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] 

Publication date Title Action(s) Federal Register 

Citation 

4/27/2020 ..................... Removing Arenaria .........................................

cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort) 

From the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 85 FR 23302–23315. 

06/01/2020 ................... Removing San Benito Evening-Primrose 

(Camissonia benitensis) From the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 85 FR 33060–33078. 

06/11/2020 ................... Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 85 FR 35574–35594. 

07/24/2020 ................... Reclassification of Morro Shoulderband Snail 

(Helminthoglypta walkeriana) From Endangered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 44821–44835. 

08/19/2020 ................... Reclassification of Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat 

From Endangered to Threatened With a 

Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 50991–51006. 

9/30/2020 ..................... Reclassification of Layia carnosa (Beach 

Layia) From Endangered To Threatened 

Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 61684–61700. 

9/30/2020 ..................... Reclassifying the Virgin Islands Tree Boa 

From Endangered To Threatened With a 

Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 61700–61717. 

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 

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. 

References Cited 

The list of the references cited in the 

petition finding is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under docket number FWS–R3–ES– 

2020–0103 and upon request from the 

person specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team. 

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 

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.) 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 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/2016-5- 

year-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 

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 

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 

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 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/2016-5- 

year-reviews-28-listed-species-pacificsalmon-steelhead-and-eulachon). For 

many species, data are not available to 

quantitatively assess the level of genetic 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 

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 

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 

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 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 ‘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 

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 

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 

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 (springrun subyearlings and summer-run). This 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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

ESU/DPS (listing status), and name of 

hatchery program 

Run 

timing 

Location of release 

(watershed, state) Type of update Reason for update 

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon 

(Threatened): 

Klaskanine Hatchery Program ............... Fall (Tule) ........... Klaskanine River (OR) ............. Add ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

Deep River Net Pens-Washougal Program.Fall (Tule) ........... Deep River (WA) ..................... Add ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

Bonneville Hatchery Program ................ Fall (Tule) ........... Lower Columbia River Gorge 

(OR).

Add ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

Cathlamet Channel Net Pens Program Spring ................. Lower Columbia River (WA/ 

OR).

Add ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Threatened): 

Marblemount Hatchery Program (springrun).Spring ................. Cascade River (WA) ................ Name Change .... Previously listed as Marblemount Hatchery 

Program (spring subyearlings and summer-run). 

Marblemount Hatchery Program (summer-run).Summer .............. Skagit River (WA) .................... Name Change .... Previously listed as Marblemount Hatchery 

Program (spring subyearlings and summer-run). 

Harvey Creek Hatchery Program (summer-run).Summer .............. Stillaguamish River (WA) ......... Name Change .... Previously listed as Harvey Creek Hatchery 

(summer-run and fall-run). 

Brenner Creek Hatchery Program (fallrun).Fall ...................... Stillaguamish River (WA) ......... Add ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

Whitehorse Springs Hatchery Program 

(summer-run).

Summer .............. Stillaguamish River (WA) ......... Name Change .... Previously listed as Whitehorse Springs 

Pond Program. 

Issaquah Creek Hatchery Program ....... Fall ...................... Sammamish River (WA) .......... Name Change .... Previously listed as Issaquah Hatchery Program. 

White River Acclimation Pond Program Spring ................. White River (WA) ..................... Name Change .... Previously listed as White Acclimation Pond 

Program. 

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 Reason for update 

Clarks Creek Hatchery Program ............ Fall ...................... Puyallup River (WA) ................ Name Change .... Previously listed as Diru Creek Hatchery 

Program. 

Clear Creek Hatchery Program ............. Fall ...................... Nisqually River (WA) ............... Name Change .... Previously listed as Clear Creek Program. 

Kalama Creek Hatchery Program .......... Fall ...................... Nisqually River (WA) ............... Name Change .... Previously listed as Kalama Creek Program. 

Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip) HatcherySkykomish Program.Summer .............. Skykomish River/Tulalip Bay 

(WA).

Name Change .... Previously listed as Tulalip Bay Program. 

Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin (Tulalip) HatcheryCascade Program.Spring ................. Snohomish River/Tulalip Bay 

(WA).

Add ..................... New program. 

Soos Creek Hatchery Program (Subyearlings and Yearlings).Fall ...................... Green River (WA) .................... Name Change .... Previously listed as two programs: the 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 Program .......... Fall ...................... Green River (WA) .................... Add ..................... New program. 

Hupp Springs Hatchery-Adult Returns to 

Minter Creek Program.

Spring ................. Minter Creek, Carr Inlet (WA) .. Name Change .... Previously listed as Hupp Springs Hatchery 

Program. 

Rick’s Pond Hatchery ............................. Fall ...................... Skokomish River (WA) ............ Remove .............. Program terminated. 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Endangered): 

Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery 

(Supplementation and Captive 

Broodstock).

Winter ................. Sacramento River (CA) ........... Add ..................... New program. 

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 Eggbox Program.Summer .............. South Fork Salmon River (ID) Add ..................... Existing release now 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 (WA) ............ Add ..................... New program. 

Chewuch River Program ........................ Spring ................. Chewuch River (WA) ............... Remove .............. Program now considered part of the listed 

Methow Composite Program. 

Chief Joseph spring Chinook Hatchery 

Program (Okanogan release).

Spring ................. Okanogan (WA) ....................... Add ..................... New program. 

Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon 

(Threatened): 

McKenzie River Hatchery Program ....... Spring ................. McKenzie River (OR) ............... Name Change .... Previously listed as McKenzie River Hatchery Program (ODFW Stock #23). 

North Santiam River Program ................ Spring ................. North Fork Santiam River (OR) Name Change .... Previously listed as Marion Forks Hatchery/ 

North Fork Santiam Hatchery Program 

(ODFW Stock #21). 

Molalla River Program ........................... Spring ................. Molalla River (OR) ................... Name Change .... Previously listed as South Santiam Hatchery 

Program (ODFW Stock #24) in the South 

Fork Santiam River and Mollala River. 

South Santiam River Program ............... Spring ................. South Fork Santiam River 

(OR).

Name Change .... Previously listed as South Santiam Hatchery 

Program (ODFW Stock #24) in the South 

Fork Santiam River and Mollala River. 

Willamette Hatchery Program ................ Spring ................. Middle Fork Willamette River 

(OR).

Name Change .... Previously listed as Willamette Hatchery 

Program (ODFW Stock #22). 

Clackamas Hatchery Program ............... Spring ................. Clackamas River (OR) ............. Name Change .... Previously listed as 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 Program Summer .............. Hamma Hamma River (WA) .... Remove .............. Program terminated. 

Jimmycomelately Creek Fish Hatchery 

Program.

Summer .............. Sequim Bay (WA) .................... Remove .............. Program terminated. 

Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Threatened): 

Clatsop County Fisheries/Klaskanine 

Hatchery.

N/A ..................... SF Klaskanine River (OR) ....... Add ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

Clatsop County Fisheries Net Pen Program.N/A ..................... Youngs Bay (OR) .................... Add ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

Kalama River Type-S Coho Program .... N/A ..................... Kalama River (WA) .................. Remove .............. Program terminated. 

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). 

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 

Location of release 

(watershed, state) Type of update Reason for update 

Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Complex 

Hatchery Program.

N/A ..................... Lower Columbia River Gorge 

(OR).

Name Change .... Previously listed as Bonneville/Cascade/ 

Oxbow Complex (ODFW Stock #14) 

Hatchery. 

North Fork Toutle River Type-S Hatchery Program.N/A ..................... North Fork Toutle River ........... Name Change .... Previously listed as North Fork Toutle River 

Hatchery Program. 

Oregon Coast coho salmon (Threatened): 

Cow Creek Hatchery Program ............... N/A ..................... South Fork Umpqua River 

(OR).

Name Change .... Previously listed as Cow Creek Hatchery 

Program (ODFW Stock #18). 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

coho salmon ESU (Threatened): 

Cole Rivers Hatchery Program .............. N/A ..................... Rogue River (OR) .................... Name Change .... Previously listed as Cole Rivers Hatchery 

Program (ODFW Stock #52). 

Ozette Lake sockeye (Threatened): 

Umbrella Creek/Big River Hatcheries 

Program.

N/A ..................... Lake Ozette (WA) .................... Name Change .... Previously listed as two programs: The Umbrella Creek Hatchery Program and the 

Big River Hatchery Program. 

Snake River sockeye (Endangered): 

Snake River Sockeye Salmon Hatchery 

Program.

N/A ..................... Upper Salmon River (ID) ......... Add ..................... New program. 

California Central Valley steelhead (Threatened): 

Mokelumne River Hatchery .................... Winter ................. Mokelumne River (CA) ............ Add ..................... New program. 

Lower Columbia River steelhead (Threatened): 

Clackamas Hatchery Late Winter-run 

Program.

Late Winter ......... Clackamas River (OR) ............. Name Change .... Previously listed as Clackamas Hatchery 

Late Winter-run Program (ODFW Stock 

#122). 

Sandy Hatchery Late Winter-run Program.Late Winter ......... Sandy River (OR) .................... Name Change .... Previously listed as Sandy Hatchery Late 

Winter-run Program (ODFW Stock #11). 

Hood River Winter-run Program ............ Winter ................. Hood River (OR) ...................... Name Change .... Previously listed as Hood River Winter-run 

Program (ODFW Stock #50). 

Upper Cowlitz River Wild Program ........ Late Winter ......... Upper Cowlitz River (WA) ....... Add ..................... New program.

Tilton River Wild Program ...................... Late Winter ......... Upper Cowlitz River (WA) ....... Add ..................... New program. 

Middle Columbia River steelhead (Threatened): 

Deschutes River Program ...................... Summer .............. Deschutes River (OR) ............. Name Change .... Previously listed as Deschutes River Program (ODFW Stock #66). 

Umatilla River Program .......................... Summer .............. Umatilla River (OR) ................. Name Change .... Previously listed as Umatilla River Program 

(ODFW Stock #91). 

Puget Sound steelhead (Threatened): 

Fish Restoration Facility Program .......... Winter ................. Green River (WA) .................... Add ..................... New program. 

Hood Canal Supplementation Program Winter ................. Hood Canal (WA) .................... Name Change .... 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 ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

South Fork Clearwater (Clearwater 

Hatchery) B-run program.

Summer (B) ........ SF Clearwater River (ID) ......... Add ..................... Existing release now classified as a separate and distinct program. 

East Fork Salmon River Natural Program.Summer (A) ........ Salmon River (ID) .................... Name Change .... Previously listed as East Fork Salmon River 

Program. 

Lolo Creek Program ............................... Summer (B) ........ Clearwater River (ID) ............... Remove .............. Now considered part of the listed Dworshak 

National Fish Hatchery Program. 

North Fork Clearwater Program ............. Summer (B) ........ Clearwater River (ID) ............... Remove .............. Now considered part of the listed Dworshak 

National Fish Hatchery Program. 

Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Program.Summer (A) ........ Imnaha River (OR) .................. Name Change .... Previously listed as Little Sheep Creek/ 

Imnaha River Hatchery Program (ODFW 

Stock #29). 

Upper Columbia River steelhead (Threatened): 

Okanogan River Program ...................... Summer .............. Okanogan River (WA) ............. Name Change .... 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 

Copies of previous Federal Register 

notices and related reference materials 

are available on the internet at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/rules-andregulations, http://

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. 

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. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

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) * * * 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

Fishes 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81833 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

Salmon, Chinook (Lower 

Columbia River ESU).

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha.

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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.212 223.203 

Salmon, Chinook (Puget 

Sound ESU).

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha.

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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.212 223.203 

Salmon, Chinook (Snake 

River fall-run ESU).

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha.

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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.205 223.203 

81834 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

Salmon, Chinook (Snake 

River spring/summer-run 

ESU).

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha.

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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.205 223.203 

Salmon, Chinook (Upper 

Willamette River ESU).

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha.

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.

226.212 223.203 

* * * * * * * 

Salmon, chum (Columbia 

River ESU).

Oncorhynchus keta ......... 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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.212 223.203 

Salmon, chum (Hood 

Canal summer-run ESU).

Oncorhynchus keta ......... 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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.212 223.203 

Salmon, coho (Lower Columbia River ESU).Oncorhynchus kisutch ..... 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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.212 223.203 

Salmon, coho (Oregon 

Coast ESU).

Oncorhynchus kisutch ..... 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.

76 FR 35755, June 20, 

2011.

226.212 223.203 

Salmon, coho (Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU).

Oncorhynchus kisutch ..... 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.

226.210 223.203 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81835 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name 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 ..... 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.

71 FR 834, Jan. 5, 2006 226.211 223.203 

Steelhead (Central California Coast DPS).Oncorhynchus mykiss ..... 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).

71 FR 834, Jan. 5, 2006 226.211 223.203 

Steelhead (Lower Columbia River DPS).Oncorhynchus mykiss ..... 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.

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 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 

81836 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name 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 

* * * * * * * 

1Species 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 

■ 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. 

■ 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 

California Coast ESU);’’ and ‘‘Salmon, 

sockeye (Snake River ESU)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

Fishes 

*******

Salmon, Chinook (Sacramento River winter-run 

ESU).

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha.

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).

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.204 NA 

Salmon, Chinook (Upper 

Columbia River springrun ESU).

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha.

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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.212 NA 

Salmon, coho (Central 

California Coast ESU).

Oncorhynchus kisutch ..... 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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005; 77 FR 19552, 

Apr. 2, 2012.

226.210 NA 

Salmon, sockeye (Snake 

River ESU).

Oncorhynchus nerka ....... 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.

70 FR 37160, June 28, 

2005.

226.205 NA 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81837 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

1Species 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 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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 

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