[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42658-42663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18015]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 110615334-1325-01]
RIN 0648-XA311


Endangered and Threatened Species: Authorizing Release of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Upper Columbia Spring-Run 
Chinook Salmon in the Okanogan River Basin Under the Endangered Species 
Act

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

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Information.

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

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), will be 
considering a proposal to authorize a nonessential experimental 
population of Upper Columbia (UC) spring-run Chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Okanogan River and its tributaries in 
Okanogan County, Washington under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 
1973, as amended. The geographic boundaries of the experimental 
population area would likely include the entire Okanogan River subbasin 
and a portion of the mainstem Columbia River from the confluence of the 
Columbia and Okanogan Rivers upstream to the base of Chief Joseph Dam. 
We will consider the best available information to determine if 
reintroduction of Chinook salmon is biologically feasible and will 
promote the conservation of the UC spring-run Chinook salmon 
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). This advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) identifies policy and technical issues for 
consideration and evaluation, and solicits comments regarding them.

DATES: Comments and information regarding the designation process may 
be sent to us (see ADDRESSES), no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Time on 
September 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Chief, Protected Resources Division, 
NMFS, 1201 NE. Lloyd Blvd.--Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments 
may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 503-230-5441 or submitted on 
the Internet via the Federal Rulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without 
change. We may elect not to post comments that contain obscene or 
threatening content. All personal identifying information (for example, 
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be 
publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    We will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required 
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to 
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF 
file formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Murray, NMFS, Northwest Region, 
Portland, OR 503-231-2378; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected 
Resources, Silver Spring, MD 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Rulemaking Background

    We first listed the Upper Columbia (UC) spring-run Chinook salmon 
ESU as endangered under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), and 
reaffirmed this status on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). ESA Section 9 
``take'' prohibitions currently apply to the UC spring-run Chinook 
salmon ESU because of its endangered status.
    The listed ESU currently includes all naturally spawned populations 
of spring-run Chinook salmon in accessible reaches of Columbia River 
tributaries between Rock Island and Chief Joseph Dams, excluding the 
Okanogan River. Listed spring-run Chinook salmon from this ESU 
currently spawn in three river basins in eastern Washington: The 
Methow, Entiat and Wenatchee. A fourth population historically 
inhabited the Okanogan River Basin, but was extirpated in the 1930s 
because of overfishing, hydropower development, and habitat degradation 
(NMFS, 2007).
    The designated critical habitat of UC spring-run Chinook salmon 
similarly includes all accessible reaches of Columbia River tributaries 
between Rock Island and Chief Joseph Dams, but excludes the Okanogan 
River. We did not include the Okanogan River Basin in any critical 
habitat designation because the Okanogan population of spring-run 
Chinook salmon no longer existed.
    The listed UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU also includes six 
artificial propagation programs: The Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow 
Composite, Winthrop National Fish Hatchery, Chiwawa River, and White 
River spring Chinook salmon hatchery programs.
    On October 9, 2007, we adopted a final recovery plan for the UC 
spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (72 FR 57303). The recovery plan 
identifies three extant populations in this ESU (the Methow, Wenatchee, 
and Entiat) and an historic, extirpated population in the Okanogan 
River Basin (NMFS, 2007). The recovery plan identifies re-establishment 
of a population in the Okanogan River Basin as a recovery action (NMFS, 
2007). Re-establishment of a spring-run Chinook salmon population in 
the Okanogan River Basin could aid recovery of this ESU by increasing 
abundance, by improving spatial structure, and by reducing the risk of 
extinction to the ESU as a whole.
    On November 22, 2010, we received a letter from the Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) requesting that we authorize 
the release of an experimental population of spring-run Chinook salmon 
in the Okanogan River Basin. The CTCR has also initiated discussions on 
this topic with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the 
Bonneville Power Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Bureau of Reclamation, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(WDFW), and the Okanagan Nations Alliance of Canada. The CTCR's request 
included a large amount of information on the biology of UC spring-run 
Chinook salmon and the possible management implications of releasing an 
experimental population in the Okanogan Basin.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework

    Section 10(j) of the ESA allows the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) to authorize the release of populations of listed species 
outside their current range

[[Page 42659]]

if the release would ``further the conservation'' of the listed 
species. The statute refers to such a population as ``experimental.'' 
We may only authorize an experimental population by regulation, and the 
regulation must identify the population and determine, on the basis of 
the best available information, whether the population is ``essential 
to the continued existence of the species'' (section 10(j)(B)). Section 
10(j) provides that an experimental population is treated as a 
``threatened species,'' except that populations authorized as ``non-
essential'' experimental populations do not receive the benefits of 
certain protections normally applicable to threatened species. Below we 
discuss the impact of treating experimental populations as threatened 
species, and of exceptions that apply to non-essential experimental 
populations.
    For endangered species, Section 9 of the ESA automatically 
prohibits take. The ESA defines take to mean harass, harm, pursue, 
hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in 
any such conduct. For threatened species, the ESA does not 
automatically prohibit take, but instead authorizes the agency to adopt 
regulations it deems necessary and advisable for species conservation 
(ESA section 4(d)). Such 4(d) regulations may include the take 
prohibitions of section 9.
    If we authorize an experimental population of a threatened species, 
and there is an existing regulation under ESA section 4(d), that 
existing regulation will apply to the experimental population. If, 
however, we authorize an experimental population of an endangered 
species, there are no protective regulations in place until we adopt 
regulations under section 4(d). This would be the case for an 
experimental population of UC spring-run Chinook salmon, which are 
listed as endangered.
    Section 7 of the ESA provides for Federal interagency cooperation 
and consultation to conserve listed species, ensure survival, help in 
recovery of the species, and protect designated critical habitat. 
Section 7(a)(1) mandates all Federal agencies to determine how to use 
their existing authorities to further the purposes of the ESA in aiding 
the recovery of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires all Federal 
agencies, in consultation with NMFS, to ensure that any action they 
authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 applies equally 
to endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal 
agencies to confer (rather than consult) with NMFS on actions that are 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to 
be listed. The results of a conference are advisory in nature and do 
not restrict agencies from carrying out, funding, or authorizing 
activities.
    Although ESA Section 10(j) provides that an experimental population 
is treated as a threatened species, if the experimental population is 
authorized as non-essential, ESA section 10(j)(C) requires that we 
apply the ESA Section 7 consultation provisions as if it were a species 
proposed to be listed, rather than a species that is listed (unless it 
is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, in which 
case it is treated as listed). This means that the ESA Section 7(a)(2) 
consultation requirement would not apply to a non-essential 
experimental population in the Okanogan Basin. Only two provisions of 
ESA Section 7 would apply--section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4).
    We have not promulgated regulations implementing ESA Section 10(j), 
or authorized any experimental populations to date. The USFWS has 
authorized many experimental populations and developed regulations to 
implement Section 10(j) at 50 CFR 17.80 through 17.84. While USFWS' 
regulations do not apply to NMFS' 10(j) authorizations, they can help 
inform our authorization process. We will consider the factors 
contained in the USFWS' regulations in determining whether to establish 
an experimental population of spring-run Chinook in the Okanogan River. 
The USFWS implementing regulations contain the following provisions:
     The USFWS regulations define an essential experimental 
population as ``an experimental population whose loss would be likely 
to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in 
the wild.'' All other experimental populations are classified as 
nonessential. This definition was apparently derived from the 
legislative history to the ESA amendments that created Sec.  10(j). 
See, Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, H.R. 
Conf. Rep. No. 97-835, at 15 (1982).
     In finding whether the experimental population will 
further the conservation of the species the Secretary shall consider 
(50 CFR 17.81(b)): (1) Any possible adverse effects on extant 
populations of a species as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, 
or propagules for introduction elsewhere, (2) the likelihood that any 
such experimental population will become established and survive in the 
foreseeable future, (3) the relative effects that establishment of an 
experimental population will have on the recovery of the species, and 
(4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected by 
existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private activities 
within or adjacent to the experimental population area.
     USFWS regulations also describe four components that will 
be provided in any regulations promulgated with regard to an 
experimental population under ESA Section 10(j). The components are (50 
CFR 17.81(c)): (1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental 
population, including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed 
location, actual or anticipated migration, number of specimens released 
or to be released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the 
experimental population(s); (2) a finding, on whether the experimental 
population is, or is not, essential to the continued existence of the 
species in the wild; (3) management restrictions, protective measures, 
or other special management concerns of that population, which may 
include but are not limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the 
experimental population authorized in the regulation from natural 
populations; and (4) a process for periodic review and evaluation of 
the success or failure of the release and the effect of the release on 
the conservation and recovery of the species.

Biological Considerations

    Pacific salmon and steelhead are anadromous fish that migrate as 
adults from the ocean to spawn in freshwater lakes and streams where 
their offspring hatch and rear prior to migrating back to the ocean to 
forage until maturity. The migration and spawning times vary 
considerably between and within species and populations (Groot and 
Margolis, 1991). At spawning, adults pair to lay and fertilize 
thousands of eggs in freshwater gravel nests or ``redds'' excavated by 
females. Depending on lake/stream temperatures, eggs incubate for 
several weeks to months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life 
stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac 
absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles called 
``fry'' and begin actively feeding. Depending on the species and 
location, juveniles may spend from a few hours to several years in 
freshwater areas before migrating to the ocean. The physiological and 
behavioral changes required for the transition to salt water

[[Page 42660]]

result in a distinct ``smolt'' stage in most species. On their journey 
juveniles must migrate downstream through a riverine and estuarine 
corridor between their natal lake or stream and the ocean. En route to 
the ocean, the juveniles may spend from a few days to several weeks in 
the estuary, depending on the species.
    Juveniles and subadult salmon and steelhead typically spend from 
one to five years foraging over thousands of miles in the North Pacific 
Ocean before returning to spawn. Spawning migrations known as ``runs'' 
occur throughout the year, varying by species and location. Most adult 
fish return or ``home'' with great fidelity to spawn in their natal 
stream, although some do stray to non-natal streams. Pacific salmon 
species die after spawning.
    The homing fidelity of salmon and steelhead has resulted in 
discrete independent populations distributed among watersheds (McElhany 
et al., 2000). Portions of the populations will, however, stray into 
adjacent watersheds to spawn. Straying results in regular genetic 
exchange among populations, creating genetic similarities among 
populations in adjacent watersheds. Salmon ESUs that are made up of 
several independent populations spread over a wide geographic area tend 
to be at lower risk of extinction than single population ESUs (McElhany 
et al., 2000).

UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Life History

    After 2 to 3 years in the ocean, adult UC spring-run Chinook salmon 
begin returning from the ocean in the early spring, with the run into 
the Columbia River peaking in mid-May (NMFS, 2007). Spring-run Chinook 
salmon enter the Upper Columbia River tributaries from April through 
July. After migration, they hold in these tributaries until spawning 
occurs in the late summer, peaking in mid to late August. Juvenile 
spring-run Chinook salmon spend a year in freshwater before migrating 
to salt water in the spring of their second year of life.

UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan

    Section 4(f) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to 
develop recovery plans for all listed species unless the Secretary 
determines that such a plan will not promote the conservation of a 
listed species. Prior to developing recovery plans for salmon in the 
interior Columbia River Basin, we assembled a team of scientists from 
Federal and state agencies, tribes, and academia. This group, known as 
the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT), was tasked with 
identifying population structure and recommending recovery criteria 
(also known as delisting criteria) for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead 
in the Middle Columbia, Upper Columbia, and Snake River basins. The 
ICTRT recommended specific abundance and productivity goals for each 
population in the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. The team also 
identified the current risk level of each population based on the gap 
between recent abundance and productivity and the desired goals. The 
ICTRT (2008) considered all three extant populations to be at high risk 
of extinction based on their current abundance and productivity levels.
    The ICTRT also recommended spatial structure and diversity metrics 
that would reflect an ESU at low risk of extinction (ICTRT, 2007). 
Spatial structure refers to the geographic distribution of a population 
and the processes that affect the distribution. Populations with 
restricted distribution and few spawning areas are at a higher risk of 
extinction from catastrophic environmental events (e.g., a single 
landslide) than are populations with more widespread and complex 
spatial structure. A population with complex spatial structure 
typically has multiple spawning areas that facilitate the expression of 
gene flow and life history characteristics. Population diversity 
concerns the phenotypic (morphology, behavior, and life-history traits) 
and genotypic (DNA) characteristics of populations. Phenotypic 
diversity allows more diverse populations to use a wider array of 
environments and protects populations against short-term temporal and 
spatial environmental changes. Genotypic diversity (DNA), on the other 
hand, provides populations with the ability to survive long-term 
changes in the environment. It is the combination of phenotypic and 
genotypic diversity expressed in a natural setting that provides 
populations with the ability to adapt to long-term changes. The mixing 
of hatchery fish (or excessive numbers of out-of-basin stocks) with 
naturally produced fish on spawning grounds can decrease genetic 
diversity within the population (NMFS, 2007). The ICTRT (2008) 
considers all three extant population of this ESU at high risk of 
extinction based on their current lack of spatial structure and 
diversity.
    On October 9, 2007, we published a final recovery plan for the UC 
spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (72 FR 57303). The plan contains specific 
recovery criteria that, when met, would allow this ESU to be removed 
from the list of threatened and endangered species. The plan identifies 
specific abundance and productivity goals for the extant populations 
(Entiat, Wentachee, and Methow) as well as specific population spatial 
structure and diversity criteria. The recovery criteria are very 
similar to those recommended by the ICTRT. The plan states ``Recovery 
of spring Chinook salmon in the Okanogan Subbasin is not a requirement 
for delisting because the Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery 
Team determined that this population was extinct. However, this plan 
recognizes that if a major spawning area could be established in the 
Okanogan using an Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook stock, then the ESU 
would be at a lower risk of extinction.'' The recovery plan also 
contains specific management strategies for achieving the objectives 
defined by the recovery criteria.

UC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Current Status

    On March 18, 2010, we announced the initiation of 5-year status 
reviews for 16 ESUs of Pacific salmon including the UC spring-run 
Chinook salmon ESU (75 FR 13082). As part of this review, our Northwest 
Fisheries Science Center compiled and issued a report on the newest 
scientific information on the viability of this ESU. The report states,

    ``The Upper Columbia Spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is not 
currently meeting the viability criteria (adapted from the ICTRT) in 
the Upper Columbia Recovery Plan. Increases in natural origin 
abundance relative to the extremely low spawning levels observed in 
the mid[hyphen]1990s are encouraging; however, average productivity 
levels remain extremely low. Large-scale directed supplementation 
programs are underway in two of the three extant populations in the 
ESU. These programs are intended to mitigate short[hyphen]term 
demographic risks while actions to improve natural productivity and 
capacity are implemented. While these programs may provide 
short[hyphen]term demographic benefits, there are significant 
uncertainties regarding the long[hyphen]term risks of relying on 
high levels of hatchery influence to maintain natural populations'' 
(Ford et al., 2010).

    All extant populations are still considered to be at high risk of 
extinction based on the abundance/productivity and spatial structure/
diversity metrics. When the risk levels for these attributes are 
integrated, the overall risk of extinction for this ESU is high (Ford 
et al., 2010). Will Release of an ``Experimental Population'' Further 
Conservation of UC Spring-run Chinook Salmon?
    Before authorizing the release of an experimental population, we 
must find that such a release will further the

[[Page 42661]]

conservation of the species. In making this finding, we use the best 
information available to assess the four considerations described above 
from 50 CFR 17.81(b). Below we describe information relevant to each of 
these considerations.

Possible Adverse Effects of Removing Individuals From Elsewhere To 
Establish the Experimental Population

    During our analysis of the CTCR's ESA 10(j) authorization request, 
we will consider the most appropriate source of fish to establish an 
experimental population. It is likely that this source would be excess 
hatchery-reared Chinook salmon from the Methow Composite program. These 
fish are from the neighboring river basin and have evolved in an 
environment similar to that of the Okanogan Basin. They are likely to 
be the most similar genetically to the extirpated Okanogan spring-run 
Chinook salmon population. For the past several years, enough adult 
salmon from this hatchery program have returned to the Methow Basin 
that excess eggs and sperm are available to begin raising fish for 
reintroduction into the Okanogan Basin. If this stock were chosen as 
the appropriate donor population, we would issue necessary permits 
under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) prior to any reintroduction effort. It is 
not expected that the use of eggs and sperm from excess hatchery fish 
would have any adverse effects on the natural population of UC spring-
run Chinook salmon in the Methow Basin because they exceed the minimum 
number of adults needed to maintain hatchery production. Although the 
Methow Composite program seems the most likely source of fish for 
reintroduction, there are other potential sources. The CTCR's 10(j) 
authorization request identified the Methow Composite program as the 
most appropriate source population.

The Likelihood That the Experimental Population Would Become 
Established and Survive in the Foreseeable Future

    Human development of the Okanogan Basin along with commercial and 
recreational fisheries led to the extirpation of UC spring-run Chinook 
salmon (NMFS, 2007), and to the 1997 listing of Upper Columbia River 
steelhead (62 FR 43937) that currently persist in the Okanogan Basin. 
In recent years, there have been numerous habitat improvement projects 
completed in the U.S. and Canadian portions of the Okanogan River and 
its tributaries. The CTCR's 10(j) authorization request includes 
information on several of these projects. We will consider the 
information in the request and other information available to determine 
if there is suitable habitat in the Okanogan Basin for natural 
reproduction of spring-run Chinook salmon. Although any reintroduction 
effort is likely to require supplementation with hatchery-origin fish 
for several years, we will consider the likelihood that a population of 
spring-run Chinook salmon could become established and eventually 
persist, without hatchery supplementation.

Potential Effects That Establishment of an Experimental Population 
Might Have on the Recovery of the Species

    The establishment of a fourth population of UC spring-run Chinook 
salmon could potentially improve viability of this ESU by increasing 
overall ESU abundance and improving ESU spatial structure. An ESU 
consisting of four rather than three independent populations faces 
lower risk of extinction from natural events such as landslides, 
extreme floods, earthquakes, and volcanic activity. If we authorize an 
experimental population under ESA section 10(j), and if the 
reintroduction were successful, any contributions that the experimental 
population might make to viability of the UC spring-run Chinook salmon 
ESU as a whole would be evaluated in future reviews of this ESU's 
status. The recovery plan for the species states recovery of spring 
Chinook salmon in the Okanogan Subbasin is not a requirement for 
delisting. The recovery plan also contains specific management 
strategies for achieving the objectives defined by the recovery 
criteria. The CTCR's 10(j) request provides a detailed discussion of 
its view on this consideration.

The Extent to Which an Introduced Population May Be Affected by 
Existing Federal or State Actions, or Private Activities Within or 
Adjacent to the Experimental Population Area

    There are numerous human activities, including agriculture, 
forestry, irrigation, urban development, transportation management, and 
recreational fishing occurring in the Okanogan River Basin that could 
potentially affect an introduced population of spring-run Chinook 
salmon. Some of these activities have been altered to reduce their 
effects on anadromous fish and their habitat due to the presence of 
ESA-listed UC steelhead in the Okanogan River Basin. Nevertheless, it 
is likely that the cumulative impacts of these activities will render 
some portions of the Okanogan river Basin unsuitable for spring-run 
Chinook salmon. We plan to consider the available information to 
determine what effect these activities might have on an introduced 
population of spring-run Chinook salmon. The CTCR's 10(j) authorization 
request provides a detailed discussion of their view on this 
consideration.

Issues Related to Regulations Authorizing an Experimental Population

    In this section we discuss issues related to the four components 
that will be provided in any regulations promulgated with regard to an 
experimental population authorization under ESA Section 10(j) (50 CFR 
17.81(c)). The CTCR's 10(j) request provides a detailed discussion of 
their views on these issues.

Appropriate Means To Identify the Experimental Population

    For an experimental population of UC spring-run Chinook salmon to 
receive a 10(j) authorization, we would need to ensure that the 
candidate experimental population would be geographically separate from 
other members of this ESU when the fish are present in the Okanogan 
River Basin and in the portion of the Columbia River upstream of its 
confluence with Okanogan River to the base of Chief Joseph Dam. 
Currently, spring-run Chinook salmon are extirpated from this area and 
straying of fish from other populations into this area is extremely 
low. If the ESA 10(j) authorization were to occur, hatchery-origin fish 
used for the reintroduction would be marked, for example, with specific 
fin clips and coded-wire tags. Future adult and juvenile spring-run 
Chinook salmon in this area would be considered to be members of the 
experimental population. It may be possible to mark these fish in a 
manner that would distinguish them from other hatchery-raised Chinook 
salmon, and we will consider this during the development of our 
proposal. If the reintroduction is successful, and fish begin 
reproducing naturally, their offspring would not be distinguishable 
from fish from other Chinook salmon populations. Outside of the 
experimental population area, e.g., in the Columbia River below the 
Okanogan or in the ocean, we would consider these unmarked fish to be 
members of the listed ESU (that is, we would not consider them to be 
part of the experimental population).

[[Page 42662]]

Whether the Experimental Population Is Essential to the Continued 
Existence of the Species

    In authorizing an experimental population under ESA section 10(j), 
we must determine whether the population is essential to the continued 
existence of the species in the wild. We have proposed to use the same 
definition as is in the USFWS regulations at 50 CFR 17.80 (see above). 
The UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is currently at high risk of 
extinction. Based on the recovery plan's criteria and proposed 
management strategies, the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU could 
recover to the point where listing under the ESA is no longer necessary 
solely with contributions from the three extant populations. 
Specifically, if the Wenatchee and Methow population could achieve a 
12-year geometric mean abundance of 2,000 fish and the Entiat reach a 
12-year geometric mean abundance of 500 fish, the ESU would meet the 
recovery criteria for abundance. This would require a minimum 
productivity of between 1.2 and 1.4 for the 12-year time period (NMFS, 
2007). The extant populations would also need to meet specific 
criteria, identified in the recovery plan, which would result in a 
moderate or lower risk for spatial structure and diversity. At this 
point, the ESU would be considered viable and could possibly be 
delisted, if all threats were being addressed. The Upper Columbia 
Recovery Plan identifies several harvest, hatchery management, 
hydropower and habitat related actions that could be taken to improve 
viability of the three extant spring-run Chinook salmon populations. 
The plan also clearly states that recovery of spring-run Chinook salmon 
in the Okanogan Basin is not a requirement for delisting. For these 
reasons, if this action goes forward it is possible that a reintroduced 
population in the Okanogan Basin could be considered ``nonessential.''

Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special 
Management Considerations

    When authorizing experimental populations, we consider whether the 
population will require management restrictions, protective measures, 
or other special management considerations. If we authorize an 
experimental population of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Okanogan 
River Basin, we may establish protective regulations under section 4(d) 
of the ESA. The regulations we may consider are discussed below.

A Process for Periodic Review

    If we authorize the release of an experimental population under ESA 
section 10(j), the success of the reintroduction effort is likely to be 
assessed by certain ongoing monitoring programs and new programs 
developed specifically for this purpose. The CTCR request identifies 
ongoing monitoring and evaluation programs such as the WDFW monitoring 
program at Wells Dam (located on the mainstem Columbia River downstream 
of the confluence with the Methow River) that could be slightly 
modified to include monitoring of an experimental population. The CTCR 
request also identifies additional monitoring activities in the 
Okanogan Basin, including spawning ground and carcass surveys, weir 
counts, and video surveillance at Zosel Dam (located at river mile 79 
of the Okanogan River, just south of Osoyoos Lake and the U.S.-Canada 
border). As data are collected through these monitoring efforts, NMFS, 
the CTCR, and other potential project partners can evaluate the success 
of the program.
    If the reintroduction were successful, we expect that the 
experimental population's status in terms of abundance, productivity, 
spatial structure and diversity would be evaluated in a manner similar 
to the three extant populations in the UC spring-run Chinook salmon 
ESU. We would likely request that the ICTRT recommend recovery criteria 
for this population as they have for the three extant populations. Any 
contribution that the nonessential experimental population could make 
to the ESU as a whole would eventually be considered in a 5-year 
periodic review as required by ESA section 4(c)(2)(A).

Potential Regulations

    Any population authorized by the Secretary to be an experimental 
population shall be treated as if it were a threatened species (for the 
purposes of ESA section 7, nonessential experimental populations are 
treated as proposed for listing). This means the agency shall establish 
regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA it deems necessary and 
appropriate with respect to such population. The protective regulations 
adopted for experimental populations may contain prohibitions and 
exceptions related to that population. In the authorization request, 
the CTCR asked us to establish limited take prohibitions for this 
experimental population. In short, the CTCR has requested that we 
generally prohibit take of members of the population, but allow: (1) 
Take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, (2) incidental 
take that occurs as a result of lawful tribal and recreational fishing 
for non-listed fish; (3) direct harvest of adult salmon in the case 
that such harvest is required to reduce the proportion of hatchery-
origin fish (as compared to naturally-produced fish) returning to 
spawning grounds; (4) direct take of adults needed for hatchery brood 
stock, and (5) direct or indirect take that occurs as a result of 
scientific research, monitoring, or evaluation. We will consider the 
Tribe's request in developing any proposal. Another option would be to 
apply our current 4(d) protective regulations for threatened salmon and 
steelhead in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (50 CFR 223.203).

Information Solicited

    Authorizing the release of an experimental salmon population under 
ESA section 10(j) is a relatively new activity for NMFS. We believe it 
is important to engage the public early in the rulemaking process. This 
ANPR is a key first step, and we encourage all interested parties to 
submit comments regarding the issues raised in this notice. Similar to 
the UFWS process, we plan to consult with the WDFW, local government 
entities, affected Federal agencies, and private landowners in the 
experimental population area if we develop a proposal. We will also 
conduct meetings with affected parties prior to developing our 
proposal. If we move forward with developing a proposal, we will 
conduct a review of the reintroduction and experimental population 
designation under the National Environmental Policy Act.
    At this time, we seek information on the following:
    (1) Possible adverse effects of removing individuals from a donor 
population to begin the experimental population. Excess fish from the 
Methow Composite hatchery program appear to be the most likely source 
of individuals to begin the reintroduction. Currently, we are unaware 
of any adverse effects of removing these excess hatchery fish. We 
solicit information on any possible adverse effects we may not have 
considered;
    (2) Other possible sources of spring-run Chinook salmon to begin 
the reintroduction;
    (3) The likelihood that the experimental population will become 
established in the Okanogan Basin;
    (4) The likelihood that the experimental population could 
eventually persist without substantial hatchery supplementation;

[[Page 42663]]

    (5) How the establishment of the experimental population may 
contribute to recovery of the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU as a 
whole;
    (6) The extent to which the experimental population would be 
affected by current or future Federal, state, or private actions within 
or adjacent to the experimental population area;
    (7) Current programs within the experimental population area that 
protect fish or aquatic habitats;
    (8) Whether the experimental population would be essential to the 
continued existence of the UC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. The 
information currently available indicates that the experimental 
population is likely to be ``nonessential'' for the reasons discussed 
above. We solicit information to support this conclusion as well as any 
information to the contrary;
    (9) Any necessary management restrictions, protective measures, or 
other management measures that we have not considered;
    (10) Monitoring or evaluation actions that may be needed to assess 
the success of the reintroduction;
    (11) How, if the reintroduction were successful, the experimental 
population's contribution to overall ESU viability might be assessed; 
and
    (12) Names, expertise, and contact information for potential peer 
reviewers for this designation. We seek individuals with expertise in 
salmon biology, population ecology, and/or reintroductions of at-risk 
species.
    We seek the above information as soon as possible but by no later 
than September 19, 2011.

References

    The complete citations for the references used in this document, as 
well as the CTCR ESA 10(j) authorization request can be obtained by 
contacting us directly or via the Internet (see ADDRESSES and FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Dated: July 13, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-18015 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P