Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans, 161-166 [E7-25401]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
Comment 18: Zeroing Methodology
[FR Doc. E7–25498 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–831]
Fresh Garlic from the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) has determined that
three requests for new shipper reviews
(‘‘NSRs’’) of the antidumping duty order
on fresh garlic from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), received on
November 20 and November 30, 2007,
respectively, meet the statutory and
regulatory requirements for initiation.
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) for the
three NSRs which the Department is
initiating is November 1, 2006, through
October 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Background
The notice announcing the
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic
from the PRC was published in the
Federal Register on November 16, 1994.
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:
Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic
of China, 59 FR 59209 (November 16,
1994) (‘‘Order’’).1 On November 20 and
November 30, 2007, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR
351.214(c), the Department received
three new shipper review (‘‘NSR’’)
requests from Anqiu Haoshun Trade
Co., Ltd., (‘‘Haoshun’’), Ningjin Ruifeng
Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningjin’’), and
Zhengzhou Yuanli Trading Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Yuanli’’), respectively. All three
companies certified that they are both
the producer and exporter of the subject
1 Therefore,
a request for a NSR based on the
annual anniversary month, November, was due to
the Department by the final day of November 2007.
See 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:07 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
merchandise upon which the requests
for NSRs were based.
On December 4, 2007, the Department
documented a phone call to Haoshun’s
consultant regarding the erroneous POR
identified in the caption of Haoshun’s
NSR request. On December 5, 2007, the
Department issued a letter to Haoshun
requesting further information that was
not contained within its NSR request.
On December 10, 2007, Haoshun
submitted certifications, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) and a correction
to the POR indicated in the caption of
its request.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i),
Haoshun, Ningjin, and Yuanli certified
that they did not export fresh garlic to
the United States during the period of
investigation (‘‘POI’’). In addition,
pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A),
Haoshun, Ningjin, and Yuanli certified
that, since the initiation of the
investigation, they have never been
affiliated with any PRC exporter or
producer who exported fresh garlic to
the United States during the POI,
including those not individually
examined during the investigation. As
required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B),
Haoshun, Ningjin, and Yuanli also
certified that their export activities were
not controlled by the central
government of the PRC.
In addition to the certifications
described above, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv), Haoshun, Ningjin, and
Yuanli submitted documentation
establishing the following: (1) the date
on which Haoshun, Ningjin, and Yuanli
first shipped fresh garlic for export to
the United States and the date on which
the fresh garlic was first entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption; (2) the volume of their
first shipment;2 and (3) the date of their
first sale to an unaffiliated customer in
the United States.
The Department conducted CBP
database queries in an attempt to
confirm that Haoshun, Ningjin, and
Yuanli’s shipments of subject
merchandise had entered the United
States for consumption and that
liquidation of such entries had been
properly suspended for antidumping
duties. The Department also examined
whether the CBP data confirmed that
such entries were made during the NSR
POR.
Initiation of New Shipper Reviews
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the
2 Haoshun, Ningjin, and Yuanli made no
subsequent shipments to the United States.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
161
Department finds that Haoshun,
Ningjin, and Yuanli meet the threshold
requirements for initiation of a NSR for
the shipment of fresh garlic from the
PRC they produced and exported. See
Memorandum to File from Irene Gorelik,
Senior Analyst, through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9,
Initiation of AD New Shipper Review:
Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic
of China (A–570–831), (December xx,
2007) (‘‘NSR Initiation Memo’’).
The POR for the three NSRs is
November 1, 2006, through October 31,
2007. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A).
The Department intends to issue the
preliminary results of these reviews no
later than 180 days from the date of
initiation, and final results of these
reviews no later than 270 days from the
date of initiation. See section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
On August 17, 2006, the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (‘‘H.R. 4’’) was
signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4
temporarily suspends the authority of
the Department to instruct CBP to
collect a bond or other security in lieu
of a cash deposit in new shipper
reviews. Therefore, the posting of a
bond under section 751(a)(B)(iii) of the
Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not
available in this case. Importers of fresh
garlic from the PRC manufactured and/
or exported by Haoshun, Ningjin, and
Yuanli must continue to post cash
deposits of estimated antidumping
duties on each entry of subject
merchandise at the current PRC–wide
rate of 376.67 percent.
Interested parties requiring access to
proprietary information in this NSR
should submit applications for
disclosure under administrative
protective order in accordance with 19
CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This
initiation and notice are published in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and
351.221(c)(1)(i).
December 21, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–25499 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE26
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Recovery Plans
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
162
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Atmospheric Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
SUMMARY: The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
availability of the Proposed Columbia
River Estuary Endangered Species Act
(ESA) Recovery Plan Module for Salmon
and Steelhead (Estuary Module) for
public review and comment. The
Estuary Module was developed to meet
the estuary recovery needs of all ESAlisted salmon and steelhead in the
Columbia River Basin. The Estuary
Module will be incorporated by
reference into all Columbia Basin
salmon and steelhead recovery plans to
guide salmon and steelhead recovery in
the Columbia River estuary. The Estuary
Module was prepared by the Lower
Columbia River Estuary Partnership,
under contract to NMFS. At this time,
NMFS is soliciting review and comment
from the public and all interested
parties on the proposed Estuary Module.
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 March 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments and materials to Patty
Dornbusch, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard,
Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
Comments may also be submitted by email to: EstuaryPlan.nwr@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail
comment the following identifier:
Comment on Columbia River Estuary
Recovery Plan Module. Comments may
be submitted via facsimile (fax) to (503)
872–2737.
Persons wishing to review the Estuary
Module may obtain an electronic copy
(i.e., CD-ROM) by calling Sharon
Houghton at (503) 230–5418 or by
emailing a request to
sharon.houghton@noaa.gov, with the
subject line ‘‘CD-ROM Request for
Columbia River Estuary Module.’’
Electronic copies of the Estuary Module
are also available online on the NMFS
website: www.nwr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patty Dornbusch, NMFS Lower
Columbia Recovery Coordinator (503–
230–5430), or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS
Salmon Recovery Division (503–230–
5434).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. et seq.),
requires that a recovery plan be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:07 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
developed and implemented for species
listed as endangered or threatened
under the statute, unless such a plan
would not promote the recovery of a
species. Recovery plans must contain (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. NMFS is
the agency responsible for developing
recovery plans for salmon and
steelhead, and the agency will use the
plans to guide efforts to restore
endangered and threatened Pacific
salmon and steelhead to the point that
they are again self sustaining in their
ecosystems and no longer need the
protections of the ESA.
To accomplish recovery planning in
the Columbia River Basin, NMFS
organized the eight listed salmon
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs)
and the five listed steelhead distinct
population segments (DPSs) into two
geographic recovery domains, the Lower
Columbia/Willamette and the Interior
Columbia. (The latter was further
divided into the Snake, Mid-Columbia,
and Upper Columbia sub-domains.)
Recovery plans are either complete or in
development to address all listed
salmon ESUs or steelhead DPSs within
each domain.
Because NMFS believes that local
support for recovery plans is essential,
the agency has approached recovery
planning collaboratively, with strong
reliance on existing state, regional, and
tribal planning processes. For instance,
in the Columbia Basin, recovery plans
have been or are being developed by
regional recovery boards convened by
Washington State, by the State of
Oregon in conjunction with stakeholder
teams, and by NMFS in Idaho with the
participation of local agencies. NMFS
reviews locally developed recovery
plans, ensures that they satisfy ESA
requirements, and makes them available
for public review and comment before
formally adopting them as ESA recovery
plans.
Recovery plans must consider the
factors affecting species survival
throughout the entire life-cycle. The
salmonid life cycle includes spawning
and rearing in the tributaries, migration
through the mainstem Columbia River
and estuary to the ocean, and the return
journey to the natal stream. In the
estuary, juvenile and adult salmon and
steelhead undergo physiological
changes needed to make the transition
to and from saltwater. They use the
varying sub-habitats of the estuary - the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
shallows, side channels, deeper
channels, and plume of freshwater
extending offshore - at varying times of
the year. While local recovery planners
appropriately focus on the tributary
conditions within their jurisdictions
and domains, NMFS recognized the
need for consistent treatment of the
factors in the estuary that affect all of
the listed salmonids in the Columbia
Basin.
The Estuary Module is intended to
address limiting factors, threats, and
needed actions in the Columbia River
estuary for the 13 ESUs and DPSs of
salmon and steelhead listed in the
basin. Each locally developed recovery
plan will then include or incorporate by
reference the Estuary Module as its
estuary component. This approach will
ensure consistent treatment across
locally developed recovery plans of the
effects of the Columbia River estuary as
well as a system-wide approach to
evaluating and implementing estuary
recovery actions. The planning area of
the Estuary Module overlaps to some
extent with the planning areas for
locally developed plans for lower
Columbia River tributaries. This overlap
occurs in the tidally influenced portions
of the tributaries, and in such instances
the local plans will reflect the Estuary
Module but may contain a higher level
of detail in terms of specificity of
actions.
NMFS contracted with the Lower
Columbia River Estuary Partnership
(LCREP) for development of the Estuary
Module. LCREP was established in 1995
as part of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s National Estuary Program.
LCREP’s major roles are to convene
common interests, help integrate
conservation efforts, increase public
awareness and involvement, and
promote information-based problemsolving. LCREP is the primary
organization focused on conserving and
improving the environment of the
Columbia River estuary. In addition to
having completed development, and
begun implementation, of its
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan in 1999, LCREP
completed the Mainstem Lower
Columbia River and Columbia River
Estuary Subbasin Plan and Supplement
in 2004. The LCREP’s expertise in
assessment, planning, and stakeholder
connections made it uniquely suited to
develop this proposed Estuary Module
for NMFS.
NMFS has reviewed the Estuary
Module and is now making it available
for public review and comment.
Upon approval of the Estuary Module,
NMFS will make a commitment to
implement the actions in the Estuary
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Module for which it has authority, to
work cooperatively on implementation
of other actions, and to encourage other
Federal agencies to implement Estuary
Module actions for which they have
responsibility and authority. NMFS will
also encourage the States of Washington
and Oregon to seek similar
implementation commitments from
state agencies and local governments.
NMFS expects the Estuary Module to
help NMFS and other Federal agencies
take a more consistent approach to
future section 7 consultations and other
ESA decisions. For example, the Estuary
Module will provide greater biological
context for the effects that a proposed
action may have on a listed ESU or DPS.
Science summarized in the Estuary
Module will become a component of the
’’best available information’’ for section
7 consultations as well as for section 10
habitat conservation plans and other
ESA decisions.
The Estuary Module
The purpose of the Estuary Module is
to identify and prioritize management
actions that, if implemented, would
reduce the impacts of the limiting
factors that salmon and steelhead
encounter during migration and rearing
in the estuary and plume ecosystems.
To accomplish this, changes in the
physical, biological, or chemical
conditions in the estuary are reviewed
for their potential to affect salmon and
steelhead. Then, the underlying causes
of limiting factors are identified and
prioritized based on the significance of
the limiting factor and each cause’s
contribution to one or more limiting
factors. These causes are referred to as
threats and can be either human or
environmental in origin. Finally,
management actions are identified that
are intended to reduce the threats and
increase the survival of salmon and
steelhead during estuarine rearing and
migration. Costs are developed for each
of the actions using an estimated level
of effort for implementation.
The Estuary Module is a synthesis of
diverse literature sources and the direct
input of estuary scientists. The
following key documents were used
extensively as a platform for the Estuary
Module: Mainstem Lower Columbia
River and Columbia River Estuary
Subbasin Plan and Supplement
(Northwest Power and Conservation
Council, 2004); Salmon at River’s End
(Bottom et al., 2005) and Role of the
Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia
River Basin Salmon and Steelhead
(Fresh et al., 2005). Many primary
sources were also consulted, including
experts from the NMFS Northwest
Fisheries Science Center, other NMFS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:07 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
staff, LCREP staff, and Lower Columbia
Fish Recovery Board staff. Additionally,
modifications to the Estuary Module
were influenced by interactions with the
Northwest Power and Conservation
Council, the Mid-Columbia Sounding
Board, the Upper Willamette
Stakeholder Team, and the Lower
Columbia River Stakeholder Team.
Planning Area and ESUs and DPSs
Addressed
For the purposes of the Estuary
Module, the estuary is broadly defined
to include the entire continuum where
tidal forces and river flows interact,
regardless of the extent of saltwater
intrusion (Fresh et al. 2005; Northwest
Power and Conservation Council 2004).
For planning purposes, the upstream
boundary is Bonneville Dam and the
downstream boundary includes the
Columbia River plume. These two
divisions-the estuary and plume-were
used extensively in the Estuary Module.
During their life cycles, all listed
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia
River basin rely for some period of time
on the Columbia River estuary. The
Estuary Module is therefore intended to
address all eight listed ESUs and all five
listed DPSs.
Recovery Goals, Objectives, and
Criteria
Because the Estuary Module
addresses only a portion of the species
life-cycle and is intended to be
incorporated into locally developed
recovery plans that will be adopted by
NMFS as ESA recovery plans, it does
not contain recovery goals and
objectives or de-listing criteria. Those
will be provided in the domain-specific
recovery plans that this Estuary Module
is intended to complement.
Causes for Decline and Current Threats
The estuary and plume are
considerably degraded from their
historical condition. The Estuary
Module identifies these changes,
evaluates their potential effects on
salmon and steelhead, and discusses
their underlying causes. The causes of
decline and current threats may be
broadly categorized as habitat-related
threats, threats related to the food web
and species interaction, and other
threats.
Habitat: The estuary is about 20
percent smaller than it was historically
(Northwest Power and Conservation
Council, 2004). This reduction is due
mostly to diking and filling practices
used to convert the floodplain to
agricultural, industrial, commercial, and
residential uses. Flows entering the
estuary also have changed dramatically:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
163
spring freshets have decreased and other
aspects of the historical hydrograph
have been altered. These changes are the
result of flow regulation by the
hydropower system, water withdrawal
for irrigation and water supplies, and
climate fluctuations.
Flow alterations and diking and
filling practices have affected salmon
and steelhead in several ways. Access to
and use of floodplain habitats by oceantype ESUs (salmonids that typically rear
for a shorter time in tributaries and a
longer time in the estuary) have been
severely compromised through
alterations in the presence and
availability of these important habitats.
Shifts in timing, magnitude, and
duration of flows have also changed
erosion and accretion processes,
resulting in changes to in-channel
habitat availability and connectivity.
Elevated temperatures of water
entering the estuary are also a threat to
salmon and steelhead. Degradation of
tributary riparian habitat by land-use
practices, in addition to reservoir
heating, has caused these increased
temperatures. Water quality in the
estuary and plume has also been
degraded by toxic contaminants. Many
contaminants are found in the estuary
and plume, some from agricultural
pesticides and fertilizers and some from
industrial sources. Salmon and
steelhead are affected by contaminants
through short-term exposure to lethal
substances or through longer exposures
to chemicals that accumulate over time
and magnify through the food chain.
Food Web and Species Interactions:
Limiting factors related to the food web
and species interactions can be thought
of as the product of all the threats to
salmon and steelhead in the estuary.
Examples include relatively recent
increases in Caspian tern and pinniped
predation on salmonids, due at least in
part to human alterations of the
ecosystem, as well as the more complex
and less understood shift from
macrodetritus-based primary plant
production to phytoplankton
production. The introduction of exotic
species is another ecosystem alteration
whose impacts are not clearly
understood.
Other Threats: The estuary is also
influenced by thousands of over-water
and instream structures, such as jetties,
pilings, pile dikes, rafts, docks,
breakwaters, bulkheads, revetments,
groins, and ramps. These structures alter
river circulation patterns, sediment
deposition, and light penetration, and
they form microhabitats that often
benefit predators. In some cases,
structures reduce juvenile access to lowvelocity habitats. Ship wake stranding is
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
164
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
an example of another threat to salmon
and steelhead in the estuary whose full
impact is not well understood.
TABLE 1 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO
ADDRESS THREATS—Continued
Threat
The Estuary Module identifies 23
management actions to improve the
survival of salmon and steelhead
migrating through and rearing in the
estuary and plume environments. Table
1 identifies these management actions
and shows their relationship to threats
to salmonid survival.
Management
Action
Threat
Management
Action
Flow regulation
Recovery Strategies and Actions
CRE–4: Adjust the timing, magnitude and
frequency of
flows (especially spring
freshets) entering the
estuary and
plume to
provide better transport
of sediments
and access
to habitats in
the estuary,
plume, and
littoral cell.
Dredging
CRE–7: Reduce entrainment
and habitat
effects resulting from
main- and
side-channel
dredge activities in the
estuary.
Pilings and
pile dikes
CRE–8: Remove pile
dikes that
have low
navigational
value but
high impact
on estuary
circulation
and/or juvenile predation effects.
Dikes and
filling
CRE–9: Protect remaining highquality offchannel
habitat from
degradation
through education, regulation, and
fee simple
and lessthan-fee acquisition.
TABLE 1 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO
ADDRESS THREATS
Threat
Flow-related
threats
Management
Action
Climate cycles and
global warming2
CRE1–1:
Protect intact riparian
areas in the
estuary and
restore riparian areas
that are degraded.2
Sedimentrelated
threats
CRE–2:
Modify
hydrosystem
operations to
reduce the
effects of
reservoir
surface
heating, or
conduct mitigation measures.2
Entrapment
of sediment
in reservoirs
Impaired
sediment
transport
CRE–3: Establish legal
instream
flows for the
estuary that
would help
prevent further degradation of
the ecosystem.2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Water withdrawal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:07 Dec 31, 2007
PO 00000
Structural
threats
CRE–5:
Study and
mitigate the
effects of
entrapment
of sediment
in reservoirs,
to improve
nourishment
of the littoral
cell.
CRE–6: Reduce the export of sand
and gravels
via dredge
operations
by using
dredged materials beneficially.
CRE–10:
Breach or
lower dikes
and levees
to improve
access to
off-channel
habitats.
CRE–4: Adjust the timing, magnitude and
frequency of
flows (especially spring
freshets) entering the
estuary and
plume to
provide better transport
of sediments
and access
to habitats in
the estuary,
plume, and
littoral cell.
CRE–3: Establish legal
instream
flows for the
estuary that
would help
prevent further degradation of
the ecosystem.
Jkt 214001
TABLE 1 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO
ADDRESS THREATS—Continued
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
Reservoir
heating
02JAN1
CRE–2:
Modify
hydrosystem
operations to
reduce the
effects of
reservoir
surface
heating, or
conduct mitigation measures.
165
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
TABLE 1 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO
ADDRESS THREATS—Continued
Threat
Management
Action
Over-water
structures
Food webrelated
threats
TABLE 1 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO
ADDRESS THREATS—Continued
CRE–11:
Reduce the
square footage of overwater structures in the
estuary.
Reservoir
phytoplankton production
Threat
CRE–10:
Breach or
lower dikes
and levees
to improve
access to
off-channel
habitats.
Altered predator/prey relationships
Ship ballast
practices
Water quality-related
threats
CRE–19:
Prevent new
invertebrate
introductions
and reduce
the effects of
existing infestations.
Agricultural
practices
CRE–20:
Implement
pesticide
and fertilizer
best management
practices to
reduce estuary and upstream
sources of
toxic contaminants
entering the
estuary.
Urban and
industrial
practices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
CRE–16:
Implement
projects to
redistribute
part of the
Caspian tern
colony currently nesting on East
Sand Island.
19:07 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
Threat
PO 00000
CRE–21:
Identify and
reduce industrial,
commercial,
and public
sources of
pollutants.
CRE–22:
Monitor the
estuary for
contaminants and/or
restore contaminated
sites.
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Management
Action
CRE–23:
Implement
stormwater
best management
practices in
cities and
towns.
CRE–1: Protect intact riparian areas
in the estuary and restore riparian areas
that are degraded.
CRE–18:
Reduce the
abundance
of shad entering the
estuary.
CRE–15:
Implement
education
and monitoring
projects and
enforce existing laws to
reduce the
introduction
and spread
of noxious
weeds.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Management
Action
CRE–17:
Implement
projects to
reduce double-crested
cormorant
habitats and
encourage
dispersal to
other locations.
CRE–13:
Manage
pikeminnow,
smallmouth
bass, walleye, and
channel catfish to prevent increases in
abundance.
CRE–14:
Identify and
implement
actions to
reduce
salmonid
predation by
pinnipeds.
TABLE 1 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO
ADDRESS THREATS—Continued
Other
threats
Riparian
practices
CRE–1: Protect intact riparian areas
in the estuary and restore riparian areas
that are degraded.
Ship wakes
CRE–12:
Reduce the
effects of
vessel wake
stranding in
the estuary.
1CRE = Columbia River estuary.
2It is unclear what the regional effects
of climate cycles and global warming will be during
the coming decades. In the absence of unambiguous data on the future effects of climate
cycles and global warming in the Pacific
Northwest, this recovery plan module takes a
conservative approach of assuming reduced
snowpacks, groundwater recharge, and
stream flows, with associated rises in stream
temperature and demand for water supplies.
The climate-related management actions in
this table reflect this assumption.
Identifying management actions that
could reduce threats to salmon and
steelhead as they rear in or migrate
through the estuary is an important step
toward improving conditions for
salmonids during a critical stage in their
life cycles. However, actual
implementation of management actions
is constrained by a variety of factors,
such as technical, economic, and
property rights considerations. In fact,
in some cases it will be impossible to
realize an action’s full potential because
its implementation is constrained by
past societal decisions that are
functionally irreversible. An important
assumption of the Estuary Module is
that the implementation of each of the
23 management actions is constrained
in some manner.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
166
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 / Notices
The Estuary Module makes another
important assumption about
implementation: although
implementation of actions is
constrained, even constrained
implementation can make important
contributions to the survival of
salmonids in the estuary, plume, and
nearshore.
It is within the context of these two
fundamental assumptions that recovery
actions are evaluated in the Estuary
Module, in terms of their costs and
potential benefits.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Potential Survival Benefits and Time
and Cost Estimates
The evaluation of survival benefits
and costs is highly uncertain because it
relies on estimates not only of what is
technically feasible, but also of what is
socially and politically practical. To
help characterize potential survival
improvements, the Estuary Module uses
a planning exercise that involves
distributing a plausible survivalimprovement target of 20 percent across
the actions to hypothesize the portion of
that total survival-improvement target
that might result from each action. The
primary purpose of the survivalimprovement target is to help compare
the relative potential benefits of
different management actions. The
survival-improvement target does not
account for variation at the ESU,
population, and subpopulation scales,
and is not intended for use in life-cycle
modeling, except as a starting point in
the absence of more rigorous data.
Costs are developed by breaking each
action into a number of specific projects
or units and identifying per-unit costs
for each project. Both the survival
improvements and costs reflect
assumptions about the constraints to
implementation and the degree to which
those constraints can be reduced given
the technical, social, and political
context in the Columbia River basin.
The Estuary Module estimates that the
cost of partial (constrained)
implementation of all 23 actions over a
25-year time period is about $500
million. Costs of tributary actions and
the total estimated time and cost of
recovery for each affected ESU or DPS
will be provided in the locally
developed recovery plans.
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
As discussed in chapter 6 of the
Estuary Module, several important
monitoring and adaptive management
activities are occurring throughout the
Columbia River Basin that have a direct
bearing on the estuary, plume, and
nearshore. While NMFS believes that
these activities provide an adequate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:55 Dec 31, 2007
Jkt 214001
framework for monitoring in the
estuary, there remains a need to ensure
consistency of existing monitoring and
evaluation programs in the estuary with
the NMFS document Adaptive
Management for Salmon Recovery:
Evaluation Framework and Monitoring
Guidance (www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonRecovery-Planning/ESA-RecoveryPlans/Other-Documents.cfm) and to
review and evaluate pertinent
monitoring programs to identify
additional monitoring needs (including
indicators, metrics, and protocols; lead
entities; costs), particularly in the area
of action effectiveness monitoring for
the actions identified in the Estuary
Module. This work is underway and
expected to be incorporated into chapter
6 or as an appendix of the Estuary
Module at the time it is finalized.
Conclusion
Literature Cited
Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership. 1999. Lower Columbia
River Estuary Plan (Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan).
Northwest Power and Conservation
Council. 2004. Mainstem Lower
Columbia River and Columbia River
Estuary Subbasin Plan and Supplement.
(Adopted into the Columbia River Basin
Fish and Wildlife Program).
Bottom, D.L., C.A. Simenstad, J.
Burke, A.M. Baptista, D.A. Jay, K.K.
Jones, E. Casillas, and M. H. Schiewe.
2005. Salmon at River’s End: The Role
of the Estuary in the Decline and
Recovery of Columbia River Salmon.
U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-NWFSC–68, 246p.
Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson,
and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the
Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia
River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: An
Evaluation of the Effects of Selected
Factors on Salmonid Population
Viability. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC–69, 105p.
Frm 00020
NMFS solicits written comments on
the proposed Estuary Module as a
component of Columbia Basin ESA
recovery plans. All comments received
by the date specified above will be
considered prior to NMFS’s decision
whether to adopt the Estuary Module.
Additionally, NMFS will provide a
summary of the comments and
responses through its regional web site.
NMFS seeks comments particularly in
the following areas: (1) survival
improvement targets and allocation of
benefits among actions; (2) costs and
schedule for implementing management
actions; (3) strategies for monitoring
action effectiveness; (4) oversight and
institutional infrastructure needed for
implementation of Estuary Module
actions.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
The Estuary Module contributes to all
the Columbia Basin salmon and
steelhead recovery plans by analyzing
limiting factors and threats relating to
survival of listed salmonid species in
their passage or residence time in the
Columbia River estuary, site-specific
management actions related to those
limiting factors and threats, and
estimates of cost, to be incorporated by
reference into all the basin recovery
plans. NMFS concludes that the Estuary
Module provides information that helps
to meets the requirements for recovery
plans under ESA section 4(f), and thus
is proposing it as a component of
Columbia Basin ESA recovery plans.
PO 00000
Public Comments Solicited
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: December 26, 2007.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office
of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7–25401 Filed 12–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN: 0648–XE76
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (Council); Public Meetings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council will convene
public meetings.
DATES: The meetings will be held
January 28, 2008 through January 31,
2008.
The meetings will be held at
the Radisson Hotel & Conference Center,
12600 Roosevelt Blvd., St. Petersburg,
FL 33716.
Council address: Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council, 2203
North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa,
FL 33607.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director,
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 161-166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25401]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE26
Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
[[Page 162]]
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
availability of the Proposed Columbia River Estuary Endangered Species
Act (ESA) Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (Estuary
Module) for public review and comment. The Estuary Module was developed
to meet the estuary recovery needs of all ESA-listed salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. The Estuary Module will be
incorporated by reference into all Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead
recovery plans to guide salmon and steelhead recovery in the Columbia
River estuary. The Estuary Module was prepared by the Lower Columbia
River Estuary Partnership, under contract to NMFS. At this time, NMFS
is soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested
parties on the proposed Estuary Module.
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 March 3, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Please send written comments and materials to Patty
Dornbusch, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard,
Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may also be submitted by e-
mail to: EstuaryPlan.nwr@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the
e-mail comment the following identifier: Comment on Columbia River
Estuary Recovery Plan Module. Comments may be submitted via facsimile
(fax) to (503) 872-2737.
Persons wishing to review the Estuary Module may obtain an
electronic copy (i.e., CD-ROM) by calling Sharon Houghton at (503) 230-
5418 or by emailing a request to sharon.houghton@noaa.gov, with the
subject line ``CD-ROM Request for Columbia River Estuary Module.''
Electronic copies of the Estuary Module are also available online on
the NMFS website: www.nwr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patty Dornbusch, NMFS Lower Columbia
Recovery Coordinator (503-230-5430), or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS Salmon
Recovery Division (503-230-5434).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. et
seq.), requires that a recovery plan be developed and implemented for
species listed as endangered or threatened under the statute, unless
such a plan would not promote the recovery of a species. Recovery plans
must contain (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. NMFS is the agency responsible for
developing recovery plans for salmon and steelhead, and the agency will
use the plans to guide efforts to restore endangered and threatened
Pacific salmon and steelhead to the point that they are again self
sustaining in their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of
the ESA.
To accomplish recovery planning in the Columbia River Basin, NMFS
organized the eight listed salmon evolutionarily significant units
(ESUs) and the five listed steelhead distinct population segments
(DPSs) into two geographic recovery domains, the Lower Columbia/
Willamette and the Interior Columbia. (The latter was further divided
into the Snake, Mid-Columbia, and Upper Columbia sub-domains.) Recovery
plans are either complete or in development to address all listed
salmon ESUs or steelhead DPSs within each domain.
Because NMFS believes that local support for recovery plans is
essential, the agency has approached recovery planning collaboratively,
with strong reliance on existing state, regional, and tribal planning
processes. For instance, in the Columbia Basin, recovery plans have
been or are being developed by regional recovery boards convened by
Washington State, by the State of Oregon in conjunction with
stakeholder teams, and by NMFS in Idaho with the participation of local
agencies. NMFS reviews locally developed recovery plans, ensures that
they satisfy ESA requirements, and makes them available for public
review and comment before formally adopting them as ESA recovery plans.
Recovery plans must consider the factors affecting species survival
throughout the entire life-cycle. The salmonid life cycle includes
spawning and rearing in the tributaries, migration through the mainstem
Columbia River and estuary to the ocean, and the return journey to the
natal stream. In the estuary, juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead
undergo physiological changes needed to make the transition to and from
saltwater. They use the varying sub-habitats of the estuary - the
shallows, side channels, deeper channels, and plume of freshwater
extending offshore - at varying times of the year. While local recovery
planners appropriately focus on the tributary conditions within their
jurisdictions and domains, NMFS recognized the need for consistent
treatment of the factors in the estuary that affect all of the listed
salmonids in the Columbia Basin.
The Estuary Module is intended to address limiting factors,
threats, and needed actions in the Columbia River estuary for the 13
ESUs and DPSs of salmon and steelhead listed in the basin. Each locally
developed recovery plan will then include or incorporate by reference
the Estuary Module as its estuary component. This approach will ensure
consistent treatment across locally developed recovery plans of the
effects of the Columbia River estuary as well as a system-wide approach
to evaluating and implementing estuary recovery actions. The planning
area of the Estuary Module overlaps to some extent with the planning
areas for locally developed plans for lower Columbia River tributaries.
This overlap occurs in the tidally influenced portions of the
tributaries, and in such instances the local plans will reflect the
Estuary Module but may contain a higher level of detail in terms of
specificity of actions.
NMFS contracted with the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
(LCREP) for development of the Estuary Module. LCREP was established in
1995 as part of the Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary
Program. LCREP's major roles are to convene common interests, help
integrate conservation efforts, increase public awareness and
involvement, and promote information-based problem-solving. LCREP is
the primary organization focused on conserving and improving the
environment of the Columbia River estuary. In addition to having
completed development, and begun implementation, of its Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan in 1999, LCREP completed the Mainstem
Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Subbasin Plan and
Supplement in 2004. The LCREP's expertise in assessment, planning, and
stakeholder connections made it uniquely suited to develop this
proposed Estuary Module for NMFS.
NMFS has reviewed the Estuary Module and is now making it available
for public review and comment.
Upon approval of the Estuary Module, NMFS will make a commitment to
implement the actions in the Estuary
[[Page 163]]
Module for which it has authority, to work cooperatively on
implementation of other actions, and to encourage other Federal
agencies to implement Estuary Module actions for which they have
responsibility and authority. NMFS will also encourage the States of
Washington and Oregon to seek similar implementation commitments from
state agencies and local governments.
NMFS expects the Estuary Module to help NMFS and other Federal
agencies take a more consistent approach to future section 7
consultations and other ESA decisions. For example, the Estuary Module
will provide greater biological context for the effects that a proposed
action may have on a listed ESU or DPS. Science summarized in the
Estuary Module will become a component of the ''best available
information'' for section 7 consultations as well as for section 10
habitat conservation plans and other ESA decisions.
The Estuary Module
The purpose of the Estuary Module is to identify and prioritize
management actions that, if implemented, would reduce the impacts of
the limiting factors that salmon and steelhead encounter during
migration and rearing in the estuary and plume ecosystems. To
accomplish this, changes in the physical, biological, or chemical
conditions in the estuary are reviewed for their potential to affect
salmon and steelhead. Then, the underlying causes of limiting factors
are identified and prioritized based on the significance of the
limiting factor and each cause's contribution to one or more limiting
factors. These causes are referred to as threats and can be either
human or environmental in origin. Finally, management actions are
identified that are intended to reduce the threats and increase the
survival of salmon and steelhead during estuarine rearing and
migration. Costs are developed for each of the actions using an
estimated level of effort for implementation.
The Estuary Module is a synthesis of diverse literature sources and
the direct input of estuary scientists. The following key documents
were used extensively as a platform for the Estuary Module: Mainstem
Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Subbasin Plan and
Supplement (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2004); Salmon at
River's End (Bottom et al., 2005) and Role of the Estuary in the
Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead (Fresh et al.,
2005). Many primary sources were also consulted, including experts from
the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, other NMFS staff, LCREP
staff, and Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board staff. Additionally,
modifications to the Estuary Module were influenced by interactions
with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the Mid-Columbia
Sounding Board, the Upper Willamette Stakeholder Team, and the Lower
Columbia River Stakeholder Team.
Planning Area and ESUs and DPSs Addressed
For the purposes of the Estuary Module, the estuary is broadly
defined to include the entire continuum where tidal forces and river
flows interact, regardless of the extent of saltwater intrusion (Fresh
et al. 2005; Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004). For
planning purposes, the upstream boundary is Bonneville Dam and the
downstream boundary includes the Columbia River plume. These two
divisions-the estuary and plume-were used extensively in the Estuary
Module.
During their life cycles, all listed salmon and steelhead in the
Columbia River basin rely for some period of time on the Columbia River
estuary. The Estuary Module is therefore intended to address all eight
listed ESUs and all five listed DPSs.
Recovery Goals, Objectives, and Criteria
Because the Estuary Module addresses only a portion of the species
life-cycle and is intended to be incorporated into locally developed
recovery plans that will be adopted by NMFS as ESA recovery plans, it
does not contain recovery goals and objectives or de-listing criteria.
Those will be provided in the domain-specific recovery plans that this
Estuary Module is intended to complement.
Causes for Decline and Current Threats
The estuary and plume are considerably degraded from their
historical condition. The Estuary Module identifies these changes,
evaluates their potential effects on salmon and steelhead, and
discusses their underlying causes. The causes of decline and current
threats may be broadly categorized as habitat-related threats, threats
related to the food web and species interaction, and other threats.
Habitat: The estuary is about 20 percent smaller than it was
historically (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2004). This
reduction is due mostly to diking and filling practices used to convert
the floodplain to agricultural, industrial, commercial, and residential
uses. Flows entering the estuary also have changed dramatically: spring
freshets have decreased and other aspects of the historical hydrograph
have been altered. These changes are the result of flow regulation by
the hydropower system, water withdrawal for irrigation and water
supplies, and climate fluctuations.
Flow alterations and diking and filling practices have affected
salmon and steelhead in several ways. Access to and use of floodplain
habitats by ocean-type ESUs (salmonids that typically rear for a
shorter time in tributaries and a longer time in the estuary) have been
severely compromised through alterations in the presence and
availability of these important habitats. Shifts in timing, magnitude,
and duration of flows have also changed erosion and accretion
processes, resulting in changes to in-channel habitat availability and
connectivity.
Elevated temperatures of water entering the estuary are also a
threat to salmon and steelhead. Degradation of tributary riparian
habitat by land-use practices, in addition to reservoir heating, has
caused these increased temperatures. Water quality in the estuary and
plume has also been degraded by toxic contaminants. Many contaminants
are found in the estuary and plume, some from agricultural pesticides
and fertilizers and some from industrial sources. Salmon and steelhead
are affected by contaminants through short-term exposure to lethal
substances or through longer exposures to chemicals that accumulate
over time and magnify through the food chain.
Food Web and Species Interactions: Limiting factors related to the
food web and species interactions can be thought of as the product of
all the threats to salmon and steelhead in the estuary. Examples
include relatively recent increases in Caspian tern and pinniped
predation on salmonids, due at least in part to human alterations of
the ecosystem, as well as the more complex and less understood shift
from macrodetritus-based primary plant production to phytoplankton
production. The introduction of exotic species is another ecosystem
alteration whose impacts are not clearly understood.
Other Threats: The estuary is also influenced by thousands of over-
water and instream structures, such as jetties, pilings, pile dikes,
rafts, docks, breakwaters, bulkheads, revetments, groins, and ramps.
These structures alter river circulation patterns, sediment deposition,
and light penetration, and they form microhabitats that often benefit
predators. In some cases, structures reduce juvenile access to low-
velocity habitats. Ship wake stranding is
[[Page 164]]
an example of another threat to salmon and steelhead in the estuary
whose full impact is not well understood.
Recovery Strategies and Actions
The Estuary Module identifies 23 management actions to improve the
survival of salmon and steelhead migrating through and rearing in the
estuary and plume environments. Table 1 identifies these management
actions and shows their relationship to threats to salmonid survival.
TABLE 1 Management Actions to Address Threats
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threat Management Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow-related threats Climate cycles and CRE\1\-1: Protect
global warming\2\ intact riparian areas
in the estuary and
restore riparian
areas that are
degraded.\2\
-----------------------
....................... CRE-2: Modify
hydrosystem
operations to reduce
the effects of
reservoir surface
heating, or conduct
mitigation
measures.\2\
-----------------------
....................... CRE-3: Establish legal
instream flows for
the estuary that
would help prevent
further degradation
of the ecosystem.\2\
------------------------------------------------
Water withdrawal CRE-3: Establish legal
instream flows for
the estuary that
would help prevent
further degradation
of the ecosystem.
------------------------------------------------
Flow regulation CRE-4: Adjust the
timing, magnitude and
frequency of flows
(especially spring
freshets) entering
the estuary and plume
to provide better
transport of
sediments and access
to habitats in the
estuary, plume, and
littoral cell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sediment-related Entrapment of sediment CRE-5: Study and
threats in reservoirs mitigate the effects
of entrapment of
sediment in
reservoirs, to
improve nourishment
of the littoral cell.
------------------------------------------------
Impaired sediment CRE-6: Reduce the
transport export of sand and
gravels via dredge
operations by using
dredged materials
beneficially.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-4: Adjust the
timing, magnitude and
frequency of flows
(especially spring
freshets) entering
the estuary and plume
to provide better
transport of
sediments and access
to habitats in the
estuary, plume, and
littoral cell.
------------------------------------------------
Dredging CRE-7: Reduce
entrainment and
habitat effects
resulting from main-
and side-channel
dredge activities in
the estuary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural threats Pilings and pile dikes CRE-8: Remove pile
dikes that have low
navigational value
but high impact on
estuary circulation
and/or juvenile
predation effects.
------------------------------------------------
Dikes and filling CRE-9: Protect
remaining high-
quality off-channel
habitat from
degradation through
education,
regulation, and fee
simple and less-than-
fee acquisition.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-10: Breach or
lower dikes and
levees to improve
access to off-channel
habitats.
------------------------------------------------
Reservoir heating CRE-2: Modify
hydrosystem
operations to reduce
the effects of
reservoir surface
heating, or conduct
mitigation measures.
[[Page 165]]
------------------------------------------------
Over-water structures CRE-11: Reduce the
square footage of
over-water structures
in the estuary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food web-related Reservoir phytoplankton CRE-10: Breach or
threats production lower dikes and
levees to improve
access to off-channel
habitats.
------------------------------------------------
Altered predator/prey CRE-13: Manage
relationships pikeminnow,
smallmouth bass,
walleye, and channel
catfish to prevent
increases in
abundance.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-14: Identify and
implement actions to
reduce salmonid
predation by
pinnipeds.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-15: Implement
education and
monitoring projects
and enforce existing
laws to reduce the
introduction and
spread of noxious
weeds.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-16: Implement
projects to
redistribute part of
the Caspian tern
colony currently
nesting on East Sand
Island.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-17: Implement
projects to reduce
double-crested
cormorant habitats
and encourage
dispersal to other
locations.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-18: Reduce the
abundance of shad
entering the estuary.
------------------------------------------------
Ship ballast practices CRE-19: Prevent new
invertebrate
introductions and
reduce the effects of
existing
infestations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water quality-related Agricultural practices CRE-20: Implement
threats pesticide and
fertilizer best
management practices
to reduce estuary and
upstream sources of
toxic contaminants
entering the estuary.
------------------------------------------------
Urban and industrial CRE-21: Identify and
practices reduce industrial,
commercial, and
public sources of
pollutants.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-22: Monitor the
estuary for
contaminants and/or
restore contaminated
sites.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-23: Implement
stormwater best
management practices
in cities and towns.
-----------------------
....................... CRE-1: Protect intact
riparian areas in the
estuary and restore
riparian areas that
are degraded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other threats Riparian practices CRE-1: Protect intact
riparian areas in the
estuary and restore
riparian areas that
are degraded.
------------------------------------------------
Ship wakes CRE-12: Reduce the
effects of vessel
wake stranding in the
estuary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\CRE = Columbia River estuary.
\2\It is unclear what the regional effects of climate cycles and global
warming will be during the coming decades. In the absence of
unambiguous data on the future effects of climate cycles and global
warming in the Pacific Northwest, this recovery plan module takes a
conservative approach of assuming reduced snowpacks, groundwater
recharge, and stream flows, with associated rises in stream
temperature and demand for water supplies. The climate-related
management actions in this table reflect this assumption.
Identifying management actions that could reduce threats to salmon
and steelhead as they rear in or migrate through the estuary is an
important step toward improving conditions for salmonids during a
critical stage in their life cycles. However, actual implementation of
management actions is constrained by a variety of factors, such as
technical, economic, and property rights considerations. In fact, in
some cases it will be impossible to realize an action's full potential
because its implementation is constrained by past societal decisions
that are functionally irreversible. An important assumption of the
Estuary Module is that the implementation of each of the 23 management
actions is constrained in some manner.
[[Page 166]]
The Estuary Module makes another important assumption about
implementation: although implementation of actions is constrained, even
constrained implementation can make important contributions to the
survival of salmonids in the estuary, plume, and nearshore.
It is within the context of these two fundamental assumptions that
recovery actions are evaluated in the Estuary Module, in terms of their
costs and potential benefits.
Potential Survival Benefits and Time and Cost Estimates
The evaluation of survival benefits and costs is highly uncertain
because it relies on estimates not only of what is technically
feasible, but also of what is socially and politically practical. To
help characterize potential survival improvements, the Estuary Module
uses a planning exercise that involves distributing a plausible
survival-improvement target of 20 percent across the actions to
hypothesize the portion of that total survival-improvement target that
might result from each action. The primary purpose of the survival-
improvement target is to help compare the relative potential benefits
of different management actions. The survival-improvement target does
not account for variation at the ESU, population, and subpopulation
scales, and is not intended for use in life-cycle modeling, except as a
starting point in the absence of more rigorous data.
Costs are developed by breaking each action into a number of
specific projects or units and identifying per-unit costs for each
project. Both the survival improvements and costs reflect assumptions
about the constraints to implementation and the degree to which those
constraints can be reduced given the technical, social, and political
context in the Columbia River basin.
The Estuary Module estimates that the cost of partial (constrained)
implementation of all 23 actions over a 25-year time period is about
$500 million. Costs of tributary actions and the total estimated time
and cost of recovery for each affected ESU or DPS will be provided in
the locally developed recovery plans.
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
As discussed in chapter 6 of the Estuary Module, several important
monitoring and adaptive management activities are occurring throughout
the Columbia River Basin that have a direct bearing on the estuary,
plume, and nearshore. While NMFS believes that these activities provide
an adequate framework for monitoring in the estuary, there remains a
need to ensure consistency of existing monitoring and evaluation
programs in the estuary with the NMFS document Adaptive Management for
Salmon Recovery: Evaluation Framework and Monitoring Guidance
(www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Other-
Documents.cfm) and to review and evaluate pertinent monitoring programs
to identify additional monitoring needs (including indicators, metrics,
and protocols; lead entities; costs), particularly in the area of
action effectiveness monitoring for the actions identified in the
Estuary Module. This work is underway and expected to be incorporated
into chapter 6 or as an appendix of the Estuary Module at the time it
is finalized.
Conclusion
The Estuary Module contributes to all the Columbia Basin salmon and
steelhead recovery plans by analyzing limiting factors and threats
relating to survival of listed salmonid species in their passage or
residence time in the Columbia River estuary, site-specific management
actions related to those limiting factors and threats, and estimates of
cost, to be incorporated by reference into all the basin recovery
plans. NMFS concludes that the Estuary Module provides information that
helps to meets the requirements for recovery plans under ESA section
4(f), and thus is proposing it as a component of Columbia Basin ESA
recovery plans.
Literature Cited
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 1999. Lower Columbia
River Estuary Plan (Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan).
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004. Mainstem Lower
Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Subbasin Plan and Supplement.
(Adopted into the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program).
Bottom, D.L., C.A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A.M. Baptista, D.A. Jay,
K.K. Jones, E. Casillas, and M. H. Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at River's
End: The Role of the Estuary in the Decline and Recovery of Columbia
River Salmon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-68, 246p.
Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role
of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and
Steelhead: An Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid
Population Viability. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-
69, 105p.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS solicits written comments on the proposed Estuary Module as a
component of Columbia Basin ESA recovery plans. All comments received
by the date specified above will be considered prior to NMFS's decision
whether to adopt the Estuary Module. Additionally, NMFS will provide a
summary of the comments and responses through its regional web site.
NMFS seeks comments particularly in the following areas: (1) survival
improvement targets and allocation of benefits among actions; (2) costs
and schedule for implementing management actions; (3) strategies for
monitoring action effectiveness; (4) oversight and institutional
infrastructure needed for implementation of Estuary Module actions.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: December 26, 2007.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-25401 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
