[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 107 (Thursday, June 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31354-31359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12598]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 040511148-4148-01; I.D. No. 050304B]
Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Policy on the
Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in Endangered Species Act Listing
Determinations for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a
proposed policy that will address the role of hatchery produced Pacific
salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, O. keta, O. kisutch, O. nerka, O.
tshawytscha,) and steelhead (O. mykiss) in listing determinations under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as amended. This proposed
policy would supersede the Interim Policy on Artificial (hatchery)
Propagation of Pacific Salmon under the Endangered Species Act
published in the Federal Register on April 5, 1993. The interim
[[Page 31355]]
policy requires revision for several reasons, including the need to
take into account the results of scientific research that has occurred
over the past decade, as well as the legal implications of a September
12, 2001, decision by the U.S. District Court in Oregon, which held
that NMFS made an improper distinction under the ESA by excluding from
a listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon under the ESA of certain
artificially propagated salmon populations that were nevertheless
determined by NMFS to be part of the same ``distinct population
segment'' (DPS) as the listed natural populations. Under the proposed
new policy, NMFS would determine the viability of each DPS, including
both natural and hatchery populations, in conducting ESA status reviews
and using the product of such reviews in making listing determinations
of threatened or endangered under the ESA for Pacific salmon and
steelhead. This policy applies only to Pacific salmon and steelhead and
only in the context of making ESA listing determinations. NMFS also
plans to provide separate guidance on how artificial propagation
programs may contribute to salmon and steelhead conservation and
recovery.
DATES: Information and comments on the proposed policy must be received
at the appropriate address or fax number (See ADDRESSES), no later than
5 p.m. on September 1, 2004. In a forthcoming Federal Register
document, NMFS will announce the dates and locations of public meetings
to provide the opportunity for the interested individuals and parties
to give comments, exchange information and opinions, and engage in a
constructive dialogue concerning this proposed policy. NMFS encourages
the public's involvement in such ESA matters.
ADDRESSES: Information and comments on this proposed policy should be
submitted to Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon
Street - Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may also be sent via
facsimile (fax) to 503 230-5435 or by e-mail. The mailbox address for
providing e-mail comments is [email protected]. Include in the
subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier:
Hatchery Listing Policy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Darm, NMFS, Northwest Region,
(206) 526-4489; Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, (562) 980-4021;
or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401,
ext. 180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS is responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or
DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead are threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To be
considered for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA, a
group of organisms must constitute a species, which is defined in
section 3 of the ESA to include ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' Since
1991, NMFS has used the term ``evolutionarily significant unit'' (ESU)
to refer to a DPS of Pacific salmon and steelhead, and has defined an
ESU as a Pacific salmon or steelhead population or group of populations
that (i) is substantially reproductively isolated from other
conspecific populations, and (ii) represents an important component in
the evolutionary legacy of the biological species (56 FR 58612;
November 20, 1991). ESUs typically are composed of several genetically
similar populations. (A few ESUs are composed of a single extant
population, e.g., the Snake River sockeye, Snake River fall-run
chinook, and Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESUs).
The viability of salmon and steelhead ESUs is characterized by the
health, abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and genetic/
behavioral diversity of the individual populations within the ESU
(McElhany et al., 2001). An ESU with a greater abundance of productive
populations will be more tolerant to environmental variation,
catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic stochasticity,
ecological interactions, and other processes than one with a single or
a few populations (Caughley and Gunn, 1996; Foley, 1997; Meffe and
Carroll, 1994; Lande, 1993; Middleton and Nisbet, 1997). Similarly, an
ESU that is distributed across a variety of well-connected habitats can
better respond to environmental perturbations including catastrophic
events, than ESUs in which connectivity between populations has been
restricted or lost (Schlosser and Angermeier, 1995; Hanski and Gilpin,
1997; Tilman and Lehman, 1997; Cooper and Mangel, 1999). Genetic and
behavioral diversity and the maintenance of local adaptations within an
ESU allow for the exploitation of a wide array of environments, protect
against short-term environmental changes, and provide the raw material
for surviving long-term environmental change (Groot and Margolis,1991;
Wood, 1995).
ESUs with fewer populations have greater risk of becoming extinct
due to catastrophic events, and have a lower likelihood that the
necessary phenotypic and genotypic diversity will exist to maintain
future viability than ESUs with more populations. ESUs with limited
geographic range are similarly at increased extinction risk due to
catastrophic events. ESUs with populations that are geographically
distant from each other, or are separated by severely degraded habitat,
may lack the connectivity to function as metapopulations and are more
likely to become extinct than populations that can function as
metapopulations. ESUs with limited life-history diversity are more
likely to become extinct as the result of correlated environmental
catastrophes or environmental change that occurs too rapidly for an
evolutionary response. ESUs comprised of a small proportion of
populations meeting or exceeding these viability criteria may lack the
``source'' populations to sustain the non-viable ``sink'' populations
during environmental downturns. ESUs consisting of a single population
are especially vulnerable in this regard.
Assessing an ESU involves evaluating the current biological
viability of the populations that comprise the ESU. The fact that the
current biological status of an ESU does not reflect historical
abundance, productivity, spatial structure or diversity does not mean
that it is currently not viable, but historical status serves as an
informative benchmark against which to weigh viability. Whether, upon
assessment, the biological status of an ESU meets the ESA's standard
for listing as either threatened or endangered i.e., the ESU is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range or is likely to become so in the foreseeable future--depends on
which viability criteria it fails to meet, what the past trend has
been, whether that trend is likely to continue, and how far below the
benchmark it is.
Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead
Most of the ESUs listed as threatened or endangered have associated
hatchery populations (that is, artificially propagated salmon and
steelhead released into habitats within the historic geographic range
of the ESU) as well as mixed populations of natural and hatchery fish.
The artificial propagation of hatchery fish presents both potential
benefits and risks to the biological status of salmonid ESUs (e.g.,
Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), 2003;
[[Page 31356]]
Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST), 2001; ISAB, 2001;
Hatchery Scientific Review Group, 2004). Artificial propagation has
been shown to be effective in bolstering the numbers of naturally
spawning fish in the short term under certain conditions, and in
conserving genetic resources and guarding against the catastrophic loss
of naturally spawned populations at critically low abundance levels
(IMST, 2001).
There are, however, several reasons why long-term deleterious
consequences of such supplementation may outweigh the short-term
advantage of increased population size (NRC, 1995). In recent years,
various studies and scientific works have identified some potential
adverse effects of artificial propagation, including behavioral
differences that result in diminished fitness and survival of hatchery
fish relative to naturally spawned fish; genetic effects resulting from
poor broodstock and rearing practices (e.g., inbreeding, outbreeding,
domestication selection); incidence of disease; and increased rates of
competition with and predation on naturally spawned populations. In
assessing the risks to any particular population, however, it is often
difficult to demonstrate conclusively that adverse effects are actually
occurring, and, if they are demonstrated, how serious they are (CDFG/
NMFS, 2001).
In response to these concerns, there have been recent changes in
hatchery practices seeking to mitigate risks and enhance benefits of
artificial propagation. Continued scientific work is necessary to
identify and to measure these risks and benefits more completely, and
to assess the operations of hatcheries that implement modern management
practices. In light of the developing science on the positive and
negative effects of hatchery programs on natural populations, the
legacy of hatchery programs and the existing requirements to maintain
many of them present a challenge for developing a framework for
consideration of hatchery fish in listing determinations.
Past Pacific Salmon and Steelhead ESA Listings and the Alsea Decision
Section 3 of the ESA defines (i) an endangered species as ``any
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' and (ii) a threatened species as one ``which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The statute
enumerates five factors that may cause a species to be threatened or
endangered (ESA section 4(a)(1)): (a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (b)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (e) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Since 1991, NMFS has conducted ESA status reviews of six species of
Pacific salmonids in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho,
identifying 51 ESUs and listing 26 of these ESUs as of September 2001.
Twenty-three of the listed ESUs include hatchery populations, and in
many of those cases the annual abundance of fish from hatcheries far
exceeds that of naturally spawned fish. Thus, the manner in which the
hatchery populations associated with an ESU are considered in making a
determination whether the ESU should be listed can affect the outcome
of that determination.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires NMFS to make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available, after conducting a review of the status of the species and
after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species.
Accordingly, NMFS follows three steps in making its listing
determinations. First, NMFS determines whether a population or group of
populations constitutes an ESU; that is, whether the population(s)
should be considered a ``species'' within the meaning of the ESA.
Second, NMFS determines the biological status of the ESU and the
factors that have led to its decline. Third, NMFS assesses efforts
being made to protect the ESU and determines whether, in light of those
efforts, the statutory listing criteria are satisfied.
In the past, NMFS focused on whether the naturally spawned fish
are, by themselves, self-sustaining in their natural ecosystem over the
long term. NMFS listed as ``endangered'' those ESUs whose naturally
spawned populations were found to have a present high risk of
extinction, and listed as ``threatened'' those ESUs whose naturally
spawned populations were found likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future (that is, whose present risk of extinction was not
high, but whose risk of extinction was likely to become high within a
foreseeable period of time).
In its listing determinations, NMFS did not explicitly consider the
contribution of the hatchery fish to the overall viability of the ESU,
or whether the presence of hatchery fish within the ESU might have the
potential for reducing the risk of extinction of the ESU or the
likelihood that the ESU would become endangered in the foreseeable
future. (The listing of Snake River fall chinook, however, is an
exception. See 57 FR 14653; April 22, 1992.) NMFS frequently evaluated
artificial propagation only as a factor in the decline of the naturally
spawned populations within an ESU.
For each ESU where hatchery fish were present, NMFS reviewed the
associated hatchery populations to determine how closely related the
hatchery populations were to the naturally spawned populations. This
review focused on the origin of the hatchery fish and their similarity
to locally adapted naturally spawned fish. Factors included in this
consideration were: genetic, life history, and habitat use
characteristics; the degree to which the characteristics of the wild
population may have been altered over time; and other factors that
would affect the biological usefulness of hatchery fish for recovery.
Since 1993, NMFS has applied an interim policy on how it will
consider artificial propagation in the listing and recovery of Pacific
salmon and steelhead under the ESA (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993). The
1993 policy provided guidance on the use of artificial propagation to
assist in the conservation of these listed species and to help avoid
additional species listings. The policy also provided guidance for
evaluating artificial propagation in section 7 consultation, section 10
permitting, and recovery planning pursuant to the ESA.
When NMFS determined that an ESU should be listed as threatened or
endangered, it applied its interim artificial propagation policy for
Pacific salmon and steelhead. That policy provided that hatchery salmon
and steelhead found to be part of the ESU would not be listed under the
ESA unless they were found to be essential for recovery (i.e., if NMFS
determined that the hatchery population contained a substantial portion
of the genetic diversity remaining in the ESU). The result of this
policy was that a listing determination for an ESU depended solely upon
the relative health of the naturally spawning component of the ESU. In
most cases, hatchery fish within the ESUs were not relied upon to
contribute to recovery, and therefore were not listed.
Subsequently, in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d
1154 (D. Or. 2001)(Alsea decision), the U.S. District Court in Eugene,
Oregon, set aside NMFS' 1998 ESA listing of Oregon
[[Page 31357]]
Coast coho salmon (O. kisutch) because it impermissibly excluded
hatchery fish within the ESU from listing and therefore listed an
entity that was not a species, subspecies or DPS. The court stated:
``NMFS concluded that nine hatchery stocks were part of the same Oregon
Coast ESU/DPS as the 'naturally-spawned' populations but none of the
hatchery stocks were included in the listing decision because NMFS did
not consider them 'essential to recovery.' The distinction between
members of the same ESU/DPS is arbitrary and capricious because NMFS
may consider listing only an entire species, subspecies or distinct
population segment ('DPS') of any species.''
Although the court's ruling applied only to the Oregon Coast coho
salmon ESU, the court's interpretation of the ESA implicitly called
into question nearly all of NMFS' Pacific salmonid listing
determinations since 1991. In addition, a preliminary review of the
other 25 listing determinations suggested that hatchery populations
were not treated consistently in those listings. Further, substantially
more scientific research into artificial propagation issues had been
completed since the interim policy was adopted in 1993.
Accordingly, NMFS determined that it would reconsider its 1993
interim policy on how it considers hatchery populations in making ESA
listing determinations (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). The proposed
policy set forth in this notice results from that reconsideration. It
would supersede NMFS' 1993 interim artificial propagation policy.
Additional Legal Factors Influencing Consideration of Hatchery Fish
The ESA defines ``fish or wildlife'' to mean ``any member of the
animal kingdom, including without limitation any fish .'' [emphasis
added]. This definition includes fish bred in a hatchery. 16 U.S.C.
1532(8).
The ESA defines ``species'' to include ``any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species
or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' 16
U.S.C. 1532(16). NMFS cannot list any group of organisms that is not a
species, subspecies or DPS. If NMFS determines that an ESU includes
hatchery fish as well as naturally spawned fish, it must list or not
list the entire ESU.
The statutory provisions of the ESA do not address the relationship
between naturally spawned populations and hatchery populations
regarding species conservation. One of the purposes of the ESA,
however, is ``to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which
endangered species and threatened species may be conserved.'' 16 U.S.C.
1531(b). Further, in issuing incidental take permits pursuant to
section 10(a)(1)(B), the Secretary is required to find that ``the
taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of the species in the wild.'' This incidental take permit
provision was patterned after the preexisting joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation regulations to implement section 7
of the ESA, which defines ``jeopardize the continued existence of'' to
mean ``to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected,
directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both
survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild. . . .'' 50 CFR
402.02. Accordingly, the ESA does not preclude NMFS from giving special
recognition to naturally spawned fish as a measure of the
sustainability of the natural ecosystem.
Artificial Propagation under the ESA
Section 4(b) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make listing
determinations after conducting a review of the status of the species,
and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made to
protect the species. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A). Such efforts being made
to protect the species include ``conservation'' practices, defined by
the ESA as ``all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring
any endangered species or any threatened species to the point at
which'' the protections of the act are no longer necessary. 16 U.S.C.
1532(3). The methods and procedures of conservation include
``propagation'' and ``transplantation.''
Although the NMFS/FWS Policy Regarding Controlled Propagation of
Species Listed Under the ESA (65 FR 56916; September 20, 2000) exempted
Pacific salmon from its application (65 FR at 56921), the joint policy
provides useful general guidance regarding the role of artificial
propagation in the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed species,
including plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species. The joint policy
notes several potential contributions of artificial propagation
including: preventing extinction; providing opportunities for
scientific research regarding beneficial propagation methods and
technologies; maintaining genetic vigor and demographic diversity;
maintaining refugial populations while habitat threats or
vulnerabilities to catastrophic events are addressed; introduction or
re-introduction of individuals to (re)establish self-sustaining
populations; and enhancing existing wild populations to facilitate
recovery.
While acknowledging the potentially supportive role that artificial
propagation may play in the conservation and recovery of listed
species, the joint policy stresses that artificial propagation is not a
substitute for addressing factors responsible for a species' decline
and that recovery of wild populations in their natural habitat is the
first priority. The policy recognizes that genetic and ecological risks
may be associated with artificial propagation, and requires that
artificial propagation for species conservation and recovery be
conducted in a manner that minimizes risks and preserves the genetic
and ecological distinctiveness of the species to the maximum extent
possible.
The proposed policy is intended to be consistent with the joint
policy. This policy provides more specific guidance for considering
artificial propagation issues particular to listing Pacific salmon and
steelhead under the ESA. For Pacific salmon and steelhead, artificial
propagation programs have been in place for many decades, serving a
variety of purposes established by Congress and local authorities.
Those programs now number in the hundreds. Whereas the joint policy
pertains to recovery, the proposed policy would guide NMFS'
consideration of existing artificial propagation efforts when
evaluating the extinction risk of a salmon or steelhead ESU for
purposes of making an ESA listing decision.
Because NMFS must base its listing determinations for Pacific
salmon and steelhead on the risk of extinction of the entire ESU,
including both natural and hatchery fish, the agency must consider the
likelihood that the hatchery and naturally spawned components will
contribute to the continued existence of the ESU into the future.Yet,
because there are so many different ways in which hatchery-origin fish
interact with the environment, there can be no uniform conclusion about
the potential contribution of hatchery-origin fish to the survival of
an ESU. For example, fish that are carefully reared under semi-natural
conditions, then acclimated to a specific stream and introduced to re-
establish, or expand the range of, the natural population, might make
an important contribution to the rebuilding or support of that
population. On the other hand, fish that are reared solely for the
purpose of augmenting harvest and which are released away from the
spawning and rearing areas
[[Page 31358]]
used by the naturally spawning fish in the ESU might contribute little
to rebuilding or supporting other populations within the ESU, although
their presence will increase the overall numbers of fish within the
ESU.
Proposed Five-Point Policy
In light of the above considerations, NMFS proposes to adopt the
policy set forth below to supersede NMFS' 1993 interim artificial
propagation policy. The proposed policy would have five points. First,
the proposed policy summarizes NMFS' existing ESU policy, and
recognizes that genetic resources that represent the ecological and
genetic diversity of a salmonid species can be found in hatchery fish
as well as fish spawned in the wild.
The second point describes the process NMFS will use to delineate
which populations are included in an ESU. In deciding which hatchery
programs are likely to produce fish that would be included in an ESU,
NMFS used terminology developed by the Salmon And Steelhead Hatchery
Assessment Group (SSHAG, 2003)(available at http://www.noaa.gov/fisheries/). In its report, the SSHAG defines categories to describe
the degree of genetic divergence between hatchery stock(s) and the
natural population(s) that occupy the watershed into which the hatchery
stock is released. In previous status reviews, the test for inclusion
of hatchery stocks in a given ESU was a ``substantial'' divergence
threshold evaluated relative to ``historical'' populations in the ESU.
NMFS is proposing that it consider, as part of the ESU, those hatchery
fish with a level of genetic divergence between the hatchery stocks and
the local natural populations that is no more than what would be
expected between closely related populations within the ESU. This
proposal is consistent with the ``moderate divergence'' standard used
in the SSHAG (2003) report. In practice, it is unlikely that this
proposed change, as applied, would present an appreciably different
threshold for the inclusion of hatchery stocks in an ESU compared to
policy struck down by the court in the Alsea decision.
The third point states, consistent with the Alsea decision, that
status determinations for Pacific salmonid ESUs will be based on the
entire ESU, while recognizing the necessity of conserving natural
populations and their habitat. This point also acknowledges the ESA's
focus on the conservation and recovery of natural populations, the use
of natural populations in reducing the risk of extinction, and their
use as a point of comparison for monitoring/evaluating the level of
genetic divergence of hatchery fish from naturally spawning fish in an
ESU.
The fourth point describes the process for making status
determinations for ESUs. The process incorporates the concept of Viable
Salmonid Populations that was developed by NMFS scientists (McElhany et
al., 2000, available at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov). Specifically, the
process generally considers four key attributes of a viable salmonid
population or conservation unit: abundance, productivity, spatial
distribution, and genetic diversity. Under these criteria, a high
abundance of one population of fish within an ESU is not, by itself,
adequate to show that the ESU is viable. The analysis does not assign
equal or predetermined weight to each of the four attributes, nor does
it preclude consideration of other factors that may be biologically
relevant in a particular circumstance. The analysis was designed to
evaluate the viability of naturally spawning salmonid populations and
requires the application of professional judgment when applied to
salmonid populations that include hatchery fish because, for example,
attributes such as productivity (number of adults returned per spawner)
are measured differently for hatchery fish than for naturally spawning
fish.
Finally, the fifth point recognizes that hatcheries can play an
important role in fulfilling trust and treaty obligations with regard
to harvest of some Pacific salmonid populations and provides a
mechanism for using hatchery fish that are surplus to the conservation
and recovery needs of the ESU.
Proposed Policy
For the foregoing reasons, NMFS proposes to adopt the following new
policy on the consideration of hatchery fish in Endangered Species Act
listing determinations for Pacific salmon and steelhead:
1. Under NMFS' Policy on Applying the Definition of Species under
the Endangered Species Act to Pacific Salmon (ESU policy)(56 FR 58612;
November 20, 1991), a distinct population segment (DPS) of a Pacific
salmonid species is considered for listing if it meets two criteria:
(a) it must be substantially reproductively isolated from other
conspecific population units; and (b) it must represent an important
component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. A key feature of
the ESU concept is the recognition of genetic resources that represent
the ecological and genetic diversity of the species. These genetic
resources can reside in a fish spawned in a hatchery (hatchery fish) as
well as in a fish spawned in the wild (natural fish).
2. In delineating an ESU to be considered for listing, NMFS will
identify all populations that are part of the ESU, including
populations of natural fish (natural populations), populations of
hatchery fish (hatchery fish), and populations that include both
natural fish and hatchery fish (mixed populations). Hatchery fish with
a level of genetic divergence between the hatchery stocks and the local
natural populations that is no more than what would be expected between
closely related populations within the ESU (a) are considered part of
the ESU, (b) will be considered in determining whether an ESU should be
listed under the ESA, and (c) will be included in any listing of the
ESU.
3. Status determinations for Pacific salmonid ESUs will be based on
the status of the entire ESU. In assessing the status of an ESU, NMFS
will apply this policy in support of the conservation of naturally-
spawning salmon and the ecosystems upon which they depend, consistent
with section 2(b) of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. 1531(b). Natural populations
that are stable or increasing, are spawning in the wild, and have
adequate spawning and rearing habitat reduce the risk of extinction of
the ESU. Such natural populations, particularly those with minimal
genetic contribution from hatchery fish, can provide a point of
comparison for the evaluation of the effects of hatchery fish on the
likelihood of extinction of the ESU.
4. Status determinations for Pacific salmonid ESUs generally
consider four key attributes: abundance, productivity, genetic
diversity, and spatial distribution. The effects of hatchery fish on
the status of an ESU will depend on which of the four key attributes
are currently limiting the ESU, and how the hatchery fish within the
ESU affect each of the attributes. The presence within an ESU of
hatchery fish with a level of genetic divergence between the hatchery
stocks and the local natural populations that is no more than what
would be expected between closely related populations within the ESU
can affect the status of the ESU, and thereby, affect a listing
determination, by contributing to increasing abundance and productivity
of the ESU, by improving spatial distribution, and by serving as a
source population for repopulating unoccupied habitat. Conversely, a
hatchery program managed without adequate consideration of its
conservation effects can affect a listing determination by reducing
genetic diversity of the ESU and reducing the productivity of the ESU.
In evaluating
[[Page 31359]]
the effect of hatchery fish on the status of an ESU, the presence of a
long-term hatchery monitoring and evaluation program is an important
consideration.
5. Hatchery programs are capable of producing more fish than may be
immediately useful in the conservation and recovery of an ESU and can
play an important role in fulfilling trust and treaty obligations with
regard to harvest of some Pacific salmonid populations. For ESUs listed
as threatened, NMFS will, where appropriate, exercise its authority
under section 4(d) of the ESA to allow the harvest of listed hatchery
fish that are surplus to the conservation and recovery needs of the ESU
in accordance with approved harvest plans.
Request for Comments
NMFS intends to base the final policy on the best available
scientific and commercial information available, and take advantage of
information and recommendations from all interested parties. Therefore,
NMFS solicits comments and suggestions regarding this proposed policy
from the public, as well as other concerned governmental agencies and
tribal governments, the scientific community, industry, or any other
party (see DATES and ADDRESSES). In addition, in a separate notice,
NMFS will schedule public meetings on this proposed policy to provide
the opportunity for the public to give comments and to permit an
exchange of information and opinion. NMFS encourages the public's
involvement in such ESA matters. Written comments on the proposed
policy are solicited (see DATES and ADDRESSES). The final decision on
this policy is expected to be published by January 2005 and will take
into consideration the comments and any additional information received
by NMFS. Such communications may lead to a decision that differs from
this proposal.
References
A complete list of all cited references, and an overview of the
scientific literature regarding the potential benefits and risks of
artificial propagation, is available upon request (see ADDRESSES) or
via the internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/HatcheryListingPolicy/References.html.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: May 28, 2004.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-12598 Filed 6-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S