Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans, 57472-57476 [E6-16083]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57472
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices
instructions directly to CBP within 15
days of publication of this notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (APOs) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation that
is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: September 25, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–16065 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) Product Development
Committee (CPDC) for Synthesis and
Assessment Product 3.3
Notice; establishment of
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
Product Development Committee
(CPDC) for Synthesis and Assessment
Product 3.3 (CPDC—S&A 3.3) under
provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and announcement of
the first meeting of the Committee.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
ACTIONS:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and the
General Services Administration (GSA)
rule of Federal Advisory Committee
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:43 Sep 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
Management, 41 CFR part 102–3, and
after consultation with GSA, the
Secretary of Commerce has determined
that the establishment of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) Product
Development Committee (CPDC) for
Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3
(CPDC—S&A 3.3) is in the public
interest, in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the
Department by law. The CPDC—S&A
3.3 will advise the Secretary, through
the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere, on CCSP
Topic 3.3: ‘‘Weather and Climate
Extremes in a Changing Climate’’. This
advice will be provided in the form of
a draft Synthesis and Assessment
product intended to be used by NOAA
to develop a final product in accordance
with the Guidelines for Producing the
CCSP Synthesis and Assessment
Products, the OMB Peer Review
Bulletin, and the Information Quality
Act Guidelines. The CPDC—S&A 3.3
will consist of no more than 35
members to be appointed by the Under
Secretary to assure a balanced
representation among preeminent
scientists, educators, and experts
reflecting the full scope of the scientific
issues addressed in CCSP Synthesis and
Assessment Product 3.3. The CPDC—
S&A 3.3 will function solely as an
advisory body, and in compliance with
the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. Its charter will be filed
under the Act, fifteen days from the date
of publication of this notice.
Following establishment of CPDCS&A 3.3, the first committee meeting
will be held. All sessions of the meeting
will be open to the public.
Place: The first meeting of CPDC—
S&A 3.3.will be held at the International
Pacific Research Center, Honolulu,
Hawaii.
Time and Date: The meeting will
convene at 8:30 a.m. on Monday,
October 30, 2006 and adjourn at 12
noon on Thursday, November 2, 2006.
Meeting information will be available
online on the CPDC—S&A 3.3 Web site
(https://www.climate.noaa.gov/
index.jsp?pg=./ccsp/33.jsp). Please note
that meeting times and agenda topics
described below are subject to change.
Status: The meeting will be open to
public participation and will include a
60-minute public comment period on
October 30 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
(check Web site to confirm this time).
The CPDC—S&A 3.3 expects that public
statements presented at its meetings will
not be repetitive of previously
submitted verbal or written statements.
In general, each individual or group
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
making a verbal presentation will be
limited to a total time of five (5)
minutes. Written comments (at least 35
copies) should be received by the
CPDC—S&A 3.3 Designated Federal
Official (DFO) by October 20, 2006 to
provide sufficient time for review.
Written comments received after
October 20 will be distributed to the
CPDC—S&A 3.3, but may not be
reviewed prior to the meeting date.
Seats will be available to the public on
a first-come, first-served basis.
Matters To Be Considered: The
meeting will (1) work on an initial draft
document based on detailed outline
presented in the final Prospectus (2)
review of plans for completion and
submission of the First Draft of
Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3
to the National Research Council for
expert review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Christopher D. Miller, CPDC—S&A 3.3
DFO and the Program Manager, NOAA/
OAR/Climate Program Office, Climate
Change Data and Detection Program
Element, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite
1210, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910;
telephone 301–427–2376, e-mail:
Christopher.D.Miller@noaa.gov.
Dated: September 25, 2006.
Sharon Schroeder,
Director of Program Policy Division, Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–16059 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–KD–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 082806C]
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 of the Proposed Upper
Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon,
Steelhead, and Bull Trout Recovery Plan
(Plan) for public review and comment.
The Plan addresses the Upper Columbia
Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant
Unit (ESU), the Upper Columbia
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Distinct Population Segment (DPS), and
E:\FR\FM\29SEN1.SGM
29SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in
the Upper Columbia region. The Plan
was prepared by the Upper Columbia
Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB) in
conjunction with NMFS. Bull trout,
listed as threatened, are under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are the
subject of a draft recovery plan
published by the USFWS in 2002.
NMFS is soliciting review and comment
from the public and all interested
parties on the spring Chinook salmon
and steelhead portions of the Proposed
Plan. If comments are received on the
bull trout portion of the Plan, NMFS
will pass them on to the USFWS.
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 November 28,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments and materials to Lynn
Hatcher, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 304 South Water Street,
Ellensburg, WA 98926. Comments may
also be submitted by e-mail to:
UpperColumbiaPlan.nwr@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail
comment the following identifier:
Comments on Upper Columbia Salmon
Plan. Comments may 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 Upper
Columbia Salmon Plan’’. Electronic
copies of the Plan are also available online on the NMFS Web site;
www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/DraftPlans.cfm or the Upper Columbia
Salmon Recovery Board Web site;
okanogancounty.org/planning/
salmonlrecovery.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Hatcher, NMFS Interior Columbia
Salmon Recovery Coordinator (509–
962–8911 x223), or Elizabeth Gaar,
NMFS Salmon Recovery Division (503–
230–5434).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Recovery plans describe actions
beneficial to the conservation and
recovery of species listed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
ESA requires that recovery plans
incorporate (1) objective, measurable
criteria which, when met, would result
in a determination that the species is no
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:43 Sep 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 species.
NMFS’ goal is to restore endangered
and threatened Pacific salmon ESUs and
steelhead DPSs to the point that they are
again 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. As the
lead ESA agency for listed salmon,
NMFS is responsible for reviewing these
locally produced recovery plans and
deciding whether they meet ESA
statutory requirements and merit
adoption as proposed ESA recovery
plans.
On December 30, 2005, the Upper
Columbia Salmon Recovery Board
(UCSRB) presented its locally developed
draft recovery plan to NMFS. The
UCSRB comprises representatives from
Chelan County, Douglas County,
Okanogan County, Yakama Nation, and
the Confederated Colville Tribes. A
variety of additional partners,
representing Federal agencies,
Washington State agencies, regional
organizations, special purpose districts,
and members of the public, also
participated in the planning process.
After NMFS reviewed the draft plan,
NMFS and the UCSRB made revisions
to it, clarifying how it satisfies ESA
recovery plan requirements and
addressing additional elements needed
to comply with those requirements. The
jointly revised Plan is now available as
a Proposed Recovery Plan for public
review and comment.
Upon approval of a final Plan, NMFS
will make a commitment to implement
the actions in the Plan for which it has
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.
NMFS will also encourage the State of
Washington to seek similar
implementation commitments from
state agencies and local governments.
NMFS expects the Plan to help NMFS
and other Federal agencies take a more
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57473
consistent approach to future section 7
consultations and other ESA decisions.
For example, the Plan will provide
greater biological context for the effects
that a proposed action may have on the
listed ESU and DPS. This context will
be enhanced by adding recovery plan
science to the ‘‘best available
information’’ for section 7 consultations
as well as for section 10 habitat
conservation plans, and other ESA
decisions. Such information includes
viability criteria for the ESU, DPS, and
their independent populations; better
understanding of and information on
limiting factors and threats facing the
ESU and DPS; better information on
priority areas for addressing specific
limiting factors; and better geographic
context for where the ESU and DPS can
tolerate varying levels of risk.
The Plan
The Plan is one of many ongoing
salmon recovery planning efforts funded
under the Washington State Strategy for
Salmon Recovery. The State of
Washington designated the UCSRB as
the Lead Entity for salmon recovery
planning for the Upper Columbia. The
Plan incorporates many aspects of the
work of the Interior Columbia Technical
Recovery Team (ICTRT) appointed by
NMFS. The ICTRT reviewed early drafts
of the Plan and will be providing an
independent scientific peer review of
the Proposed Recovery Plan. The
UCSRB has included public
involvement in its recovery planning
process, having received extensive
comments in January, April, and June of
2005.
ESU and DPS Addressed and Planning
Area
The Plan is intended for
implementation within the range of the
Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook
Salmon (O. tshawytscha) ESU, listed as
endangered on March 24, 1999 (64 FR
14307), and the Upper Columbia River
Steelhead (O. mykiss) DPS, listed as
endangered on August 18, 1997 (62 FR
43937), and reclassified as threatened
on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The
spring Chinook salmon ESU contains
three independent populations: the
Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow. The
steelhead DPS contains five
independent populations: Wenatchee,
Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Crab
Creek. These independent populations
were identified based on the genetic,
geographic, and habitat characteristics
they share within the ESU or the DPS.
The Plan states that the current status
of Upper Columbia Chinook and
steelhead populations was assessed by
local planners in consultation with the
E:\FR\FM\29SEN1.SGM
29SEN1
57474
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
ICTRT and state and tribal co-managers.
In general, abundance of all spring
Chinook salmon and steelhead
populations has declined substantially
from historical levels, and many
populations are small enough that
genetic and demographic risks are
relatively high.
The Plan’s Recovery Goals, Objectives
and Criteria
The Plan’s goal is to ensure long-term
persistence of viable populations of
naturally produced spring Chinook and
steelhead distributed across their native
range. The Plan incorporates the four
parameters of abundance, productivity,
spatial structure, and diversity, which
are the basis of NMFS’ viable salmonid
population (VSP) framework (McElhany
et al. 2000), as the foundation for
biological status assessments and
recovery goals.
The Plan’s recovery (delisting)
objectives include increasing the
abundance of naturally produced spring
Chinook and steelhead spawners within
each population in the Upper Columbia
ESU/DPS to levels considered viable;
increasing the productivity
(spawner:spawner ratios and smolts/
redds) of naturally produced spring
Chinook salmon and steelhead within
each population to levels that result in
low risk of extinction; restoring the
distribution of naturally produced
spring Chinook salmon and steelhead to
previously occupied areas where
practical; and conserving their genetic
and phenotypic diversity.
Because spring Chinook are currently
listed as endangered under the ESA, the
Plan identifies two levels of objectives
for them. The first level relates to
reclassifying the species as threatened
and the second relates to recovery
(delisting). The reclassification
objectives include increasing the
abundance, productivity, and
distribution of naturally produced
spring Chinook salmon sufficient to lead
to reclassification as threatened, and
conserving their genetic and phenotypic
diversity.
The Plan sets forth specific criteria to
meet the recovery objectives, based on
the ICTRT’s recommended criteria,
which, if met, would indicate a high
probability of persistence into the future
for Upper Columbia River spring
Chinook salmon and steelhead. The
Plan establishes criteria for 95- percent
probability of persistence
(5–percent extinction risk) for all
Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon
and all but one population of the
steelhead DPS. The Plan concludes that
the Upper Columbia steelhead DPS may
be recovered without attaining the 95–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:43 Sep 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
percent probability of persistence for the
Crab Creek population, based on the
possibility that this population was not
viable historically because of
environmental conditions (e.g.,
intermittent stream flows and high
water temperatures) and the assumption
that the resident component of the Crab
Creek population was historically the
primary driver of the population’s
viability.
The ICTRT recently recommended a
higher criterion for an ESU/DPS
containing only one major population
group (MPG), which is the case for both
Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon
and Upper Columbia steelhead. The
ICTRT recommended, in that case, that
at least two populations should meet
abundance/productivity criteria
representing a 1–percent extinction risk
(99–percent probability of persistence)
over a 100–year period (ICTRT 2005b, p.
46). The ICTRT considers the 5–percent
risk level ‘‘viable’’ and the 1–percent
risk level ‘‘highly viable.’’ The Plan does
not adopt this more recent
recommendation; instead, as stated
above, the Plan adopts the 5–percent
extinction risk for abundance/
productivity for all populations in the
Chinook salmon ESU and all but one in
the steelhead DPS.
NMFS accepts the UCSRB’s
recommended recovery (delisting)
criteria, since it calls for all known
extant populations within the Chinook
ESU and steelhead DPS to be viable.
Furthermore, NMFS believes that it is
not possible at this time to distinguish
between the levels of effort needed to
attain 95- vs. 99–percent probability of
persistence; therefore, the Plan’s actions
would not change at this time in
response to the ICTRT’s more recently
recommended criterion. Finally, NMFS
will re-evaluate ESU and DPS status and
the appropriateness of the recovery
criteria in 5 years or less based on
additional data from monitoring and
research on critical uncertainties and
could modify the recovery plan
accordingly.
In accordance with its responsibilities
under ESA section 4(c)(2), NMFS will
conduct status reviews of the listed
Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon
ESU and Upper Columbia steelhead
DPS at least once every 5 years to
evaluate their status and determine
whether the ESU or DPS should be
removed from the list or changed in
status. Such evaluations will take into
account the following:
• The biological recovery criteria
(ICTRT 2005b) and listing factor
(threats) criteria described in the Plan.
• The management programs in place
to address the threats.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Principles presented in the Viable
Salmonid Populations paper (McElhany
et al. 2000).
• Best available information on
population and ESU status and new
advances in risk evaluation
methodologies.
• Other considerations, including: the
number and status of extant spawning
groups; the status of the major spawning
groups; linkages and connectivity
among groups; the diversity of life
history and phenotypes expressed; and
considerations regarding catastrophic
risk.
• Principles laid out in NMFS’
Hatchery Listing Policy (70 FR 37204,
June 28, 2005).
Causes for Decline and Current Threats
The Plan identifies the following
causes for decline and threats to the
ESU/DPS:
Habitat: Human activities have
altered and/or curtailed habitat-forming
processes and limited the habitat
suitable for spring Chinook salmon and
steelhead in the Upper Columbia River
tributaries. Although recent land and
water management practices have
improved, some storage dams,
diversions, roads and railways,
agriculture, residential development,
and forest management continue to
threaten spring Chinook salmon and
steelhead and their habitat. The result
has been deleterious changes in water
flow, water temperature, sedimentation,
floodplain dynamics, riparian function,
and other aspects of the ecosystem.
Hydroelectric operations: Conditions
for Upper Columbia spring Chinook
salmon and steelhead have been
fundamentally altered throughout the
Columbia River basin by the
construction and operation of mainstem
dams and reservoirs for power
generation, navigation, and flood
control. Upper Columbia salmon and
steelhead are adversely affected by
hydrosystem-related flow and water
quality effects, obstructed and/or
delayed passage, and ecological changes
in impoundments.
Harvest: Harvest of Upper Columbia
Chinook salmon and steelhead occurs in
commercial, recreational, and tribal
fisheries in the mainstem Columbia, and
in some tributaries. Upper Columbia
spring Chinook salmon and steelhead
are rarely taken in ocean fisheries; most
harvest of these listed species occurs in
the Columbia mainstem and some
tributaries. Aggregate harvest rates (from
fishing in all areas) have generally been
reduced from their peak periods as a
result of international treaties, fisheries
conservation acts, the advent of weak
stock management in the 1970s and
E:\FR\FM\29SEN1.SGM
29SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
1980s, regional conservation goals, and
the listing of many salmon ESUs and
steelhead DPSs under the ESA. While
fisheries do not target weak stocks of
listed salmon or steelhead, listed fish
are incidentally caught in fisheries
directed at hatchery and healthy,
unlisted wild stocks.
Hatcheries: In the Upper Columbia
Region, the 12 hatcheries currently
producing spring Chinook and steelhead
are operated to mitigate for loss of
habitat and for passage mortalities
resulting from the Columbia River
hydrosystem. These hatcheries provide
valuable mitigation and/or conservation
benefits but can cause substantial
adverse impacts if not properly
managed. The Plan describes the risks to
listed fish from these hatcheries,
including genetic effects that reduce
fitness and survival, ecological effects
such as competition and predation,
facility effects on passage and water
quality, mixed stock fishery effects, and
masking the true status of wild
populations.
Additional Factors: The Plan
considers that there could be additional
factors that affect Upper Columbia River
spring Chinook salmon and steelhead,
including changes in estuarine habitat,
global climate change, inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms,
fluctuating ocean cycles, and predation.
Recovery Strategies and Actions
The Plan’s initial approach is to target
reductions in all manageable threats and
to improve the status of all extant Upper
Columbia spring Chinook and steelhead
populations. As monitoring and
evaluation programs improve
understanding of the effectiveness of
various actions and their benefits
throughout the life cycle of salmon and
steelhead, adjustments may be made
through the adaptive management
framework described in the Plan.
The Plan describes objectives and
strategies and recommends specific
actions for Upper Columbia spring
Chinook salmon and steelhead recovery.
Among the most significant
recommendations are the following:
Habitat: The Plan includes habitat
restoration actions in all streams that
currently support or may support (in a
restored condition) listed spring
Chinook salmon and steelhead in the
Upper Columbia Basin. The objectives
and recommended actions are derived
from subbasin plans, watershed plans,
the Upper Columbia Biological Strategy,
the Douglas County public utility
district (PUD) and Chelan County PUD
Anadromous Fish Agreement and
Habitat Conservation Plans (AFAHCPs),
and relicensing agreements. The Plan
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:43 Sep 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
emphasizes actions that: protect existing
areas where high ecological integrity
and natural ecosystem processes persist;
restore connectivity (access) throughout
the historical range, where feasible and
practical; protect and restore riparian
habitat along spawning and rearing
streams and identify long term
opportunities for riparian habitat
enhancement; protect and restore
floodplain function and reconnection,
off channel habitat, and channel
migration processes where appropriate;
and increase habitat diversity by
rebuilding, maintaining, and adding
instream structures (e.g., large woody
debris, rocks, etc.) where long term
channel form and function efforts are
not feasible.
Hydroelectric operations: Upper
Columbia spring Chinook and steelhead
migrate through four federally owned
projects and three to five projects owned
by PUDs. These projects are licensed by
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. The Plan acknowledges
that hydropower strategies and actions
are being implemented, reviewed, and
considered in several ongoing processes,
including Federal Columbia River
Power System (FCRPS) ESA section 7
consultations (for the lower four Federal
dams on the Columbia River), the
AFAHCPs and relicensing agreements.
The Plan’s recommended actions are
intended to be consistent with these
processes. The Plan emphasizes
continued implementation of the
actions identified in the AFAHCPs,
which adopted a standard of no net
impact (NNI) on the Upper Columbia
Spring Chinook Salmon ESU and
steelhead DPS.
Harvest: Harvest objectives for treaty
and non-treaty salmon and steelhead
fisheries in the Columbia River Basin
are set by the applicable state, tribal,
and Federal agencies. Fishery objectives
from McNary Dam to the mouth of the
Columbia River (fishing zones 1–6) are
established by state, tribal, and Federal
parties in U.S. v. Oregon, 302 F. Supp.
899 (D. Or. 1969). While recognizing the
role of the treaty and non-treaty comanagers, the Plan proposes that the
U.S. v. Oregon parties incorporate
Upper Columbia recovery goals when
formulating fishery plans affecting
Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon
and steelhead. The appropriate comanagers and fishery management
agencies are also asked to work together
with local stakeholders to develop
tributary fisheries management goals
and plans.
Hatcheries: The hatchery strategies
and actions in the Plan are being
reviewed and considered in several
ongoing processes, including in the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57475
Chelan County and Douglas County
Public Utility District AFAHCPs, the
Grant County biological opinion, and
U.S. v. Oregon. NMFS hopes the Plan’s
recommended goals and actions will be
implemented through these ongoing
processes. The Plan emphasizes that
hatchery programs play an essential role
in spring Chinook salmon and steelhead
recovery. Among other measures, the
Plan proposes that hatchery programs
employ mechanisms to manage hatchery
returns on spawning grounds in balance
with naturally produced fish, while
maintaining production levels identified
in various agreements. It also proposes
that, as the populations recover,
hatchery programs should be modified
to minimize adverse impacts of hatchery
fish on naturally produced fish.
Integration: The Plan states that
recovery will depend on integrating
actions that address habitat, harvest,
and hydroelectric operations; moreover,
it emphasizes that recovery actions must
be implemented at both the ESU/DPS
and the population scales.
Time and Cost Estimates
The ESA section 4(f)(1) requires that
the recovery plan include ‘‘estimates of
the time required and the cost to carry
out those measures needed to achieve
the Plan’s goal and to achieve
intermediate steps toward that goal’’ (16
U.S.C. 1533[f][1]). Currently, the plan
provides an overall cost estimate of
$138 million, which represents the
estimated cost of implementing the
tributary actions for habitat, hatcheries,
and research, monitoring, and
evaluation, over 10 years.
Cost estimates for Columbia mainstem
hydropower and estuary actions are
included in two modules that NMFS
developed because of the regional scope
and applicability of the actions. These
modules are incorporated into the
Upper Columbia Plan by reference and
are available on the NMFS Web site:
www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/OtherDocuments.cfm. The hydropower cost
estimates will be updated over time, as
the section 7 consultation on the
remanded 2004 FCRPS BiOp is
completed. The estuary recovery costs
could be further refined following
public comment on the ESA recovery
plan for the three listed lower Columbia
ESUs and one listed Lower Columbia
steelhead DPS in 2007. There are
virtually no estimated costs for recovery
actions associated with harvest to report
at this time. This is because no actions
are currently proposed that go beyond
those already being implemented
through U.S. v. Oregon and other
harvest management forums. In the
E:\FR\FM\29SEN1.SGM
29SEN1
57476
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices
event that additional harvest actions are
implemented through these forums,
those costs will be added during the
implementation phase of this recovery
plan. All cost estimates will be refined
and updated over time.
The Plan states that if its
recommended actions are implemented,
recovery of the spring Chinook salmon
ESU and the steelhead DPS is likely to
occur within 10 to 30 years. The cost
estimates cover capital projects and
non-capital work projected to occur
within the first 10–year period. NMFS
supports the policy determination to
include 30 years of implementation,
with the proviso that before the end of
the first 10–year implementation period,
specific actions and costs will be
estimated for the subsequent years to
achieve long-term goals and to proceed
until a determination is made that
listing is no longer necessary. NMFS
agrees that a 10- to 30–year range is a
reasonable period of time during which
to implement and evaluate the actions
identified in the Plan.
Conclusion
NMFS concludes that the Plan meets
the requirements of ESA section 4(f) and
thus is proposing it as an ESA recovery
plan.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Literature Cited
Interior Columbia Technical Recovery
Team. 2005a. Updated population
delineation in the Interior Columbia
Basin. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center. Memorandum. May 11, 2005.
Interior Columbia Technical Recovery
Team. 2005b. Viability criteria for
application to Interior Columbia Basin
salmonid ESUs. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries
Science Center. July 2005.
McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J.
Ford, T. C. Wainwright, E. P. Bjorkstedt.
2000. Viable salmon populations and
the recovery of evolutionarily
significant units. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFSNWFSC–42, 156 p.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS solicits written comments on
the proposed Plan. All comments
received by the date specified above
will be considered prior to NMFS’
decision whether to adopt the Plan.
Additionally, NMFS will work with the
UCSRB to 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)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:43 Sep 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
The analysis of limiting factors and
threats; (2) the recovery objectives,
strategies, and actions; (3) the criteria
for removing the ESU and DPS from the
Federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants; and (4)
estimates of time and cost to implement
recovery actions, including the intent to
be even more specific by soliciting
implementation schedules.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: September 25, 2006.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6–16083 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 072006A]
Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals
During Specified Activities;
Geophysical Surveys in South San
Francisco Bay South of the Dumbarton
Bridge
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an
incidental take authorization.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) as amended, notification is
hereby given that an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) has
been issued to Fugro West, Inc. (Fugro),
to take small numbers of California sea
lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor
porpoises, and gray whales, by
harassment, incidental to geographical
seismic surveys being conducted in
south San Francisco Bay (SFB or Bay) in
California.
DATES: This authorization is effective
from September 11, 2006, until
September 10, 2007.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the application,
IHA, the Environmental Assessment
(EA), and/or a list of references used in
this document may be obtained by
writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910–3225.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Guan, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext
137, or Monica DeAngelis, NMFS, (562)
980–3232.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of marine mammals
by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization shall be granted if
NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock(s) for subsistence uses
and that the permissible methods of
taking and requirements pertaining to
the mitigation, monitoring and reporting
of such taking are set forth. NMFS has
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as ‘‘...an impact resulting from
the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
established an expedited process by
which citizens of the United States can
apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of
marine mammals by harassment. Except
with respect to certain activities not
pertinent here, the MMPA defines
‘‘harassment’’ as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance
which (i) has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
[Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including,
but not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
[Level B harassment].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–
day time limit for NMFS review of an
application followed by a 30–day public
notice and comment period on any
proposed authorizations for the
incidental harassment of small numbers
of marine mammals. Within 45 days of
the close of the comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny issuance of
the authorization.
Summary of Request
On March 30, 2006, URS Corporation
(URS) on behalf of Fugro submitted an
application to NMFS requesting an IHA
for the possible harassment of small
numbers of California sea lions
E:\FR\FM\29SEN1.SGM
29SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57472-57476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16083]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 082806C]
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 of the Proposed Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon,
Steelhead, and Bull Trout Recovery Plan (Plan) for public review and
comment. The Plan addresses the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), the
Upper Columbia Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Distinct Population
Segment (DPS), and
[[Page 57473]]
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Upper Columbia region. The
Plan was prepared by the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB)
in conjunction with NMFS. Bull trout, listed as threatened, are under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are
the subject of a draft recovery plan published by the USFWS in 2002.
NMFS is soliciting review and comment from the public and all
interested parties on the spring Chinook salmon and steelhead portions
of the Proposed Plan. If comments are received on the bull trout
portion of the Plan, NMFS will pass them on to the USFWS.
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 November 28, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Please send written comments and materials to Lynn Hatcher,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 304 South Water Street, Ellensburg,
WA 98926. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to:
UpperColumbiaPlan.nwr@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-
mail comment the following identifier: Comments on Upper Columbia
Salmon Plan. Comments may 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 Upper Columbia Salmon Plan''. Electronic copies of the Plan
are also available on-line on the NMFS Web site; www.nwr.noaa.gov/
Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Draft-Plans.cfm or the
Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board Web site; okanogancounty.org/
planning/salmon--recovery.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Hatcher, NMFS Interior Columbia
Salmon Recovery Coordinator (509-962-8911 x223), or Elizabeth Gaar,
NMFS Salmon Recovery Division (503-230-5434).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Recovery plans describe actions beneficial to the conservation and
recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The ESA requires that
recovery plans incorporate (1) objective, measurable criteria which,
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 species.
NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmon
ESUs and steelhead DPSs to the point that they are again 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. As the lead ESA agency for listed salmon, NMFS is
responsible for reviewing these locally produced recovery plans and
deciding whether they meet ESA statutory requirements and merit
adoption as proposed ESA recovery plans.
On December 30, 2005, the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board
(UCSRB) presented its locally developed draft recovery plan to NMFS.
The UCSRB comprises representatives from Chelan County, Douglas County,
Okanogan County, Yakama Nation, and the Confederated Colville Tribes. A
variety of additional partners, representing Federal agencies,
Washington State agencies, regional organizations, special purpose
districts, and members of the public, also participated in the planning
process.
After NMFS reviewed the draft plan, NMFS and the UCSRB made
revisions to it, clarifying how it satisfies ESA recovery plan
requirements and addressing additional elements needed to comply with
those requirements. The jointly revised Plan is now available as a
Proposed Recovery Plan for public review and comment.
Upon approval of a final Plan, NMFS will make a commitment to
implement the actions in the Plan for which it has 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. NMFS will also encourage the State of
Washington to seek similar implementation commitments from state
agencies and local governments. NMFS expects the Plan to help NMFS and
other Federal agencies take a more consistent approach to future
section 7 consultations and other ESA decisions. For example, the Plan
will provide greater biological context for the effects that a proposed
action may have on the listed ESU and DPS. This context will be
enhanced by adding recovery plan science to the ``best available
information'' for section 7 consultations as well as for section 10
habitat conservation plans, and other ESA decisions. Such information
includes viability criteria for the ESU, DPS, and their independent
populations; better understanding of and information on limiting
factors and threats facing the ESU and DPS; better information on
priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors; and better
geographic context for where the ESU and DPS can tolerate varying
levels of risk.
The Plan
The Plan is one of many ongoing salmon recovery planning efforts
funded under the Washington State Strategy for Salmon Recovery. The
State of Washington designated the UCSRB as the Lead Entity for salmon
recovery planning for the Upper Columbia. The Plan incorporates many
aspects of the work of the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team
(ICTRT) appointed by NMFS. The ICTRT reviewed early drafts of the Plan
and will be providing an independent scientific peer review of the
Proposed Recovery Plan. The UCSRB has included public involvement in
its recovery planning process, having received extensive comments in
January, April, and June of 2005.
ESU and DPS Addressed and Planning Area
The Plan is intended for implementation within the range of the
Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) ESU, listed
as endangered on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14307), and the Upper Columbia
River Steelhead (O. mykiss) DPS, listed as endangered on August 18,
1997 (62 FR 43937), and reclassified as threatened on January 5, 2006
(71 FR 834). The spring Chinook salmon ESU contains three independent
populations: the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow. The steelhead DPS
contains five independent populations: Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow,
Okanogan, and Crab Creek. These independent populations were identified
based on the genetic, geographic, and habitat characteristics they
share within the ESU or the DPS.
The Plan states that the current status of Upper Columbia Chinook
and steelhead populations was assessed by local planners in
consultation with the
[[Page 57474]]
ICTRT and state and tribal co-managers. In general, abundance of all
spring Chinook salmon and steelhead populations has declined
substantially from historical levels, and many populations are small
enough that genetic and demographic risks are relatively high.
The Plan's Recovery Goals, Objectives and Criteria
The Plan's goal is to ensure long-term persistence of viable
populations of naturally produced spring Chinook and steelhead
distributed across their native range. The Plan incorporates the four
parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and
diversity, which are the basis of NMFS' viable salmonid population
(VSP) framework (McElhany et al. 2000), as the foundation for
biological status assessments and recovery goals.
The Plan's recovery (delisting) objectives include increasing the
abundance of naturally produced spring Chinook and steelhead spawners
within each population in the Upper Columbia ESU/DPS to levels
considered viable; increasing the productivity (spawner:spawner ratios
and smolts/redds) of naturally produced spring Chinook salmon and
steelhead within each population to levels that result in low risk of
extinction; restoring the distribution of naturally produced spring
Chinook salmon and steelhead to previously occupied areas where
practical; and conserving their genetic and phenotypic diversity.
Because spring Chinook are currently listed as endangered under the
ESA, the Plan identifies two levels of objectives for them. The first
level relates to reclassifying the species as threatened and the second
relates to recovery (delisting). The reclassification objectives
include increasing the abundance, productivity, and distribution of
naturally produced spring Chinook salmon sufficient to lead to
reclassification as threatened, and conserving their genetic and
phenotypic diversity.
The Plan sets forth specific criteria to meet the recovery
objectives, based on the ICTRT's recommended criteria, which, if met,
would indicate a high probability of persistence into the future for
Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Plan
establishes criteria for 95- percent probability of persistence
(5-percent extinction risk) for all Upper Columbia spring Chinook
salmon and all but one population of the steelhead DPS. The Plan
concludes that the Upper Columbia steelhead DPS may be recovered
without attaining the 95-percent probability of persistence for the
Crab Creek population, based on the possibility that this population
was not viable historically because of environmental conditions (e.g.,
intermittent stream flows and high water temperatures) and the
assumption that the resident component of the Crab Creek population was
historically the primary driver of the population's viability.
The ICTRT recently recommended a higher criterion for an ESU/DPS
containing only one major population group (MPG), which is the case for
both Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon and Upper Columbia steelhead.
The ICTRT recommended, in that case, that at least two populations
should meet abundance/productivity criteria representing a 1-percent
extinction risk (99-percent probability of persistence) over a 100-year
period (ICTRT 2005b, p. 46). The ICTRT considers the 5-percent risk
level ``viable'' and the 1-percent risk level ``highly viable.'' The
Plan does not adopt this more recent recommendation; instead, as stated
above, the Plan adopts the 5-percent extinction risk for abundance/
productivity for all populations in the Chinook salmon ESU and all but
one in the steelhead DPS.
NMFS accepts the UCSRB's recommended recovery (delisting) criteria,
since it calls for all known extant populations within the Chinook ESU
and steelhead DPS to be viable. Furthermore, NMFS believes that it is
not possible at this time to distinguish between the levels of effort
needed to attain 95- vs. 99-percent probability of persistence;
therefore, the Plan's actions would not change at this time in response
to the ICTRT's more recently recommended criterion. Finally, NMFS will
re-evaluate ESU and DPS status and the appropriateness of the recovery
criteria in 5 years or less based on additional data from monitoring
and research on critical uncertainties and could modify the recovery
plan accordingly.
In accordance with its responsibilities under ESA section 4(c)(2),
NMFS will conduct status reviews of the listed Upper Columbia spring
Chinook salmon ESU and Upper Columbia steelhead DPS at least once every
5 years to evaluate their status and determine whether the ESU or DPS
should be removed from the list or changed in status. Such evaluations
will take into account the following:
The biological recovery criteria (ICTRT 2005b) and listing
factor (threats) criteria described in the Plan.
The management programs in place to address the threats.
Principles presented in the Viable Salmonid Populations
paper (McElhany et al. 2000).
Best available information on population and ESU status
and new advances in risk evaluation methodologies.
Other considerations, including: the number and status of
extant spawning groups; the status of the major spawning groups;
linkages and connectivity among groups; the diversity of life history
and phenotypes expressed; and considerations regarding catastrophic
risk.
Principles laid out in NMFS' Hatchery Listing Policy (70
FR 37204, June 28, 2005).
Causes for Decline and Current Threats
The Plan identifies the following causes for decline and threats to
the ESU/DPS:
Habitat: Human activities have altered and/or curtailed habitat-
forming processes and limited the habitat suitable for spring Chinook
salmon and steelhead in the Upper Columbia River tributaries. Although
recent land and water management practices have improved, some storage
dams, diversions, roads and railways, agriculture, residential
development, and forest management continue to threaten spring Chinook
salmon and steelhead and their habitat. The result has been deleterious
changes in water flow, water temperature, sedimentation, floodplain
dynamics, riparian function, and other aspects of the ecosystem.
Hydroelectric operations: Conditions for Upper Columbia spring
Chinook salmon and steelhead have been fundamentally altered throughout
the Columbia River basin by the construction and operation of mainstem
dams and reservoirs for power generation, navigation, and flood
control. Upper Columbia salmon and steelhead are adversely affected by
hydrosystem-related flow and water quality effects, obstructed and/or
delayed passage, and ecological changes in impoundments.
Harvest: Harvest of Upper Columbia Chinook salmon and steelhead
occurs in commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries in the
mainstem Columbia, and in some tributaries. Upper Columbia spring
Chinook salmon and steelhead are rarely taken in ocean fisheries; most
harvest of these listed species occurs in the Columbia mainstem and
some tributaries. Aggregate harvest rates (from fishing in all areas)
have generally been reduced from their peak periods as a result of
international treaties, fisheries conservation acts, the advent of weak
stock management in the 1970s and
[[Page 57475]]
1980s, regional conservation goals, and the listing of many salmon ESUs
and steelhead DPSs under the ESA. While fisheries do not target weak
stocks of listed salmon or steelhead, listed fish are incidentally
caught in fisheries directed at hatchery and healthy, unlisted wild
stocks.
Hatcheries: In the Upper Columbia Region, the 12 hatcheries
currently producing spring Chinook and steelhead are operated to
mitigate for loss of habitat and for passage mortalities resulting from
the Columbia River hydrosystem. These hatcheries provide valuable
mitigation and/or conservation benefits but can cause substantial
adverse impacts if not properly managed. The Plan describes the risks
to listed fish from these hatcheries, including genetic effects that
reduce fitness and survival, ecological effects such as competition and
predation, facility effects on passage and water quality, mixed stock
fishery effects, and masking the true status of wild populations.
Additional Factors: The Plan considers that there could be
additional factors that affect Upper Columbia River spring Chinook
salmon and steelhead, including changes in estuarine habitat, global
climate change, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
fluctuating ocean cycles, and predation.
Recovery Strategies and Actions
The Plan's initial approach is to target reductions in all
manageable threats and to improve the status of all extant Upper
Columbia spring Chinook and steelhead populations. As monitoring and
evaluation programs improve understanding of the effectiveness of
various actions and their benefits throughout the life cycle of salmon
and steelhead, adjustments may be made through the adaptive management
framework described in the Plan.
The Plan describes objectives and strategies and recommends
specific actions for Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon and steelhead
recovery. Among the most significant recommendations are the following:
Habitat: The Plan includes habitat restoration actions in all
streams that currently support or may support (in a restored condition)
listed spring Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Upper Columbia Basin.
The objectives and recommended actions are derived from subbasin plans,
watershed plans, the Upper Columbia Biological Strategy, the Douglas
County public utility district (PUD) and Chelan County PUD Anadromous
Fish Agreement and Habitat Conservation Plans (AFAHCPs), and
relicensing agreements. The Plan emphasizes actions that: protect
existing areas where high ecological integrity and natural ecosystem
processes persist; restore connectivity (access) throughout the
historical range, where feasible and practical; protect and restore
riparian habitat along spawning and rearing streams and identify long
term opportunities for riparian habitat enhancement; protect and
restore floodplain function and reconnection, off channel habitat, and
channel migration processes where appropriate; and increase habitat
diversity by rebuilding, maintaining, and adding instream structures
(e.g., large woody debris, rocks, etc.) where long term channel form
and function efforts are not feasible.
Hydroelectric operations: Upper Columbia spring Chinook and
steelhead migrate through four federally owned projects and three to
five projects owned by PUDs. These projects are licensed by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. The Plan acknowledges that hydropower
strategies and actions are being implemented, reviewed, and considered
in several ongoing processes, including Federal Columbia River Power
System (FCRPS) ESA section 7 consultations (for the lower four Federal
dams on the Columbia River), the AFAHCPs and relicensing agreements.
The Plan's recommended actions are intended to be consistent with these
processes. The Plan emphasizes continued implementation of the actions
identified in the AFAHCPs, which adopted a standard of no net impact
(NNI) on the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon ESU and steelhead
DPS.
Harvest: Harvest objectives for treaty and non-treaty salmon and
steelhead fisheries in the Columbia River Basin are set by the
applicable state, tribal, and Federal agencies. Fishery objectives from
McNary Dam to the mouth of the Columbia River (fishing zones 1-6) are
established by state, tribal, and Federal parties in U.S. v. Oregon,
302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969). While recognizing the role of the
treaty and non-treaty co-managers, the Plan proposes that the U.S. v.
Oregon parties incorporate Upper Columbia recovery goals when
formulating fishery plans affecting Upper Columbia spring Chinook
salmon and steelhead. The appropriate co-managers and fishery
management agencies are also asked to work together with local
stakeholders to develop tributary fisheries management goals and plans.
Hatcheries: The hatchery strategies and actions in the Plan are
being reviewed and considered in several ongoing processes, including
in the Chelan County and Douglas County Public Utility District
AFAHCPs, the Grant County biological opinion, and U.S. v. Oregon. NMFS
hopes the Plan's recommended goals and actions will be implemented
through these ongoing processes. The Plan emphasizes that hatchery
programs play an essential role in spring Chinook salmon and steelhead
recovery. Among other measures, the Plan proposes that hatchery
programs employ mechanisms to manage hatchery returns on spawning
grounds in balance with naturally produced fish, while maintaining
production levels identified in various agreements. It also proposes
that, as the populations recover, hatchery programs should be modified
to minimize adverse impacts of hatchery fish on naturally produced
fish.
Integration: The Plan states that recovery will depend on
integrating actions that address habitat, harvest, and hydroelectric
operations; moreover, it emphasizes that recovery actions must be
implemented at both the ESU/DPS and the population scales.
Time and Cost Estimates
The ESA section 4(f)(1) requires that the recovery plan include
``estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those
measures needed to achieve the Plan's goal and to achieve intermediate
steps toward that goal'' (16 U.S.C. 1533[f][1]). Currently, the plan
provides an overall cost estimate of $138 million, which represents the
estimated cost of implementing the tributary actions for habitat,
hatcheries, and research, monitoring, and evaluation, over 10 years.
Cost estimates for Columbia mainstem hydropower and estuary actions
are included in two modules that NMFS developed because of the regional
scope and applicability of the actions. These modules are incorporated
into the Upper Columbia Plan by reference and are available on the NMFS
Web site: www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/
Other-Documents.cfm. The hydropower cost estimates will be updated over
time, as the section 7 consultation on the remanded 2004 FCRPS BiOp is
completed. The estuary recovery costs could be further refined
following public comment on the ESA recovery plan for the three listed
lower Columbia ESUs and one listed Lower Columbia steelhead DPS in
2007. There are virtually no estimated costs for recovery actions
associated with harvest to report at this time. This is because no
actions are currently proposed that go beyond those already being
implemented through U.S. v. Oregon and other harvest management forums.
In the
[[Page 57476]]
event that additional harvest actions are implemented through these
forums, those costs will be added during the implementation phase of
this recovery plan. All cost estimates will be refined and updated over
time.
The Plan states that if its recommended actions are implemented,
recovery of the spring Chinook salmon ESU and the steelhead DPS is
likely to occur within 10 to 30 years. The cost estimates cover capital
projects and non-capital work projected to occur within the first 10-
year period. NMFS supports the policy determination to include 30 years
of implementation, with the proviso that before the end of the first
10-year implementation period, specific actions and costs will be
estimated for the subsequent years to achieve long-term goals and to
proceed until a determination is made that listing is no longer
necessary. NMFS agrees that a 10- to 30-year range is a reasonable
period of time during which to implement and evaluate the actions
identified in the Plan.
Conclusion
NMFS concludes that the Plan meets the requirements of ESA section
4(f) and thus is proposing it as an ESA recovery plan.
Literature Cited
Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team. 2005a. Updated population
delineation in the Interior Columbia Basin. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Memorandum. May 11, 2005.
Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team. 2005b. Viability criteria
for application to Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. July
2005.
McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, E. P.
Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmon populations and the recovery of
evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 p.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS solicits written comments on the proposed Plan. All comments
received by the date specified above will be considered prior to NMFS'
decision whether to adopt the Plan. Additionally, NMFS will work with
the UCSRB to 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 objectives, strategies,
and actions; (3) the criteria for removing the ESU and DPS from the
Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; and (4)
estimates of time and cost to implement recovery actions, including the
intent to be even more specific by soliciting implementation schedules.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: September 25, 2006.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-16083 Filed 9-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
