Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans, 65299-65304 [2010-26754]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Lance Kruzic, NMFS’ Willamette
Recovery Coordinator, at (541) 957–
3381, or Rob Walton, NMFS’ Protected
Resources Division at (503) 231–2285.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XZ77
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Recovery Plans
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces the
availability of the Proposed Upper
Willamette River Conservation and
Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and
Steelhead (Plan) for public review and
comment. The Plan describes the
recovery strategies and actions needed
to recover the Upper Willamette River
Chinook (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha)
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)
and Upper Willamette River steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) to viable
levels and addresses the human and
natural factors that originally led to the
threatened listing of these species under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
NMFS is soliciting review and comment
from the public and all interested
parties on the proposed Plan.
DATES: NMFS will consider and address
all substantive comments received
during the comment period. Comments
must be received no later than 5 p.m.
Pacific standard time on December 21,
2010.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments and materials to Lance
Kruzic, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway,
Roseburg, OR 97471. Comments may
also be submitted by e-mail to:
willamette.plan@noaa.gov. Please
include ‘‘Comments on Upper
Willamette Recovery Plan’’ in the
subject line of the e-mail. Comments
may be submitted via facsimile (fax) to
(541) 957–3386. Persons wishing to
review the Plan can obtain an electronic
copy (i.e., CD ROM) from Sharon
Houghton by calling (503) 230–5418 or
by e-mailing a request to
sharon.houghton@noaa.gov with the
subject line ‘‘CD ROM Request for Upper
Willamette Recovery Plan.’’ Electronic
copies of the Plan are also available on
line on the NMFS Web site, https://
www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/Recovery-Domains/
Willamette-Lower-Columbia/Will/WillPlan.cfm.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Oct 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.).
Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires that
recovery plans incorporate: (1)
Objective, measurable criteria which,
when met, would result in a
determination that the species is no
longer threatened or endangered; (2)
site-specific management actions
necessary to achieve the Plan’s goals;
and (3) estimates of the time required
and costs to implement recovery
actions. The ESA requires the
development of recovery plans for 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.
In the Upper Willamette River Basin,
the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) has been the local
entity leading the development of the
recovery plan for ESA-listed Upper
Willamette spring Chinook and winter
steelhead. After many years of
developing the Plan, with a suite of
local stakeholders (including local,
county, State, and Federal agencies;
private industry; fishing organizations;
and environmental groups), the ODFW
has formally submitted the Plan to
NMFS. After review and evaluation,
NMFS has determined the Plan meets
the statutory requirements for a recovery
plan and thus now is proposing to adopt
the Plan as the ESA recovery plan for
listed Upper Willamette spring Chinook
and winter steelhead. The state of
Oregon also has a requirement to
develop ‘‘conservation plans’’ for native
fish in Oregon under their Native Fish
Conservation Policy (https://
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65299
ftp.dfw.state.or.us/fish/nfcp/nfcp.pdf).
The state is also proposing this Plan for
adoption under its policy. Thus, when
adopted, this Plan will serve as a
conservation and recovery plan for the
state of Oregon and NMFS.
Proposed Recovery Plan for Upper
Willamette Salmon and Steelhead
Below is a summary of the key
components of the proposed Plan
described separately for Upper
Willamette River spring Chinook and
winter steelhead. The intent of the
summary is to provide the reader an
overview of the current status of the
species, the problems that have led to
the current status, and the recovery
strategies and actions proposed in the
Plan to recover the species to the
desired status. See the ADDRESSES
section above to obtain a full copy of the
proposed Plan.
Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook
The Upper Willamette River spring
Chinook ESU was listed by NMFS as
threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14308). The
ESU includes all naturally spawned
populations of spring Chinook in the
Clackamas River and in the Willamette
Basin upstream of Willamette Falls. The
ESU also includes hatchery spring
Chinook from five hatcheries: McKenzie
River Hatchery, Marion Forks Hatchery,
South Santiam Hatchery, Willamette
Hatchery, and Clackamas hatchery (70
FR 37160).
Myers et al. (2006) identified seven
demographically independent
populations of spring Chinook in the
Upper Willamette River based on
geography, migration rates, genetic
attributes, life history patterns,
phenotypic characteristics, population
dynamics, and environmental and
habitat characteristics. The seven
populations include the Clackamas,
Molalla, North Santiam, South Santiam,
Calapooia, McKenzie, and the Middle
Fork Willamette. Myers et al. (2006)
concluded that the Clackamas, North
Santiam, McKenzie and Middle Fork
Willamette populations are ‘‘core
populations’’ and the McKenzie is a
‘‘genetic legacy’’ population.
Current Status and Listing Factors
There are four Viable Salmonid
Population (VSP) parameters NMFS
uses to assess the status of salmon and
steelhead under the ESA: abundance,
productivity, spatial structure, and
diversity (McElhany et al., 2000). NMFS
considers the Upper Willamette spring
Chinook ESU to be at a high risk of
extinction due to significant alterations
in all of the VSP parameters (McElhany
et al., 2007). NMFS is currently
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
65300
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices
conducting a review of the status of all
listed species, and will take into
account the fact that the Upper
Willamette spring Chinook ESU is
currently considered to be at high risk
of extinction. Of the seven historic
populations, only two populations
(McKenzie and Clackamas) currently
produce significant returns of naturallyproduced fish and are deemed to
currently be at moderate to low risk. All
of the other five populations have
exhibited very low returns of naturallyproduced spring Chinook salmon and
are currently at a high risk of extinction.
NMFS evaluates five listing factors
(threats) under section 4(a)(1) when
making initial determinations are made
whether to list species for protection
under the ESA. They include: Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of [the species’] habitat or
range (Factor A); over-utilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B); disease
or predation (Factor C); inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor
D); and other natural or human-made
factors affecting [the species’] continued
existence (Factor E). At the time of the
original listing determination in 1999
(64 FR 14308), NMFS cited all of the
five listing factors as contributing to the
decline of Upper Willamette spring
Chinook salmon. Specifically, the major
concerns described were related to: loss
of historic spawning and rearing habitat
due to dam blockages in the eastside
tributaries of the Willamette River;
adverse thermal effects downstream
from operation of the dams; riparian and
stream habitat loss and degradation
particularly in the lowland, valley areas
(Factors A and D); excessive fishery
harvest (Factor B); and adverse effects
from hatchery programs (Factor E).
Objective and Measurable Criteria
The ultimate goal of the Plan is to
recover spring Chinook populations in
the Willamette River and correct the
factors that have contributed to their
decline to a point where ESA protection
is no longer necessary. In determining
whether the protections of the Act are
no longer necessary, NMFS evaluates (1)
the biological status of the ESU or DPS
and its constituent populations
(viability) and (2) the status of the
threats that led to the listing of the
species under the ESA as well as any
additional threats that have emerged.
Thus in formulating a plan for recovery,
we include two types of criteria which,
when met, will indicate that the listed
species no longer requires the
protections of the Act—viability criteria
and threats criteria. These criteria
satisfy the requirements of ESA section
4(f)(1)(B)(ii) and are further described
below.
The Willamette/Lower Columbia
Technical Recovery Team (Technical
Recovery Team) provided information
on the historic population structure
(Myers et al. 2006) and criteria for ESU/
DPS viability (McElhany et al. 2007).
The populations are identified in Table
1. The viability criteria for spring
Chinook and steelhead are as follows:
1. ESU/DPS is viable when:
(a) At least two populations in the
ESU and DPS meet Population Viability
Criteria (see 2 below).
(b) The average of all population
extinction risk category scores with the
ESU or DPS is 2.25 or greater (see 2
below).
(c) Most of ‘‘core’’ populations (i.e., the
populations that were most productive
historically: 3 of 4 core Chinook
populations and 2 of 2 core steelhead
populations) within the ESU/DPS are
restored to viability.
(d) The ESU/DPS maintains a
semblance of normative evolutionary
processes by improving to very low risk
of extinction the remaining ‘‘genetic
legacy’’ populations (Chinook:
McKenzie population, steelhead:
Santiam populations), and
(e) All populations not meeting
Population Viability Criteria below shall
not deteriorate and are maintained (at a
minimum) at their current risk status.
2. Population Viability: A population
is ‘‘viable’’ based on an integrated
assessment of the population’s
abundance, productivity, spatial
structure, and diversity status that
produces an extinction risk of 5% or
less over a 100 year timeframe. The
Technical Recovery Team’s scoring
system is based on a scale from 0–4,
with zero being very high risk of
extinction (>40% probability of
extinction over 100 years) and four
being a very low risk of extinction (1%
or less probability of extinction over 100
years).
For the Upper Willamette River spring
Chinook ESU to achieve viability, the
Plan proposes to recover the Upper
Willamette ESU and its constituent
populations to the risk levels identified
in Table 1.
TABLE 1—UPPER WILLAMETTE SPRING CHINOOK ESU POPULATION RECOVERY SCENARIO
TRT designation
Current risk status
Clackamas ......................................
Molalla ............................................
North Santiam ................................
South Santiam ................................
Calapooia .......................................
McKenzie ........................................
MF Willamette ................................
Core ..............................................
.......................................................
Core ..............................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
Core, Legacy .................................
Core ..............................................
Moderate risk ................................
Very high risk ................................
High risk ........................................
High risk ........................................
Very high risk ................................
Low risk .........................................
Very high risk ................................
Very low risk.
High risk.
Low risk.
Moderate risk.
High risk.
Very low risk.
Low risk.
Overall ESU Risk (extinction risk score) ...................................................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Spring Chinook population
High risk (0.71) .............................
Moderate to Low risk (2.57).
In addition to achieving biological
viability, the threats to the ESU must
also be sufficiently ameliorated so that
once the ESU is delisted, there are
adequate protections in place to ensure
the species is not likely to become listed
under the ESA again in the foreseeable
future. The five listing factors must be
addressed in order for the species to
recover to biological viability. Thus, the
Plan emphasizes meeting the biological
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Oct 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
viability criteria by addressing the
threats that led to the decline and are
currently preventing the species from
recovering. The threats criteria are as
follows. For further details, see the Plan.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of ESU/
DPS’ Habitat or Range
1. Habitat related threats have been
ameliorated such that they do not limit
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Proposed risk status
attainment of the desired status of the
ESU/DPS and its constituent
populations. The desired status of each
population is defined by viability
criteria in the Plan.
a. The condition of stream and
riparian habitat in freshwater and the
estuary has improved since the time of
listing.
2. Hydropower/flood control dam
related threats have been ameliorated
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices
such that they do not and will not limit
attainment of the desired status of the
ESU/DPS and its constituent
populations.
a. Management actions have been
implemented since the time of listing to
reintroduce salmon and steelhead back
into historic habitats above the
impassable dams.
b. Survival of outplanted adult fish
above the impassable dams to spawning
is high.
c. Downstream passage survival of
juvenile offspring through the reservoir
and dam complexes is high.
d. Management of flow and
temperature downstream of the federal
dams is sufficient to allow adequate
spawning and rearing of salmon and
steelhead.
B. Over-Utilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
1. Harvest related threats have been
ameliorated such that they do not, and
will not, limit attainment of the desired
status of the ESU/DPS and its
constituent populations.
a. Management actions have been
implemented since the time of listing to
reduce fishery exploitation rates so that
fishery harvest is no longer impeding
the recovery potential of the
populations and ESU/DPS.
b. Exploitation rates are in accordance
with ESA authorizations for ocean and
freshwater fisheries.
C. Disease or Predation
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
1. Disease and predation related
threats have been ameliorated such that
they do not, and will not, limit
attainment of the desired status of the
ESU/DPS and its constituent
populations.
a. Management actions have been
implemented since the time of listing to
reduce disease transmission and
predation by non-native species in the
Willamette Basin.
b. Management actions have been
implemented since the time of listing to
reduce predation from marine
mammals.
c. Management actions have been
implemented since the time of listing to
reduce disease transmission and
predation by hatchery-origin fish in the
Willamette Basin and estuary.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
1. Inadequacies of existing regulatory
mechanisms have been addressed such
that the species’ biological and habitat
requirements are being met to allow
attainment of the desired status of
populations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Oct 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
2. Adequate resources, priorities,
regulatory frameworks, and
coordination mechanisms are
established and/or maintained for
effective enforcement of land and water
use regulations that protect and restore
habitats, including water quality and
water quantity, and for the effective
management of fisheries.
3. Habitat conditions and watershed
functions are protected through landuse planning that guides human
population growth and development.
4. Habitat conditions and watershed
function are protected through
regulations that govern resource
extraction such as timber harvest and
gravel mining.
5. Habitat conditions and watershed
functions are protected through land
protection agreements as appropriate,
where existing policy or regulations do
not provide adequate protection.
6. Sufficient priority instream water
rights for fish habitat are in place.
E. Other Natural or Human-Made
Factors Affecting the ESU/DPS
Continued Existence
1. Other natural factors have been
accounted for such that they do not
limit attainment of the desired status of
populations.
2. Hatchery related threats have been
ameliorated such that they do not, and
will not, limit attainment of the desired
status of populations.
a. Management actions have been
implemented to reduce genetic and
ecological risks of naturally-spawning
hatchery fish in the wild.
The Plan describes the threats criteria
in more detail and includes the
monitoring and evaluation plans in
Chapter 8. NMFS concludes that the
viability criteria and the threats criteria,
as specified in the Plan, define the
conditions that, when met, would result
in a determination that the Upper
Willamette spring Chinook ESU is not
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. These
conditions represent the best available
science at this time. However, they may
not necessarily be the only conditions
that could result in a decision to delist.
Site-Specific Management Actions
The strategies and actions identified
in the Plan related to the recovery
scenario for spring Chinook are
designed to reduce human and natural
impacts associated with the threats
facing each population. The Plan also
includes the analysis and assumptions
used to determine that the identified
actions would likely improve the
populations to the desired risk status
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65301
levels identified in Table 1. The key
strategies and site-specific management
actions are fully described in Chapters
7 and 9 of the Plan. In general, they
include:
• Reduce the adverse effects
associated with Willamette hydropower
and flood control operations by
restoring access to historic production
areas upstream of the dams, reducing
downstream passage mortality of
juvenile Chinook through the reservoirs
and dams, and restoring more natural
flows, temperatures and sediment
regimes.
• Protect habitat quantity and quality
within the remaining Chinook salmon
production areas in all of the
populations, and restore instream and
riparian habitats. This entails improving
water quality and quantity in stream
reaches where impaired, restoring
riparian habitat to keep streams cool
and provide large woody debris, and
managing land use by applying best
management practices for fishery
enhancement.
• In the Calapooia, allow the subbasin
to be naturally re-seeded with Chinook
strays from other adjacent populations
as habitat conditions improve.
• In the Molalla, rebuild Chinook
production by improving the habitat for
adult and juvenile life stages and then
supplementing with fish from a
conservation hatchery program for a
limited period of time.
• Restore habitat complexity in the
mainstem Willamette River to improve
juvenile salmonid rearing capacity and
survival by restoring riparian function
and condition, reconnecting side
channels and floodplains to the
mainstem river, and restoring water
quality to aid salmonid survival
particularly through the summer
months.
• Protect and restore estuarine habitat
complexity (shallow waters, side
channels, cover vegetation and
structures, riparian areas, wetlands),
habitat accessibility (tide gates, other
structures) and water quality/quantity to
maintain and improve survival of all life
stages of salmon and steelhead.
• Reduce the adverse effects of
hatchery Chinook programs on the
recovery of wild populations by
reducing hatchery fish spawning in the
wild consistent with recovery goals,
promoting locally adapted, naturally
reproducing runs above the impassable
dams from reintroductions, and
adaptively managing the hatchery
programs in response to on-going
monitoring.
• Continue to implement ODFW’s
Willamette Chinook Fisheries
Management and Evaluation Plan
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
65302
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices
(FMEP) to assure fishery harvest risks
are managed appropriately and do not
inhibit the recovery potential of any
population.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Upper Willamette River Steelhead
‘‘Steelhead’’ is the name commonly
applied to the anadromous (migratory)
form of the biological species
Oncorhynchus mykiss. The common
name of the non-anadromous, or
resident, form is rainbow trout. When
NMFS originally listed the Upper
Willamette River steelhead as
threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14517), it was
classified as an 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 Upper Willamette
River steelhead DPS as threatened on
January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Rainbow
trout are 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.
The Upper Willamette River steelhead
DPS includes all naturally spawned
winter-run steelhead populations in the
Willamette River and its tributaries
upstream from Willamette Falls to the
Calapooia River (inclusive). It does not
include steelhead residing in the
McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette.
The Technical Recovery Team
identified four historical
demographically independent
populations of Upper Willamette River
winter steelhead: the Molalla, North
Santiam, South Santiam, and Calapooia
(Myers et al., 2006). These population
delineations were based on geography,
migration rates, genetic attributes, life
history patterns, phenotypic
characteristics, population dynamics,
and environmental and habitat
characteristics with guidance found in
McElhany et al. (2000). The North
Santiam and South Santiam rivers are
thought to have been major production
areas and these populations were
designated as ‘‘core’’ and ‘‘genetic
legacy’’ (Myers et al., 2006). Winter
steelhead have been reported spawning
in the west-side tributaries to the
Willamette River, but these tributaries
were not considered to have constituted
an independent population historically.
There are no hatchery programs
producing steelhead within the
geographic boundaries of the DPS. The
hatchery summer-run steelhead in the
Upper Willamette Basin are an out-ofbasin stock (originally from Skamania
Hatchery) and not considered part of the
DPS.
Current Status and Listing Factors
Based upon status assessments in
McElhany et al. (2007) and the Plan, the
Upper Willamette steelhead DPS is
currently at a moderate to low risk of
extinction. However, there is
uncertainty in the assessment due to the
limited population-specific data. The
only direct measure of abundance
comes from counts at Willamette Falls,
which also include winter steelhead
returning to areas outside of the DPS
(i.e., upstream of the Calapooia River).
The counts at Willamette Falls have
declined over the last five years
compared to the relatively large returns
in 2001 through 2004. The most recent
five year average is similar to the
abundance levels observed in the
1990’s, which are much reduced from
the previous decades. The Molalla,
North Santiam, and South Santiam
populations are currently at low risk
(McElhany et al. 2007). The Calapooia
population is currently at a moderate
risk of extinction (McElhany et al.
2007).
As described above for Chinook
salmon, we evaluate five listing factors
under section 4(a)(1) when determining
whether to list species under the ESA.
At the time of the original listing
determination in 1999 (64 FR 14517),
NMFS cited all of the five listing factors
as contributing to the decline of Upper
Willamette steelhead. Specifically, the
major concerns described were related
to: loss of historic spawning and rearing
habitat due to dam blockages in the
eastside tributaries of the Willamette
River, adverse thermal effects
downstream from operation of the dams,
riparian and stream habitat loss and
degradation particularly in the lowland,
valley areas (Factors A and D); lack of
historical abundance data for steelhead
populations, management on nonfederal lands (Factor D); and adverse
effects from hatchery programs (Factor
E).
Objective and Measurable Criteria
The ultimate goal of the Plan is to
recover spring Chinook populations in
the Willamette River and correct the
factors that have contributed to their
decline to a point where ESA protection
is no longer necessary. In determining
whether the protections of the Act are
no longer necessary, NMFS evaluates (1)
the biological status of the ESU or DPS
and its constituent populations
(viability) and (2) the status of the
threats that led to the listing of the
species under the ESA as well as any
additional threats that have emerged
(threats). Thus in formulating a plan for
recovery, we include two types of
criteria which, when met, will indicate
that the listed species no longer requires
the protections of the Act—viability
criteria and threats criteria. These
criteria satisfy the requirements of ESA
section 4(f)((1)(B)(ii) and are further
described below.
The Technical Recovery Team
provided information on the historic
population structure (Myers et al. 2006)
and criteria for ESU/DPS viability
(McElhany et al. 2007). The steelhead
populations are identified in Table 2.
The biological viability criteria for
steelhead are the same criteria as stated
above for spring Chinook.
For the Upper Willamette River
steelhead DPS to meet viability criteria,
the Plan proposes to recover the Upper
Willamette DPS and its constituent
populations to the risk levels identified
in Table 2. In addition to achieving
biological viability, the five listing
factors that originally led to the listing
of the DPS must also be sufficiently
ameliorated so that once the DPS is
delisted, there are adequate protections
in place to ensure the species is not
likely to become listed under the ESA
again in the foreseeable future. The
threats must be addressed in order for
the species to recover to viability. Thus,
the Plan emphasizes meeting the
viability criteria by addressing the
threats that are responsible for the
species decline. The threats criteria for
winter steelhead are the same as
specified above for Chinook.
TABLE 2—UPPER WILLAMETTE STEELHEAD DPS POPULATION RECOVERY SCENARIO
Steelhead population
TRT designation
Current risk status
Molalla ............................................
North Santiam ................................
South Santiam ................................
Calapooia .......................................
.......................................................
Core, genetic legacy .....................
Core, genetic legacy .....................
.......................................................
Low risk .........................................
Low risk .........................................
Low risk .........................................
Moderate risk ................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Oct 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
Proposed risk status
Very low risk.
Very low risk.
Very low risk.
Moderate risk.
22OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices
65303
TABLE 2—UPPER WILLAMETTE STEELHEAD DPS POPULATION RECOVERY SCENARIO—Continued
Steelhead population
TRT designation
Current risk status
DPS Risk (extinction risk score) ................................................................
Moderate risk (2.75) ......................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
NMFS concludes that the viability
criteria and the threats criteria as
specified in the Plan define the
conditions that, when met, would result
in a determination that the Upper
Willamette steelhead DPS is not likely
to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. These
conditions represent the best available
science at this time. However, they may
not necessarily be the only conditions
that could result in a decision to delist.
restoring access to historic production
areas, reducing passage mortality, and
restoring more natural flows,
temperatures and sediment levels.
• Reduce predation and related
impacts of birds and fish in the estuary.
• Manage fisheries and hatchery
programs adaptively so their impacts on
wild steelhead populations are
compatible with recovery goals.
Site-Specific Management Actions
The strategies and actions identified
in the Plan for winter steelhead are
designed to reduce human and natural
impacts associated with the primary and
secondary limiting factors and threats
facing each population. If the primary
and secondary limiting factors and
threats are ameliorated, then the
population should be conserved and
recover over time. The Plan also
includes the analysis and assumptions
used to determine that the identified
actions would likely improve the
populations to the desired risk status
levels identified in Table 2. The
proposed key strategies and site-specific
management actions are fully described
in Chapters 7 and 9 of the Plan. In
general, they include:
• Protect and restore freshwater
habitat in the tributary areas of the
Willamette River for steelhead
production. Actions focus on providing
adequate spawning and rearing habitat
in all of the population areas.
Improvements to riparian areas to
provide cooler temperatures throughout
the summer, provide sources of large
woody debris for instream habitat
complexity, and keep sufficient water in
the stream for juvenile steelhead rearing
are critical to recovering steelhead
populations. These actions will also
provide substantial benefits to listed
Chinook.
• Improve water quantity and quality
by reducing the impacts of water
withdrawals.
• Protect and restore estuarine habitat
complexity (shallow waters, side
channels, cover vegetation and
structures, riparian areas, wetlands),
habitat accessibility (tide gates, other
structures) and water quality/quantity.
• Address direct impacts of
Willamette hydropower and flood
control dam/reservoir operations by
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 Upper Willamette River Chinook
ESU and steelhead DPS, like recovery
for most of the ESA-listed Pacific
Northwest salmon and steelhead, could
take 50 to 100 years. The Plan is a 25year plan. Actions identified in the Plan
will be implemented within this
timeframe, though most of the actions
are scheduled to be completed earlier
than this. NMFS and ODFW estimated
costs associated with implementing new
actions or increasing programs resulting
from this recovery plan were included,
but did not consider other costs,
referred to as ‘‘baseline’’ costs, which are
part of an entities base program or
mission, or which are required by
regulatory processes (e.g., ESA section 7
consultations, Clean Water Act
implementation actions, state fishery
management).
The Plan estimates the total cost for
restoring the Upper Willamette Chinook
ESU and steelhead DPS at $265 million
over the next 25 years (using the
assumptions stated above), but cautions
that this number could represent a
minimal cost for recovery, given all of
the costs and uncertainties which are
not included in the Plan. Such
uncertainties include biological and
ecosystem responses to recovery
actions, as well as long-term and future
funding. At this time, the amount of
acreage or miles of habitat that need to
be improved is unknown, so quantity
and total costs for some actions remain
to be determined. Uncertainty of the
survival effect of many of the habitat
actions also makes estimation of the full
extent of habitat action costs difficult.
The Plan calls for greater quantification
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Oct 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
Time Required and Cost Estimates for
Spring Chinook and Steelhead Recovery
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Proposed risk status
Sfmt 4703
Low to very low risk (3.50).
and understanding of the amount of
habitat restoration needed.
Conclusion
Section 4(f)(1)(B) of the ESA requires
that recovery plans incorporate: (1)
Objective, measurable criteria which,
when met, would result in a
determination that the species is no
longer threatened or endangered; (2)
site-specific management actions
necessary to achieve the Plan’s goals;
and (3) estimates of the time required
and costs to implement recovery
actions. As summarized above (and
fully described in the Plan), the three
requirements for a recovery plan have
been fulfilled in this Plan, and thus
NMFS is proposing to adopt it under
section 4(f)(1) of the ESA for Upper
Willamette Chinook and Upper
Willamette steelhead.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS is soliciting written comments
on the proposed Plan. All comments
received by the date specified above
will be considered prior to NMFS’
decision whether to approve the Plan.
Additionally, NMFS will provide a
summary of the comments and
responses through its Northwest Region
Web site and provide a news release for
the public announcing the availability
of the response to comments. NMFS is
seeking comment particularly in the
following areas: (1) If the population
recovery scenarios identified in Table 1
and Table 2 are appropriate; (2) if the
suite of proposed actions in the Plan are
appropriate to recover the ESU and DPS;
(3) if the viability and threats criteria for
removing the ESU and DPS from the
Federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants are
appropriate and, in particular, if the
threats criteria are sufficiently specific;
and (4) if the estimates of time and cost
to implement recovery actions are
appropriate.
Literature Cited
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.
McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. Myers, R.
Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability status of
Oregon salmon and steelhead
populations in the Willamette and Lower
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
65304
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices
Columbia Basins, review draft. National
Marine Fisheries Service Northwest
Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A.
Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik,
and M.T. Maher. 2006. Historical
population structure of pacific salmonids
in the Willamette River and Lower
Columbia River Basins. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS–NWFSC–73,
February, 2006. Seattle, WA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
2008. Endangered Species Act—Section
7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion
and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation.
Consultation on the ‘‘Willamette River
Basin Flood Control Project.’’ NMFS,
Hydropower Division. Portland, OR.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: October 19, 2010.
Therese Conant,
Acting Chief Endangered Species Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–26754 Filed 10–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 1710]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone
38 Under Alternative Site Framework
Spartanburg County, SC
Pursuant to its authority under the
Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,
1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),
the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the
Board) adopts the following Order:
Whereas, the Board adopted the
alternative site framework (ASF) in
December 2008 (74 FR 1170,01/12/09;
correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09) as an
option for the establishment or
reorganization of general-purpose zones;
Whereas, the South Carolina State
Ports Authority, grantee of ForeignTrade Zone 38, submitted an
application to the Board (FTZ Docket
37–20 10, filed 5/19/2010) for authority
to reorganize under the ASF with a
service area of the South Carolina
counties of Greenville, Spartanburg,
Cherokee, Oconee, Union, Anderson
and Laurens, in and adjacent to the
Greenville/Spartanburg Customs and
Border Protection port of entry, FTZ
38’s existing Sites 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and
11 as well as new Site 13 would be
categorized as magnet sites, and the
grantee proposes three initial usagedriven sites (Sites 1, 5 and 7);
Whereas, notice inviting public
comment was given in the Federal
Register (75 FR 30372, 6/1/2010) and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Oct 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
the application has been processed
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s
regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board adopts the
findings and recommendation of the
examiner’s report, and finds that the
requirements of the FTZ Act and
Board’s regulations are satisfied, and
that the proposal is in the public
interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby
orders:
The application to reorganize FTZ 38
under the alternative site framework is
approved, subject to the FTZ Act and
the Board’s regulations, including
Section 400.28, to the Board’s standard
2,000-acre activation limit for the
overall general-purpose zone project, to
a five-year ASF sunset provision for
magnet sites that would terminate
authority for Sites 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and
13 if not activated by October 31, 2015,
and to a three-year ASF sunset
provision for usage-driven sites that
would terminate authority for Sites 1, 5
and 7 if no foreign-status merchandise
is admitted for a bona fide customs
purpose by October 31, 2013.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of
October 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.
Attest:
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–26282 Filed 10–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Advisory Committee on Commercial
Remote Sensing (ACCRES); Request
for Nominations
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice requesting nominations
for the Advisory Committee on
Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES).
AGENCY:
The Advisory Committee on
Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES)
was established to advise the Secretary
of Commerce, through the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, on matters relating to the
U.S. commercial remote sensing
industry and NOAA’s activities to carry
out responsibilities of the Department of
Commerce as set forth in the Land
Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
U.S.C. 5621–5625). The Committee is
comprised of leaders in the commercial
space-based remote sensing industry,
space-based remote sensing data users,
government (Federal, State, local), and
academia. The Department of Commerce
is seeking highly qualified individuals
who are knowledgeable about the
commercial space-based remote sensing
industry and uses of space-based remote
sensing data to serve on the Committee.
Nominations must be
postmarked no later than 30 days from
the publication date of this notice.
DATES:
ACCRES
was established by the Secretary of
Commerce on May 21, 2002, to advise
the Secretary, through the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, on matters relating to the
U.S. commercial remote sensing
industry and NOAA’s activities to carry
out responsibilities of the Department of
Commerce as set forth in the Land
Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15
U.S.C. 5621–5625).
Committee members serve in a
representative capacity for a term of two
years and may serve additional terms, if
reappointed. No more than 15
individuals at a time may serve on the
Committee. ACCRES will have a fairly
balanced membership consisting of
approximately 9 to 15 members.
Nominations are encouraged from all
interested U.S. persons and
organizations representing interests
affected by the Land Remote Sensing
Policy Act of 1992 and the U.S.
commercial space based remote sensing
policy. Nominees must possess
demonstrable expertise in a field related
to the spaced based commercial remote
sensing industry or exploitation of space
based commercial remotely sensed data
and be able to attend committee
meetings that are held usually two times
per year. In addition, selected
candidates must apply for and obtain a
security clearance. Membership is
voluntary, and service is without pay.
Each nomination that is submitted
should include the proposed committee
member’s name and organizational
affiliation, a cover letter describing the
nominee’s qualifications and interest in
serving on the Committee, a curriculum
vitae or resume of the nominee, and no
more than three supporting letters
describing the nominee’s qualifications
and interest in serving on the
Committee. Self-nominations are
acceptable. The following contact
information should accompany each
submission: the nominee’s name,
address, phone number, fax number,
and e-mail address, if available.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65299-65304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26754]
[[Page 65299]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XZ77
Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the Proposed Upper
Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and
Steelhead (Plan) for public review and comment. The Plan describes the
recovery strategies and actions needed to recover the Upper Willamette
River Chinook (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant
Unit (ESU) and Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) to viable levels and addresses the
human and natural factors that originally led to the threatened listing
of these species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS is
soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested
parties on the proposed Plan.
DATES: NMFS will consider and address all substantive comments received
during the comment period. Comments must be received no later than 5
p.m. Pacific standard time on December 21, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Please send written comments and materials to Lance Kruzic,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg,
OR 97471. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to:
willamette.plan@noaa.gov. Please include ``Comments on Upper Willamette
Recovery Plan'' in the subject line of the e-mail. Comments may be
submitted via facsimile (fax) to (541) 957-3386. Persons wishing to
review the Plan can obtain an electronic copy (i.e., CD ROM) from
Sharon Houghton by calling (503) 230-5418 or by e-mailing a request to
sharon.houghton@noaa.gov with the subject line ``CD ROM Request for
Upper Willamette Recovery Plan.'' Electronic copies of the Plan are
also available on line on the NMFS Web site, https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Willamette-Lower-Columbia/Will/Will-Plan.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Kruzic, NMFS' Willamette
Recovery Coordinator, at (541) 957-3381, or Rob Walton, NMFS' Protected
Resources Division at (503) 231-2285.
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.). Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA
requires that recovery plans incorporate: (1) Objective, measurable
criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the
species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific
management actions necessary to achieve the Plan's goals; and (3)
estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions.
The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for 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.
In the Upper Willamette River Basin, the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) has been the local entity leading the development
of the recovery plan for ESA-listed Upper Willamette spring Chinook and
winter steelhead. After many years of developing the Plan, with a suite
of local stakeholders (including local, county, State, and Federal
agencies; private industry; fishing organizations; and environmental
groups), the ODFW has formally submitted the Plan to NMFS. After review
and evaluation, NMFS has determined the Plan meets the statutory
requirements for a recovery plan and thus now is proposing to adopt the
Plan as the ESA recovery plan for listed Upper Willamette spring
Chinook and winter steelhead. The state of Oregon also has a
requirement to develop ``conservation plans'' for native fish in Oregon
under their Native Fish Conservation Policy (https://ftp.dfw.state.or.us/fish/nfcp/nfcp.pdf). The state is also proposing
this Plan for adoption under its policy. Thus, when adopted, this Plan
will serve as a conservation and recovery plan for the state of Oregon
and NMFS.
Proposed Recovery Plan for Upper Willamette Salmon and Steelhead
Below is a summary of the key components of the proposed Plan
described separately for Upper Willamette River spring Chinook and
winter steelhead. The intent of the summary is to provide the reader an
overview of the current status of the species, the problems that have
led to the current status, and the recovery strategies and actions
proposed in the Plan to recover the species to the desired status. See
the ADDRESSES section above to obtain a full copy of the proposed Plan.
Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook
The Upper Willamette River spring Chinook ESU was listed by NMFS as
threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14308). The ESU includes all naturally
spawned populations of spring Chinook in the Clackamas River and in the
Willamette Basin upstream of Willamette Falls. The ESU also includes
hatchery spring Chinook from five hatcheries: McKenzie River Hatchery,
Marion Forks Hatchery, South Santiam Hatchery, Willamette Hatchery, and
Clackamas hatchery (70 FR 37160).
Myers et al. (2006) identified seven demographically independent
populations of spring Chinook in the Upper Willamette River based on
geography, migration rates, genetic attributes, life history patterns,
phenotypic characteristics, population dynamics, and environmental and
habitat characteristics. The seven populations include the Clackamas,
Molalla, North Santiam, South Santiam, Calapooia, McKenzie, and the
Middle Fork Willamette. Myers et al. (2006) concluded that the
Clackamas, North Santiam, McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette
populations are ``core populations'' and the McKenzie is a ``genetic
legacy'' population.
Current Status and Listing Factors
There are four Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters NMFS
uses to assess the status of salmon and steelhead under the ESA:
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (McElhany et
al., 2000). NMFS considers the Upper Willamette spring Chinook ESU to
be at a high risk of extinction due to significant alterations in all
of the VSP parameters (McElhany et al., 2007). NMFS is currently
[[Page 65300]]
conducting a review of the status of all listed species, and will take
into account the fact that the Upper Willamette spring Chinook ESU is
currently considered to be at high risk of extinction. Of the seven
historic populations, only two populations (McKenzie and Clackamas)
currently produce significant returns of naturally-produced fish and
are deemed to currently be at moderate to low risk. All of the other
five populations have exhibited very low returns of naturally-produced
spring Chinook salmon and are currently at a high risk of extinction.
NMFS evaluates five listing factors (threats) under section 4(a)(1)
when making initial determinations are made whether to list species for
protection under the ESA. They include: Present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of [the species'] habitat or
range (Factor A); over-utilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B); disease or predation
(Factor C); inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D);
and other natural or human-made factors affecting [the species']
continued existence (Factor E). At the time of the original listing
determination in 1999 (64 FR 14308), NMFS cited all of the five listing
factors as contributing to the decline of Upper Willamette spring
Chinook salmon. Specifically, the major concerns described were related
to: loss of historic spawning and rearing habitat due to dam blockages
in the eastside tributaries of the Willamette River; adverse thermal
effects downstream from operation of the dams; riparian and stream
habitat loss and degradation particularly in the lowland, valley areas
(Factors A and D); excessive fishery harvest (Factor B); and adverse
effects from hatchery programs (Factor E).
Objective and Measurable Criteria
The ultimate goal of the Plan is to recover spring Chinook
populations in the Willamette River and correct the factors that have
contributed to their decline to a point where ESA protection is no
longer necessary. In determining whether the protections of the Act are
no longer necessary, NMFS evaluates (1) the biological status of the
ESU or DPS and its constituent populations (viability) and (2) the
status of the threats that led to the listing of the species under the
ESA as well as any additional threats that have emerged. Thus in
formulating a plan for recovery, we include two types of criteria
which, when met, will indicate that the listed species no longer
requires the protections of the Act--viability criteria and threats
criteria. These criteria satisfy the requirements of ESA section
4(f)(1)(B)(ii) and are further described below.
The Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team (Technical
Recovery Team) provided information on the historic population
structure (Myers et al. 2006) and criteria for ESU/DPS viability
(McElhany et al. 2007). The populations are identified in Table 1. The
viability criteria for spring Chinook and steelhead are as follows:
1. ESU/DPS is viable when:
(a) At least two populations in the ESU and DPS meet Population
Viability Criteria (see 2 below).
(b) The average of all population extinction risk category scores
with the ESU or DPS is 2.25 or greater (see 2 below).
(c) Most of ``core'' populations (i.e., the populations that were
most productive historically: 3 of 4 core Chinook populations and 2 of
2 core steelhead populations) within the ESU/DPS are restored to
viability.
(d) The ESU/DPS maintains a semblance of normative evolutionary
processes by improving to very low risk of extinction the remaining
``genetic legacy'' populations (Chinook: McKenzie population,
steelhead: Santiam populations), and
(e) All populations not meeting Population Viability Criteria below
shall not deteriorate and are maintained (at a minimum) at their
current risk status.
2. Population Viability: A population is ``viable'' based on an
integrated assessment of the population's abundance, productivity,
spatial structure, and diversity status that produces an extinction
risk of 5% or less over a 100 year timeframe. The Technical Recovery
Team's scoring system is based on a scale from 0-4, with zero being
very high risk of extinction (>40% probability of extinction over 100
years) and four being a very low risk of extinction (1% or less
probability of extinction over 100 years).
For the Upper Willamette River spring Chinook ESU to achieve
viability, the Plan proposes to recover the Upper Willamette ESU and
its constituent populations to the risk levels identified in Table 1.
Table 1--Upper Willamette Spring Chinook ESU Population Recovery Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current risk
Spring Chinook population TRT designation status Proposed risk status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clackamas..................... Core............. Moderate risk.... Very low risk.
Molalla....................... ................. Very high risk... High risk.
North Santiam................. Core............. High risk........ Low risk.
South Santiam................. ................. High risk........ Moderate risk.
Calapooia..................... ................. Very high risk... High risk.
McKenzie...................... Core, Legacy..... Low risk......... Very low risk.
MF Willamette................. Core............. Very high risk... Low risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall ESU Risk (extinction risk score)......... High risk (0.71). Moderate to Low risk (2.57).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to achieving biological viability, the threats to the
ESU must also be sufficiently ameliorated so that once the ESU is
delisted, there are adequate protections in place to ensure the species
is not likely to become listed under the ESA again in the foreseeable
future. The five listing factors must be addressed in order for the
species to recover to biological viability. Thus, the Plan emphasizes
meeting the biological viability criteria by addressing the threats
that led to the decline and are currently preventing the species from
recovering. The threats criteria are as follows. For further details,
see the Plan.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
ESU/DPS' Habitat or Range
1. Habitat related threats have been ameliorated such that they do
not limit attainment of the desired status of the ESU/DPS and its
constituent populations. The desired status of each population is
defined by viability criteria in the Plan.
a. The condition of stream and riparian habitat in freshwater and
the estuary has improved since the time of listing.
2. Hydropower/flood control dam related threats have been
ameliorated
[[Page 65301]]
such that they do not and will not limit attainment of the desired
status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations.
a. Management actions have been implemented since the time of
listing to reintroduce salmon and steelhead back into historic habitats
above the impassable dams.
b. Survival of outplanted adult fish above the impassable dams to
spawning is high.
c. Downstream passage survival of juvenile offspring through the
reservoir and dam complexes is high.
d. Management of flow and temperature downstream of the federal
dams is sufficient to allow adequate spawning and rearing of salmon and
steelhead.
B. Over-Utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
1. Harvest related threats have been ameliorated such that they do
not, and will not, limit attainment of the desired status of the ESU/
DPS and its constituent populations.
a. Management actions have been implemented since the time of
listing to reduce fishery exploitation rates so that fishery harvest is
no longer impeding the recovery potential of the populations and ESU/
DPS.
b. Exploitation rates are in accordance with ESA authorizations for
ocean and freshwater fisheries.
C. Disease or Predation
1. Disease and predation related threats have been ameliorated such
that they do not, and will not, limit attainment of the desired status
of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations.
a. Management actions have been implemented since the time of
listing to reduce disease transmission and predation by non-native
species in the Willamette Basin.
b. Management actions have been implemented since the time of
listing to reduce predation from marine mammals.
c. Management actions have been implemented since the time of
listing to reduce disease transmission and predation by hatchery-origin
fish in the Willamette Basin and estuary.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
1. Inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms have been
addressed such that the species' biological and habitat requirements
are being met to allow attainment of the desired status of populations.
2. Adequate resources, priorities, regulatory frameworks, and
coordination mechanisms are established and/or maintained for effective
enforcement of land and water use regulations that protect and restore
habitats, including water quality and water quantity, and for the
effective management of fisheries.
3. Habitat conditions and watershed functions are protected through
land-use planning that guides human population growth and development.
4. Habitat conditions and watershed function are protected through
regulations that govern resource extraction such as timber harvest and
gravel mining.
5. Habitat conditions and watershed functions are protected through
land protection agreements as appropriate, where existing policy or
regulations do not provide adequate protection.
6. Sufficient priority instream water rights for fish habitat are
in place.
E. Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting the ESU/DPS Continued
Existence
1. Other natural factors have been accounted for such that they do
not limit attainment of the desired status of populations.
2. Hatchery related threats have been ameliorated such that they do
not, and will not, limit attainment of the desired status of
populations.
a. Management actions have been implemented to reduce genetic and
ecological risks of naturally-spawning hatchery fish in the wild.
The Plan describes the threats criteria in more detail and includes
the monitoring and evaluation plans in Chapter 8. NMFS concludes that
the viability criteria and the threats criteria, as specified in the
Plan, define the conditions that, when met, would result in a
determination that the Upper Willamette spring Chinook ESU is not
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. These conditions represent
the best available science at this time. However, they may not
necessarily be the only conditions that could result in a decision to
delist.
Site-Specific Management Actions
The strategies and actions identified in the Plan related to the
recovery scenario for spring Chinook are designed to reduce human and
natural impacts associated with the threats facing each population. The
Plan also includes the analysis and assumptions used to determine that
the identified actions would likely improve the populations to the
desired risk status levels identified in Table 1. The key strategies
and site-specific management actions are fully described in Chapters 7
and 9 of the Plan. In general, they include:
Reduce the adverse effects associated with Willamette
hydropower and flood control operations by restoring access to historic
production areas upstream of the dams, reducing downstream passage
mortality of juvenile Chinook through the reservoirs and dams, and
restoring more natural flows, temperatures and sediment regimes.
Protect habitat quantity and quality within the remaining
Chinook salmon production areas in all of the populations, and restore
instream and riparian habitats. This entails improving water quality
and quantity in stream reaches where impaired, restoring riparian
habitat to keep streams cool and provide large woody debris, and
managing land use by applying best management practices for fishery
enhancement.
In the Calapooia, allow the subbasin to be naturally re-
seeded with Chinook strays from other adjacent populations as habitat
conditions improve.
In the Molalla, rebuild Chinook production by improving
the habitat for adult and juvenile life stages and then supplementing
with fish from a conservation hatchery program for a limited period of
time.
Restore habitat complexity in the mainstem Willamette
River to improve juvenile salmonid rearing capacity and survival by
restoring riparian function and condition, reconnecting side channels
and floodplains to the mainstem river, and restoring water quality to
aid salmonid survival particularly through the summer months.
Protect and restore estuarine habitat complexity (shallow
waters, side channels, cover vegetation and structures, riparian areas,
wetlands), habitat accessibility (tide gates, other structures) and
water quality/quantity to maintain and improve survival of all life
stages of salmon and steelhead.
Reduce the adverse effects of hatchery Chinook programs on
the recovery of wild populations by reducing hatchery fish spawning in
the wild consistent with recovery goals, promoting locally adapted,
naturally reproducing runs above the impassable dams from
reintroductions, and adaptively managing the hatchery programs in
response to on-going monitoring.
Continue to implement ODFW's Willamette Chinook Fisheries
Management and Evaluation Plan
[[Page 65302]]
(FMEP) to assure fishery harvest risks are managed appropriately and do
not inhibit the recovery potential of any population.
Upper Willamette River Steelhead
``Steelhead'' is the name commonly applied to the anadromous
(migratory) form of the biological species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The
common name of the non-anadromous, or resident, form is rainbow trout.
When NMFS originally listed the Upper Willamette River steelhead as
threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14517), it was classified as an 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 Upper
Willamette River steelhead DPS as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR
834). Rainbow trout are 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.
The Upper Willamette River steelhead DPS includes all naturally
spawned winter-run steelhead populations in the Willamette River and
its tributaries upstream from Willamette Falls to the Calapooia River
(inclusive). It does not include steelhead residing in the McKenzie and
Middle Fork Willamette. The Technical Recovery Team identified four
historical demographically independent populations of Upper Willamette
River winter steelhead: the Molalla, North Santiam, South Santiam, and
Calapooia (Myers et al., 2006). These population delineations were
based on geography, migration rates, genetic attributes, life history
patterns, phenotypic characteristics, population dynamics, and
environmental and habitat characteristics with guidance found in
McElhany et al. (2000). The North Santiam and South Santiam rivers are
thought to have been major production areas and these populations were
designated as ``core'' and ``genetic legacy'' (Myers et al., 2006).
Winter steelhead have been reported spawning in the west-side
tributaries to the Willamette River, but these tributaries were not
considered to have constituted an independent population historically.
There are no hatchery programs producing steelhead within the
geographic boundaries of the DPS. The hatchery summer-run steelhead in
the Upper Willamette Basin are an out-of-basin stock (originally from
Skamania Hatchery) and not considered part of the DPS.
Current Status and Listing Factors
Based upon status assessments in McElhany et al. (2007) and the
Plan, the Upper Willamette steelhead DPS is currently at a moderate to
low risk of extinction. However, there is uncertainty in the assessment
due to the limited population-specific data. The only direct measure of
abundance comes from counts at Willamette Falls, which also include
winter steelhead returning to areas outside of the DPS (i.e., upstream
of the Calapooia River). The counts at Willamette Falls have declined
over the last five years compared to the relatively large returns in
2001 through 2004. The most recent five year average is similar to the
abundance levels observed in the 1990's, which are much reduced from
the previous decades. The Molalla, North Santiam, and South Santiam
populations are currently at low risk (McElhany et al. 2007). The
Calapooia population is currently at a moderate risk of extinction
(McElhany et al. 2007).
As described above for Chinook salmon, we evaluate five listing
factors under section 4(a)(1) when determining whether to list species
under the ESA. At the time of the original listing determination in
1999 (64 FR 14517), NMFS cited all of the five listing factors as
contributing to the decline of Upper Willamette steelhead.
Specifically, the major concerns described were related to: loss of
historic spawning and rearing habitat due to dam blockages in the
eastside tributaries of the Willamette River, adverse thermal effects
downstream from operation of the dams, riparian and stream habitat loss
and degradation particularly in the lowland, valley areas (Factors A
and D); lack of historical abundance data for steelhead populations,
management on non-federal lands (Factor D); and adverse effects from
hatchery programs (Factor E).
Objective and Measurable Criteria
The ultimate goal of the Plan is to recover spring Chinook
populations in the Willamette River and correct the factors that have
contributed to their decline to a point where ESA protection is no
longer necessary. In determining whether the protections of the Act are
no longer necessary, NMFS evaluates (1) the biological status of the
ESU or DPS and its constituent populations (viability) and (2) the
status of the threats that led to the listing of the species under the
ESA as well as any additional threats that have emerged (threats). Thus
in formulating a plan for recovery, we include two types of criteria
which, when met, will indicate that the listed species no longer
requires the protections of the Act--viability criteria and threats
criteria. These criteria satisfy the requirements of ESA section
4(f)((1)(B)(ii) and are further described below.
The Technical Recovery Team provided information on the historic
population structure (Myers et al. 2006) and criteria for ESU/DPS
viability (McElhany et al. 2007). The steelhead populations are
identified in Table 2. The biological viability criteria for steelhead
are the same criteria as stated above for spring Chinook.
For the Upper Willamette River steelhead DPS to meet viability
criteria, the Plan proposes to recover the Upper Willamette DPS and its
constituent populations to the risk levels identified in Table 2. In
addition to achieving biological viability, the five listing factors
that originally led to the listing of the DPS must also be sufficiently
ameliorated so that once the DPS is delisted, there are adequate
protections in place to ensure the species is not likely to become
listed under the ESA again in the foreseeable future. The threats must
be addressed in order for the species to recover to viability. Thus,
the Plan emphasizes meeting the viability criteria by addressing the
threats that are responsible for the species decline. The threats
criteria for winter steelhead are the same as specified above for
Chinook.
Table 2--Upper Willamette Steelhead DPS Population Recovery Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current risk
Steelhead population TRT designation status Proposed risk status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molalla....................... ................. Low risk......... Very low risk.
North Santiam................. Core, genetic Low risk......... Very low risk.
legacy.
South Santiam................. Core, genetic Low risk......... Very low risk.
legacy.
Calapooia..................... ................. Moderate risk.... Moderate risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65303]]
DPS Risk (extinction risk score)................. Moderate risk Low to very low risk (3.50).
(2.75).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS concludes that the viability criteria and the threats criteria
as specified in the Plan define the conditions that, when met, would
result in a determination that the Upper Willamette steelhead DPS is
not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. These conditions
represent the best available science at this time. However, they may
not necessarily be the only conditions that could result in a decision
to delist.
Site-Specific Management Actions
The strategies and actions identified in the Plan for winter
steelhead are designed to reduce human and natural impacts associated
with the primary and secondary limiting factors and threats facing each
population. If the primary and secondary limiting factors and threats
are ameliorated, then the population should be conserved and recover
over time. The Plan also includes the analysis and assumptions used to
determine that the identified actions would likely improve the
populations to the desired risk status levels identified in Table 2.
The proposed key strategies and site-specific management actions are
fully described in Chapters 7 and 9 of the Plan. In general, they
include:
Protect and restore freshwater habitat in the tributary
areas of the Willamette River for steelhead production. Actions focus
on providing adequate spawning and rearing habitat in all of the
population areas. Improvements to riparian areas to provide cooler
temperatures throughout the summer, provide sources of large woody
debris for instream habitat complexity, and keep sufficient water in
the stream for juvenile steelhead rearing are critical to recovering
steelhead populations. These actions will also provide substantial
benefits to listed Chinook.
Improve water quantity and quality by reducing the impacts
of water withdrawals.
Protect and restore estuarine habitat complexity (shallow
waters, side channels, cover vegetation and structures, riparian areas,
wetlands), habitat accessibility (tide gates, other structures) and
water quality/quantity.
Address direct impacts of Willamette hydropower and flood
control dam/reservoir operations by restoring access to historic
production areas, reducing passage mortality, and restoring more
natural flows, temperatures and sediment levels.
Reduce predation and related impacts of birds and fish in
the estuary.
Manage fisheries and hatchery programs adaptively so their
impacts on wild steelhead populations are compatible with recovery
goals.
Time Required and Cost Estimates for Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Recovery
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 Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU and steelhead DPS,
like recovery for most of the ESA-listed Pacific Northwest salmon and
steelhead, could take 50 to 100 years. The Plan is a 25-year plan.
Actions identified in the Plan will be implemented within this
timeframe, though most of the actions are scheduled to be completed
earlier than this. NMFS and ODFW estimated costs associated with
implementing new actions or increasing programs resulting from this
recovery plan were included, but did not consider other costs, referred
to as ``baseline'' costs, which are part of an entities base program or
mission, or which are required by regulatory processes (e.g., ESA
section 7 consultations, Clean Water Act implementation actions, state
fishery management).
The Plan estimates the total cost for restoring the Upper
Willamette Chinook ESU and steelhead DPS at $265 million over the next
25 years (using the assumptions stated above), but cautions that this
number could represent a minimal cost for recovery, given all of the
costs and uncertainties which are not included in the Plan. Such
uncertainties include biological and ecosystem responses to recovery
actions, as well as long-term and future funding. At this time, the
amount of acreage or miles of habitat that need to be improved is
unknown, so quantity and total costs for some actions remain to be
determined. Uncertainty of the survival effect of many of the habitat
actions also makes estimation of the full extent of habitat action
costs difficult. The Plan calls for greater quantification and
understanding of the amount of habitat restoration needed.
Conclusion
Section 4(f)(1)(B) of the ESA requires that recovery plans
incorporate: (1) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would
result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or
endangered; (2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve
the Plan's goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to
implement recovery actions. As summarized above (and fully described in
the Plan), the three requirements for a recovery plan have been
fulfilled in this Plan, and thus NMFS is proposing to adopt it under
section 4(f)(1) of the ESA for Upper Willamette Chinook and Upper
Willamette steelhead.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS is soliciting written comments on the proposed Plan. All
comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior
to NMFS' decision whether to approve the Plan. Additionally, NMFS will
provide a summary of the comments and responses through its Northwest
Region Web site and provide a news release for the public announcing
the availability of the response to comments. NMFS is seeking comment
particularly in the following areas: (1) If the population recovery
scenarios identified in Table 1 and Table 2 are appropriate; (2) if the
suite of proposed actions in the Plan are appropriate to recover the
ESU and DPS; (3) if the viability and threats criteria for removing the
ESU and DPS from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants are appropriate and, in particular, if the threats criteria
are sufficiently specific; and (4) if the estimates of time and cost to
implement recovery actions are appropriate.
Literature Cited
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.
McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. Myers, R. Beamesderfer. 2007.
Viability status of Oregon salmon and steelhead populations in the
Willamette and Lower
[[Page 65304]]
Columbia Basins, review draft. National Marine Fisheries Service
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van
Doornik, and M.T. Maher. 2006. Historical population structure of
pacific salmonids in the Willamette River and Lower Columbia River
Basins. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-73, February, 2006.
Seattle, WA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Endangered Species
Act--Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat Consultation. Consultation on the ``Willamette River Basin
Flood Control Project.'' NMFS, Hydropower Division. Portland, OR.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: October 19, 2010.
Therese Conant,
Acting Chief Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-26754 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P