.
Threatened Species at 50 CFR 223.102
Revisions to Threatened Species Descriptions
Salmon, Chinook (Puget Sound ESU)
In response to the proposed rule we received numerous comments
requesting name changes to listed hatchery programs to ensure
consistency with HGMPs. A few comments corrected errors we had made in
the proposed rule. In response to these comments, we made the following
changes between the proposed and final rules:
(1) We had proposed updating the name of the Keta Creek Hatchery
Program to the Fish Restoration Facility Program. Instead, we are
removing the Keta Creek Hatchery Program from listing, as it never
existed and was previously listed in error. However, we are adding the
Fish Restoration Facility Program, which is a new program.
(2) We had proposed to add the Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip)
Hatchery-Skykomish Program. We want to correct the description of this
action. This update is not the addition of a new program but rather a
program name change from the existing Tulalip Bay Program to the Bernie
Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip) Hatchery-Skykomish Program.
(3) We had proposed updating the name of the Harvey Creek Hatchery
Program to the Brenner Creek Hatchery Program. In fact, the Harvey
Creek and Brenner Creek hatchery programs are two distinct programs
based on geography and run-timing. The Harvey Creek Hatchery Program
(summer-run and fall-run) was already listed as part of the ESU. The
updated listing language will better describe these programs as the
Harvey Creek Hatchery Program (summer-run), and the now distinct
Brenner Creek Hatchery Program (fall-run).
(4) We are changing the name of the Marblemount Hatchery Program
(spring-run subyearlings and summer-run). This
[[Page 81829]]
program is now considered to be two distinct programs: The Marblemount
Hatchery Program (spring-run) and Marblemount Hatchery Program (summer-
run). This name change was not described in the proposed rule.
(5) We are changing the names of several other programs and these
changes were not described in the proposed rule. We are changing the
names of: The Whitehorse Springs Pond Program to the Whitehorse Springs
Hatchery Program (summer-run); the Diru Creek Program to the Clarks
Creek Hatchery Program; the Issaquah Hatchery Program to the Issaquah
Creek Hatchery Program; the White Acclimation Pond Program to the White
River Acclimation Pond Program; the Clear Creek Program to the Clear
Creek Hatchery Program; and the Kalama Creek Program to the Kalama
Creek Hatchery Program.
(6) There was a typographical error in the proposed rule referring
to the ``Hamma Hatchery Program.'' The correct name for this program is
the Hamma Hamma Hatchery Program.
Salmon, Chinook (Snake River Spring/Summer-Run ESU)
We are making two changes that differ from those described in the
proposed rule.
(1) We proposed updating the name of the Big Sheep Creek Program to
the Big Sheep Creek-Adult outplanting from Imnaha Program. Instead, we
are removing this program from listing as a separate program, because
it is now considered to be part of the listed Imnaha River Program.
(2) We proposed to add the Dollar Creek Program. We will be adding
this new program, but it will be named the South Fork Salmon River
Eggbox Program.
Salmon, Coho (Lower Columbia River ESU)
We are making two changes that differ from those described in the
proposed rule.
(1) We removed the Kalama River Type-S Coho Program because it was
terminated.
(2) The North Fork Toutle River Hatchery Program will now be named
the North Fork Toutle River Type-S Hatchery Program.
Steelhead (Puget Sound DPS)
We are changing the name of the Hood Canal Steelhead
Supplementation Off-station Projects in the Dewatto, Skokomish, and
Duckabush Rivers Program to the Hood Canal Supplementation Program.
Steelhead (Snake River Basin DPS)
We are making three changes that differ from those described in the
proposed rule.
(1) We are adding the South Fork Clearwater Hatchery Program, as
proposed, but we correct the name for this program to be the South Fork
Clearwater (Clearwater Hatchery) B-run Program.
(2) We are removing the individual listings of the Lolo Creek
Program and the North Fork Clearwater Program, because they are now
considered to be part of the listed Dworshak National Fish Hatchery
Program.
(3) We had proposed to add the Squaw Creek, Yankee Fork, and
Pahsimeroi River Programs as discrete programs. In fact, these releases
of listed hatchery fish are considered to be part of the Salmon River
B-run Program and so we are not listing these tributary release sites
as individual programs.
Endangered Species at 50 CFR 224.101
Revisions to Endangered Species Descriptions
Salmon, Chinook (Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU)
We are adding the new Chief Joseph spring Chinook Hatchery Program
(Okanogan release). For further explanation, see Issue--Winthrop
National Fish Hatchery Program and Okanogan NEP in the response to
comments, above.
Salmon, Sockeye (Snake River ESU)
In the proposed rule we recommended minor changes in terminology to
standardize species descriptions in regulations, but we did not propose
any changes in hatchery programs included in this ESU. In response to
comments, we are adding the Snake River Sockeye Salmon Hatchery
Program.
In Table 1 we summarize this final rule's revisions to hatchery
programs associated with listed species descriptions for Pacific salmon
and steelhead species listed under the ESA.
Table 1--West Coast Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Programs Addressed in This Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of
ESU/DPS (listing status), and release
name of hatchery program Run timing (watershed, Type of update Reason for update
state)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia River Chinook
salmon (Threatened):
Klaskanine Hatchery Program Fall (Tule)...... Klaskanine River Add.............. Existing release now
(OR). classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
Deep River Net Pens- Fall (Tule)...... Deep River (WA).. Add.............. Existing release now
Washougal Program. classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
Bonneville Hatchery Program Fall (Tule)...... Lower Columbia Add.............. Existing release now
River Gorge (OR). classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
Cathlamet Channel Net Pens Spring........... Lower Columbia Add.............. Existing release now
Program. River (WA/OR). classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
Puget Sound Chinook salmon
(Threatened):
Marblemount Hatchery Spring........... Cascade River Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program (spring-run). (WA). Marblemount Hatchery
Program (spring
subyearlings and
summer-run).
Marblemount Hatchery Summer........... Skagit River (WA) Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program (summer-run). Marblemount Hatchery
Program (spring
subyearlings and
summer-run).
Harvey Creek Hatchery Summer........... Stillaguamish Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program (summer-run). River (WA). Harvey Creek Hatchery
(summer-run and fall-
run).
Brenner Creek Hatchery Fall............. Stillaguamish Add.............. Existing release now
Program (fall-run). River (WA). classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
Whitehorse Springs Hatchery Summer........... Stillaguamish Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program (summer-run). River (WA). Whitehorse Springs
Pond Program.
Issaquah Creek Hatchery Fall............. Sammamish River Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program. (WA). Issaquah Hatchery
Program.
White River Acclimation Spring........... White River (WA). Name Change...... Previously listed as
Pond Program. White Acclimation
Pond Program.
[[Page 81830]]
Clarks Creek Hatchery Fall............. Puyallup River Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program. (WA). Diru Creek Hatchery
Program.
Clear Creek Hatchery Fall............. Nisqually River Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program. (WA). Clear Creek Program.
Kalama Creek Hatchery Fall............. Nisqually River Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program. (WA). Kalama Creek Program.
Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin Summer........... Skykomish River/ Name Change...... Previously listed as
(Tulalip) Hatchery- Tulalip Bay (WA). Tulalip Bay Program.
Skykomish Program.
Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin Spring........... Snohomish River/ Add.............. New program.
(Tulalip) Hatchery-Cascade Tulalip Bay (WA).
Program.
Soos Creek Hatchery Program Fall............. Green River (WA). Name Change...... Previously listed as
(Subyearlings and two programs: the
Yearlings). Soos Creek Hatchery
Subyearlings Program
and the Soos Creek
Hatchery Yearlings
Program.
Icy Creek Hatchery......... Fall............. Green River (WA). Remove........... Program now considered
part of the listed
Soos Creek Hatchery
Program.
Keta Creek Hatchery Program N/A.............. Green River (WA). Remove........... Program never existed
and was previously
listed in error.
Fish Restoration Facility Fall............. Green River (WA). Add.............. New program.
Program.
Hupp Springs Hatchery-Adult Spring........... Minter Creek, Name Change...... Previously listed as
Returns to Minter Creek Carr Inlet (WA). Hupp Springs Hatchery
Program. Program.
Rick's Pond Hatchery....... Fall............. Skokomish River Remove........... Program terminated.
(WA).
Sacramento River winter-run
Chinook salmon (Endangered):
Livingston Stone National Winter........... Sacramento River Add.............. New program.
Fish Hatchery (CA).
(Supplementation and
Captive Broodstock).
Snake River fall-run Chinook
salmon (Threatened):
Idaho Power Program........ Fall............. Salmon River (ID) Name Change...... Previously listed as
Oxbow Hatchery
Program.
Snake River spring/summer-run
Chinook salmon (Threatened):
South Fork Salmon River Summer........... South Fork Salmon Add.............. Existing release now
Eggbox Program. River (ID). classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
Panther Creek Program...... Spring/Summer.... Salmon River (ID) Add.............. New program.
Yankee Fork Program........ Spring/Summer.... Yankee Fork (ID). Add.............. New program.
Big Sheep Creek Program.... Spring/Summer.... Imnaha River (OR) Remove........... Program now considered
part of the listed
Imnaha River Program.
Upper Columbia River spring-run
Chinook salmon (Endangered):
Nason Creek Program........ Spring........... Wenatchee River Add.............. New program.
(WA).
Chewuch River Program...... Spring........... Chewuch River Remove........... Program now considered
(WA). part of the listed
Methow Composite
Program.
Chief Joseph spring Chinook Spring........... Okanogan (WA).... Add.............. New program.
Hatchery Program (Okanogan
release).
Upper Willamette River Chinook
salmon (Threatened):
McKenzie River Hatchery Spring........... McKenzie River Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program. (OR). McKenzie River
Hatchery Program
(ODFW Stock #23).
North Santiam River Program Spring........... North Fork Name Change...... Previously listed as
Santiam River Marion Forks Hatchery/
(OR). North Fork Santiam
Hatchery Program
(ODFW Stock #21).
Molalla River Program...... Spring........... Molalla River Name Change...... Previously listed as
(OR). South Santiam
Hatchery Program
(ODFW Stock #24) in
the South Fork
Santiam River and
Mollala River.
South Santiam River Program Spring........... South Fork Name Change...... Previously listed as
Santiam River South Santiam
(OR). Hatchery Program
(ODFW Stock #24) in
the South Fork
Santiam River and
Mollala River.
Willamette Hatchery Program Spring........... Middle Fork Name Change...... Previously listed as
Willamette River Willamette Hatchery
(OR). Program (ODFW Stock
#22).
Clackamas Hatchery Program. Spring........... Clackamas River Name Change...... Previously listed as
(OR). Clackamas Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock
#19).
Columbia River chum salmon
(Threatened):
Big Creek Hatchery Program. Fall............. Big Creek (OR)... Add.............. New program.
Hood Canal summer-run chum
salmon (Threatened):
Hamma Hamma Fish Hatchery Summer........... Hamma Hamma River Remove........... Program terminated.
Program. (WA).
Jimmycomelately Creek Fish Summer........... Sequim Bay (WA).. Remove........... Program terminated.
Hatchery Program.
Lower Columbia River coho
salmon (Threatened):
Clatsop County Fisheries/ N/A.............. SF Klaskanine Add.............. Existing release now
Klaskanine Hatchery. River (OR). classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
Clatsop County Fisheries N/A.............. Youngs Bay (OR).. Add.............. Existing release now
Net Pen Program. classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
Kalama River Type-S Coho N/A.............. Kalama River (WA) Remove........... Program terminated.
Program.
Big Creek Hatchery Program. N/A.............. Big Creek (OR)... Name Change...... Previously listed as
Big Creek Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock
#13).
Sandy Hatchery Program..... Late............. Sandy River (OR). Name Change...... Previously listed as
Sandy Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock
#11).
[[Page 81831]]
Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow N/A.............. Lower Columbia Name Change...... Previously listed as
Complex Hatchery Program. River Gorge (OR). Bonneville/Cascade/
Oxbow Complex (ODFW
Stock #14) Hatchery.
North Fork Toutle River N/A.............. North Fork Toutle Name Change...... Previously listed as
Type-S Hatchery Program. River. North Fork Toutle
River Hatchery
Program.
Oregon Coast coho salmon
(Threatened):
Cow Creek Hatchery Program. N/A.............. South Fork Umpqua Name Change...... Previously listed as
River (OR). Cow Creek Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock
#18).
Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast coho salmon
ESU (Threatened):
Cole Rivers Hatchery N/A.............. Rogue River (OR). Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program. Cole Rivers Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock
#52).
Ozette Lake sockeye
(Threatened):
Umbrella Creek/Big River N/A.............. Lake Ozette (WA). Name Change...... Previously listed as
Hatcheries Program. two programs: The
Umbrella Creek
Hatchery Program and
the Big River
Hatchery Program.
Snake River sockeye
(Endangered):
Snake River Sockeye Salmon N/A.............. Upper Salmon Add.............. New program.
Hatchery Program. River (ID).
California Central Valley
steelhead (Threatened):
Mokelumne River Hatchery... Winter........... Mokelumne River Add.............. New program.
(CA).
Lower Columbia River steelhead
(Threatened):
Clackamas Hatchery Late Late Winter...... Clackamas River Name Change...... Previously listed as
Winter-run Program. (OR). Clackamas Hatchery
Late Winter-run
Program (ODFW Stock
#122).
Sandy Hatchery Late Winter- Late Winter...... Sandy River (OR). Name Change...... Previously listed as
run Program. Sandy Hatchery Late
Winter-run Program
(ODFW Stock #11).
Hood River Winter-run Winter........... Hood River (OR).. Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program. Hood River Winter-run
Program (ODFW Stock
#50).
Upper Cowlitz River Wild Late Winter...... Upper Cowlitz Add.............. New program.
Program. River (WA).
Tilton River Wild Program.. Late Winter...... Upper Cowlitz Add.............. New program.
River (WA).
Middle Columbia River steelhead
(Threatened):
Deschutes River Program.... Summer........... Deschutes River Name Change...... Previously listed as
(OR). Deschutes River
Program (ODFW Stock
#66).
Umatilla River Program..... Summer........... Umatilla River Name Change...... Previously listed as
(OR). Umatilla River
Program (ODFW Stock
#91).
Puget Sound steelhead
(Threatened):
Fish Restoration Facility Winter........... Green River (WA). Add.............. New program.
Program.
Hood Canal Supplementation Winter........... Hood Canal (WA).. Name Change...... Previously listed as
Program. Hood Canal Steelhead
Supplementation Off-
station Projects in
the Dewatto,
Skokomish, and
Duckabush Rivers.
Snake River Basin steelhead
(Threatened):
Salmon River B-run Program. Summer (B)....... Salmon River (ID) Add.............. Existing release now
classified as a
separate and distinct
program.
South Fork Clearwater Summer (B)....... SF Clearwater Add.............. Existing release now
(Clearwater Hatchery) B- River (ID). classified as a
run program. separate and distinct
program.
East Fork Salmon River Summer (A)....... Salmon River (ID) Name Change...... Previously listed as
Natural Program. East Fork Salmon
River Program.
Lolo Creek Program......... Summer (B)....... Clearwater River Remove........... Now considered part of
(ID). the listed Dworshak
National Fish
Hatchery Program.
North Fork Clearwater Summer (B)....... Clearwater River Remove........... Now considered part of
Program. (ID). the listed Dworshak
National Fish
Hatchery Program.
Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha Summer (A)....... Imnaha River (OR) Name Change...... Previously listed as
River Program. Little Sheep Creek/
Imnaha River Hatchery
Program (ODFW Stock
#29).
Upper Columbia River steelhead
(Threatened):
Okanogan River Program..... Summer........... Okanogan River Name Change...... Previously listed as
(WA). Omak Creek Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Updates to listing descriptions consist of three types: ``Add'' (a new program that meets Hatchery Listing
Policy criteria, or an existing program that was divided into separate programs); ``Remove'' (a program
terminated or now considered to be part of another listed program); or ``Name Change'' (a change to the name
of a hatchery program that already was listed). N/A indicates that run-timing is not specified for the
program.
References
Copies of previous Federal Register notices and related reference
materials are available on the internet at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/rules-and-regulations, https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/, or upon request (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
Classification
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This rule does not contain a collection of information
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
[[Page 81832]]
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we determined that this
rule does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism
assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the
Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful
dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this final
rule will be shared with the relevant state agencies. The revisions may
have some benefit to state and local resource agencies in that the ESA-
listed species addressed in this rulemaking are more clearly and
consistently described.
Civil Justice Reform
The Department of Commerce has determined that this final rule does
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. In keeping with
that order, we are revising our descriptions of ESA-listed species to
improve the clarity of our regulations.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir.
1981), we have concluded that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing
actions. (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.)
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
Executive Order 13084 requires that if NMFS issues a regulation
that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal
governments and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those
communities, NMFS must consult with those governments or the Federal
Government must provide the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. This final rule
does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments or communities. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this final rule.
Nonetheless, during our preparation of the proposed and final rules, we
solicited information from tribal governments and tribal fish
commissions. We informed potentially affected tribal governments of the
proposed rule and considered their comments in formulation of the final
rule. We will continue to coordinate on future management actions
pertaining to the listed species addressed in this final rule.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 224
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: November 23, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 50 CFR parts 223
and 224 as follows:
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, amend the table in paragraph (e) by revising the
entries for ``Salmon, Chinook (Lower Columbia River ESU);'' ``Salmon,
Chinook (Puget Sound ESU);'' ``Salmon, Chinook (Snake River fall-run
ESU);'' ``Salmon, Chinook (Snake River spring/summer-run ESU);''
``Salmon, Chinook (Upper Willamette River ESU);'' ``Salmon, chum
(Columbia River ESU);'' ``Salmon, chum (Hood Canal summer-run ESU);''
``Salmon, coho (Lower Columbia River ESU);'' ``Salmon, coho (Oregon
Coast ESU);'' ``Salmon, coho (Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast
ESU);'' ``Salmon, sockeye (Ozette Lake ESU);'' ``Steelhead (California
Central Valley DPS);'' ``Steelhead (Central California Coast DPS);''
``Steelhead (Lower Columbia River DPS);'' ``Steelhead (Middle Columbia
River DPS);'' ``Steelhead (Puget Sound DPS);'' ``Steelhead (Snake River
Basin DPS);'' and ``Steelhead (Upper Columbia River DPS)'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for Critical
Description of listed listing habitat ESA rules
Common name Scientific name entity determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
[[Page 81833]]
* * * * * * *
Salmon, Chinook (Lower Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.212 223.203
Columbia River ESU). tshawytscha. Chinook salmon June 28, 2005.
originating from the
Columbia River and
its tributaries
downstream of a
transitional point
east of the Hood and
White Salmon Rivers,
and any such fish
originating from the
Willamette River and
its tributaries
below Willamette
Falls. Not included
in this DPS are: (1)
Spring-run Chinook
salmon originating
from the Clackamas
River; (2) fall-run
Chinook salmon
originating from
Upper Columbia River
bright hatchery
stocks, that spawn
in the mainstem
Columbia River below
Bonneville Dam, and
in other tributaries
upstream from the
Sandy River to the
Hood and White
Salmon Rivers; (3)
spring-run Chinook
salmon originating
from the Round Butte
Hatchery (Deschutes
River, Oregon) and
spawning in the Hood
River; (4) spring-
run Chinook salmon
originating from the
Carson National Fish
Hatchery and
spawning in the Wind
River; and (5)
naturally spawned
Chinook salmon
originating from the
Rogue River Fall
Chinook Program.
This DPS does
include Chinook
salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The Big
Creek Tule Chinook
Program; Astoria
High School Salmon-
Trout Enhancement
Program (STEP) Tule
Chinook Program;
Warrenton High
School STEP Tule
Chinook Program;
Cowlitz Tule Chinook
Program; North Fork
Toutle Tule Chinook
Program; Kalama Tule
Chinook Program;
Washougal River Tule
Chinook Program;
Spring Creek
National Fish
Hatchery (NFH) Tule
Chinook Program;
Cowlitz Spring
Chinook Program in
the Upper Cowlitz
River and the Cispus
River; Friends of
the Cowlitz Spring
Chinook Program;
Kalama River Spring
Chinook Program;
Lewis River Spring
Chinook Program;
Fish First Spring
Chinook Program;
Sandy River Hatchery
Program; Deep River
Net Pens-Washougal
Program; Klaskanine
Hatchery Program;
Bonneville Hatchery
Program; and the
Cathlamet Channel
Net Pens Program.
Salmon, Chinook (Puget Sound Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.212 223.203
ESU). tshawytscha. Chinook salmon June 28, 2005.
originating from
rivers flowing into
Puget Sound from the
Elwha River
(inclusive)
eastward, including
rivers in Hood
Canal, South Sound,
North Sound and the
Strait of Georgia.
Also, Chinook salmon
from the following
artificial
propagation
programs: The
Kendall Creek
Hatchery Program;
Marblemount Hatchery
Program (spring-
run); Marblemount
Hatchery Program
(summer-run);
Brenner Creek
Hatchery Program
(fall-run); Harvey
Creek Hatchery
Program (summer-
run); Whitehorse
Springs Hatchery
Program (summer-
run); Wallace River
Hatchery Program
(yearlings and
subyearlings);
Issaquah Creek
Hatchery Program;
White River Hatchery
Program; White River
Acclimation Pond
Program; Voights
Creek Hatchery
Program; Clarks
Creek Hatchery
Program; Clear Creek
Hatchery Program;
Kalama Creek
Hatchery Program;
George Adams
Hatchery Program;
Hamma Hamma Hatchery
Program; Dungeness/
Hurd Creek Hatchery
Program; Elwha
Channel Hatchery
Program; Skookum
Creek Hatchery
Spring-run Program;
Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin
(Tulalip) Hatchery-
Cascade Program;
North Fork Skokomish
River Spring-run
Program; Soos Creek
Hatchery Program
(subyearlings and
yearlings); Fish
Restoration Facility
Program; Bernie Kai-
Kai Gobin (Tulalip)
Hatchery-Skykomish
Program; and Hupp
Springs Hatchery-
Adult Returns to
Minter Creek Program.
Salmon, Chinook (Snake River Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.205 223.203
fall-run ESU). tshawytscha. fall-run Chinook June 28, 2005.
salmon originating
from the mainstem
Snake River below
Hells Canyon Dam and
from the Tucannon
River, Grande Ronde
River, Imnaha River,
Salmon River, and
Clearwater River
subbasins. Also,
fall-run Chinook
salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The Lyons
Ferry Hatchery
Program; Fall
Chinook Acclimation
Ponds Program; Nez
Perce Tribal
Hatchery Program;
and the Idaho Power
Program.
[[Page 81834]]
Salmon, Chinook (Snake River Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.205 223.203
spring/summer-run ESU). tshawytscha. spring/summer-run June 28, 2005.
Chinook salmon
originating from the
mainstem Snake River
and the Tucannon
River, Grande Ronde
River, Imnaha River,
and Salmon River
subbasins. Also,
spring/summer-run
Chinook salmon from
the following
artificial
propagation
programs: The
Tucannon River
Program; Lostine
River Program;
Catherine Creek
Program;
Lookingglass
Hatchery Program;
Upper Grande Ronde
Program; Imnaha
River Program;
McCall Hatchery
Program; Johnson
Creek Artificial
Propagation
Enhancement Program;
Pahsimeroi Hatchery
Program; Sawtooth
Hatchery Program;
Yankee Fork Program;
South For Salmon
River Eggbox
Program; and the
Panther Creek
Program.
Salmon, Chinook (Upper Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.212 223.203
Willamette River ESU). tshawytscha. spring-run Chinook June 28, 2005.
salmon originating
from the Clackamas
River and from the
Willamette River and
its tributaries
above Willamette
Falls. Also, spring-
run Chinook salmon
from the following
artificial
propagation
programs: The
McKenzie River
Hatchery Program;
Willamette Hatchery
Program; Clackamas
Hatchery Program;
North Santiam River
Program; South
Santiam River
Program; and the
Mollala River
Program.
* * * * * * *
Salmon, chum (Columbia River Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.212 223.203
ESU). keta. chum salmon June 28, 2005.
originating from the
Columbia River and
its tributaries in
Washington and
Oregon. Also, chum
salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The Grays
River Program;
Washougal River
Hatchery/Duncan
Creek Program; and
the Big Creek
Hatchery Program.
Salmon, chum (Hood Canal Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.212 223.203
summer-run ESU). keta. summer-run chum June 28, 2005.
salmon originating
from Hood Canal and
its tributaries as
well as from Olympic
Peninsula rivers
between Hood Canal
and Dungeness Bay
(inclusive). Also,
summer-run chum
salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The
Lilliwaup Creek Fish
Hatchery Program;
and the Tahuya River
Program.
Salmon, coho (Lower Columbia Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.212 223.203
River ESU). kisutch. coho salmon June 28, 2005.
originating from the
Columbia River and
its tributaries
downstream from the
Big White Salmon and
Hood Rivers
(inclusive) and any
such fish
originating from the
Willamette River and
its tributaries
below Willamette
Falls. Also, coho
salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The Grays
River Program;
Peterson Coho
Project; Big Creek
Hatchery Program;
Astoria High School
Salmon-Trout
Enhancement Program
(STEP) Coho Program;
Warrenton High
School STEP Coho
Program; Cowlitz
Type-N Coho Program
in the Upper and
Lower Cowlitz
Rivers; Cowlitz Game
and Anglers Coho
Program; Friends of
the Cowlitz Coho
Program; North Fork
Toutle River Type-S
Hatchery Program;
Kalama River Type-N
Coho Program; Lewis
River Type-N Coho
Program; Lewis River
Type-S Coho Program;
Fish First Wild Coho
Program; Fish First
Type-N Coho Program;
Syverson Project
Type-N Coho Program;
Washougal River Type-
N Coho Program;
Eagle Creek National
Fish Hatchery
Program; Sandy
Hatchery Program;
Bonneville/Cascade/
Oxbow Complex
Hatchery Program;
Clatsop County
Fisheries Net Pen
Program; and the
Clatsop County
Fisheries/Klaskanine
Hatchery Program.
Salmon, coho (Oregon Coast Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 76 FR 35755, 226.212 223.203
ESU). kisutch. coho salmon June 20, 2011.
originating from
coastal rivers south
of the Columbia
River and north of
Cape Blanco. Also,
coho salmon from the
Cow Creek Hatchery
Program.
Salmon, coho (Southern Oregon/ Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.210 223.203
Northern California Coast kisutch. coho salmon June 28, 2005.
ESU). originating from
coastal streams and
rivers between Cape
Blanco, Oregon, and
Punta Gorda,
California. Also,
coho salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The Cole
Rivers Hatchery
Program; Trinity
River Hatchery
Program; and the
Iron Gate Hatchery
Program.
[[Page 81835]]
Salmon, sockeye (Ozette Lake Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.212 223.203
ESU). nerka. sockeye salmon June 28, 2005.
originating from the
Ozette River and
Ozette Lake and its
tributaries. Also,
sockeye salmon from
the Umbrella Creek/
Big River Hatchery
Program.
* * * * * * *
Steelhead (California Central Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 71 FR 834, Jan. 226.211 223.203
Valley DPS). mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss 5, 2006.
(steelhead)
originating below
natural and manmade
impassable barriers
from the Sacramento
and San Joaquin
Rivers and their
tributaries;
excludes such fish
originating from San
Francisco and San
Pablo Bays and their
tributaries. This
DPS includes
steelhead from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The
Coleman National
Fish Hatchery
Program; Feather
River Fish Hatchery
Program; and the
Mokelumne River
Hatchery Program.
Steelhead (Central California Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 71 FR 834, Jan. 226.211 223.203
Coast DPS). mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss 5, 2006.
(steelhead)
originating below
natural and manmade
impassable barriers
from the Russian
River to and
including Aptos
Creek, and all
drainages of San
Francisco and San
Pablo Bays eastward
to Chipps Island at
the confluence of
the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers.
Also, steelhead from
the following
artificial
propagation
programs: The Don
Clausen Fish
Hatchery Program,
and the Kingfisher
Flat Hatchery
Program (Monterey
Bay Salmon and Trout
Project).
Steelhead (Lower Columbia Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 71 FR 834, Jan. 226.212 223.203
River DPS). mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss 5, 2006.
(steelhead)
originating below
natural and manmade
impassable barriers
from rivers between
the Cowlitz and Wind
Rivers (inclusive)
and the Willamette
and Hood Rivers
(inclusive);
excludes such fish
originating from the
upper Willamette
River basin above
Willamette Falls.
This DPS includes
steelhead from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The
Cowlitz Trout
Hatchery Late Winter-
run Program (Lower
Cowlitz); Kalama
River Wild Winter-
run and Summer-run
Programs; Clackamas
Hatchery Late Winter-
run Program; Sandy
Hatchery Late Winter-
run Program; Hood
River Winter-run
Program; Lewis River
Wild Late-run Winter
Steelhead Program;
Upper Cowlitz Wild
Program; and the
Tilton River Wild
Program.
Steelhead (Middle Columbia Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 71 FR 834, Jan. 226.212 223.203
River DPS). mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss 5, 2006.
(steelhead)
originating below
natural and manmade
impassable barriers
from the Columbia
River and its
tributaries upstream
of the Wind and Hood
Rivers (exclusive)
to and including the
Yakima River;
excludes such fish
originating from the
Snake River basin.
This DPS includes
steelhead from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The
Touchet River
Endemic Program;
Yakima River Kelt
Reconditioning
Program (in Satus
Creek, Toppenish
Creek, Naches River,
and Upper Yakima
River); Umatilla
River Program; and
the Deschutes River
Program. This DPS
does not include
steelhead that are
designated as part
of an experimental
population.
* * * * * * *
Steelhead (Puget Sound DPS).. Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 72 FR 26722, May 226.212 223.203
mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss 11, 2007.
(steelhead)
originating below
natural and manmade
impassable barriers
from rivers flowing
into Puget Sound
from the Elwha River
(inclusive)
eastward, including
rivers in Hood
Canal, South Sound,
North Sound and the
Strait of Georgia.
Also, steelhead from
the following
artificial
propagation
programs: The Green
River Natural
Program; White River
Winter Steelhead
Supplementation
Program; Hood Canal
Supplementation
Program; Lower Elwha
Fish Hatchery Wild
Steelhead Recovery
Program; and the
Fish Restoration
Facility Program.
[[Page 81836]]
Steelhead (Snake River Basin Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 71 FR 834, Jan. 226.212 223.203
DPS). mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss 5, 2006.
(steelhead)
originating below
natural and manmade
impassable barriers
from the Snake River
basin. Also,
steelhead from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The
Tucannon River
Program; Dworshak
National Fish
Hatchery Program;
East Fork Salmon
River Natural
Program; Little
Sheep Creek/Imnaha
River Hatchery
Program; Salmon
River B-run Program;
and the South Fork
Clearwater
(Clearwater
Hatchery) B-run
Program.
* * * * * * *
Steelhead (Upper Columbia Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 71 FR 834, Jan. 226.212 223.203
River DPS). mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss 5, 2006.
(steelhead)
originating below
natural and manmade
impassable barriers
from the Columbia
River and its
tributaries upstream
of the Yakima River
to the U.S.-Canada
border. Also,
steelhead from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The
Wenatchee River
Program; Wells
Complex Hatchery
Program (in the
Methow River);
Winthrop National
Fish Hatchery
Program; Ringold
Hatchery Program;
and the Okanogan
River Program.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
* * * * *
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 224.101, amend the table in paragraph (h) by revising the
entries for ``Salmon, Chinook (Sacramento River winter-run ESU)'';
``Salmon, Chinook (Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU)''; ``Salmon,
coho (Central California Coast ESU);'' and ``Salmon, sockeye (Snake
River ESU)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for Critical
Description of listed listing habitat ESA rules
Common name Scientific name entity determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
* * * * * * *
Salmon, Chinook (Sacramento Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.204 NA
River winter-run ESU). tshawytscha. winter-run Chinook June 28, 2005.
salmon originating
from the Sacramento
River and its
tributaries. Also,
winter-run Chinook
salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The
Livingston Stone
National Fish
Hatchery
(Supplementation and
Captive Broodstock).
Salmon, Chinook (Upper Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.212 NA
Columbia River spring-run tshawytscha. spring-run Chinook June 28, 2005.
ESU). salmon originating
from Columbia River
tributaries upstream
of the Rock Island
Dam and downstream
of Chief Joseph Dam
(excluding the
Okanogan River
subbasin). Also,
spring-run Chinook
salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The Twisp
River Program; Chief
Joseph spring
Chinook Hatchery
Program (Okanogan
release); Methow
Program; Winthrop
National Fish
Hatchery Program;
Chiwawa River
Program; White River
Program; and the
Nason Creek Program.
Salmon, coho (Central Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.210 NA
California Coast ESU). kisutch. coho salmon June 28, 2005;
originating from 77 FR 19552,
rivers south of Apr. 2, 2012.
Punta Gorda,
California to and
including Aptos
Creek, as well as
such coho salmon
originating from
tributaries to San
Francisco Bay. Also,
coho salmon from the
following artificial
propagation
programs: The Don
Clausen Fish
Hatchery Captive
Broodstock Program;
the Scott Creek/King
Fisher Flats
Conservation
Program; and the
Scott Creek Captive
Broodstock Program.
Salmon, sockeye (Snake River Oncorhynchus Naturally spawned 70 FR 37160, 226.205 NA
ESU). nerka. anadromous and June 28, 2005.
residual sockeye
salmon originating
from the Snake River
basin. Also, sockeye
salmon from the
Redfish Lake Captive
Broodstock Program
and the Snake River
Sockeye Salmon
Hatchery Program.
[[Page 81837]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-26287 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P