Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans, 25706-25710 [E9-12558]
Download as PDF
25706
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices
Potassium citrate and crude calcium
citrate are classifiable under
2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the
HTSUS, respectively. Blends that
include citric acid, sodium citrate, and
potassium citrate are classifiable under
3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Countervailing Duty Order
On May 22, 2009, in accordance with
section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC
notified the Department of its final
determination that the industry in the
United States producing citric acid is
materially injured within the meaning
of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by
reason of subsidized imports of citric
acid from the PRC.
Therefore, countervailing duties will
be assessed on all unliquidated entries
of citric acid from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after September 19,
2008, the date on which the Department
published its preliminary affirmative
countervailing duty determination in
the Federal Register,1 and before
January 17, 2009, the date the
Department instructed U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to
discontinue the suspension of
liquidation in accordance with section
703(d) of the Act. Section 703(d) of the
Act states that the suspension of
liquidation pursuant to a preliminary
determination may not remain in effect
for more than four months. Therefore,
entries of citric acid made on or after
January 17, 2009, and prior to the date
of publication of the ITC’s final
determination in the Federal Register
are not liable for the assessment of
countervailing duties due to the
Department’s discontinuation, effective
January 17, 2009, of the suspension of
liquidation.
In accordance with section 706 of the
Act, the Department will direct CBP to
reinstitute the suspension of liquidation
for citric acid from the PRC, effective
the date of publication of the ITC’s
notice of final determination in the
Federal Register and to assess, upon
further advice by the Department
pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act,
countervailing duties for each entry of
the subject merchandise in an amount
based on the net countervailable
1 See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty
Determination With Final Antidumping Duty
Determination, 73 FR 54367 (September 19, 2008).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:24 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
subsidy rates for the subject
merchandise as noted below.
N.E. Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland,
OR 97232, or calling (503) 231–2149.
Persons wishing to read the Recovery
Net subsidy Plan can obtain an electronic copy (i.e.,
Exporter/Manufacturer
rate
CD-ROM) from Sharon Houghton by
(percent)
calling (503) 230–5418, or by emailing
a request to
TTCA Co., Ltd. (a.k.a.
Sharon.Houghton@noaa.gov, with the
Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) ...............
12.68 subject line ‘‘CD-ROM Request for Final
Yixing Union Biochemical Co.,
ESA Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette
Ltd.; and Yixing Union CoSockeye Salmon.’’ NMFS’ summary of
generation Co., Ltd. ..............
3.60 and response to public comments on the
Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co.,
draft Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette
Ltd. ........................................
118.95
Sockeye Salmon will be included on the
All-Others ..................................
8.14
CD-ROM. Electronic copies of these
documents are also available on-line via
This notice constitutes the
the NMFS’ website, www.nwr.noaa.gov/
countervailing duty order with respect
Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recoveryto citric acid from the PRC, pursuant to
Domains/Puget-Sound/Lake-Ozettesection 706(a) of the Act. Interested
Plan.cfm.
parties may contact the Department’s
Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rosemary Furfey, NMFS Lake Ozette
main Commerce Building, for copies of
Salmon Recovery Coordinator at (503)
an updated list of countervailing duty
231–2149, or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS
orders currently in effect.
This order is issued and published in
Salmon Recovery Division at (503) 230–
accordance with section 706(a) of the
5434.
Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: May 26, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–12642 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XP36
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Recovery Plans
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
SUMMARY: The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
adoption of its Endangered Species Act
(ESA) Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) for
the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka) Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU). This Recovery
Plan was prepared by NMFS’ Northwest
Region and underwent public review.
The final Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette
Sockeye contains revisions and
additions in consideration of public
comments received on the draft
Recovery Plan.
ADDRESSES: Additional information
about the Recovery Plan may be
obtained by writing to Rosemary Furfey,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, to the
extent practicable, 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 that
may be 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 recovery of a particular species.
NMFS’ goal is to restore endangered
and threatened Pacific salmon 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
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
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices
deciding whether they meet ESA
statutory requirements and merit
adoption as ESA recovery plans.
In 2005, NMFS and the Lake Ozette
Steering Committee (Steering
Committee), an existing, locally based
citizen group, began working together to
write a plan for the recovery of Lake
Ozette sockeye salmon (originally listed
as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR
14528)). The goal was to produce a plan
that meets ESA requirements for
recovery plans as well as the State of
Washington’s recovery planning outline
and guidance (WDFW 2003). The Makah
and Quileute Tribes, Olympic National
Park, Clallam County, local land
owners, Washington Governor’s Salmon
Recovery Office, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Department of Natural
Resources, NMFS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, North Olympic
Peninsula Lead Entity, private timber
companies, and local citizens comprised
the Steering Committee and have met
periodically since 1981 to discuss
natural resource issues related to
sockeye salmon. The diverse
representation on the Steering
Committee has provided a broad and
unique perspective that has lent great
value to the recovery planning process.
To ensure that recovery plans are
scientifically sound, NMFS has
appointed teams of scientists with
expertise in salmon species to provide
scientific support for recovery planning
in the Northwest. These technical
recovery teams (TRTs) include
biologists from NMFS, state, tribal, and
local agencies, academic institutions,
and private consulting groups. The
Puget Sound TRT provided two reports
for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon
recovery planning process: (1) a
description of the Lake Ozette sockeye
salmon population (Currents et al. 2006)
and (2) viability criteria for the sockeye
(Rawson et al. 2007). The TRT also
reviewed the Lake Ozette Sockeye
Limiting Factors Analysis (Haggerty et
al. 2007), the proposed recovery plan,
and coordinated an independent peer
review process. Frequent Steering
Committee meetings enabled NMFS and
the Puget Sound TRT to share draft
recovery plan products and seek review
and comment as the draft plan was
developed. Based on this iterative
process, the availability of the Proposed
Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette Sockeye
Salmon was published in the Federal
Register on April 23, 2008, and public
comments were solicited (73 FR 21913).
Other supporting documents were also
made available for public review and
comment, including the Draft Limiting
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:24 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Factors Analysis and draft Puget Sound
TRT reports.
NMFS received 20 comment letters,
by mail, facsimile, or e-mail, on the
Proposed Recovery Plan. Public
hearings were held between April 23,
2008, and June 23, 2008, in Port
Angeles, WA, and Sekiu, WA. NMFS
summarized the public comments and
oral testimony and prepared responses,
now available on the NMFS website at:
www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/Recovery-Domains/PugetSound/Lake-Ozette-Plan.cfm. NMFS
revised its Proposed Recovery Plan
based on comments received.
Consistent with adoption of this final
Recovery Plan, NMFS will seek to
implement the actions for which it has
authority, to work cooperatively on
implementation of other actions, and to
encourage other Federal agencies to
implement Recovery 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 Recovery Plan to
help NMFS and other Federal agencies
take a more consistent approach to
future ESA section 7 consultations
under the ESA and other ESA decisions.
For example, the Recovery Plan will
provide greater biological context for the
effects that a proposed action may have
on the listed ESU. This context will be
enhanced by adding Recovery Plan
science to the ‘‘best available
information’’ for section 7 consultation
opinions, section 10 habitat
conservation plans, and other ESA
decisions. Such information includes
viability criteria for the ESU and its
independent populations; better
understanding of and information on
limiting factors and threats impacting
the ESU; better information on priority
areas for addressing specific limiting
factors; and better geographic context
for where the ESU can tolerate varying
levels of risk.
The Recovery Plan
Lake Ozette, its perimeter shore, and
most of the Ozette River, which forms
the outlet of the lake to the estuary and
Pacific Ocean, are included in the
922,000–acre Olympic National Park.
This Recovery Plan complements,
recognizes, and works within the
authorities of the Olympic National
Park, Clallam County, the Forest
Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, and
tribal trust and treaty rights, and does
not augment or supersede these or other
authorities.
The Recovery Plan is based on a series
of hypotheses about what is limiting the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25707
survival of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon.
These hypotheses are based on the best
available current knowledge about Lake
Ozette sockeye salmon. These
hypotheses are designed to be tested in
the course of time through monitoring
the fish, their environment, and the
effects of the actions that may be taken
to protect and improve the Lake Ozette
sockeye’s ecosystem and survival
chances. The process of designing
actions based on best available
information, then monitoring the results
to find out what works best and
changing the actions as appropriate, is
called adaptive management. This
Recovery Plan is intended as a tool for
adaptive management for Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon recovery and is to be
implemented within the range of the
Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU.
ESU Addressed and Planning Area
Lake Ozette sockeye salmon were
listed under the ESA on March 25, 1999
(64 FR 14528), as a species threatened
with becoming endangered throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
The Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU is
unique among other ESA-listed salmon
in being made up of only one
population (Currens et al. 2006), with an
inland range that is limited to a single
freshwater watershed a short distance
from the ocean. The Lake Ozette
watershed has an unusual potential for
protection and restoration of landscape
processes to support long-term salmon
survival, because it is relatively
undeveloped, has a relatively low
human population density, and the lake
itself is located within the Olympic
National Park.
The single population of Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon currently contains five
distinct spawning aggregations that are
described in the Recovery Plan as
subpopulations. The subpopulations
can be grouped according to whether
they spawn in tributaries or near lake
beaches. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon
are distinguished from other
Washington sockeye salmon ESUs based
on unique genetic characteristics, early
river entry, the relatively large adult
body size, and larger average smolt size
relative to other coastal Washington
sockeye salmon populations.
Lake Ozette is situated on the coastal
plain between the Pacific Ocean and the
Olympic Mountains. The lake is
approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) long
from north to south and 2 miles (3.2 km)
wide, irregularly shaped, and containing
several bays, distinct points, and three
islands. With a surface area of 11.8 mi2
(30.6 km2, 7,550 acres; 3,056 ha), Lake
Ozette is the third largest natural lake in
Washington State. The Ozette River
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
25708
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices
drains the lake from its north end and
travels approximately 5.3 miles (8.5 km)
along a sinuous course to the Pacific
Ocean. The total drainage area of the
Ozette watershed at the confluence with
the Pacific Ocean is 88.4 mi2 (229 km2).
Historically, the Ozette watershed
supported thriving populations of
sockeye salmon, which were an
important element of the fisheries of the
Makah and Quileute Tribes, as well as
an important subsistence species for
early European-American settlers in the
watershed. The peak harvest of 17,500
fish was recorded in 1949, but
abundance decreased rapidly in the
following decades. Because of declining
numbers, tribal commercial harvest
ceased in 1974 and all tribal ceremonial
and subsistence harvest ceased in 1982.
The Plan’s Recovery Goals and
Recovery Criteria
The Recovery Plan’s goal is for the
Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population
to reach the point that it is naturally
self-sustaining, no longer needs the
protection of the ESA, and can be
delisted. In addition, a recovery plan
can have ‘‘broad-sense’’ goals that may
go beyond the requirements for delisting
to acknowledge social, cultural, or
economic values regarding the listed
species. NMFS and the Lake Ozette
Steering Committee crafted the
following vision statement describing
desirable future conditions for the Lake
Ozette sockeye salmon and its human
and biological setting:
‘‘The naturally spawning Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon population is sufficiently
abundant, productive, and diverse (in terms
of life histories and geographic distribution)
to provide significant ecological, cultural,
social, and economic benefits. Protection and
restoration of ecosystems have sustained
processes necessary to maintain sockeye as
well as other salmon, steelhead, and wildlife
species. Community livability, economic
well-being, and treaty-reserved fishing rights
have benefited by balancing salmon recovery
with management of local land use and
fishery economies.’’
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
To meet the ESA requirements for
objective, measurable criteria for
delisting, the Recovery Plan provides
biological recovery criteria based on the
Puget Sound TRT viability criteria for
Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, as well as
‘‘threats’’ criteria based on the listing
factors defined in ESA section 4(a)(1).
Biological Recovery Criteria
The Puget Sound TRT provided
viability criteria for Lake Ozette sockeye
salmon in terms of the four ‘‘viable
salmonid populations’’ (VSP)
parameters defined in NMFS technical
memorandum, Viable salmonid
populations and the recovery of
evolutionarily significant units
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:24 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
(McElhany et al. 2000). The Puget
Sound TRT’s viability criteria for Lake
Ozette sockeye salmon are as follows:
Abundance: Approximately 31,250–
121,000 adult spawners, over a number
of years; this planning range is
associated with a productivity of 1:1
recruits-per-spawner. NMFS is working
with the Puget Sound TRT to develop
more specific abundance and
productivity targets and a specific
number of years that would represent a
level upon which to make a delisting
decision.
Productivity (Growth Rate): Stable or
increasing.
Spatial Structure: Multiple,
persistent, and spatially distinct beachspawning aggregations, augmented by
tributary spawning aggregations.
Diversity: One or more persistent
spawning aggregations from each major
genetic and life history group
historically present within that
population. Maintain the distinctness
between Lake Ozette sockeye salmon
and kokanee.
NMFS, in coordination with the
Steering Committee, concluded that the
Puget Sound TRT’s viability criteria
should be the biological recovery
criteria of this Recovery Plan.
Threats Criteria
‘‘Threats’’ are the human activities or
natural events that cause the factors
limiting a species’ survival. For
example, where high water
temperatures are identified as a limiting
factor, removal of riparian vegetation,
which causes loss of shade and results
in higher water temperatures, is
categorized as the threat. The threats
criteria define the conditions under
which the listing factors, or threats, can
be considered to be addressed or
mitigated. Threats criteria are provided
in Section 3.3.3 of the Recovery Plan.
Causes for Decline and Current Threats
The 1999 listing of the Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon ESU as threatened
under the ESA was primarily attributed
to concerns about low abundance and
effects of small population genetic and
demographic variability. A more
thorough identification of limiting
factors is provided in the Lake Ozette
Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis
(Haggerty et al. 2009). Based on the best
available information and analysis, the
Lake Ozette Steering Committee’s
Technical Workgroup evaluated and
rated each of the limiting factors
hypotheses for its contribution to
sockeye population or subpopulation
mortality by life stage.
Some limiting factors, habitat
conditions, and life histories were
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
shared among all subpopulations, while
others vary. In the Limiting Factors
Analysis, the subpopulations were
grouped based on spawning
environment, i.e., tributary vs. beach,
and limiting factors were described in
three categories: those affecting the
entire population; those specific to
beach spawners; and those specific to
tributary spawners.
Two limiting factors are hypothesized
as having a high impact on all Lake
Ozette sockeye salmon population
segments: piscivorous fish predation on
juveniles rearing in the lake, and general
marine survival. Limiting factors with
moderate impact on all population
segments are marine mammal predation
on adults re-entering the Ozette River
and water quality in the Ozette River.
Limiting factors hypothesized as
having a high impact specifically on
beach spawners are poor-quality
spawning habitat, which decreases
survival in the incubation-to-emergence
life stage, and predation on adults, eggs,
and newly emerged fry. Limiting factors
with moderate impact on beach
spawners are: seasonal lake level
changes; water quality issues, including
turbidity and fine sediment; and
competition for good quality spawning
habitat, which can result in redd
superimposition and decreased egg-tofry survival.
Limiting factors hypothesized as
having high impact specifically on
tributary spawners are fine sediments,
unstable channel, and other water
quality issues that reduce spawning
habitat quality and result in decreased
egg-to-fry survival. High predation on
fry during their emigration to the lake
was identified as a limiting factor with
moderate impact on tributary spawners.
Recovery Strategies and Actions
The Recovery Plan recommends an
overall recovery strategy based on
current research about the relationships
between watershed processes, land use,
and freshwater habitat. This information
is then related to what is known about
sockeye salmon mortality by life stage,
and to the hypothesized limiting factors.
The result is a hierarchy of types of
recovery strategies that can form the
basis for setting priorities among
potential actions.
The first priority, and likely the most
effective type of action, is to assess,
protect, and maintain good quality
habitat and the processes that create and
maintain it. One example would be to
protect currently used spawning areas.
Another would be for willing
landowners to protect forest or
streamside areas with conservation
easements, where trees could be
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices
allowed to grow large, mature, and
eventually fall by natural forces,
creating habitat conditions needed by
sockeye salmon.
Next in importance and certainty of
effectiveness is reconnecting isolated
habitat – for example, removing a
blockage in the stream, thus allowing
salmon more room to spawn and rear.
Third is restoring biological processes
of various kinds; this includes a wide
range of potential actions. For example:
restoring natural predator-prey balance
by improving egg-to-fry survival and/or
reducing non-native fish species by
means of selective fishing; ceasing to
remove large woody debris from
sections of the lower Ozette River; and
assessing sources of sediment and
reducing sediment production and
delivery to streams.
Directly restoring degraded habitat is
of lower priority because it is more
difficult, often more costly, and often
effective only in the short-term,
compared to restoring the processes that
create habitat and will continue creating
properly functioning habitat over time.
However, some direct actions, such as
placing large woody debris in carefully
chosen areas, will initiate biological
processes that are likely to continue
naturally if accompanied by appropriate
long-term riparian management.
Creating new habitat is significantly
more difficult than working to protect
and restore existing habitat; creating
new habitat is therefore of lowest
priority, although in some
circumstances it may be the only
alternative.
NMFS, with input from the Steering
Committee, evaluated the sub-basins in
the Lake Ozette watershed for their
importance as sockeye habitat. The
Recovery Plan accordingly provides
geographic priorities for recovery
actions.
Habitat, harvest, and hatchery factors
affecting Lake Ozette sockeye salmon
are included in the recovery strategies.
Hatchery and harvest management
issues are presented and addressed
within the context of biological
processes.
NMFS and the Lake Ozette Steering
Committee developed an extensive list
of 121 potential projects/actions. The
proposed actions are designed to
address the full range of limiting factors
for all life cycle stages of Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon and are intended to
improve the health and ecosystems of
these fish.
The proposed actions are in six
categories:
• Fisheries management
• Habitat-related actions
• Hatchery supplementation
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:24 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
• Predation-related actions
• Research, monitoring, and adaptive
management
• Public education and outreach,
which need to be implemented in
cooperation with all appropriate
permitting authorities (including
Olympic National Park), and in the
context of existing permits, regulations,
agreements, and public processes.
Site-specific Actions
The Recovery Plan recognizes that
recovery actions must be implemented
at both the regional, or ESU, and
watershed, or population, levels. In the
case of Lake Ozette sockeye, the ESU
contains only one population, so actions
taken to benefit the ESU will
undoubtedly benefit the sole
population. Site-specific actions
articulated in this Recovery Plan are
intended to link directly to recovery
models, watershed processes, locations
(including Ozette River, tributaries,
estuarine, and nearshore environments),
and address primary and secondary
limiting factor hypotheses. Details of the
site-specific actions can be found in
Appendix D of the Plan.
Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive
Management
The Recovery Plan identifies the
many knowledge gaps and uncertainties
involved in designing recovery actions
for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon.
Because the proposed recovery actions
are based on hypotheses about the
relationships between fish, limiting
factors, human activities, and the
environment, the Recovery Plan
recommends research and monitoring to
determine recovery progress.
Monitoring is the basis for adaptive
management the process of adjusting
management actions and/or directions
based on new information. Research,
monitoring, and adaptive management
are built into the Recovery Plan.
Time and Cost Estimates
Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA 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]). Chapter 9 of the
Recovery Plan provides cost estimates
for actions where costs are available.
Costs for actions that are being
implemented as part of ongoing,
existing programs are considered
‘‘baseline’’ and are not included in
Chapter 9 as costs to recover Lake
Ozette sockeye salmon. The overall total
cost to implement recovery actions for
the first 10 years of this plan is
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25709
estimated to be approximately $46
million. Many of these are one-time
costs.
Approximately $100,000 of the
estimated implementation cost
represents ongoing, annual
administrative or infrastructure costs
that will likely continue for the duration
of implementation of the plan. Thus, it
can be inferred that if recovery takes 50
years, another $4 million may be
incurred over the long term to continue
and maintain habitat improvements.
NMFS estimates that recovery of the
Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU, like
recovery for most of the ESA-listed
salmon, could take 50 to 100 years.
Because many uncertainties exist about
how sockeye salmon and their habitat
will respond to recovery actions, the
costs and recovery actions in this plan
focus on the first 10 years of
implementation. Actions and costs will
be revised over time as part of adaptive
management.
Unlike other ESA-listed salmon
species in Washington State, the Lake
Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU has not had
a state-designated recovery board
responsible for developing the recovery
plan. Therefore, NMFS is working with
the Lake Ozette Steering Committee and
other entities, such as the newly formed
North Pacific Coast Lead Entity and the
Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon
Partnership, to make an Implementation
Plan. NMFS anticipates that the
organizations potentially involved will
choose to participate in recognition of
the shared benefits of habitat protection
and restoration. A detailed
Implementation Schedule and further
details of an organizational approach to
implementation will be produced in
2009.
Conclusions
NMFS concludes that the Recovery
Plan meets the requirements of ESA
section 4(f) and thus is adopting it as the
Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette Sockeye
Salmon.
Literature Cited
Currens, K.P., R. Fuerstenberg, W.
Graeber, K. Rawson, M. Ruckelshaus,
N.J. Sands, and J. Scott. 2006.
Independent populations of sockeye
salmon in Lake Ozette. Puget Sound
Technical Recovery Team document.
March 21, 2006. Northwest Fisheries
Science Center. NOAA Fisheries
Service. Seattle, WA. 20p.
www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/pugetldocs.
Haggerty, M.J., A.C. Ritchie, J.G.
Shellberg, M.J. Crewson, and J. Jolonen.
2007. Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting
Factors Analysis. Prepared for the
Makah Indian Tribe and NOAA
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
25710
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices
Fisheries in cooperation with the Lake
Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee.
Port Angeles, WA.
McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J.
Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P.
Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmon
populations and the recovery of
evolutionarily significant units. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Memo., NMFS-NWFSC 42. 156p.
Rawson, K., N.J. Sands, K.P.Currens,
W. Graeber, M. Ruckelshaus, R.
Fuerstenberg, and J.B. Scott. 2008.
Viability Criteria for the Lake Ozette
Sockeye Salmon ESU. Puget Sound
Technical Recovery Team document.
Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
NOAA Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA.
39p.
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. State of
Washington: An Outline for Salmon
Recovery Plans. December 2003.
Olympia, WA. 44p.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: May 22, 2009.
Therese Conant,
Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9–12558 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XP34
Fisheries in the Western Pacific;
Amended Marine Conservation Plan
for Pacific Insular Areas; Northern
Mariana Islands
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of agency decision.
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the
approval of an amended marine
conservation plan (MCP) for the
Northern Mariana Islands.
DATES: This agency decision is effective
October 6, 2008, through October 6,
2011.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the MCP are
available from the Western Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council),
1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu,
HI 96813, tel 808–522–8220, fax 808–
522–8226.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jarad Makaiau, Sustainable Fisheries,
NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, at
808–944–2108.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:24 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Under
Section 204(e)(1)(A)of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act), the Secretary of State, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) and in
consultation with the Council, may
negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular
Area fishery agreement (PIAFA) to allow
foreign fishing within waters of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
adjacent to American Samoa, Guam, or
the Northern Mariana Islands, and at the
request and with the concurrence of,
and in consultation with, the Governor
of the Pacific Insular Area to which the
PIAFA applies. Section 204(e)(4) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that
prior to entering into a PIAFA, the
appropriate Governor and the Council
shall develop a three-year MCP
containing detailing the uses for funds
to be collected by the Secretary under
the PIAFA.
Any payments received under a
PIAFA shall be deposited into the
United States Treasury and then
covered over to the Treasury of the
Pacific Insular Area for which funds
were collected. In the case of violations
by foreign fishing vessels occurring
within the EEZ off any Pacific Insular
Area, any amount received by the
Secretary which is attributable to fines
and penalties imposed under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, including such
sums collected from the forfeiture and
disposition or sale of property seized
subject to its authority, after payment of
direct costs of the enforcement action to
all entities involved in such action,
shall be deposited into the Treasury of
the Pacific Insular Area adjacent to the
EEZ in which the violation occurred, to
be used for fisheries enforcement and
for implementation of a MCP. The MCP
to be approved by the Secretary must be
consistent with the Council’s fishery
management plans, identify
conservation and management
objectives (including criteria for
determining when such objectives have
been met), and prioritize planned
marine conservation projects.
In June 2007, the Council approved an
MCP for the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and
recommended its submission to the
Secretary for approval. NMFS, designee
of the Secretary, received the MCP on
March 10, 2008. Following review and
revision of the MCP, the Department of
Lands and Natural Resources, CNMI,
submitted the completed MCP on behalf
of the Governor to NMFS on September
23, 2008. That MCP, dated June 2007,
satisfied the requirements of MSA
Section 204(e), and was approved for
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the three-year period October 6, 2008,
through October 6, 2011 (73 FR 61020,
October 15, 2008).
At its 144th meeting in March 2009,
the Council approved an amended MCP
for the CNMI. On April 9, 2009, the
Governor of the CNMI submitted the
amended MCP, dated March 2009. The
March 2009 document revises the
objective related to domestic fisheries
development, and the prioritization of
projects. The amendments are aimed at
further promoting the development and
enhancing the economic viability of
CNMI fisheries.
The amended MCP contains 12
objectives, listed below, which are
consistent with the Council’s five
existing fishery management plans:
1. Data collection and reporting;
2. Resource assessment and
monitoring;
3. Incidental catch, bycatch, and
protected species interaction;
4. Habitat assessment and monitoring;
5. Management procedures;
6. Surveillance and enforcement;
7. Promote responsible domestic
fisheries development to provide long
term economic growth and stability and
local food production;
8. Marine conservation education;
9. Public participation;
10. Regional cooperation;
11. Western Pacific demonstration
projects; and
12. Performance evaluation.
The MCP identifies 22 programs or
projects associated with the MCP
objectives for potential funding under a
PIAFA, as listed below in order of
priority:
1. EEZ enforcement program;
2. Analysis of data on pelagic fishery
resources;
3. Commercial harvest monitoring
system;
4. Fisheries technology and education
program;
5. Longline permit, reporting and
quota utilization program;
6. Development of fish marketing plan
that includes topics on market
identification, transportation, fish
products, branding and eco-labeling,
and other marketing issues;
7. CNMI commercial fisheries
baseline assessment;
8. Regional fisheries meeting and
conferences funding assistance;
9. Enhance fishing opportunities by
deploying community fish aggregation
devices;
10. Vessel monitoring program;
11. Construction of cold storage, fish
processing, and fish market facilities;
12. Foreign fishery observer program;
13. Establish fishery management
units for the EEZ;
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25706-25710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12558]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XP36
Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
adoption of its Endangered Species Act (ESA) Recovery Plan (Recovery
Plan) for the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). This Recovery Plan was prepared
by NMFS' Northwest Region and underwent public review. The final
Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette Sockeye contains revisions and additions
in consideration of public comments received on the draft Recovery
Plan.
ADDRESSES: Additional information about the Recovery Plan may be
obtained by writing to Rosemary Furfey, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1201 N.E. Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232, or
calling (503) 231-2149.
Persons wishing to read the Recovery Plan can obtain an electronic
copy (i.e., CD-ROM) from Sharon Houghton by calling (503) 230-5418, or
by emailing a request to Sharon.Houghton@noaa.gov, with the subject
line ``CD-ROM Request for Final ESA Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette
Sockeye Salmon.'' NMFS' summary of and response to public comments on
the draft Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon will be included
on the CD-ROM. Electronic copies of these documents are also available
on-line via the NMFS' website, www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Puget-Sound/Lake-Ozette-Plan.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemary Furfey, NMFS Lake Ozette
Salmon Recovery Coordinator at (503) 231-2149, or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS
Salmon Recovery Division at (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, to the extent practicable, 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 that may be 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 recovery of a
particular species.
NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmon
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 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
[[Page 25707]]
deciding whether they meet ESA statutory requirements and merit
adoption as ESA recovery plans.
In 2005, NMFS and the Lake Ozette Steering Committee (Steering
Committee), an existing, locally based citizen group, began working
together to write a plan for the recovery of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon
(originally listed as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14528)). The
goal was to produce a plan that meets ESA requirements for recovery
plans as well as the State of Washington's recovery planning outline
and guidance (WDFW 2003). The Makah and Quileute Tribes, Olympic
National Park, Clallam County, local land owners, Washington Governor's
Salmon Recovery Office, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Department of Natural Resources, NMFS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity, private timber
companies, and local citizens comprised the Steering Committee and have
met periodically since 1981 to discuss natural resource issues related
to sockeye salmon. The diverse representation on the Steering Committee
has provided a broad and unique perspective that has lent great value
to the recovery planning process.
To ensure that recovery plans are scientifically sound, NMFS has
appointed teams of scientists with expertise in salmon species to
provide scientific support for recovery planning in the Northwest.
These technical recovery teams (TRTs) include biologists from NMFS,
state, tribal, and local agencies, academic institutions, and private
consulting groups. The Puget Sound TRT provided two reports for the
Lake Ozette sockeye salmon recovery planning process: (1) a description
of the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population (Currents et al. 2006) and
(2) viability criteria for the sockeye (Rawson et al. 2007). The TRT
also reviewed the Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis
(Haggerty et al. 2007), the proposed recovery plan, and coordinated an
independent peer review process. Frequent Steering Committee meetings
enabled NMFS and the Puget Sound TRT to share draft recovery plan
products and seek review and comment as the draft plan was developed.
Based on this iterative process, the availability of the Proposed
Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon was published in the
Federal Register on April 23, 2008, and public comments were solicited
(73 FR 21913). Other supporting documents were also made available for
public review and comment, including the Draft Limiting Factors
Analysis and draft Puget Sound TRT reports.
NMFS received 20 comment letters, by mail, facsimile, or e-mail, on
the Proposed Recovery Plan. Public hearings were held between April 23,
2008, and June 23, 2008, in Port Angeles, WA, and Sekiu, WA. NMFS
summarized the public comments and oral testimony and prepared
responses, now available on the NMFS website at: www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Puget-Sound/Lake-Ozette-Plan.cfm. NMFS revised its Proposed Recovery Plan based on comments
received.
Consistent with adoption of this final Recovery Plan, NMFS will
seek to implement the actions for which it has authority, to work
cooperatively on implementation of other actions, and to encourage
other Federal agencies to implement Recovery 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 Recovery Plan to
help NMFS and other Federal agencies take a more consistent approach to
future ESA section 7 consultations under the ESA and other ESA
decisions. For example, the Recovery Plan will provide greater
biological context for the effects that a proposed action may have on
the listed ESU. This context will be enhanced by adding Recovery Plan
science to the ``best available information'' for section 7
consultation opinions, section 10 habitat conservation plans, and other
ESA decisions. Such information includes viability criteria for the ESU
and its independent populations; better understanding of and
information on limiting factors and threats impacting the ESU; better
information on priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors;
and better geographic context for where the ESU can tolerate varying
levels of risk.
The Recovery Plan
Lake Ozette, its perimeter shore, and most of the Ozette River,
which forms the outlet of the lake to the estuary and Pacific Ocean,
are included in the 922,000-acre Olympic National Park. This Recovery
Plan complements, recognizes, and works within the authorities of the
Olympic National Park, Clallam County, the Forest Practices Habitat
Conservation Plan, and tribal trust and treaty rights, and does not
augment or supersede these or other authorities.
The Recovery Plan is based on a series of hypotheses about what is
limiting the survival of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. These hypotheses
are based on the best available current knowledge about Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon. These hypotheses are designed to be tested in the
course of time through monitoring the fish, their environment, and the
effects of the actions that may be taken to protect and improve the
Lake Ozette sockeye's ecosystem and survival chances. The process of
designing actions based on best available information, then monitoring
the results to find out what works best and changing the actions as
appropriate, is called adaptive management. This Recovery Plan is
intended as a tool for adaptive management for Lake Ozette sockeye
salmon recovery and is to be implemented within the range of the Lake
Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU.
ESU Addressed and Planning Area
Lake Ozette sockeye salmon were listed under the ESA on March 25,
1999 (64 FR 14528), as a species threatened with becoming endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Lake Ozette
Sockeye Salmon ESU is unique among other ESA-listed salmon in being
made up of only one population (Currens et al. 2006), with an inland
range that is limited to a single freshwater watershed a short distance
from the ocean. The Lake Ozette watershed has an unusual potential for
protection and restoration of landscape processes to support long-term
salmon survival, because it is relatively undeveloped, has a relatively
low human population density, and the lake itself is located within the
Olympic National Park.
The single population of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon currently
contains five distinct spawning aggregations that are described in the
Recovery Plan as subpopulations. The subpopulations can be grouped
according to whether they spawn in tributaries or near lake beaches.
Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are distinguished from other Washington
sockeye salmon ESUs based on unique genetic characteristics, early
river entry, the relatively large adult body size, and larger average
smolt size relative to other coastal Washington sockeye salmon
populations.
Lake Ozette is situated on the coastal plain between the Pacific
Ocean and the Olympic Mountains. The lake is approximately 8 miles
(12.9 km) long from north to south and 2 miles (3.2 km) wide,
irregularly shaped, and containing several bays, distinct points, and
three islands. With a surface area of 11.8 mi\2\ (30.6 km\2\, 7,550
acres; 3,056 ha), Lake Ozette is the third largest natural lake in
Washington State. The Ozette River
[[Page 25708]]
drains the lake from its north end and travels approximately 5.3 miles
(8.5 km) along a sinuous course to the Pacific Ocean. The total
drainage area of the Ozette watershed at the confluence with the
Pacific Ocean is 88.4 mi\2\ (229 km\2\).
Historically, the Ozette watershed supported thriving populations
of sockeye salmon, which were an important element of the fisheries of
the Makah and Quileute Tribes, as well as an important subsistence
species for early European-American settlers in the watershed. The peak
harvest of 17,500 fish was recorded in 1949, but abundance decreased
rapidly in the following decades. Because of declining numbers, tribal
commercial harvest ceased in 1974 and all tribal ceremonial and
subsistence harvest ceased in 1982.
The Plan's Recovery Goals and Recovery Criteria
The Recovery Plan's goal is for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon
population to reach the point that it is naturally self-sustaining, no
longer needs the protection of the ESA, and can be delisted. In
addition, a recovery plan can have ``broad-sense'' goals that may go
beyond the requirements for delisting to acknowledge social, cultural,
or economic values regarding the listed species. NMFS and the Lake
Ozette Steering Committee crafted the following vision statement
describing desirable future conditions for the Lake Ozette sockeye
salmon and its human and biological setting:
``The naturally spawning Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population
is sufficiently abundant, productive, and diverse (in terms of life
histories and geographic distribution) to provide significant
ecological, cultural, social, and economic benefits. Protection and
restoration of ecosystems have sustained processes necessary to
maintain sockeye as well as other salmon, steelhead, and wildlife
species. Community livability, economic well-being, and treaty-
reserved fishing rights have benefited by balancing salmon recovery
with management of local land use and fishery economies.''
To meet the ESA requirements for objective, measurable criteria for
delisting, the Recovery Plan provides biological recovery criteria
based on the Puget Sound TRT viability criteria for Lake Ozette sockeye
salmon, as well as ``threats'' criteria based on the listing factors
defined in ESA section 4(a)(1).
Biological Recovery Criteria
The Puget Sound TRT provided viability criteria for Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon in terms of the four ``viable salmonid populations''
(VSP) parameters defined in NMFS technical memorandum, Viable salmonid
populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units
(McElhany et al. 2000). The Puget Sound TRT's viability criteria for
Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are as follows:
Abundance: Approximately 31,250-121,000 adult spawners, over a
number of years; this planning range is associated with a productivity
of 1:1 recruits-per-spawner. NMFS is working with the Puget Sound TRT
to develop more specific abundance and productivity targets and a
specific number of years that would represent a level upon which to
make a delisting decision.
Productivity (Growth Rate): Stable or increasing.
Spatial Structure: Multiple, persistent, and spatially distinct
beach-spawning aggregations, augmented by tributary spawning
aggregations.
Diversity: One or more persistent spawning aggregations from each
major genetic and life history group historically present within that
population. Maintain the distinctness between Lake Ozette sockeye
salmon and kokanee.
NMFS, in coordination with the Steering Committee, concluded that
the Puget Sound TRT's viability criteria should be the biological
recovery criteria of this Recovery Plan.
Threats Criteria
``Threats'' are the human activities or natural events that cause
the factors limiting a species' survival. For example, where high water
temperatures are identified as a limiting factor, removal of riparian
vegetation, which causes loss of shade and results in higher water
temperatures, is categorized as the threat. The threats criteria define
the conditions under which the listing factors, or threats, can be
considered to be addressed or mitigated. Threats criteria are provided
in Section 3.3.3 of the Recovery Plan.
Causes for Decline and Current Threats
The 1999 listing of the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon ESU as
threatened under the ESA was primarily attributed to concerns about low
abundance and effects of small population genetic and demographic
variability. A more thorough identification of limiting factors is
provided in the Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis (Haggerty
et al. 2009). Based on the best available information and analysis, the
Lake Ozette Steering Committee's Technical Workgroup evaluated and
rated each of the limiting factors hypotheses for its contribution to
sockeye population or subpopulation mortality by life stage.
Some limiting factors, habitat conditions, and life histories were
shared among all subpopulations, while others vary. In the Limiting
Factors Analysis, the subpopulations were grouped based on spawning
environment, i.e., tributary vs. beach, and limiting factors were
described in three categories: those affecting the entire population;
those specific to beach spawners; and those specific to tributary
spawners.
Two limiting factors are hypothesized as having a high impact on
all Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population segments: piscivorous fish
predation on juveniles rearing in the lake, and general marine
survival. Limiting factors with moderate impact on all population
segments are marine mammal predation on adults re-entering the Ozette
River and water quality in the Ozette River.
Limiting factors hypothesized as having a high impact specifically
on beach spawners are poor-quality spawning habitat, which decreases
survival in the incubation-to-emergence life stage, and predation on
adults, eggs, and newly emerged fry. Limiting factors with moderate
impact on beach spawners are: seasonal lake level changes; water
quality issues, including turbidity and fine sediment; and competition
for good quality spawning habitat, which can result in redd
superimposition and decreased egg-to-fry survival.
Limiting factors hypothesized as having high impact specifically on
tributary spawners are fine sediments, unstable channel, and other
water quality issues that reduce spawning habitat quality and result in
decreased egg-to-fry survival. High predation on fry during their
emigration to the lake was identified as a limiting factor with
moderate impact on tributary spawners.
Recovery Strategies and Actions
The Recovery Plan recommends an overall recovery strategy based on
current research about the relationships between watershed processes,
land use, and freshwater habitat. This information is then related to
what is known about sockeye salmon mortality by life stage, and to the
hypothesized limiting factors. The result is a hierarchy of types of
recovery strategies that can form the basis for setting priorities
among potential actions.
The first priority, and likely the most effective type of action,
is to assess, protect, and maintain good quality habitat and the
processes that create and maintain it. One example would be to protect
currently used spawning areas. Another would be for willing landowners
to protect forest or streamside areas with conservation easements,
where trees could be
[[Page 25709]]
allowed to grow large, mature, and eventually fall by natural forces,
creating habitat conditions needed by sockeye salmon.
Next in importance and certainty of effectiveness is reconnecting
isolated habitat - for example, removing a blockage in the stream, thus
allowing salmon more room to spawn and rear.
Third is restoring biological processes of various kinds; this
includes a wide range of potential actions. For example: restoring
natural predator-prey balance by improving egg-to-fry survival and/or
reducing non-native fish species by means of selective fishing; ceasing
to remove large woody debris from sections of the lower Ozette River;
and assessing sources of sediment and reducing sediment production and
delivery to streams.
Directly restoring degraded habitat is of lower priority because it
is more difficult, often more costly, and often effective only in the
short-term, compared to restoring the processes that create habitat and
will continue creating properly functioning habitat over time. However,
some direct actions, such as placing large woody debris in carefully
chosen areas, will initiate biological processes that are likely to
continue naturally if accompanied by appropriate long-term riparian
management. Creating new habitat is significantly more difficult than
working to protect and restore existing habitat; creating new habitat
is therefore of lowest priority, although in some circumstances it may
be the only alternative.
NMFS, with input from the Steering Committee, evaluated the sub-
basins in the Lake Ozette watershed for their importance as sockeye
habitat. The Recovery Plan accordingly provides geographic priorities
for recovery actions.
Habitat, harvest, and hatchery factors affecting Lake Ozette
sockeye salmon are included in the recovery strategies. Hatchery and
harvest management issues are presented and addressed within the
context of biological processes.
NMFS and the Lake Ozette Steering Committee developed an extensive
list of 121 potential projects/actions. The proposed actions are
designed to address the full range of limiting factors for all life
cycle stages of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon and are intended to improve
the health and ecosystems of these fish.
The proposed actions are in six categories:
Fisheries management
Habitat-related actions
Hatchery supplementation
Predation-related actions
Research, monitoring, and adaptive management
Public education and outreach, which need to be
implemented in cooperation with all appropriate permitting authorities
(including Olympic National Park), and in the context of existing
permits, regulations, agreements, and public processes.
Site-specific Actions
The Recovery Plan recognizes that recovery actions must be
implemented at both the regional, or ESU, and watershed, or population,
levels. In the case of Lake Ozette sockeye, the ESU contains only one
population, so actions taken to benefit the ESU will undoubtedly
benefit the sole population. Site-specific actions articulated in this
Recovery Plan are intended to link directly to recovery models,
watershed processes, locations (including Ozette River, tributaries,
estuarine, and nearshore environments), and address primary and
secondary limiting factor hypotheses. Details of the site-specific
actions can be found in Appendix D of the Plan.
Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management
The Recovery Plan identifies the many knowledge gaps and
uncertainties involved in designing recovery actions for the Lake
Ozette sockeye salmon. Because the proposed recovery actions are based
on hypotheses about the relationships between fish, limiting factors,
human activities, and the environment, the Recovery Plan recommends
research and monitoring to determine recovery progress. Monitoring is
the basis for adaptive management the process of adjusting management
actions and/or directions based on new information. Research,
monitoring, and adaptive management are built into the Recovery Plan.
Time and Cost Estimates
Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA 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]). Chapter 9 of the
Recovery Plan provides cost estimates for actions where costs are
available. Costs for actions that are being implemented as part of
ongoing, existing programs are considered ``baseline'' and are not
included in Chapter 9 as costs to recover Lake Ozette sockeye salmon.
The overall total cost to implement recovery actions for the first 10
years of this plan is estimated to be approximately $46 million. Many
of these are one-time costs.
Approximately $100,000 of the estimated implementation cost
represents ongoing, annual administrative or infrastructure costs that
will likely continue for the duration of implementation of the plan.
Thus, it can be inferred that if recovery takes 50 years, another $4
million may be incurred over the long term to continue and maintain
habitat improvements.
NMFS estimates that recovery of the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU,
like recovery for most of the ESA-listed salmon, could take 50 to 100
years. Because many uncertainties exist about how sockeye salmon and
their habitat will respond to recovery actions, the costs and recovery
actions in this plan focus on the first 10 years of implementation.
Actions and costs will be revised over time as part of adaptive
management.
Unlike other ESA-listed salmon species in Washington State, the
Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU has not had a state-designated recovery
board responsible for developing the recovery plan. Therefore, NMFS is
working with the Lake Ozette Steering Committee and other entities,
such as the newly formed North Pacific Coast Lead Entity and the
Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership, to make an
Implementation Plan. NMFS anticipates that the organizations
potentially involved will choose to participate in recognition of the
shared benefits of habitat protection and restoration. A detailed
Implementation Schedule and further details of an organizational
approach to implementation will be produced in 2009.
Conclusions
NMFS concludes that the Recovery Plan meets the requirements of ESA
section 4(f) and thus is adopting it as the Recovery Plan for Lake
Ozette Sockeye Salmon.
Literature Cited
Currens, K.P., R. Fuerstenberg, W. Graeber, K. Rawson, M.
Ruckelshaus, N.J. Sands, and J. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of
sockeye salmon in Lake Ozette. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team
document. March 21, 2006. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA
Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA. 20p. www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/puget_docs.
Haggerty, M.J., A.C. Ritchie, J.G. Shellberg, M.J. Crewson, and J.
Jolonen. 2007. Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis. Prepared
for the Makah Indian Tribe and NOAA
[[Page 25710]]
Fisheries in cooperation with the Lake Ozette Sockeye Steering
Committee. Port Angeles, WA.
McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and
E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmon populations and the recovery of
evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Memo., NMFS-NWFSC 42. 156p.
Rawson, K., N.J. Sands, K.P.Currens, W. Graeber, M. Ruckelshaus, R.
Fuerstenberg, and J.B. Scott. 2008. Viability Criteria for the Lake
Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team
document. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Fisheries Service.
Seattle, WA. 39p.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. State of
Washington: An Outline for Salmon Recovery Plans. December 2003.
Olympia, WA. 44p.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: May 22, 2009.
Therese Conant,
Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-12558 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S