Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans, 50165-50172 [E9-23604]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50165-50172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23604]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XR62


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 an Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plan for the 
Middle Columbia River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Distinct 
Population Segment (DPS), which spawns and rears in tributaries to the 
Columbia River in central and eastern Washington and Oregon. The Plan 
includes four locally developed management unit plans that address 
tributary conditions, included as appendices to the Plan, as well as 
two ``modules'' developed by NMFS to address conditions affecting all 
steelhead populations in the Columbia River mainstem and estuary - the 
Hydro Module, based on the NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion on the Federal 
Columbia River Power System (FCRPS BiOP), and the Estuary Module (NMFS 
2007). The Plan also incorporates Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans 
(HGMPs); site-specific actions in the FCRPS BiOp Reasonable and Prudent 
Alternative 39 for updating HGMPs, Artificial Production for Pacific 
Salmon (FCRPS BiOp, Appendix C of Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, 
NMFS 2008); and fishery management planning through U.S. v. Oregon for 
mainstem fisheries, the Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Fishery 
Management Council guidelines and constraints for marine fisheries, and 
Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans (FMEPs) and Tribal Resource 
Management Plans for tributary fisheries.

ADDRESSES:  Additional information about the plan may be obtained by 
writing to Lynn Hatcher, National Marine Fisheries Service, 304 S. 
Water Street, Suite  201, Ellensburg, WA 98926, or by calling 
(509) 962-8911. Electronic copies of the Plan and a summary of and 
response to public comments on the Proposed (Draft) Recovery Plan are 
available online at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Interior-Columbia/Mid-Columbia/Mid-Col-Plan.cfm. A CD 
ROM of these documents can be obtained 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 Final ESA Recovery Plan for 
Middle Columbia River Steelhead.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Hatcher, NMFS Middle Columbia 
Steelhead Salmon Recovery Coordinator, at 509-962-8911, 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 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 each 
listed species unless such a plan would not promote its recovery.
    NMFS is responsible for developing and implementing ESA recovery 
plans for listed salmon and steelhead. In so doing, NMFS' goal is to 
restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmonids to the point that 
they are again self-sustaining members of their ecosystems and no 
longer need the protections of the ESA. Local support of recovery plans 
by those whose activities directly affect the listed species, and whose 
actions will be most affected by recovery efforts, is essential. NMFS 
therefore supports and participates in locally led collaborative 
efforts to develop recovery plans that involve local communities, 
state, tribal, and Federal entities, and other stakeholders.
    NMFS recognizes that to achieve recovery of ESA listed salmon and 
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin, site-specific actions addressing 
all limiting factors and threats (habitat, hydropower, hatcheries, 
harvest) are necessary. In this recovery plan, the relative impacts of 
this full range of limiting factors and threats are identified and 
evaluated, although effective site-specific actions may be better 
developed or more feasible to implement in some sectors than in others. 
At this time, site-specific management actions are more fully developed 
for tributary habitat and

[[Page 50166]]

mainstem hydropower than for hatcheries and harvest. Given that habitat 
protection and restoration actions generally take some time to yield 
ecosystem responses and improvements in fish populations, it is 
important to implement actions with more immediate benefits, as well as 
those whose benefits will accrue in the future.
    Hatchery and harvest actions developed in other management 
processes will be important for recovery. For hatcheries, site-specific 
actions are being developed pursuant to the 2008 FCRPS Biological 
Opinion, which requires updated Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans 
for all facilities that affect listed salmon and steelhead in the 
Columbia Basin. Mainstem fisheries in the Columbia River will be 
implemented consistent with the recently completed U.S v. Oregon 
Agreement, which extends through 2017. Tributary fisheries are subject 
to Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans and Tribal Resource 
Management Plans, many of which are now under review or scheduled for 
completion in the near future. Ocean fisheries are managed according to 
the Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Fishery Management Council 
guidelines and constraints. Such plans have been and will be developed 
to be consistent with recovery plans, section 7(a)(2), and other ESA 
requirements. NMFS will continue to monitor these plans, using adaptive 
management, to assess implementation progress and consistency with 
recovery plans.

The Plan

    This Plan is the product of a collaborative process initiated by 
NMFS with assistance from the Middle Columbia Recovery Forum, a group 
convened by NMFS to provide input on the development of the DPS 
recovery plan. Participants include representatives of the Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife (WDFW), the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm 
Springs Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
Reservation, Washington Governor's Salmon Recovery Office, Oregon 
Governor's Natural Resources Office, Snake River Salmon Recovery Board 
(SRSRB), Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board (YBFWRB), U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Klickitat County, and NMFS Northwest 
Region. 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 (www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/) and the State of 
Oregon's Native Fish Conservation Policy guidance (https://ftp.dfw.state.or.us/fish/nfcp/nfcp.pdf).

Recovery Domains and Technical Recovery Teams

    For the purpose of recovery planning for the 19 ESA-listed species 
of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest, NMFS 
Northwest Region designated five geographically based ``recovery 
domains.'' The Middle Columbia steelhead DPS spawning range is in the 
Interior Columbia domain. For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of 
scientists, nominated for their geographic and species expertise, to 
provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The Interior 
Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT), which contributed to this 
Plan, included biologists from NMFS, states, tribes, and academic 
institutions.
    All the TRTs used the same biological principles for developing 
their recommendations for ESU/DPS and population viability criteria. 
These principles are described in a NMFS technical memorandum, Viable 
Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant 
Units (McElhany et al., 2000). Viable salmonid populations (VSP) are 
defined in terms of four parameters: abundance, productivity or growth 
rate, spatial structure, and diversity. A viable ESU/DPS is naturally 
self-sustaining, with a high probability of persistence over a 100-year 
time period.

Management Units

    In each domain, NMFS worked with state, tribal, local, and other 
Federal entities to develop planning forums that build to the extent 
possible on ongoing, locally led recovery efforts. NMFS defined 
``management units'' based on jurisdictional boundaries as well as 
areas where local planning efforts were underway. The Middle Columbia 
management units are the following: (1) Oregon; (2) Washington Gorge, 
which, in turn, is subdivided into three planning areas (White Salmon, 
Klickitat, and Rock Creek); (3) Yakima subbasin; and (4) Southeast 
Washington. A recovery plan was developed for each management unit; for 
the Washington Gorge management unit, however, there are three plans, 
one for each planning area.
    The White Salmon plan for steelhead will also contribute to 
recovery for three other species, the Lower Columbia River Chinook, 
Lower Columbia River coho, and Columbia River chum, which historically 
spawned in the White Salmon River watershed. The Lower Columbia River 
ESA recovery plan is an ecosystem plan that addresses all listed 
species in the Lower Columbia subbasin; therefore, the White Salmon 
Plan for Middle Columbia steelhead is not being finalized now; it will 
become part of the Lower Columbia plan and will be finalized along with 
that plan in late 2010 or early 2011.
    The management unit plans, Appendices A-E, are the work of local 
groups and county, state, Federal, and tribal entities within the 
Middle Columbia River region. The management unit plans are as follows:
     (1) Oregon. Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead 
Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population 
Segment (Appendix A).
    (2) Washington Gorge: Recovery Plan for the Klickitat Population of 
the Middle Columbia River Steelhead (Appendix B) and Recovery Plan for 
the Rock Creek Population of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead 
(Appendix C).
    (3) Yakima Basin. Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan (Appendix D).
    (4) Southeast Washington. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for 
Southeast Washington (Appendix E).
    The two modules, Appendices F and G, address all species that use 
the Columbia River estuary (Estuary Module) and that are affected by 
the Federal Columbia River Power System (Hydro Module.)
    The Draft Plan, including the four management unit plans, two 
modules, and two scientific reports that provide the scientific basis 
for the Plan (McClure et al, 2003; ICTRT 2007), was made available for 
public review as a Proposed Recovery Plan. A notice of availability 
soliciting public comments on the Proposed Recovery Plan was published 
in the Federal Register on September 24, 2008 (73 FR 55045). NMFS 
received 38 comment letters on the Proposed Recovery Plan. An itemized 
record of all comments is available on the NOAA website. NMFS 
summarized the public comments, prepared responses, and identified the 
public comments that prompted revisions to the Plan. The final Plan is 
now available on the NMFS website at www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon Recovery 
Planning/Recovery Domains/Interior Columbia/Middle Columbia/Index.cfm.

[[Page 50167]]

    Public hearings were conducted at the following locations, dates, 
and times:
    Goldendale, WA, November 18, 2008, at the Klickitat County PUD 
building, 6:30 - 8:30 pm.
    Yakima, WA, November 19, 2008, at the Yakima Arboretum, 6:30 - 8:30 
pm.
    Walla Walla, WA, November 20, 2008, at the Walla Walla Community 
College, 6:30 - 8:30 pm.
    John Day, OR, November 6, 2008, U.S. Forest Service Office, 6:30 - 
8:30 p.m.
    Redmond, OR, November 12, 2008, Juniper Golf Club, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
    Hermiston, OR, November 24, 2008, Stafford Hansel Government 
Center, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
    The Dalles, OR, December 2, 2008, Civic Center Auditorium ,6:30 -
8:30 p.m.
    Portland, OR, December 11, 2008, Metro Regional Government Council 
Chambers, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
    CDs of the DPS plan and the MU plans were available at each public 
meeting and upon request from Sharon Houghton, at (503) 230-5418. 
Announcements of the public meetings were placed in the local 
newspapers.
    NMFS revised the Plan based on the comments received, and this 
final version now constitutes the ESA Recovery Plan for Middle Columbia 
Steelhead.
    NMFS intends this plan to assist Federal agencies in fulfilling 
their section 7(a)(1) obligations. NMFS also expects the Plan to guide 
NMFS and other Federal agencies in evaluating Federal actions under ESA 
section 7(a)(2) and other ESA decisions. For example, the Plan will 
provide greater biological context for evaluating the effects that a 
proposed action may have on a species. This context will be enhanced by 
using recovery plan information in ESA section 7 consultations, section 
10 habitat conservation plans, and other ESA decisions. Such 
information includes viability criteria for the DPS, better 
understanding of and information on limiting factors and threats facing 
the DPS, better information on priority areas for addressing specific 
limiting factors, and better geographic context for where the DPS can 
tolerate varying levels of risk.

DPS Addressed and Planning Area

    ``Steelhead'' is the name commonly applied to the anadromous 
(migratory) form of the biological species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The 
common names of the non-anadromous, or resident, form are rainbow trout 
and redband trout. When NMFS originally listed the Middle Columbia 
River steelhead as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517), it was 
classified as an ``evolutionarily significant unit'' (ESU) of salmonids 
that included both the anadromous and resident forms. Recently, NMFS 
revised its species determinations for West Coast steelhead under the 
ESA, delineating anadromous, steelhead-only ``distinct population 
segments'' (DPS). NMFS listed the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS 
as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Rainbow trout and redband 
trout are under the jurisdiction of the states unless they are listed, 
when they come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS). This recovery plan addresses steelhead and not rainbow 
trout, consistent with the 2006 ESA listing decision.
    Middle Columbia River steelhead spawn and rear in tributaries to 
the Columbia River in the Columbia plateau of central and eastern 
Washington and Oregon. The DPS includes all naturally spawned 
populations of steelhead in drainages upstream of the Wind River, 
Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon, up to, and including, the 
Yakima River, Washington, excluding steelhead from the Snake River 
Basin (64 FR 14517; 71 FR 849). Most of these populations are summer 
run; however, the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS also includes 
populations of inland winter steelhead in the Klickitat River, White 
Salmon River, Fifteenmile Creek, and possibly Rock Creek.
    Four artificial propagation programs are considered part of the 
DPS: the Touchet River Endemic Summer Steelhead Program, the Yakima 
River Kelt Reconditioning Program, and the Umatilla River and Deschutes 
River steelhead hatchery programs.
    The ICTRT (McClure et al., 2003) identified 20 historical 
populations of Middle Columbia steelhead, based on genetic information, 
geography, life history traits, morphological traits, and population 
dynamics. Seventeen of these populations are extant, and three 
extirpated (White Salmon River, Crooked River, and Willow Creek). 
Reintroduction of native steelhead or natural recolonization is planned 
for blocked areas of the Upper Deschutes and Crooked Rivers and the 
White Salmon River, respectively.
    The ICTRT stratified the Middle Columbia River steelhead 
populations into major population groups (MPGs) based on ecoregion 
characteristics, life history types, and other geographic and genetic 
considerations. It identified four MPGs: Cascades Eastern Slope 
Tributaries, Yakima River, John Day River, and Umatilla/Walla Walla.

The Plan's Recovery Goals and Recovery Criteria

    To meet the ESA requirement for objective, measurable criteria for 
delisting, the Plan provides biological recovery (viability) criteria 
based on the ICTRT viability criteria for Middle Columbia steelhead, as 
well as ``threats'' criteria based on the listing factors defined in 
ESA section 4(a)(1).

Biological Viability Criteria

    Biological viability criteria describe DPS characteristics 
associated with a low risk of extinction for the foreseeable future. 
These criteria are expressed in terms of the VSP parameters of 
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (McElhany et 
al., 2000; ICTRT, 2007a). The ICTRT calculated varying levels of risk 
of extinction and related the risk levels to their criteria. The Plan 
shows the minimum abundance and productivity thresholds required for 
the Middle Columbia steelhead populations to have a 95 percent 
probability of persistence for the next 100 years.
    Since MPGs are geographically and genetically cohesive groups of 
populations, they are critical components of ESU or DPS spatial 
structure and diversity. NMFS' criterion for long-term DPS viability, 
based on the ICTRT recommendations, is that all extant MPGs and any 
extirpated MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU/DPS should 
be at low risk (ICTRT, 2007a). MPG viability depends on the abundance, 
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity associated with its 
component populations.
    The risk levels of the populations within the DPS collectively 
determine MPG viability and, in turn, the likely persistence of the 
DPS. The ICTRT recommended that all MPGs in a DPS should be viable; 
however, it may not be necessary for all of the populations in each MPG 
to attain the lowest risk level. There may be more than one way for a 
DPS to meet the viability criteria. The ICTRT considered various 
combinations of viability status for individual populations that would 
meet the MPG viability criteria and result in overall DPS viability. 
These combinations of viability status are called recovery scenarios. 
Population-level status could range from ``highly viable,'' - a 99 
percent probability of persistence over 100 years, to ``viable'' - 95 
percent probability, to ``maintained'' or moderate risk - 75 percent 
probability of persistence over 100 years. However, because of the many 
uncertainties in predicting biological responses to recovery actions, 
the ICTRT cautioned

[[Page 50168]]

against prematurely closing off the options for any population (ICTRT, 
2007a).

Threats Criteria

    Listing factors (or threats) are those features that are evaluated 
under section 4(a)(1) when initial determinations are made whether to 
list species for protection under the ESA. They are as follows:
    A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of [the species'] habitat or range;
    B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    C. Disease or predation;
    D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting [the species'] 
continued existence.
    At the time of a delisting decision for Middle Columbia steelhead, 
NMFS will examine whether the section 4(a)(1) listing factors have been 
addressed. To assist in this examination, NMFS will use the listing 
factors (or threats) criteria described in Section 3.3 of the Plan, in 
addition to evaluation of biological recovery criteria and other 
relevant data and policy considerations. The threats should be 
addressed to the point that delisting is not likely to result in their 
re-emergence. It is possible that currently perceived threats could 
become insignificant in the future due to changes in the natural 
environment or changes in the way threats affect the entire life cycle 
of salmon. It is also possible that new threats will emerge. 
Consequently, the relative priority of threats could change over time. 
During status reviews, NMFS will evaluate and review the listing factor 
criteria (threats) as they apply at that time.

Current DPS Status

    Applying the Plan's biological recovery (viability) criteria, the 
ICTRT rated the majority of natural Middle Columbia steelhead 
populations as presently at moderate risk for abundance and 
productivity, but low to moderate risk for spatial structure and 
diversity. Currently, one population is ``highly viable'' (North Fork 
John Day) and two populations are viable (Deschutes Eastside and 
Fifteenmile); eleven are at moderate risk, with good prospects for 
improving. Three populations are at high risk (Deschutes Westside, 
Naches, and Upper Yakima), and these are key to DPS viability. As a 
minimum, for the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG and the Yakima 
River MPG to meet viability criteria, the Deschutes Westside population 
and one of the two large Yakima populations (Naches or Upper Yakima) 
should reach viable status, with the other large Yakima population at 
no more than moderate risk.
    None of the MPGs meets the low risk criteria. Thus, the Middle 
Columbia steelhead DPS does not currently meet viability criteria, 
based on the determination that the four component MPGs are not at low 
risk.

Limiting Factors and Threats

    Based on information from the ICTRT, the four management unit 
plans, the 2008 FCRPS BiOP and its Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, 
and the Estuary and Hydro modules, the major factors limiting the 
viability of Middle Columbia steelhead populations are degraded 
tributary habitat, impaired mainstem and tributary fish passage, 
hatchery-related effects, particularly those of out-of- DPS hatchery 
strays, and predation/competition/disease. The DPS plan and management 
unit plans contain detailed descriptions of tributary habitat, 
hatchery, and harvest limiting factors and threats, while the modules 
provide detailed examination of conditions in mainstem Columbia River 
and estuary.

Recovery Strategy

    NMFS' overall goal for DPS viability, as formulated by the ICTRT 
and described in Chapter 3 of this plan, is to have all four extant 
MPGs at viable (low risk) status, with representation of all the major 
life history strategies present historically, and with the abundance, 
productivity, spatial structure and diversity attributes required for 
long-term persistence.
    The ICTRT's current status assessment for the Middle Columbia 
steelhead DPS and the gaps analysis show that for this DPS, the outlook 
is optimistic. One population, North Fork John Day, is currently at 
very low risk or ``highly viable.'' Two populations are currently 
viable (Deschutes Eastside, Fifteenmile); eleven are at moderate risk, 
with good prospects for improving. However, the three large populations 
at high risk (Deschutes Westside, Naches, and Upper Yakima), are 
important to DPS viability; as a minimum, Deschutes Westside and one of 
the two large Yakima populations should also reach viable status, with 
the other large Yakima population at least reaching ``maintained'' 
status. These present significant, though not insuperable, challenges.
    If, as we believe, the decline of the Middle Columbia River 
steelhead DPS is caused by widespread habitat degradation, impaired 
mainstem and tributary passage, hatchery effects, and predation/ 
competition/ disease, then actions taken to improve, change, mitigate, 
reduce those factors will result in increased survival and improvements 
in abundance, survival, spatial structure, and diversity. Because of 
the steelhead's complex life cycle and the many changes that have taken 
place in its environment, the factors limiting its survival must be 
addressed in concert, and in an integrated way. The work needs to occur 
at a regional level, in terms of commitment to strategies, programmatic 
actions, and funding, and at the local level, population by population 
and site by site. Significant investments of research, planning, 
regional coordination, actions, and political will are already 
underway. The intent for the DPS plan is to build upon, help to 
coordinate, and add to the ongoing efforts.
    The recovery strategy for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS 
addresses both the basin-wide issues that affect all populations, such 
as conditions in the migratory corridor, and the subbasin and side-
specific issues that are the focus of the management unit plans. The 
DPS Plan describes the overall strategy, summarizes the MPG-level 
strategies, and refers to Appendices A-G for more site-specific, 
population level actions.
    The DPS-level recovery strategy for the Middle Columbia steelhead 
is made up of the following elements:
     Affirm and address the 2006 listing decision 
recommendations to address the limiting factors for the DPS and 
populations.
     Protect and restore tributary habitat and Columbia River 
mainstem habitat, through strategies and actions at both the Basin/
programmatic level and at the local level as detailed in the management 
unit plans.
     Address impaired fish passage through strategies and 
actions in the mainstem Columbia River, as detailed in the 2008 FCRPS 
Biological Opinion (as summarized in the Hydro Module) and in the 
tributaries as detailed in the management unit plans
     Implement hatchery reforms at the population and site 
specific level through Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) as 
required by the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and as described in 
Appendix C of the Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis, (NMFS 2008a).
     Address ecosystem imbalances in predation, competition, 
and disease through the strategies and actions in the management unit 
plans, estuary module and FCRPS Biop.

[[Page 50169]]

     Maintain current low harvest levels, through fishery 
management planning for mainstem fisheries through the U.S. v. Oregon 
10-year agreement, updated Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans and 
Tribal Resource Management Plans for tributary fisheries, and Pacific 
Salmon Treaty and Pacific Fishery Management Council processes.
     Protect and restore the estuary and Columbia River plume 
as detailed in the Columbia River Estuary module.
     Respond to climate change threats with a strategy based on 
the principle of preserving biodiversity.
     Implement the Plan through effective coordination and 
governance.
     Research critical uncertainties, monitor and evaluate 
implementation and effectiveness and adjust course, as appropriate 
through adaptive management.
    NMFS believes that if this strategy is implemented and the 
biological response is as expected, the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS 
could achieve viable status within 25 to 50 years.
    The approach for addressing the major categories of limiting 
factors is as follows:

Widespread Habitat Degradation Tributaries and Mainstem Columbia River

    Actions to protect and improve habitat in the tributaries and 
Columbia mainstem are essential to achieving recovery objectives for 
the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. Unlike some other salmonid species, 
steelhead, which are ``stream-type'' salmonids, use mainstem tributary, 
upper tributary, and side channel habitats for spawning, juvenile 
rearing, and overwintering. Steelhead populations are particularly 
susceptible to the effects of degraded freshwater habitat because most 
steelhead spend one or more years in freshwater before migrating. While 
improving survival in the mainstem Columbia River and estuary is also 
an important part of DPS-wide strategy, and will benefit all salmonid 
populations, protecting existing high quality or good quality tributary 
habitat and restoring degraded habitat will specifically benefit Middle 
Columbia steelhead populations in the spawning and rearing life stages. 
Improved spawning and rearing means that more fish will reproduce, more 
juveniles will survive to migrate, and consequently more adults will 
return, even if the other factors remain as they are today.
    The actions for tributary habitat include the following:
     Implementation of locally developed management unit plans 
to address protection and restoration of tributary habitat.
     Implementation of Federal, state, and tribal programs, 
such as, for example, U.S. Forest Service and BLM best management 
practices for grazing, mining, and recreation, and EPA and tribal 
programs to implement TMDLs and cold water refugia, in a manner that 
addresses primary habitat strategies and actions at the local level.
    Relatively little information is available concerning Middle 
Columbia River steelhead use of mainstem Columbia River habitat above 
Bonneville, aside from passage through the dams. NMFS believes it is 
important to assess nearshore habitat and cold water refugia in the 
mainstem and to explore opportunities for, and potential benefits from, 
restoration and protection of these areas.

Impaired Fish Passage - Mainstem Columbia River

    Passage for juvenile steelhead migrating to the ocean and adult 
steelhead returning to their natal streams is limited primarily by the 
four Federal dams on the Lower Columbia River mainstem - Bonneville, 
John Day, The Dalles, and McNary dams - which are part of the Federal 
Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). NMFS issued a final biological 
opinion on the effects of FCRPS operations on salmonids, including 
Middle Columbia River steelhead, and on the predicted results of 
current and planned improvements to the system that are intended to 
improve fish survival (NMFS 2008).
    The plan for current mainstem hydro operations, as detailed in the 
2008 FCRPS BiOp and summarized in the Hydro Module, and any further 
improvements for fish survival that may result from the ongoing FCRPS 
collaborative process, represent the hydropower recovery strategy for 
all listed salmonids that migrate through the mainstem Columbia River, 
including the Middle Columbia steelhead populations.
    These improvements are expected to increase the in-river survival 
of Middle Columbia River juvenile steelhead by 0.3 percent, 5.1 
percent, 8.2 percent, and 10.2 percent, depending on the number of dams 
they must pass. The survival of steelhead adults through the four dams 
is thought to be relatively high at the present time (about 98.5 
percent per project from Bonneville to McNary), and is expected to be 
maintained or improved.

Dissenting View of State of Oregon Regarding Mainstem Operations

    At the time this recovery plan is being finalized, August 2009, it 
is the position of the State of Oregon that additional or alternative 
actions should be taken in mainstem operations of the FCRPS for ESA-
listed salmon and steelhead. Some additional or alternative actions 
recommended by Oregon, while considered, were not included in NOAA's 
FCRPS Biological Opinion. At this time, Oregon is a plaintiff in 
litigation against various federal agencies, including NOAA, 
challenging the adequacy of the measures contained in the current FCRPS 
Biological Opinion. NOAA is not in agreement with Oregon regarding the 
need for or efficacy of Oregon's additional or alternative actions.

Hatchery-Related Effects

    The hatchery programs in the Middle Columbia River are managed 
under the Mitchell Act and the U.S. v. Oregon process, involving the 
fisheries co-managers and regulated by NMFS. NMFS is working with the 
funding agencies and hatchery operators to update and complete Hatchery 
and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for every hatchery program in the 
Middle Columbia region as a means of organizing hatchery review and 
reform. New HGMPs are also being developed for the Interior Columbia 
River hatchery programs that are responsible for adult out-of-DPS 
hatchery fish that stray into the MCR steelhead area, causing a 
priority limiting factor in the John Day and Deschutes populations. The 
HGMPs are the basis for NMFS' biological opinions on hatchery programs 
under sections 7 and 10 and the 4(d) rule, which relate to incidental 
and direct take of listed species. The HGMPs describe each hatchery's 
operations and the actions taken to support recovery and minimize 
ecological or genetic impacts, such as straying and other forms of 
competition with naturally produced fish.
    Artificial Propagation for Pacific Salmon, Appendix C of the 2008 
FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008), is a review of key factors for 
assessing the benefits and risks of hatchery programs relative to the 
conservation of Pacific salmon and to U.S. treaty responsibilities and 
sustainable fisheries mandates. The paper recommends strategies and 
practices to support salmon and steelhead conservation. The new FCRPS 
Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008) requires the hatchery operators and the 
Action Agencies to submit to NMFS updated HGMPs describing site-

[[Page 50170]]

specific applications of the ``best management practices'' for the 
hatchery programs as described in Appendices C and D of the 
Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis (SCA) of the Biological Opinion for 
those mitigation hatchery programs funded by the FCRPS Action Agencies.
    Evaluating the factors that influence interactions between hatchery 
fish and naturally produced fish under varying freshwater conditions 
and ocean conditions is an important area of future research and is 
identified as a critical uncertainty in the DPS plan.

Predation, Competition, and Disease

    The Plan addresses major avian, marine mammal and piscivorous fish 
predation issues in the mainstem Columbia River and tributaries and 
recommends immediate actions as well as research and monitoring to 
track trends in predator populations, understand their impacts on 
steelhead, and develop appropriate management techniques to reduce 
predation. Competition of hatchery fish with naturally produced fish, 
for food, spawning areas, or other habitat resources, can be an issue 
at any life stage. The Plan recommends actions, research and monitoring 
in areas where competition may be a problem, particularly in the 
Klickitat, John Day, and Deschutes populations. Disease in salmonids is 
caused by multiple factors and probably cannot be directly addressed by 
recovery actions except in specific instances of known causal factors. 
It is more likely that nearly all of the recommended recovery actions 
that improve spawning, rearing, and passage conditions for steelhead 
and increase the survival, abundance, and productivity of naturally 
produced fish will result in decreasing incidence of disease.
    Following are summaries of the MPG-level recovery strategies for 
each MPG.

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG

Present Status:

Viable - Fifteenmile Creek and Deschutes Eastside
    Moderate risk - Klickitat (a provisional rating, based on 
insufficient abundance and productivity data and an unknown degree of 
diversity risk from hatchery influence)
    High risk- Rock Creek (provisional, because of lack of data) and 
Deschutes Westside Functionally extirpated - White Salmon
    Extirpated - Crooked River
Recovery Scenario: For the Eastern Cascades Slope Tributaries MPG to 
meet viability criteria based on the currently extant populations, the 
Klickitat, Fifteenmile, and both the Deschutes Eastside and Westside 
populations should reach viable status, with one highly viable. The 
Rock Creek population should reach ``maintained'' status (moderate risk 
-- 25 percent or less risk level). MPG viability could be further 
bolstered if reintroduction of steelhead into the Upper Deschutes and 
Crooked Rivers succeeds and if the White Salmon population is 
successfully reintroduced to its historical habitat.

Primary Limiting Factors and Threats:

     Degraded tributary habitat
     Mainstem passage
     Hatchery-related effects - evidence of hatchery fish from 
non-native broodstock straying and spawning in the Deschutes Basin
     Blocked migration to historically accessible habitat
     Predation, competition, disease - in mainstem and estuary; 
possibly also in Deschutes Westside as competition with resident 
rainbow trout.

Key Actions Proposed:

     Protect, improve, and increase freshwater habitat for 
steelhead production. Improvements to freshwater habitat should be 
targeted to address specific limiting factors in specific areas as 
described in the Oregon Recovery Plan and the Washington Gorge plans.
     Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions 
detailed in NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological 
Opinion (NMFS 2008).
     Reduce straying of out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto natural 
spawning grounds within the Deschutes subbasin.
     Restore historical passage to Deschutes Westside 
tributaries to the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers above Pelton Round 
Butte dam complex and the White Salmon River above Condit Dam.
     Improve hatchery management to minimize impacts from 
hatchery releases on naturally produced steelhead within the Deschutes 
West and East and Klickitat subbbasins.
     Coordinate between scientists, planners, and implementers 
of recovery actions, including priority research, monitoring and 
evaluation, on both sides of the river for sequencing of recovery 
actions and monitoring for adaptive management.
     Fill data gaps for better assessment of Klickitat and Rock 
Creek steelhead populations.

John Day River MPG

Present Status:

Highly viable - North Fork John Day
Moderate risk - John Day Upper Mainstem, John Day Lower Mainstem, 
Middle Fork John Day, South Fork John Day
Recovery Scenario: For the John Day River MPG to meet viability 
criteria, the Lower Mainstem John Day River, North Fork John Day River, 
and either the Middle Fork John Day River or Upper Mainstem John Day 
River populations should achieve viable status, with one highly viable.

Main Limiting Factors and Threats:

     Degraded tributary habitat
     Mainstem passage
     Hatchery-related effects
     Predation/ competition/disease in mainstem and estuary

Key Actions Proposed:

     Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and 
connectivity for steelhead production. Improvements to freshwater 
habitat should be targeted to address specific factors in specific 
areas as described in the Oregon Recovery Plan.
     Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions 
detailed in NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological 
Opinion (NMFS 2008).
     Reduce straying from out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto natural 
spawning grounds within the John Day subbasin by improving hatchery 
management strategies in Interior Columbia River hatcheries.

Yakima River MPG

Present Status:

Moderate risk - Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek
High risk - Naches River, Upper Yakima River
Recovery Scenario: For the Yakima River MPG to meet viability criteria, 
two populations should be rated as viable, including at least one of 
the two classified as Large the Naches River and the Upper Yakima River 
and the other Large population should meet at least the ``maintained'' 
or moderate risk criteria (greater than 75 percent probability of 
persistence). The remaining two populations should, at a minimum, meet 
the maintained criteria.

Main Limiting Factors and Threats:

     Tributary habitat: Altered hydrology; degraded habitat, 
loss of habitat; impaired fish passage; reduced outmigrant survival in 
Yakima

[[Page 50171]]

mainstem, due to the influence of major irrigation system development.
     Mainstem passage (these fish must pass four dams)


Key Actions Proposed:

     Protect and enhance habitat in key tributary watersheds in 
the Yakima Basin.
     Restore passage to blocked areas in the Naches and Upper 
Yakima population areas.
     Improve flow conditions for Middle Columbia steelhead by 
altering irrigation delivery and storage operations in the Yakima Basin 
and use managed high flows to maintain floodplain habitat.
     Improve channel and floodplain function and reduce 
predation through the mainstem Yakima and Naches Rivers.
     Improve survival in the mainstem Columbia and its estuary 
through actions detailed in the NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) and 
FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008) as summarized in the Hydro Module.

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG

Present Status:

Moderate risk - Umatilla, Walla Walla
High risk - Touchet (a provisional rating because of insufficient data)
Recovery Scenario: For the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG to meet viability 
criteria, two populations sFhould be viable, and one should be highly 
viable. The Umatilla River is the only large population, and therefore 
needs to be viable. Either the Walla Walla River or Touchet River 
population also needs to be viable

Main Limiting Factors and Threats:

     Mainstem passage (Touchet and Walla Walla populations pass 
four major dams: the Umatilla population passes three.)
     Tributary habitat
     Hatchery-related effects
     Predation/competition/disease

Key Actions Proposed:

     Protect and improve freshwater habitat conditions and 
access for steelhead production. Improvements to freshwater habitat 
should be targeted to address specific factors in specific areas as 
described in the Southeast Washington Plan and the Oregon Recovery 
Plan.
     Reduce straying from out-of-DPS hatchery fish onto natural 
spawning grounds within the Umatilla/Walla Walla subbasins.
     Improve survival in mainstem and estuary through actions 
detailed in NMFS Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS Biological 
Opinion (NMFS 2008) as summarized in the Hydro Module.
     Coordinate between planners, scientists, and those 
implementing recovery actions in Washington and Oregon for sequencing, 
monitoring, and adaptive management

Site-specific Management Actions

    The proposed site-specific management actions at the population 
level for the tributaries are described in detail in Appendices A 
through E of the Plan. Proposed site-specific actions for the mainstem 
Columbia River and estuary are described in detail in the FCRPS 
Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008), the Hydro Module (Appendix F), and the 
Estuary Module (NMFS 2007) (Appendix G), and Artificial Propagation for 
Pacific Salmon, Appendix C of the Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis 
of the FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008).

Time Required and Cost Estimates

    There are unique challenges to estimating time and cost for salmon 
and steelhead recovery, given the complex relationship of these fish to 
the environment and to human activities on land. NMFS estimates that 
recovery of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS, like recovery for most 
of the ESA-listed Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead, could take 50 
to 100 years, although the optimistic view is that it could be 25 to 50 
years. The management unit plans (Appendices A through E) contain 
extensive lists of actions to recover the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS 
populations. These projects were developed using the most up-to-date 
assessment of Middle Columbia steelhead recovery needs. The management 
unit plans focus, for the most part, on actions within the next 5 to 15 
years. There are many uncertainties involved in predicting the course 
of recovery and in estimating total costs. Such uncertainties include 
biological and ecosystem responses to recovery actions as well as long-
term and future funding.
    Cost estimates for recovery projects were provided by the 
management unit entities where available information was sufficient to 
do so, using the methods described in each management unit plan. All 
applied guidance provided by NMFS and used similar cost calculation 
methodologies. However, the approaches vary to some degree given the 
local and independent nature of the planning groups. There are 
differences in the timeframes for cost estimates, whether 
administrative costs were included or not, and whether research, 
monitoring, and evaluation costs were calculated.
    No cost estimates are provided for (1) programs that are already in 
existence, which are listed as Not Applicable (N/A); or (2) actions 
that need costs to be developed, need unit costs, and/or need project 
scale estimates -- these are listed as To Be Determined (TBD). Each 
management unit will work with regional experts to identify costs, 
scale, or unit costs for actions that require more information during 
the public comment period. Individual management unit costs will be 
updated with this new information for the final steelhead DPS recovery 
plan.
    The total estimated cost for the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS is 
approximately $235 million over the initial 5-year period, and 
approximately $996 million over 25 to 50 years for all DPS-wide 
recovery actions for which sufficient information exists upon which to 
base an estimate. This estimate includes expenditures by local, tribal, 
state, and Federal governments, private business, and individuals in 
implementing both capital projects and non-capital work. In most cases, 
administrative costs are embedded in the total management unit cost 
estimates. Preliminary research, monitoring and evaluation costs have, 
in some cases, been estimated at the management unit level; however, 
these costs are not included at this time, pending completion of 
research and monitoring plans and further development of each project.

Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions

    A quantitative analysis of the potential effects of all the 
proposed recovery actions on the abundance and productivity of Middle 
Columbia River steelhead was performed using two models, the Ecosystem 
Diagnosis and Treatment model and the All-H-Analyzer model. The 
analysis indicates, based on the suites of proposed actions in all the 
sectors, that all Middle Columbia River steelhead populations for which 
there are adequate data are expected to achieve 95 percent probability 
of persistence (less than 5 percent risk of extinction within 100 
years) for abundance/productivity if the most intensive (major) 
restoration scenarios are implemented and the projected habitat changes 
are realized. Under minimum restoration scenarios, three populations 
(Deschutes Westside, Satus, and Upper Yakima) may not achieve less than 
5 percent risk for abundance/productivity. However, even under poor 
ocean conditions and

[[Page 50172]]

minimum restoration actions, the abundance and productivity of these 
three populations are expected to increase considerably over the 
baseline.

Coordination/Governance

    Coordination of actions and information-sharing among fisheries 
biologists, Tribes, local governments, citizen groups, and state and 
Federal agencies based in both Oregon and Washington is a key component 
of recovery for this DPS. Benefits of coordination include:
     Dealing with shared migration areas consistently
     Developing coherent MPG-level strategies where populations 
are in two states (Cascades Eastern Slope MPG; Umatilla/Walla Walla 
MPG), or the same population is in both states (Walla Walla population)
     Promoting consistent methods for setting recovery 
objectives, evaluating strategies, and monitoring progress across 
populations, MPGs, and the DPS
    This coordination is under development. The recent creation of the 
Middle Columbia Recovery Forum, to be convened regularly by NMFS, is 
intended to facilitate such collaboration between scientists and 
recovery planners on both sides of the Columbia River. The Plan 
describes in more detail the proposed roles and responsibilities.

Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management

    The Plan identifies the many knowledge gaps and uncertainties 
involved in designing recovery actions for Middle Columbia steelhead. 
Because the proposed recovery actions are based on hypotheses about the 
relationships between fish, limiting factors, human activities, and the 
environment, the Plan recommends research and monitoring to determine 
progress in recovery. 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 will 
be built into the implementation plans for each management unit plan, 
after this Plan is approved.

Public Reviews

    The ESA requires that, at least every 5 years, the Secretary of 
Commerce shall conduct a review of all ESA-listed species and determine 
whether any species should: (1) be removed from such list; (2) be 
changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species; 
or (3) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered 
species. Accordingly, at five-year intervals, NMFS will conduct reviews 
of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. These reviews will consider 
information that has become available since the most recent listing 
determinations, and make recommendations whether there is substantial 
information to suggest that a change in listing status may be 
warranted. If an ESU or DPS may warrant a change in status NMFS will 
conduct a formal, much more in-depth, ESA status review consistent with 
section 4(a) of the Act. Any formal status reviews will be based on the 
NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework and will be informed by the 
information obtained through implementation of the monitoring, 
research, and evaluation programs in each management unit plan and the 
recovery modules. Similarly, new information considered during the 
five-year reviews may also compel more in-depth assessments of 
implementation and effectiveness monitoring and associated research to 
inform adaptive management decisions at the management unit and module 
level.

Conclusion

    NMFS has reviewed the Plan, the public comments, and the 
conclusions of the ICTRT from its reviews of the Plan. Based on that 
review, NMFS concludes that the Plan meets the requirements in section 
4(f) of the ESA for developing a recovery plan.

Literature Cited

    ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2007. Viability 
Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs. 
Review draft March 2007. Available at: www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/trt_viability.cfm
    ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2008. Current 
Status Reviews: Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead ESUs. 
Volume III: Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 
(DPS). Draft, May 9, 2008.
    McClure, M.M., E.E. Holmes, B.L. Sanderson, and C.E. Jordan. 2003. 
A large-scale, multispecies status assessment: Anadromous salmonids in 
the Columbia River basin. Ecological Applications 13(4):964-989.
    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. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Recovery Plan 
Module for Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower Projects (``Hydro 
Module''). NMFS Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Columbia River 
Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead. November 5, 
2007. Available at www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-
Recovery-Plans/Estuary-Module.cfm
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Endangered Species 
Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act Consultation: consultation on 
remand for operation of the Columbia River Power System and 19 Bureau 
of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin (``FCRPS BiOp''). NMFS, 
Portland, Oregon.

    Dated:September 22, 2009.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-23604 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S