DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

81822 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC RECOVERY ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL DOWNLISTINGS AND DELISTINGS) IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020—Continued [As of September 30, 2020] Federal Register Publication date Title Action(s) Citation 4/27/2020 ..................... Removing Arenaria ......................................... Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 85 FR 23302–23315. cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 06/01/2020 ................... Removing San Benito Evening-Primrose Proposed Rule—Delisting ............................... 85 FR 33060–33078. (Camissonia benitensis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 06/11/2020 ................... Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the Final Rule—Delisting ...................................... 85 FR 35574–35594. List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 07/24/2020 ................... Reclassification of Morro Shoulderband Snail Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 44821–44835. (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) From Endan- gered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule. 08/19/2020 ................... Reclassification of Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 50991–51006. From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. 9/30/2020 ..................... Reclassification of Layia carnosa (Beach Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 61684–61700. Layia) From Endangered To Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule. 9/30/2020 ..................... Reclassifying the Virgin Islands Tree Boa Proposed Rule—Downlisting .......................... 85 FR 61700–61717. From Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. When a petitioned action is found to change in status is warranted, including Authors be warranted but precluded, the Service the need to make prompt use of The primary authors of this document is required by the Act to treat the emergency listing procedures. are the staff members of the Fish and petition as resubmitted on an annual A detailed discussion of the basis for Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment basis until a proposal or withdrawal is this finding can be found in the Team. published. If the petitioned species is monarch butterfly species assessment not already listed under the Act, the form and other supporting documents Authority species becomes a ‘‘candidate’’ and is (see ADDRESSES, above). The authority for this action is section reviewed annually in the Candidate New Information 4 of the Endangered Species Act of Notice of Review. The number of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et candidate species remaining in FY 2020 We intend that any proposed listing seq.). is the lowest it has been since 1975. For rule for the monarch butterfly will be as these species, we are working on accurate as possible. Therefore, we will Aurelia Skipwith, developing a species status assessment, continue to accept additional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. preparing proposed listing information and comments from all [FR Doc. 2020–27523 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] determinations, or preparing not- concerned governmental agencies, the BILLING CODE 4333–15–P warranted 12-month findings. scientific community, industry, or any Another way that we have been other interested party concerning this expeditious in making progress in finding. We request that you submit any DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE adding and removing qualified species new information concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric to and from the Lists is that we have taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, Administration made our actions as efficient and timely status of, threats to, or conservation as possible, given the requirements of actions for the monarch butterfly to the 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 the Act and regulations and constraints person specified under FOR FURTHER relating to workload and personnel. We INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it [Docket No. 201123–0313; RTID 0648– are continually seeking ways to becomes available. New information XE804] streamline processes or achieve will help us monitor this species and economies of scale, such as batching make appropriate decisions about its Revisions to Hatchery Programs related actions together for publication. conservation and status. We encourage Included as Part of Pacific Salmon and Given our limited budget for all stakeholders to continue cooperative Steelhead Species Listed Under the implementing section 4 of the Act, these monitoring and conservation efforts. Endangered Species Act efforts also contribute toward our References Cited AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries expeditious progress in adding and Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and removing qualified species to and from The list of the references cited in the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Lists. petition finding is available on the Commerce. The monarch butterfly will be added internet at http://www.regulations.gov ACTION: Final rule. to the candidate list, and we will under docket number FWS–R3–ES– continue to evaluate this species as new 2020–0103 and upon request from the SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce updates information becomes available. person specified under FOR FURTHER to the descriptions of Pacific salmon Continuing review will determine if a INFORMATION CONTACT. and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Dec 16, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM 17DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81823 species that are currently listed as ESA includes the following entities: (1) Adding new hatchery programs threatened or endangered under the Species, subspecies, and, for vertebrates that meet the Hatchery Listing Policy Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). only, ‘‘distinct population segments criteria for inclusion, or adding Updates include the addition or removal (DPSs).’’ Steelhead are listed as DPSs programs that resulted from dividing of specific hatchery programs, as well as and Pacific salmon are listed as existing listed hatchery programs into clarifying changes to the names of ‘‘evolutionarily significant units separate programs with new names; specific hatchery programs included as (ESUs),’’ which are essentially (2) Removing hatchery programs that part of the listings of certain Pacific equivalent to DPSs for the purpose of have been terminated and do not have salmon and steelhead species. These the ESA. any fish remaining from the program, or changes are informed by our most recent For West Coast salmon and steelhead, removing previously listed hatchery ESA 5-year reviews, which were many of the ESU and DPS descriptions programs that were subsumed by completed in 2016. We are not changing include fish originating from specific another listed program; the ESA-listing status of any species artificial propagation programs (e.g., (3) Revising some hatchery program under NMFS’s jurisdiction, or hatcheries) that, along with their names for clarity or to standardize modifying any critical habitat naturally-produced counterparts, are conventions for naming programs; and designation. The updates also include included as part of the listed species. (4) Making minor changes in minor changes in terminology to NMFS’ Policy on the Consideration of terminology to standardize species descriptions. standardize species descriptions. Hatchery-Origin Fish in Endangered The approach we used in the DATES: This final rule is effective Species Act Listing Determinations for proposed rule and this final rule to December 17, 2020. Pacific Salmon and Steelhead (Hatchery determine which hatchery programs are ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources Listing Policy) (70 FR 37204, June 28, included within an ESU or DPS is Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, 2005) guides our analysis of whether consistent with the approach taken in Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. individual hatchery programs should be the 2016 status review. That is, as part FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: included as part of the listed species. of our status reviews, we reviewed Robert Markle, NMFS, West Coast The Hatchery Listing Policy states that hatchery programs under our Hatchery Region, Protected Resources Division, hatchery programs will be considered Listing Policy and concluded that some 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, part of an ESU/DPS if they exhibit a changes to the list of hatchery programs Portland, OR 97232, by phone at (503) level of genetic divergence relative to included in certain ESUs and DPSs were 230–5433, or by email at robert.markle@ the local natural population(s) that is warranted. Those changes included noaa.gov. You may also contact Maggie not more than what occurs within the updates to hatchery program names as Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected ESU/DPS. In applying the Hatchery well as the inclusion of new programs Resources, (301) 427–8403. Copies of Listing Policy, we use a variety of and the removal of programs that had the 5-year status reviews can be found sources to reach conclusions about been discontinued. However, as on our website at https:// divergence. indicated in the 2016 status review, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/2016-5- Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires none of these changes resulted in a year-reviews-28-listed-species-pacific- regular review of listed species to change to the listing status of an ESU or salmon-steelhead-and-eulachon.
Recommended publications
  • Tucannon River Watershed Initial Assessment

    Tucannon River Watershed Initial Assessment

    DRAFT INITIAL WATERSHED ASSESSMENT TUCANNON RIVER WATERSHED Part of Water Resources Inventory Area 35 Open file Report 95-04 Prepared by: John Covert, Jim Lyerla, and Mark Ader Washington Department of Ecology, Eastern Regional Office Water Resources Program N. 4601 Monroe Street, Suite 202 Spokane, Washington 99205-1295 and edited by: Montgomery Water Group, Inc. 620 Kirkland Way, Suite 202 Kirkland, Washington 98083-2517 Adolfson Associates, Inc. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, Washington 98107 Hong West & Associates, Inc. 19730 64th Avenue West Lynnwood, Washington 98036-0106 R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 15250 NE 95th Redmond, Washington 98052 February 10, 1995 Table of Contents Tucannon River Watershed Assessment Initial Watershed Assessment Tucannon River Watershed ............................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Watershed Description ................................................................................................................ 1 Area Description ..................................................................................................................... 1 Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 2 Climate and Precipitation Trends............................................................................................ 2 Hydrogeology.............................................................................................................................
  • 4.0 Tucannon Subbasin Aquatic Assessment

    4.0 Tucannon Subbasin Aquatic Assessment

    4.0 Tucannon Subbasin Aquatic Assessment 4.1 Selection of Focal Species Four aquatic species were chosen as focal for Tucannon Subbasin Planning: steelhead/rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss; spring and fall Chinook Onchorynchus tshawytcha; bull trout Salvelinus confluentus. The criteria used to select focal species were the aspects of the Tucannon Subbasin ecosystem that the life histories represent; the Endangered Species Act (ESA) status; the cultural importance of the species and whether or not there was enough knowledge of the life history of the species to do an effective assessment. Those species of which too little was known to be included as focal at this time could be included as “species of interest” (see section 4.7). The WDFW suggested the above species as focal for the subbasin. These were then presented to the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), The Columbia County Conservation District Board, the citizens advisory group, subbasin planning team and other interested agencies and entities. Consensus was achieved on their selection. Tucannon summer steelhead, spring/fall chinook and bull trout life histories intersect a broad range of the aquatic ecosystem. Spatially, the life histories of these four species cover the entire subbasin from the mouth to the headwaters. These species also occupy all levels of the water column including slack water, swift water and the hyporheic zone. Not only are they present but also the ability of these species to thrive is dependent on being able to successfully occupy these areas. Temporally, these species are present (or were assumed to be present in the past) at one lifestage or another throughout much of the watershed in all seasons.
  • 2020 Hunting Prospects: District 3

    2020 Hunting Prospects: District 3

    2020 PAUL WIK, District Wildlife Biologist MARK VEKASY, Assistant District Wildlife Biologist DISTRICT 3 HUNTING PROSPECTS Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla counties 38 | Page TABLE OF CONTENTS BE AWARE OF FIRE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5 DISTRICT 3 GENERAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 5 ELK ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8 General Information, Management Goals, and Population Status ........................................................................ 8 Which GMU Should Elk Hunters Hunt? ............................................................................................................ 11 A Brief Description of Each GMU ..................................................................................................................... 11 What to Expect During the 2019 Season ............................................................................................................ 15 How to Find Elk .................................................................................................................................................. 15 Elk Areas ...........................................................................................................................................................
  • Touchet Endemic Summer Steelhead HGMP to NOAA Fisheries in 2010 for a Section 10(A)(1)(A) Permit

    Touchet Endemic Summer Steelhead HGMP to NOAA Fisheries in 2010 for a Section 10(A)(1)(A) Permit

    WDFW Touchet River Endemic Stock Summer Steelhead - Touchet River Release HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Hatchery Program: Mid-Columbia Summer Steelhead –Touchet River Stock: Lyons Ferry Hatchery Complex Species or Touchet River Endemic Summer Steelhead Hatchery Stock: Agency/Operator: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Watershed and Region: Touchet River / Walla Walla River / Mid- Columbia Basin, Washington State Date Submitted: April 20, 2002; November 29, 2010 Date Last Updated: November 6, 2015 WDFW - Touchet River Endemic Stock HGMP 1 Executive Summary ESA Permit Status: In 2010 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) submitted a Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) for the Lyons Ferry Hatchery (LFH) Touchet River Endemic Summer Steelhead 50,000 release of yearling smolts into the Touchet River program. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) are now re-submitting an HGMP for this yearling program to update the description of the current program. Both the Touchet River Endemic Summer Steelhead (O. Mykiss), Mid-Columbia ESU summer steelhead population, listed as threatened under the ESA as part of the Mid-Columbia River ESU (March 25, 1999; FR 64 No. 57: 14517-14528) and Wallowa Stock summer steelhead (O. Mykiss), (not ESA-listed) are currently produced at WDFW’s LFH and released into the Touchet River. This document covers only the Tucannon Endemic Steelhead program. The proposed hatchery program may slowly phase out the Wallowa stock from the Touchet River in the future. This will depend on the performance of the Touchet River endemic steelhead stock, and decisions reached with the co-managers for full implementation.
  • CTUIR Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and Lower

    CTUIR Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and Lower

    Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and the Lower Columbia River by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Jennifer Karson Engum, Ph.D. Cultural Resources Protection Program Report prepared for CTUIR Board of Trustees Fish and Wildlife Commission Cultural Resources Committee CAYUSE, UMATILLAANDWALLA WALLA TRIBES November 16, 2020 CONFEDERATED TRIBES of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 46411 Timíne Way PENDLETON, OREGON TREATY JUNE 9, 1855 REDACTED FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and the Lower Columbia River by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Prepared by Jennifer Karson Engum, Ph.D. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Department of Natural Resources Cultural Resources Protection Program 46411 Timíne Way Pendleton, Oregon 97801 Prepared for CTUIR Board of Trustees Fish and Wildlife Commission Cultural Resources Committee November 16, 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Umatilla (Imatalamłáma), Cayuse (Weyíiletpu), and Walla Walla (Walúulapam) peoples, who comprise the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), have traveled throughout the west, including to the lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers and to Willamette Falls, to exercise their reserved treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather the traditional subsistence resources known as the First Foods. They have been doing so since time immemorial, an important indigenous concept which describes a time continuum that spans from ancient times to present day. In post- contact years, interactions expanded to include explorers, traders and missionaries, who brought with them new opportunities for trade and intermarriage as well as the devastating circumstances brought by disease, warfare, and the reservation era. Through cultural adaptation and uninterrupted treaty rights, the CTUIR never ceased to continue to travel to the lower Columbia and Willamette River and falls for seasonal traditional practice and for other purposes.
  • Life-History Model for Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus Nerka) at Lake Ozette, Northwestern Washington—Users’ Guide

    Life-History Model for Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus Nerka) at Lake Ozette, Northwestern Washington—Users’ Guide

    Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Life-History Model for Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at Lake Ozette, Northwestern Washington—Users’ Guide Open-File Report 2019–1031 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photographs and diagram showing interface of the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon life-history model, northwestern Washington. Main photograph: Makah Tribe member surveying Ozette River. Photograph by Andy Ritchie, Makah Tribe, June 24, 2004. Small photograph: Sockeye salmon spawning in Lake Ozette. Photograph by Roy Morris and Nancy Messmer, Clallam Bay Sekiu Lions Club, October 20, 2014, used with permission. Life-History Model for Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at Lake Ozette, Northwestern Washington—Users’ Guide By Andrea Woodward, Mike Haggerty, and Patrick Crain Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Open File Report 2019–1031 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Acting Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https:/store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
  • Umatilla National Forest

    Umatilla National Forest

    Umatilla - 2001 Monitoring Report Umatilla National Forest FOREST SUPERVISOR OFFICE 2517 SW Hailey Avenue Pendleton, Oregon 97801 (541) 278-3716 Jeff D. Blackwood, Forest Supervisor ---------- HEPPNER RANGER DISTRICT P.O. Box 7 Heppner, Oregon 97836 (541) 676-9187 Andrei Rykoff, District Ranger NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RANGER DISTRICT P.O. Box 158 Ukiah, Oregon 97880 (541) 427-3231 Craig Smith-Dixon, District Ranger POMEROY RANGER DISTRICT 71 West Main Pomeroy, Washington 99347 (509) 843-1891 Monte Fujishin, District Ranger WALLA WALLA RANGER DISTRICT 1415 West Rose Street Walla Walla, Washington 99362 (509) 522-6290 Mary Gibson, District Ranger U-1 Umatilla - 2001 Monitoring Report U-2 Umatilla - 2001 Monitoring Report SECTION U Table of Contents Page MONITORING ITEMS NOT REPORTED THIS YEAR.....................................................................U- 4 FOREST PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR FY2001................................................................................U- 4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ..................................................................................U- 5 FOREST PLAN MONITORING ITEMS Item 3 Water Quantity .........................................................................................................U-10 Item 4 Water Quality............................................................................................................U-12 Item 5 Stream Temperature ................................................................................................U-15 Item 6 Stream Sedimentation..............................................................................................U-20
  • Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2016 Annual Report

    Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2016 Annual Report

    STATE OF WASHINGTON August 2017 Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2016 Annual Report by Michael P. Gallinat and Lance A. Ross Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Program FPA 17-03 Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2016 Annual Report by Michael P. Gallinat Lance A. Ross Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Program/Science Division 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 343 Boise, Idaho 83709 Cooperative Agreement: F16AC00033 August 2017 Acknowledgments The Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program is the result of efforts by many individuals within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and from other agencies. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Ace Trump, Lyons Ferry Hatchery Complex Manager and Hatchery Specialists Steve Jones, Dan Pounds, Scott Breslin, Doug Maxey, and Dick Rogers for their cooperation with hatchery sampling, providing information regarding hatchery operations and hatchery records, and their input on evaluation and research activities. We also thank all additional hatchery personnel who provide the day-to-day care of the spring Chinook and for their assistance with hatchery spawning, sampling, and record keeping. We thank Lynn Anderson and the Coded-Wire Tag Lab staff for their assistance in coded-wire tag verification. We also thank Lance Campbell and Andrew Claiborne for providing scale ages, and Meghan Baker and Elizabeth Bamberger for information on fish health during the year. Special thanks go to David Bramwell for help formatting this report.
  • Section 1 Introduction and Background

    Section 1 Introduction and Background

    Final Plan August 2007 Section 1 Introduction and Background Watershed planning provides a method to help balance competing demands upon water resources. Given a limited resource and a range of potentially competing demands for water, it has historically been difficult for citizens, businesses and public agencies to make water-resource management decisions without some controversy. The State of Washington’s Watershed Planning program offers a tool that is designed to allow for local guidance in identifying, prioritizing and developing solutions to water resource management issues within the state’s watersheds. This document presents the local Watershed Management Plan for Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 35 along the Middle Snake River. 1.1 Overview of Watershed Planning 1.1.1 Planning Objectives & Scope Watershed planning in WRIA 35 provides a method to help achieve a balance among competing water resource demands. Water demands for commercial, industrial, residential and agricultural activities (e.g. out of stream uses) have to be balanced with Tribal cultural and instream fish habitat needs. Demands such as irrigated agriculture, recreation, fishing and hunting provides an important economic base for the WRIA. Critical habitat for fish species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as a diversity of non-listed fish and wildlife are also dependent upon water resources. The WRIA’s surface water resources also offer recreational opportunities and natural beauty for residents and visitors. 1.1.2 Legal Basis for Watershed Planning In 1998, the Washington State Legislature passed the Watershed Management Act (Chapter 90.82 Revised Code of Washington [RCW]; Engrossed Substitute House Bill [ESHB] 2514) to provide a framework for citizens, interest groups, and government organizations to join together to develop a management plan for water resources in each of the State’s major watersheds as described in Chapter 173-200 WAC.
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    NFS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determination for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and area of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NFS Form 10- 900A). Use typewriter, word processor or computer to complete all items. 1. Name of Property_________________________________________________ historic name Peter Roose Homestead other name/site number Roose's Prairie, Peter Roose Homestead Historic District_____________________ 2. Location street & number Along Indian Village Trail, aprox: 1.5 miles north of trailhead: [_| not for publication Ozette Sub-district city or town Olympic National Park Headquarters, Port Angeles LJ vicinity state Washington________code WA county Clallam code 009 zip code 98362 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify thatlhis. nomination __ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion-tkepropettyV^ meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
  • Identification of Most Probable Stressors to Aquatic Life in the Touchet River, Washington

    Identification of Most Probable Stressors to Aquatic Life in the Touchet River, Washington

    EPA/600/R-08/145 | January 2010 | www.epa.gov/ncea Identification of Most Probable Stressors to Aquatic Life in the Touchet River, Washington National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460 EPA/600/R-08/145 January 2010 Identification of Most Probable Stressors to Aquatic Life in the Touchet River, Washington National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 NOTICE The Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development jointly prepared this report. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ABSTRACT The Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE) currently practices “single-entry” total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies. A single-entry TMDL addresses multiple water quality impairments concurrently, which can reduce sampling costs, organize sampling group efforts, and provide an objective framework for basing management decisions in the regulatory process. The Touchet River, a subwatershed of the Walla Walla River in eastern Washington State, was listed for fecal coliform bacteria, temperature, and pH water quality impairments and slated for a single-entry TMDL. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)’s Stressor Identification procedures were used to identify and prioritize factors causing biological impairment and to develop effective restoration plans for this river. Six sites were sampled along the Touchet River over a two-year period; parameters measured included WSDE benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage metrics and physical habitat measures; chemical analysis of pesticides and other pollutants; and in-situ temperature and pH measurements.
  • Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2017 Annual Report

    Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2017 Annual Report

    STATE OF WASHINGTON September 2018 Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2017 Annual Report by Michael P. Gallinat and Lance A. Ross Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Program FPA 18-08 Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program 2017 Annual Report by Michael P. Gallinat Lance A. Ross Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Program/Science Division 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 343 Boise, Idaho 83709 Cooperative Agreement: F16AC00033 September 2018 Acknowledgments The Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program is the result of efforts by many individuals within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and from other agencies. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Ace Trump, Lyons Ferry Hatchery Complex Manager and Hatchery Specialists Steve Jones, Dan Pounds, Scott Breslin, Doug Maxey, and Dick Rogers for their cooperation with hatchery sampling, providing information regarding hatchery operations and hatchery records, and their input on evaluation and research activities. We also thank all additional hatchery personnel who provide the day-to-day care of the spring Chinook and for their assistance with hatchery spawning, sampling, and record keeping. We thank Lynn Anderson and the Coded-Wire Tag Lab staff for their assistance in coded-wire tag verification. We also thank Lance Campbell and Andrew Claiborne for providing scale ages, and Kelly Britt for information on fish health during the year. Special thanks go to David Bramwell for help formatting this report.