Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans, 68802-68805 [E6-20180]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
68802
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Notices
schedule with estimates of time and cost
to recovery. The threats assessment
finds four levels of threats: (1) Crucial
(ongoing and apparent threat at most
sites in the NWHI), (2) Significant
(ongoing impacts representing the
potential for range-wide threats), (3)
Serious (potential cause of localized
threats), and (4) Moderate (localized
impacts possible but not considered a
serious or immediate threat). The
Crucial threats to Hawaiian monk seals
are: food limitation, entanglement, and
shark predation. The Significant threats
to Hawaiian monk seals are: infectious
disease and habitat loss. The Serious
threats are: fishery interaction, male
aggression, human interaction, and
biotoxin. Finally, the Moderate threats
to Hawaiian monk seals are: vessel
groundings and contaminants.
Criteria for the reclassification of the
Hawaiian monk seal are included in the
Plan. In summary, Hawaiian monk seals
may be reclassified from endangered to
threatened when all of the following
have been met: (1) aggregate numbers
exceed 2,900 total individuals in the
NWHI; (2) at least 5 of the 6 main subpopulation in the NWHI are above 100
individuals, and the MHI population is
above 500; (3) the survivorship of
females in each subpopulation in the
NWHI and in the MHI is high enough
that, in conjunction with the birth rates
in each subpopulation, the calculated
population growth rate for each
subpopulation is not negative. The
population will be considered for a
delisting if it continues to qualify for
‘‘threatened’’ classification for 20
consecutive years without new serious
risk factors being identified.
Time and cost for recovery actions are
contained in the Plan. The recovery
program will cost $52,656,000 for the
first 5 fiscal years and $436,816,000 to
full recovery assuming the best case
scenario that the population could grow
to the stipulated total population size in
the NWHI within 12 years, and that the
stipulated numbers in the MHI could be
reached within 34 years.
In accordance with the 2003 Peer
Review Policy as stated in Appendix R
of the Interim Endangered and
Threatened Species Recovery Planning
Guidance, NMFS solicited peer review
on the draft Plan concurrent with this
public comment period. Reviews were
requested from three scientists and
managers with expertise in recovery
planning, statistical analyses, fisheries,
and marine mammals. NMFS
anticipates that many of the
recommendations that will be made by
the reviewers will be addressed and
provided in detail in the final Plan.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS solicits written comments on
the draft Revised Recovery Plan. All
substantive comments received by the
date specified above will be considered
prior to final approval of the Plan.
NMFS is especially interested in
comments on the following areas: (1) the
threats assessment; (2) the biological
and threats criteria for removing
Hawaiian monk seals from the Federal
list of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; (3) the recovery
strategy and measures; and (4) the
estimates of time and cost to implement
recovery actions.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 21, 2006.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office
of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6–20164 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
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: Extension of public comment
period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) announced the availability of
the Proposed Upper Columbia Spring
Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull
Trout Recovery Plan (Plan) for public
review and comment. In this notice,
NMFS is extending the public comment
period for this proposal to January 29,
2007. NMFS is soliciting review and
comments 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 by January 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments and materials to Lynn
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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., 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 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
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
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)
and steelhead Distinct Population
Segments (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
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Notices
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 ESA
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
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 longterm 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68803
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
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
68804
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Notices
(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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
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 twelve 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
ycherry on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Notices
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) EA 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. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
68805
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.
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.
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
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,
Conclusion
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NMFS concludes that the Plan meets
the requirements of ESA section 4(f) and
thus is proposing it as an ESA recovery
plan.
Copies of the Federal Register notices
and related materials cited in this
document are available on the internet
at www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/DraftPlans.cfm.
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: November 20, 2006.
Jim Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E6–20180 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 111606A]
General Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Section to the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission; Meeting
Announcement
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68802-68805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20180]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Extension of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) announced the availability of the Proposed Upper Columbia Spring
Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout Recovery Plan (Plan) for
public review and comment. In this notice, NMFS is extending the public
comment period for this proposal to January 29, 2007. NMFS is
soliciting review and comments 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 by January 29,
2007.
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 particular species.
NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmon
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and steelhead Distinct
Population Segments (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
[[Page 68803]]
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 ESA
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 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
[[Page 68804]]
(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 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 twelve 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
[[Page 68805]]
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) EA 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.
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 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.
Copies of the Federal Register notices and related materials cited
in this document are available on the internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov/
Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Draft-Plans.cfm.
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: November 20, 2006.
Jim Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-20180 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
