Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans, 13094-13097 [E6-3633]
Download as PDF
13094
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
SKBC ............................
0.17 percent
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping or countervailing duties
Liquidation
prior to liquidation of the relevant
The Department shall determine, and
entries during this review period.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Failure to comply with this requirement
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
could result in the Secretary’s
on all appropriate entries. In accordance presumption that reimbursement of
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
antidumping or countervailing duties
calculated exporter/importer–specific
occurred and the subsequent assessment
assessment rates. To calculate these
of doubled antidumping duties.
rates, we divided the total dumping
This notice also serves as a reminder
margins for the reviewed sales by the
to parties subject to administrative
total entered value of those reviewed
protective orders (APO) of their
sales for each importer. Id. The
responsibility concerning the return or
Department will issue appropriate
destruction of proprietary information
assessment instructions directly to CBP
disclosed under APO in accordance
within 15 days of publication of these
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written
final results of review. We will direct
notification of the return or destruction
CBP to assess the appropriate
of APO materials or conversion to
assessment rate against the entered
judicial protective order is hereby
Customs values for the subject
requested. Failure to comply with the
merchandise on each of the importer’s
regulations and terms of an APO is a
entries under the relevant order during
violation which is subject to sanction.
the POR.
We are issuing and publishing this
Cash Deposit Requirements
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
Dated: March 7, 2006.
publication of this notice of final results David M. Spooner,
of administrative review for all
Assistant Secretary for Import
shipments of stainless steel butt–weld
Administration.
pipe fittings from Korea entered, or
[FR Doc. E6–3618 Filed 3–13–06; 8:45 am]
withdrawn from warehouse, for
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
amended (the Act): (1) Because the cash
deposit rate for the reviewed company
International Trade Administration
is de minimis, (see 19 CFR 351.106(c))
no cash deposit shall be required; (2) for North American Free Trade Agreement
previously reviewed or investigated
(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel
companies not listed above, the cash
Reviews: Notice of Consent Motion To
deposit rate will continue to be the
Dismiss Panel Review
company–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United
not a firm covered in this review, a prior States Section, International Trade
Administration, Department of
review, or the original less–than-fair–
Commerce.
value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
ACTION: Notice of Consent Motion to
will be the rate established for the most
Dismiss the Panel Review of the final
recent period for the manufacturer of
material injury review made by the
the merchandise; and (4) the cash
International Trade Commission,
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
respecting Certain Durum Wheat and
or exporters will continue to be 21.2
Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada
percent. This rate is the ‘‘All Others’’
(Secretariat File No. USA–CDA–2003–
rate from the amended final
1904–05).
determination in the LTFV
investigation. See Antidumping Duty
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Notice of
Order: Certain Welded Stainless Steel
Consent Motion to Dismiss the Panel
Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings From Korea, 58
Review by the complainants, the panel
FR 11029 (February 23, 1993). These
review is dismissed as of March 6, 2006.
deposit requirements shall remain in
Pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the Rules of
effect until the publication of the final
Procedure for Article 1904 Binational
results of the next administrative
Panel Review, this panel review is
review.
dismissed.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Manufacturer / Exporter
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Weighted Average
Margin (percentage)
19:18 Mar 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caratina L. Alston, United States
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite
2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of the North American Free-Trade
Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a
mechanism to replace domestic judicial
review of final determinations in
antidumping and countervailing duty
cases involving imports from a NAFTA
country with review by independent
binational panels. When a Request for
Panel Review is filed, a panel is
established to act in place of national
courts to review expeditiously the final
determination to determine whether it
conforms with the antidumping or
countervailing duty law of the country
that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,
which came into force on January 1,
1994, the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada and
the Government of Mexico established
Rules of Procedure for Article 1904
Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).
These Rules were published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 1994
(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this
matter was requested and terminated
pursuant to these Rules.
Dated: March 8, 2006.
Caratina L. Alston,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E6–3571 Filed 3–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 030306D]
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Recovery Plans
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
availability for public review of the
following two documents: the Draft
Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for
Southeast Washington developed by the
Snake River Salmon Recovery Board
(SRSRB) for portions of three
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs)
of salmon Snake River spring/summerrun Chinook salmon, Snake River fallrun Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices
tshawytscha), and Snake River sockeye
salmon (O. nerka) and two distinct
population segments (DPS) of steelhead
Middle Columbia River steelhead and
Snake River steelhead (O. mykiss) (Draft
SRSRB Plan); and a Supplement to the
Draft SRSRB Plan prepared by NMFS
(the Supplement). NMFS is soliciting
review and comment on the Draft
SRSRB Plan and the Supplement from
the public and all interested parties.
DATES: NMFS will consider and address
all substantive comments received
during the comment period. Comments
must be received no later than 5 p.m.
Pacific Daylight Time on May 15, 2006.
A description of previous public and
scientific review, including scientific
peer review, can be found in the NMFS
Supplement to the Plan.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments and materials to Carol Joyce,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 N.E.
Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland,
OR 97232. Comments may be submitted
by e-mail. The mailbox address for
providing e-mail comments is
WashingtonSnakePlan.nwr@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail
comment the following identifier:
Comments on WA Snake Salmon Plan.
Comments may also be submitted via
facsimile (fax) to 503–872–2737.
Persons wishing to review the Plan
can obtain an electronic copy (i.e., CDROM) from Carol Joyce by calling 503–
230–5408 or by e-mailing a request to
carol.joyce@noaa.gov with the subject
line CD-ROM Request for WA Snake
Salmon Plan. Electronic copies of the
Plan are also available on-line on the
NMFS website www.nwr.noaa.gov/
Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESARecovery-Plans/Index.cfm or on the
Snake River Salmon Recovery Board
website: www.snakeriverboard.org/
library.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Hatcher, NMFS Salmon Recovery
Coordinator (509–962–8911 ext. 223), or
Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS Salmon Recovery
Division (503–230–5434).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recovery
plans describe actions considered
necessary for the conservation and
recovery of species listed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). An
‘‘evolutionarily significant unit’’ (ESU)
of Pacific salmon (Waples, 1991) and a
‘‘distinct population segment’’ (DPS) of
steelhead (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006)
are considered to be ‘‘species,’’ as
defined in section 3 of the ESA. The
ESA requires that recovery plans
incorporate (1) Objective, measurable
criteria that, when met, would result in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:18 Mar 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
a determination that the species is no
longer threatened or endangered; (2)
site-specific management actions
necessary to achieve the plan’s goals;
and (3) estimates of the time required
and costs to implement recovery
actions. The ESA requires the
development of recovery plans for listed
species unless such a plan would not
promote the recovery of a particular
species.
NMFS’ goal is to restore endangered
and threatened Pacific salmon and
steelhead ESA-listed species to the
point that they are again secure, selfsustaining members of their ecosystems
and no longer need the protections of
the ESA. NMFS believes it is critically
important to base its recovery plans on
the many state, regional, tribal, local,
and private conservation efforts already
underway throughout the region.
Therefore, the agency supports and
participates in locally led collaborative
efforts to develop recovery plans
involving local communities, state,
tribal, and Federal entities, and other
stakeholders.
On October 26, 2005, the SRSRB
presented its locally developed recovery
plan to NMFS. The SRSRB was formed
in 2002 under Washington State statute
to oversee and coordinate salmon and
steelhead recovery efforts in the Lower
Snake River region of Washington. It
comprises representatives from county
governments, the Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
irrigation districts, private landowners,
and concerned citizens. The SRSRB’s
mission is to protect and restore salmon
habitat, consistent with the recovery
plan, for current and future generations.
The Draft SRSRB Plan addresses
portions of five ESA-listed species
under NMFS’ jurisdiction within the
Southeast Washington Management
Unit (a geographic unit that NMFS has
defined for recovery planning
purposes). NMFS intends to endorse the
SRSRB Plan and Supplement as an
interim regional recovery plan and
combine it with other plans to make up
a final domain recovery plan to meet
ESA section 4(f) requirements for these
species.
By endorsing a locally developed
interim regional recovery plan, NMFS is
making a commitment to implement the
actions in the plan for which we have
authority, to work cooperatively on
implementation of other actions, and to
encourage other Federal agencies to
implement plan actions for which they
have responsibility and authority. We
will also encourage the State of
Washington to seek similar
implementation commitments from
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13095
state agencies and local governments.
NMFS expects that the interim regional
recovery recovery plan will be used to
help NMFS and other Federal agencies
take a more consistent approach to
future ESA section 7 consultations. For
example, an interim regional recovery
plan will provide greater biological
context for the effects that a proposed
action may have on the listed species.
This context will be enhanced by
adding recovery plan science to the
‘‘best available information’’ for section
7 consultations. Such information
includes viability criteria for the ESUs
and their independent populations,
better understanding of and information
on limiting factors and threats facing the
ESUs, better information on priority
areas for addressing specific limiting
factors, and better geographic context
for where the ESUs can tolerate varying
levels of risk.
After review of the Draft SRSRB Plan,
NMFS added a Supplement, which
describes how the Draft SRSRB Plan
contributes to ESA recovery plan
requirements, including qualifications
and additional actions that NMFS
believes are necessary to support
recovery. The Supplement and the
SRSRB’s plan together form a proposed
interim regional recovery plan for the
affected species. The Draft SRSRB Plan
and the Supplement are now available
for public review and comment. As
noted above, the Draft SRSRB Plan is
available at the Snake River Salmon
Recovery Board website:
www.snakeriverboard.org/library.htm
and both the Draft SRSRB Plan and the
Supplement are available at the NMFS
Northwest Region Salmon Recovery
Division website, www.nwr.noaa.gov/
Salmon-Recovery-Planning/index.cfm.
NMFS will consider all substantive
comments and information presented
during the public comment period (see
DATES).
ESUs Addressed and Planning Area
The SRSRB Plan encompasses the
Lower Snake Mainstem, Walla Walla,
Tucannon, and Asotin subbasins in the
State of Washington, in which four of
the 28 populations of the Snake River
spring/summer-run Chinook ESU are
found. The SRSRB Plan also includes
the Washington portions of the Walla
Walla and Grande Ronde subbasins,
within which four of the 25 populations
of the Snake River steelhead DPS, and
2 of the 17 populations of the Middle
Columbia steelhead DPS are found.
Sockeye salmon migrate through the
recovery region, but spawn and rear
higher in the Snake Basin. The fall-run
Chinook salmon population is described
but not evaluated in the recovery plan.
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13096
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices
The Snake River steelhead ESU was
listed as threatened on August 18, 1997
(62 FR 43937). The Middle Columbia
River steelhead ESU was listed as
threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR
14517). Recently, NMFS revised its
species determinations for West Coast
steelhead under the ESA, delineating
steelhead-only DPSs. NMFS listed both
the Snake River and Middle Columbia
River steelhead DPSs as threatened on
January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The Snake
River spring/summer-run Chinook and
fall-run Chinook salmon ESUs were
listed as threatened (57 FR 14658, April
22, 1992; correction 57 FR 23458, June
3, 1992). The Snake River sockeye
salmon ESU was listed as endangered
on November 20, 1991 (56 FR 58619).
NMFS reaffirmed the threatened status
of the Snake River spring/summer-run
and fall-run Chinook salmon ESUs, and
the endangered status of the Snake River
sockeye salmon ESU, on June 28, 2005
(70 FR 37160).
None of the listed species is entirely
contained within the Washington Snake
River recovery region. Because most
state and local boundaries are not drawn
on the basis of watersheds or
ecosystems, the various groups and
organizations formed for recovery
planning do not necessarily correspond
to ESU or DPS areas. Therefore, in order
to develop species-wide recovery plans
that are built from local recovery efforts,
NMFS defined ‘‘management units’’ that
roughly follow jurisdictional boundaries
but, taken together, encompass the
geography of entire species. For the
Middle Columbia sub-domain, there are
four management units: (1) Oregon; (2)
Yakima; (3) Columbia Gorge (Klickitat/
Rock Creek/White Salmon); and (4)
Southeast Washington (Walla Walla and
Touchet). For the Snake River subdomain there are three management
units: (1) Idaho; (2) Oregon; and (3)
Southeast Washington. The Draft SRSRB
Plan is the plan for the Southeast
Washington Management Unit of both
sub-domains.
In 2006, the separate management
unit plans will be ‘‘rolled up’’ or
consolidated into ESU/DPS-level
recovery plans. The final ESU/DPS-level
recovery plans will incorporate the
management unit plans and endorse the
recommendations and decisions (for
example, decisions on site-specific
habitat actions) that are most
appropriately left to the local recovery
planners and implementers. The ESU/
DPS-level plans will also more
completely address actions for the
hatchery, harvest, and hydro sectors.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:18 Mar 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
The Draft SRSRB Plan
The Draft SRSRB Plan reflects the
region’s strong commitment to its
threatened salmonid populations.
Citizens of the area consider recovery of
salmonids to be highly desirable.
Salmon and steelhead are harvested in
commercial (outside the region) and
recreational (inside and outside the
region) fisheries as well as taken for
tribal ceremonial purposes. Native
Americans place great value on
salmonids as a religious, nutritional,
economic, and cultural resource. The
salmon is also an enduring symbol of
the Pacific Northwest for non-Native
peoples.
The Draft SRSRB Plan’s overarching
goal is the following: Develop and
maintain a healthy ecosystem that
contributes to the rebuilding of key fish
populations by providing abundant,
productive, and diverse populations of
aquatic species that support the social,
cultural, and economic well-being of the
communities both within and outside
the recovery region.
The Draft SRSRB Plan examines
limiting factors and threats for Snake
River salmon recovery in terms of
habitat, hydropower, harvest, and
hatcheries.
1. Habitat: The watersheds in the
recovery region have similar salmonid
habitat limitations because of
similarities in topography, geology,
vegetation, and land use. The Draft
SRSRB Plan states that agriculture
(including grazing), logging, and
urbanization have resulted in increased
sediment, higher water temperatures,
and poorer riparian condition, and have
caused major changes in channel form
and function, resulting in lack of habitat
diversity, increased channel instability,
and low flows.
2. Hydropower: There are four major
dams on the lower Snake River: Lower
Granite, Little Goose, Lower
Monumental, and Ice Harbor. Thus,
depending on the locations of their
native streams, adult and juvenile
migrants must pass some or all of these
dams as they migrate through the lower
Snake River, as well as the four dams on
the lower Columbia River.
The Draft SRSRB Plan states that both
adult passage upstream and juvenile
passage downstream through the
hydroelectric system have major effects
on the fish. These effects can include
predation on juveniles by other species
in tailraces and reservoirs, dissolved gas
bubble disease, entrapment and
entrainment on/in mechanical portions
of the dam (such as turbines), altered
water temperatures, adult fallback, and
alteration of normal migration rates.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3. Harvest: In-region fisheries include
recreational fisheries for salmon and
steelhead authorized by Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho, and treaty Indian
ceremonial and subsistence fisheries.
Since 2001, the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife has authorized
limited selective fisheries for spring/
summer Chinook salmon in late April,
May and June. According to the Draft
SRSRB Plan, catches of wild fish and
impacts on them are relatively low.
Mainstem Columbia River fisheries
downstream from the Southeast
Washington Management Unit are
managed under in-season harvest
regulations pursuant to the U.S. v.
Oregon management plan.
4. Hatcheries: The Draft SRSRB Plan
does not propose any new hatchery
programs, but recognizes that hatcheries
can play a role in recovering fish
populations. Hatchery programs directly
affecting Snake River populations
include programs funded under the
Lower Snake River Compensation
Program, those funded by Idaho Power
Company, and other programs. In 2002,
33 hatcheries and satellite facilities from
throughout the basin released over 29
million juvenile salmon and steelhead
into the Snake River. The Draft SRSRB
Plan states that there is concern about
hatchery fish straying into virtually all
stream reaches in the recovery area.
NMFS and other agencies are reviewing
and assessing hatchery programs in the
Columbia Basin in several different
processes. These efforts are expected to
provide information relevant to the
SRSRB Plan in 2006.
The Draft SRSRB Plan also discusses
additional factors that affect Snake River
salmon and steelhead: habitat
alterations in the Columbia River and
estuary, conditions in the Pacific Ocean,
and dam operations on the Clearwater
and Upper Snake mainstem.
Recovery will depend on the
concerted efforts of actions addressing
habitat, harvest, hydroelectric
operations, and hatcheries working
together and adjusting over time as
population conditions change. The Draft
SRSRB Plan discusses ‘‘all-H
integration,’’ which is further defined in
the Supplement.
The Draft SRSRB Plan incorporates
the NMFS viable salmonid population
(VSP) framework as a basis for
biological status assessments and
recovery goals. The Draft SRSRB Plan
also incorporates the 2004
recommendations of the Interior
Columbia Technical Recovery Team
(ICTRT) appointed by NMFS, which
provided recommendations on
biological criteria for population and
ESU viability. The ICTRT developed
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices
‘‘viability curves’’ showing the
relationships between productivity and
abundance that would indicate higher
or lower risk of extinction for a given
population.
The SRSRB adopted strategic
guidelines for recovery actions that
emphasize projects with long
persistence time and benefits
distributed over the widest possible
range of environmental attributes;
immediate measures in addition to longterm actions; adaptive management;
information contained in the applicable
subbasin plans; consideration of
recovery actions within the context of
the four ‘‘Hs’’ (habitat, harvest,
hatcheries, and hydroelectric); use of
the Ecological Diagnosis and Treatment
(EDT) analysis tool, in combination with
other analyses, empirical data and
professional opinion, to identify and
prioritize habitat actions; and
consideration of the economic, social,
and cultural constraints identified by
the recovery region.
The Draft SRSRB Plan primarily
focuses on actions to protect and restore
habitat, and to remove ‘‘imminent
threats’’ to salmon survival, such as fish
passage barriers and toxic effluents. The
Draft SRSRB Plan’s habitat actions are
targeted for the major spawning areas
(MSAs) identified by the ICTRT. The
actions are designed to increase
productivity, abundance, spatial
structure, and diversity by addressing
the limiting factors and threats. The
actions are designed to improve upland
habitat, riparian conditions, floodplain
functions, instream habitat, water
quantity, and water quality.
The Draft SRSRB Plan does not
propose actions for the hydropower
system or for harvest, because these are
managed in other venues, and these
actions will be addressed in the ESUlevel plans. The plan does propose a
hatchery strategy based on the Hatchery
and Genetic Management Plans
(HGMPs) for the region, which are
administered by NMFS. The strategy
attempts to balance risks to recovery of
listed fish populations with the
achievement of harvest objectives.
The SRSRB emphasizes adaptive
management as a fundamental aspect of
salmon recovery and envisions an
extensive adaptive management
program being developed in the
implementation phase of the watershed
planning process funded by the State of
Washington. This adaptive management
program will be incorporated into the
final SRSRB Plan.
The Draft SRSRB Plan details a 15–
year implementation strategy at a
projected cost of $6.9 million per year.
However, NMFS emphasizes in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:18 Mar 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Supplement that recovery planning and
implementation cannot stop at 15 years,
but must continue until the species is
recovered. The SRSRB further proposes
a specific, 18–month implementation
plan containing actions that have been
developed by multiple agencies and
groups within the recovery region and
that can be implemented quickly. The
Draft SRSRB Plan states that, because
salmon recovery efforts have been
underway in the region since the early
1990s, much of the internal framework
(policy, scientific, public support, and
funding) needed to implement these
actions is either in place or can be
established quickly once the plan is
adopted. Actions proposed in this 18–
month plan vary from working to
eliminate imminent threats to restoring
riparian areas. The section also
discusses policy, legislation and
scientific ‘‘unknowns’’ that need to be
resolved to fully implement the plan.
The Draft SRSRB Plan includes a
detailed cost estimate for site-specific
actions in each MSA.
The ICTRT provided technical
guidance to the SRSRB for use in the
Draft SRSRB Plan. This technical
guidance was itself reviewed by
multiple technical experts from Federal,
state, and local agencies and the
Umatilla Tribe. The Draft SRSRB Plan
bases much of its information on the
subbasin plans for the Lower Snake
Mainstem, Walla Walla, Tucannon,
Asotin, and Grand Ronde subbasins,
and these plans were peer-reviewed by
the Independent Scientific Review
Panel, appointed by the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council
(NPCC), and by the Independent
Scientific Advisory Board, appointed by
the NPCC and NMFS.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS solicits written comments on
the Draft SRSRB Plan and the NMFS
Supplement. The Supplement states
NMFS’ assessment of the Draft SRSRB
Plan’s relationship to ESA requirements
for recovery plans. The Supplement also
explains the agency’s intent to use the
SRSRB Plan together with the
Supplement as an interim regional
recovery plan to guide and prioritize
recovery actions and to roll up the
interim regional recovery plan with
other local plans into Federal ESA
recovery plans for the respective
domains. All substantive comments
received by the date specified above
will be considered prior to NMFS’
decision whether to endorse the SRSRB
Plan as an interim regional recovery
plan and incorporate it into the specieslevel plans. Additionally, NMFS will
provide a summary of the comments
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13097
and responses through its regional web
site and provide a news release for the
public announcing the availability of
the response to comments. NMFS seeks
comments particularly in the following
areas: (1) The analysis of limiting factors
and threats; (2) the recovery strategies
and measures; (3) the criteria for
removing the ESUs and DPS from the
Federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants; and (4)
meeting the ESA requirement for
estimates of time and cost to implement
recovery actions by soliciting
implementation schedules.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 8, 2006.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6–3633 Filed 3–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 030706E]
Fisheries off the West Coast States
and in the Western Pacific; Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery; Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for Fishing Conducted
Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS);
announcement of public scoping period;
request for written comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS, in cooperation with
the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council), announces its intention to
prepare an EIS in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NMFS and the Council intend
to expand the scope of an EIS they had
initially announced as needed to assess
the impacts of the 2007–2008 Pacific
Coast groundfish fishery specifications
and management measures on the
human, biological, and physical
environment. The scope of this EIS will
be expanded to include an analysis of
the impacts of revising the rebuilding
plans for the seven overfished Pacific
Coast groundfish species. Revisions to
rebuilding plans will be incorporated in
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13094-13097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3633]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 030306D]
Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
availability for public review of the following two documents: the
Draft Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for Southeast Washington
developed by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) for portions
of three evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of salmon Snake River
spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus
[[Page 13095]]
tshawytscha), and Snake River sockeye salmon (O. nerka) and two
distinct population segments (DPS) of steelhead Middle Columbia River
steelhead and Snake River steelhead (O. mykiss) (Draft SRSRB Plan); and
a Supplement to the Draft SRSRB Plan prepared by NMFS (the Supplement).
NMFS is soliciting review and comment on the Draft SRSRB Plan and the
Supplement from the public and all interested parties.
DATES: NMFS will consider and address all substantive comments received
during the comment period. Comments must be received no later than 5
p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on May 15, 2006. A description of previous
public and scientific review, including scientific peer review, can be
found in the NMFS Supplement to the Plan.
ADDRESSES: Please send written comments and materials to Carol Joyce,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 N.E.
Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may be
submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments
is WashingtonSnakePlan.nwr@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the
e-mail comment the following identifier: Comments on WA Snake Salmon
Plan. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile (fax) to 503-872-
2737.
Persons wishing to review the Plan can obtain an electronic copy
(i.e., CD-ROM) from Carol Joyce by calling 503-230-5408 or by e-mailing
a request to carol.joyce@noaa.gov with the subject line CD-ROM Request
for WA Snake Salmon Plan. Electronic copies of the Plan are also
available on-line on the NMFS website www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-
Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Index.cfm or on the Snake River Salmon
Recovery Board website: www.snakeriverboard.org/library.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Hatcher, NMFS Salmon Recovery
Coordinator (509-962-8911 ext. 223), or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS Salmon
Recovery Division (503-230-5434).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recovery plans describe actions considered
necessary for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). An ``evolutionarily significant unit'' (ESU) of Pacific salmon
(Waples, 1991) and a ``distinct population segment'' (DPS) of steelhead
(71 FR 834, January 5, 2006) are considered to be ``species,'' as
defined in section 3 of the ESA. The ESA requires that recovery plans
incorporate (1) Objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would
result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or
endangered; (2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve
the plan's goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to
implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of
recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote
the recovery of a particular species.
NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmon
and steelhead ESA-listed species to the point that they are again
secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems and no longer need
the protections of the ESA. NMFS believes it is critically important to
base its recovery plans on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and
private conservation efforts already underway throughout the region.
Therefore, the agency supports and participates in locally led
collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans involving local
communities, state, tribal, and Federal entities, and other
stakeholders.
On October 26, 2005, the SRSRB presented its locally developed
recovery plan to NMFS. The SRSRB was formed in 2002 under Washington
State statute to oversee and coordinate salmon and steelhead recovery
efforts in the Lower Snake River region of Washington. It comprises
representatives from county governments, the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation, irrigation districts, private landowners,
and concerned citizens. The SRSRB's mission is to protect and restore
salmon habitat, consistent with the recovery plan, for current and
future generations.
The Draft SRSRB Plan addresses portions of five ESA-listed species
under NMFS' jurisdiction within the Southeast Washington Management
Unit (a geographic unit that NMFS has defined for recovery planning
purposes). NMFS intends to endorse the SRSRB Plan and Supplement as an
interim regional recovery plan and combine it with other plans to make
up a final domain recovery plan to meet ESA section 4(f) requirements
for these species.
By endorsing a locally developed interim regional recovery plan,
NMFS is making a commitment to implement the actions in the plan for
which we have authority, to work cooperatively on implementation of
other actions, and to encourage other Federal agencies to implement
plan actions for which they have responsibility and authority. We will
also encourage the State of Washington to seek similar implementation
commitments from state agencies and local governments. NMFS expects
that the interim regional recovery recovery plan will be used to help
NMFS and other Federal agencies take a more consistent approach to
future ESA section 7 consultations. For example, an interim regional
recovery plan will provide greater biological context for the effects
that a proposed action may have on the listed species. This context
will be enhanced by adding recovery plan science to the ``best
available information'' for section 7 consultations. Such information
includes viability criteria for the ESUs and their independent
populations, better understanding of and information on limiting
factors and threats facing the ESUs, better information on priority
areas for addressing specific limiting factors, and better geographic
context for where the ESUs can tolerate varying levels of risk.
After review of the Draft SRSRB Plan, NMFS added a Supplement,
which describes how the Draft SRSRB Plan contributes to ESA recovery
plan requirements, including qualifications and additional actions that
NMFS believes are necessary to support recovery. The Supplement and the
SRSRB's plan together form a proposed interim regional recovery plan
for the affected species. The Draft SRSRB Plan and the Supplement are
now available for public review and comment. As noted above, the Draft
SRSRB Plan is available at the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board
website: www.snakeriverboard.org/library.htm and both the Draft SRSRB
Plan and the Supplement are available at the NMFS Northwest Region
Salmon Recovery Division website, www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-
Planning/index.cfm. NMFS will consider all substantive comments and
information presented during the public comment period (see DATES).
ESUs Addressed and Planning Area
The SRSRB Plan encompasses the Lower Snake Mainstem, Walla Walla,
Tucannon, and Asotin subbasins in the State of Washington, in which
four of the 28 populations of the Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook
ESU are found. The SRSRB Plan also includes the Washington portions of
the Walla Walla and Grande Ronde subbasins, within which four of the 25
populations of the Snake River steelhead DPS, and 2 of the 17
populations of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS are found. Sockeye
salmon migrate through the recovery region, but spawn and rear higher
in the Snake Basin. The fall-run Chinook salmon population is described
but not evaluated in the recovery plan.
[[Page 13096]]
The Snake River steelhead ESU was listed as threatened on August
18, 1997 (62 FR 43937). The Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU was
listed as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517). Recently, NMFS
revised its species determinations for West Coast steelhead under the
ESA, delineating steelhead-only DPSs. NMFS listed both the Snake River
and Middle Columbia River steelhead DPSs as threatened on January 5,
2006 (71 FR 834). The Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook and fall-
run Chinook salmon ESUs were listed as threatened (57 FR 14658, April
22, 1992; correction 57 FR 23458, June 3, 1992). The Snake River
sockeye salmon ESU was listed as endangered on November 20, 1991 (56 FR
58619). NMFS reaffirmed the threatened status of the Snake River
spring/summer-run and fall-run Chinook salmon ESUs, and the endangered
status of the Snake River sockeye salmon ESU, on June 28, 2005 (70 FR
37160).
None of the listed species is entirely contained within the
Washington Snake River recovery region. Because most state and local
boundaries are not drawn on the basis of watersheds or ecosystems, the
various groups and organizations formed for recovery planning do not
necessarily correspond to ESU or DPS areas. Therefore, in order to
develop species-wide recovery plans that are built from local recovery
efforts, NMFS defined ``management units'' that roughly follow
jurisdictional boundaries but, taken together, encompass the geography
of entire species. For the Middle Columbia sub-domain, there are four
management units: (1) Oregon; (2) Yakima; (3) Columbia Gorge
(Klickitat/Rock Creek/White Salmon); and (4) Southeast Washington
(Walla Walla and Touchet). For the Snake River sub-domain there are
three management units: (1) Idaho; (2) Oregon; and (3) Southeast
Washington. The Draft SRSRB Plan is the plan for the Southeast
Washington Management Unit of both sub-domains.
In 2006, the separate management unit plans will be ``rolled up''
or consolidated into ESU/DPS-level recovery plans. The final ESU/DPS-
level recovery plans will incorporate the management unit plans and
endorse the recommendations and decisions (for example, decisions on
site-specific habitat actions) that are most appropriately left to the
local recovery planners and implementers. The ESU/DPS-level plans will
also more completely address actions for the hatchery, harvest, and
hydro sectors.
The Draft SRSRB Plan
The Draft SRSRB Plan reflects the region's strong commitment to its
threatened salmonid populations. Citizens of the area consider recovery
of salmonids to be highly desirable. Salmon and steelhead are harvested
in commercial (outside the region) and recreational (inside and outside
the region) fisheries as well as taken for tribal ceremonial purposes.
Native Americans place great value on salmonids as a religious,
nutritional, economic, and cultural resource. The salmon is also an
enduring symbol of the Pacific Northwest for non-Native peoples.
The Draft SRSRB Plan's overarching goal is the following: Develop
and maintain a healthy ecosystem that contributes to the rebuilding of
key fish populations by providing abundant, productive, and diverse
populations of aquatic species that support the social, cultural, and
economic well-being of the communities both within and outside the
recovery region.
The Draft SRSRB Plan examines limiting factors and threats for
Snake River salmon recovery in terms of habitat, hydropower, harvest,
and hatcheries.
1. Habitat: The watersheds in the recovery region have similar
salmonid habitat limitations because of similarities in topography,
geology, vegetation, and land use. The Draft SRSRB Plan states that
agriculture (including grazing), logging, and urbanization have
resulted in increased sediment, higher water temperatures, and poorer
riparian condition, and have caused major changes in channel form and
function, resulting in lack of habitat diversity, increased channel
instability, and low flows.
2. Hydropower: There are four major dams on the lower Snake River:
Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor. Thus,
depending on the locations of their native streams, adult and juvenile
migrants must pass some or all of these dams as they migrate through
the lower Snake River, as well as the four dams on the lower Columbia
River.
The Draft SRSRB Plan states that both adult passage upstream and
juvenile passage downstream through the hydroelectric system have major
effects on the fish. These effects can include predation on juveniles
by other species in tailraces and reservoirs, dissolved gas bubble
disease, entrapment and entrainment on/in mechanical portions of the
dam (such as turbines), altered water temperatures, adult fallback, and
alteration of normal migration rates.
3. Harvest: In-region fisheries include recreational fisheries for
salmon and steelhead authorized by Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and
treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. Since 2001, the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has authorized limited
selective fisheries for spring/summer Chinook salmon in late April, May
and June. According to the Draft SRSRB Plan, catches of wild fish and
impacts on them are relatively low. Mainstem Columbia River fisheries
downstream from the Southeast Washington Management Unit are managed
under in-season harvest regulations pursuant to the U.S. v. Oregon
management plan.
4. Hatcheries: The Draft SRSRB Plan does not propose any new
hatchery programs, but recognizes that hatcheries can play a role in
recovering fish populations. Hatchery programs directly affecting Snake
River populations include programs funded under the Lower Snake River
Compensation Program, those funded by Idaho Power Company, and other
programs. In 2002, 33 hatcheries and satellite facilities from
throughout the basin released over 29 million juvenile salmon and
steelhead into the Snake River. The Draft SRSRB Plan states that there
is concern about hatchery fish straying into virtually all stream
reaches in the recovery area. NMFS and other agencies are reviewing and
assessing hatchery programs in the Columbia Basin in several different
processes. These efforts are expected to provide information relevant
to the SRSRB Plan in 2006.
The Draft SRSRB Plan also discusses additional factors that affect
Snake River salmon and steelhead: habitat alterations in the Columbia
River and estuary, conditions in the Pacific Ocean, and dam operations
on the Clearwater and Upper Snake mainstem.
Recovery will depend on the concerted efforts of actions addressing
habitat, harvest, hydroelectric operations, and hatcheries working
together and adjusting over time as population conditions change. The
Draft SRSRB Plan discusses ``all-H integration,'' which is further
defined in the Supplement.
The Draft SRSRB Plan incorporates the NMFS viable salmonid
population (VSP) framework as a basis for biological status assessments
and recovery goals. The Draft SRSRB Plan also incorporates the 2004
recommendations of the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team
(ICTRT) appointed by NMFS, which provided recommendations on biological
criteria for population and ESU viability. The ICTRT developed
[[Page 13097]]
``viability curves'' showing the relationships between productivity and
abundance that would indicate higher or lower risk of extinction for a
given population.
The SRSRB adopted strategic guidelines for recovery actions that
emphasize projects with long persistence time and benefits distributed
over the widest possible range of environmental attributes; immediate
measures in addition to long-term actions; adaptive management;
information contained in the applicable subbasin plans; consideration
of recovery actions within the context of the four ``Hs'' (habitat,
harvest, hatcheries, and hydroelectric); use of the Ecological
Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) analysis tool, in combination with other
analyses, empirical data and professional opinion, to identify and
prioritize habitat actions; and consideration of the economic, social,
and cultural constraints identified by the recovery region.
The Draft SRSRB Plan primarily focuses on actions to protect and
restore habitat, and to remove ``imminent threats'' to salmon survival,
such as fish passage barriers and toxic effluents. The Draft SRSRB
Plan's habitat actions are targeted for the major spawning areas (MSAs)
identified by the ICTRT. The actions are designed to increase
productivity, abundance, spatial structure, and diversity by addressing
the limiting factors and threats. The actions are designed to improve
upland habitat, riparian conditions, floodplain functions, instream
habitat, water quantity, and water quality.
The Draft SRSRB Plan does not propose actions for the hydropower
system or for harvest, because these are managed in other venues, and
these actions will be addressed in the ESU-level plans. The plan does
propose a hatchery strategy based on the Hatchery and Genetic
Management Plans (HGMPs) for the region, which are administered by
NMFS. The strategy attempts to balance risks to recovery of listed fish
populations with the achievement of harvest objectives.
The SRSRB emphasizes adaptive management as a fundamental aspect of
salmon recovery and envisions an extensive adaptive management program
being developed in the implementation phase of the watershed planning
process funded by the State of Washington. This adaptive management
program will be incorporated into the final SRSRB Plan.
The Draft SRSRB Plan details a 15-year implementation strategy at a
projected cost of $6.9 million per year. However, NMFS emphasizes in
the Supplement that recovery planning and implementation cannot stop at
15 years, but must continue until the species is recovered. The SRSRB
further proposes a specific, 18-month implementation plan containing
actions that have been developed by multiple agencies and groups within
the recovery region and that can be implemented quickly. The Draft
SRSRB Plan states that, because salmon recovery efforts have been
underway in the region since the early 1990s, much of the internal
framework (policy, scientific, public support, and funding) needed to
implement these actions is either in place or can be established
quickly once the plan is adopted. Actions proposed in this 18-month
plan vary from working to eliminate imminent threats to restoring
riparian areas. The section also discusses policy, legislation and
scientific ``unknowns'' that need to be resolved to fully implement the
plan. The Draft SRSRB Plan includes a detailed cost estimate for site-
specific actions in each MSA.
The ICTRT provided technical guidance to the SRSRB for use in the
Draft SRSRB Plan. This technical guidance was itself reviewed by
multiple technical experts from Federal, state, and local agencies and
the Umatilla Tribe. The Draft SRSRB Plan bases much of its information
on the subbasin plans for the Lower Snake Mainstem, Walla Walla,
Tucannon, Asotin, and Grand Ronde subbasins, and these plans were peer-
reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel, appointed by the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and by the Independent
Scientific Advisory Board, appointed by the NPCC and NMFS.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS solicits written comments on the Draft SRSRB Plan and the NMFS
Supplement. The Supplement states NMFS' assessment of the Draft SRSRB
Plan's relationship to ESA requirements for recovery plans. The
Supplement also explains the agency's intent to use the SRSRB Plan
together with the Supplement as an interim regional recovery plan to
guide and prioritize recovery actions and to roll up the interim
regional recovery plan with other local plans into Federal ESA recovery
plans for the respective domains. All substantive comments received by
the date specified above will be considered prior to NMFS' decision
whether to endorse the SRSRB Plan as an interim regional recovery plan
and incorporate it into the species-level plans. Additionally, NMFS
will provide a summary of the comments and responses through its
regional web site and provide a news release for the public announcing
the availability of the response to comments. NMFS seeks comments
particularly in the following areas: (1) The analysis of limiting
factors and threats; (2) the recovery strategies and measures; (3) the
criteria for removing the ESUs and DPS from the Federal list of
endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; and (4) meeting the ESA
requirement for estimates of time and cost to implement recovery
actions by soliciting implementation schedules.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 8, 2006.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-3633 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S