Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50165 

submissions into electronic formats, for 

both individual units and central 

collection units. 

Since the 2003 annual collection 

cycle, all form types can be completed 

on the Internet. For the 2007 Census, 

18,708 governments responded using 

our Web site. For the 2008 Annual 

survey, 6,589 or 31% of the 

governments sample responded using 

our Web site. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0607–0452. 

Form Number: E–1, E–2, E–3, E–4, E– 

5, E–6, E–7, E–9. 

Type of Review: Regular. 

Affected Public: State governments, 

county governments, consolidated citycounty governments, independent 

cities, towns, townships, special district 

governments, and public school 

systems. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

16,956. 

Estimated Time per Response: The 

average for all forms is 49 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 13,973. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 

316,524. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 United States 

Code, section 161 & 182. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Gwelnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–23533 Filed 9–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

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 ι 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 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonRecovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/ 

Interior-Columbia/Mid-Columbia/MidCol-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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
50166 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

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 

(http://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. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
50168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

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 AG 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. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 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 comanagers 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 siteVerDate Nov<24>2008 14:56 Sep 29, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM 30SEN1

CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
50170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

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 MPGlevel 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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 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-HAnalyzer 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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
50172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

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 fiveyear reviews may also compel more indepth 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/ 

trtlviability.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/ESARecovery-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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XR72 

Endangered Species; File No. 10022 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for 

modification. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Raymond Carthy, Department of 

Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, 

University of Florida, P.O. Box 110485, 

Gainesville, Florida 23611–0450, has 

requested a modification to scientific 

research Permit No. 10022. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e–mail 

comments must be received on or before 

October 30, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The modification request 

and related documents are available for 

review upon written request or by 

appointment in the following offices: 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East–West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)713–0376; 

andSoutheast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; 

phone (727)824–5312; fax (727)824– 

5309. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES