Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55045 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 735(d) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(c). 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

Issues 

Comment 1: Whether Polyplex 

Understated the Cost of Polymer Chips 

for PET Film Production 

Comment 2: Whether Polyplex 

Understated Labor Costs associated with 

PET Film Production 

Comment 3: Whether Polyplex Correctly 

Reported the Cost of Sales Denominator 

for the General and Administrative 

Expense Ratio 

Comment 4: Whether Polyplex 

Understated Warehousing Expenses and 

Misclassified Warehousing Expenses as 

Indirect Selling Expenses 

Comment 5: Whether Polyplex 

Understated the Indirect Selling 

Expenses Incurred by Polyplex America, 

Inc. 

Comment 6: Whether the Department 

Should Apply the Dumping Margin 

Calculated on Sales of Identical 

Merchandise to the Further 

Manufactured Sales 

Comment 7: Whether to Accept 

Petitioners’ Targeted Dumping 

Allegation 

Comment 8: Clerical Error 

[FR Doc. E8–22472 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Feedback Survey 

for Annual Tsunami Warning 

Communications Tests 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before November 24, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Jeff Lorens, 801–524–4000 

ext. 265 or Jeffrey.Lorens@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

To assess the effectiveness of NOAA/ 

National Weather Service’s (NWS) 

Tsunami Warning System, this survey is 

needed to gather specific feedback 

following testing of the associated NWS 

communications systems. The tests are 

planned annually, March/April and 

September. Post-test feedback will be 

requested from emergency managers, 

the media, law enforcement officials, 

local government agencies/officials, and 

the general public. The responses will 

be solicited for a limited period 

immediately following completion of 

the tests, not to exceed seven days. This 

will be a Web-based survey and will 

allow for efficient collection of 

information regarding the effectiveness 

of the Tsunami Warning System. 

II. Method of Collection 

A Web-based survey will be used for 

electronic submission. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0648–0539. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households, Federal Government, and 

State, local or tribal government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,100. 

Estimated Time per Response: 5 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 92. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0. 

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 through 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. 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–22413 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XK45 

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: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the 

availability of the Proposed Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead Recovery 

Plan (Plan) for public review and 

comment. The Plan addresses 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. 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 daylight time on December 23, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Please send written 

comments and materials to Lynn 

Hatcher, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 304 S. Water Street, Suite # 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55046 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

201, Ellensburg, WA 98926. Comments 

may also be submitted by e mail to: 

MiddleColumbiaPlan.nwr@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line of the e mail 

comment the following identifier: 

Comments on Middle Columbia 

Steelhead Recovery Plan. Comments 

may be submitted via facsimile (fax) to 

503–872–2737. 

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 emailing a request 

to sharon.houghton@noaa.gov with the 

subject line ‘‘CD ROM Request for 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Plan.’’ Electronic copies of the Plan are 

also available on line on the NMFS 

website, www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon 

Recovery Planning/ESA Recovery Plans/ 

Draft Plans.cfm 

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 

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, and 

ecological interactions including 

predation and competition) are 

necessary. This recovery plan identifies 

and evaluates the relative impacts of 

this full range of limiting factors and 

threats and recognizes that some sectors 

have the potential to make more 

immediate and significant contributions 

to recovery than do others. This plan 

contains recovery actions addressing all 

identified limiting factors and threats. 

At this time, however, site-specific 

management actions are more fully 

developed for tributary habitat and 

mainstem hydropower than for 

hatcheries and harvest. 

The relative contribution of limiting 

factors and threats that impede recovery 

may differ among species. This recovery 

plan contains actions that address all 

threat categories and estimates their 

contribution to recovery. Given that 

habitat restoration actions generally take 

extended time frames to yield ecosystem 

responses and improvements in fish 

populations, it is important to 

implement actions with more 

immediate benefits, as well as habitat 

actions whose benefits will accrue in 

the future. 

In summary, although site-specific 

actions in this plan may appear to be 

more fully developed for tributary 

habitat and mainstem hydropower, 

recovery will also be dependent on 

hatchery and harvest actions developed 

in other management processes. For 

example, mainstem fisheries in the 

Columbia River will be implemented 

consistent with the recently completed 

U.S v. Oregon Agreement, which 

extends through 2017. In other areas, 

management requirements for hatchery 

and harvest actions will be developed 

through Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plan and Fishery 

Management and Evaluation Plan 

processes, many of which are now 

under review or scheduled for 

completion in the near future. 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 bi-state 

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, Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Recovery Board, 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 18 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) includes 

biologists from NMFS, states, 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55047 

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 management unit plans, 

Appendices A-F, 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); Recovery Plan for the 

Rock Creek Population of the Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead (Appendix 

C); Recovery Plan for the White Salmon 

Population of the Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead (Appendix D). 

(3) Yakima Basin. Yakima Steelhead 

Recovery Plan (Appendix E). 

(4) Southeast Washington. The Snake 

River Salmon Recovery Plan for 

Southeast Washington (Appendix F). 

The proposed Plan, including the 

management unit plans, is now 

available for public review and 

comment. Two ICTRT reports (McClure 

et al., 2003; ICTRT, 2007), which 

provide the scientific basis for the Plan, 

are also available for public review and 

comment. With approval of the final 

Plan, NMFS will commit itself to 

implement the actions in the Plan for 

which it has authority and funding, to 

work cooperatively on implementation 

of other actions, and to encourage other 

Federal agencies and tribal governments 

to implement Plan actions for which 

they have responsibility and authority. 

NMFS expects the Plan to guide 

NMFS and other Federal agencies in 

evaluating Federal actions under ESA 

section 7 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 section 7 consultations 

as well as ESA 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. 

At the time of a delisting decision for 

the 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 will become 

insignificant in the future because of 

changes in the natural environment or 

changes in the way threats affect the 

entire life cycle of salmon. 

Consequently, NMFS expects that the 

relative priority of threats will change 

over time and that new threats may be 

identified. During the status reviews, 

NMFS will evaluate and review the 

listing factor criteria as they apply at 

that time. NMFS expects that if the 

proposed actions described in the Plan 

are implemented, they will make 

substantial progress toward meeting the 

listing factor (threats) criteria for the 

Middle Columbia steelhead. 

DPS Addressed and Planning Area 

‘‘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 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 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. 

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 

streams from above (exclusive of) the 

Wind River, Washington, and the Hood 

River, Oregon, upstream 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 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55048 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

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 to 

attain the lowest risk level. There may 

be more than one way for a DPS to meet 

the viability criteria. Combinations of 

viability status for individual 

populations that will meet the ICTRT 

criteria for overall DPS viability are 

called recovery scenarios. The ICTRT 

cautioned against closing off the options 

for any population prematurely, 

however, because of the many 

uncertainties in predicting the 

biological response to recovery actions 

(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 the Plan, in addition to 

evaluation of biological recovery criteria 

and other relevant data and policy 

considerations. The threats need to have 

been addressed to the point that 

delisting is not likely to result in their 

re-emergence. It is possible that 

currently perceived threats will 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. 

Consequently, NMFS expects that the 

relative priority of threats will change 

over time and that new threats may be 

identified. During the status reviews, 

NMFS will evaluate and review the 

listing factor criteria as they apply at 

that time. 

Current DPS Status 

According to the ICTRT viability 

criteria, the majority of natural Middle 

Columbia steelhead populations are 

rated 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. However, the three 

populations at high risk (Deschutes 

Westside, Naches, and Upper Yakima), 

are important to DPS viability. As a 

minimum, for the Cascades Eastern 

Slope Tributaries and the Yakima River 

MPG to meet viability criteria, the 

Deschutes Westside population and one 

of the two large Yakima populations 

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, 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, and predation/ 

competition/disease. The management 

unit plans contain detailed descriptions 

of tributary habitat limiting factors and 

threats, while the modules provide 

detailed examination of conditions in 

mainstem Columbia River and estuary. 

Recovery Strategy 

The recovery strategy for the Middle 

Columbia steelhead DPS is made up of 

the following elements: 

• Address the limiting factors for 

each major population group and 

population, following the 

recommendations in the 2006 listing 

decision, making use of the strategies 

and actions developed in the 

management unit plans, in concert with 

the strategies and actions provided in 

the NMFS 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion, NMFS Estuary Module, 

Hatchery and Genetic Management 

Plans (HGMPs) and Artificial 

Production for Pacific Salmon 

(Appendix C of Supplemental 

Comprehensive Analysis, NMFS 2008), 

and fishery management planning 

through U.S. v. Oregon for mainstem 

fisheries and Fisheries Management 

Evaluation Plans for tributary fisheries. 

• Address and coordinate DPS-wide 

and basin-wide issues through the 

Middle Columbia Forum (a bi-state, tritribe group convened by NMFS to 

provide input on the development of the 

DPS recovery plan). 

• Coordinate research, monitoring, 

and evaluation throughout the range of 

the DPS. 

• Conduct periodic comprehensive 

reviews of new information generated 

through the research, monitoring, and 

evaluation program. Adapt management 

actions as appropriate to achieve the 

recovery goals. 

If, as we believe, the decline of the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS is 

caused by widespread tributary 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. Regional 

coordination, research, monitoring, 

evaluation, and adaptive management 

are essential. The results of these 

actions must be monitored, evaluated, 

and communicated to managers to 

enable them to make informed decisions 

to continue or change their strategy. 

Following are summaries of the 

recovery strategies for each MPG. In the 

next section, recovery strategies are 

summarized for DPS-level conditions 

affecting all MPGs (mainstem passage, 

hatchery effects, predation in mainstem 

and estuary). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55049 

Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries 

MPG 

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 

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. 

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 (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. 

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 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 

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 

Main Limiting Factors and Threats 

• Degraded tributary habitat 

• Mainstem passage 

• Hatchery-related effects 

• Predation/ competition/disease in 

mainstem and estuary 

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. 

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). 

• Improve hatchery management to 

reduce straying from out-of-DPS 

hatchery fish onto natural spawning 

grounds within the John Day subbasin. 

Yakima River MPG 

Status 

Moderate risk – Satus Creek , Toppenish 

Creek. 

High risk - Naches River, Upper Yakima 

River 

Main Limiting Factors and Threats 

• Tributary habitat: Influence of 

major irrigation system development. 

Altered hydrology; degraded habitat loss 

of habitat; impaired fish passage; 

reduced outmigrant survival in Yakima 

mainstem. 

• Mainstem passage (these fish must 

pass four dams) 

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 

meeting at least the ‘‘maintained’’ or 

moderate risk criteria. The remaining 

two populations should, at a minimum, 

meet the maintained criteria. 

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. 

• Alter irrigation delivery and storage 

operations in the Yakima Basin (a) to 

improve flow conditions for Middle 

Columbia steelhead 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 NMFS Estuary 

Module (NMFS 2007) and FCRPS 

Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008). 

Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG 

Status 

Moderate risk - Umatilla, Walla Walla 

High risk - Touchet (a provisional rating 

because of insufficient data) 

Main Limiting Factors and Threats 

• Mainstem passage (Touchet and 

Walla Walla populations pass four 

major dams: the Umatilla population 

must pass three) 

• Tributary habitat 

• Hatchery related effects 

• Predation/competition/disease 

Recovery Scenario 

For the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG to 

meet viability criteria, two populations 

should 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 need to be viable. 

Key Actions Proposed 

• Protect and improve freshwater 

habitat conditions and access for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55050 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

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. 

• Improve hatchery management to 

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) 

• Coordinate between planners, 

scientists and those implementing 

recovery actions in Washington and 

Oregon for sequencing, monitoring, and 

adaptive management 

DPS-wide and Basin-wide Issues 

DPS-wide issues include impaired 

fish passage on the mainstem Columbia 

River, hatchery-related effects, 

predation on steelhead in mainstem, 

estuary, and plume, and harvest. 

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 recently 

issued a new draft 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 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 proposed recovery 

plan is being finalized, August 2008, 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. 

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 sitespecific 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. 

Predation, Competition, and Disease 

The Plan addresses major predation 

issues in the mainstem Columbia River 

and recommends research and 

monitoring to track trends in predator 

populations, understand their impacts 

on steelhead, and develop appropriate 

management techniques to reduce 

predation. 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. 

Harvest 

Although, in general, harvest is not 

considered a major threat for the Middle 

Columbia steelhead DPS, it is important 

to ensure that impacts from fisheries do 

not impede recovery, and to perform 

monitoring and evaluation to verify 

impacts and reduce existing 

uncertainties. 

Site-specific Management Actions 

The proposed site-specific 

management actions at the population 

level are described in detail in 

Appendices A through F 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 (in preparation), the 

Estuary Module (NMFS 2007), 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, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55051 

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 much 

sooner. The management unit plans 

(Appendices A through F) 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) 

baseline actions (programs that are 

already in existence and would occur 

regardless of this recovery plan), 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 of restoring 

habitat for the Middle Columbia 

steelhead DPS is approximately $235 

million over the initial 5–year period, 

and approximately $970 million over 20 

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 survival (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 

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. Chapter 11 of this 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. 

Conclusion 

NMFS concludes that the Plan meets 

the requirements of ESA section 4(f) and 

thus is proposing it as an ESA recovery 

plan. 

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 

seeks comments particularly in the 

following areas: (1) the analysis of, and 

hypotheses concerning, limiting factors 

and threats; (2) the recovery objectives, 

strategies, and actions; (3) the criteria 

for removing the DPS from the Federal 

list of endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; and (4) estimates of 

time and cost to implement recovery 

actions, including the intent to be even 

more specific by soliciting an 

implementation schedule. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55052 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

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). 2006. Draft 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 10, 2008. 

Therese Conant, 

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–21600 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–AS67 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Gulf Red 

Snapper Individual Fishing Quota 

Program 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of determination of 

catastrophic conditions. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the individual 

fishing quota (IFQ) program for the 

commercial red snapper fishery in the 

Gulf of Mexico, the Administrator, 

Southeast Region, NMFS (RA) has 

determined that catastrophic conditions 

exist in those parts of Texas and 

Louisiana from the mouth of the 

Mississippi River west to Freeport, 

Texas as a result of recent hurricanes. 

Consistent with those regulations, the 

RA has authorized IFQ participants 

within this affected area to use paperbased forms, if necessary, for basic 

required IFQ administrative functions, 

e.g., landing transactions, until October 

24, 2008. This determination of 

catastrophic conditions and allowance 

of alternative methods for completing 

required IFQ administrative functions is 

intended to facilitate continuation of 

IFQ operations during the period of 

catastrophic conditions. 

DATES: The RA is authorizing IFQ 

participants within this affected area to 

use paper-based forms until October 24, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Britni Tokotch, telephone 727–824– 

5305, fax 727–824–5308, e-mail 

Britni.Tokotch@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations implementing the IFQ 

program for the commercial red snapper 

fishery in the Gulf of Mexico (50 CFR 

622.16) require that IFQ participants 

have access to a computer and Internet 

access and that they conduct 

administrative functions associated with 

the IFQ program, e.g., landing 

transactions, online. However, these 

regulations also specify that during 

catastrophic conditions, as determined 

by the RA, the RA can authorize IFQ 

participants in the affected area who are 

unable to submit information 

electronically to use paper-based forms 

to complete IFQ administrative 

functions for the duration of the 

catastrophic conditions. The RA must 

determine that catastrophic conditions 

exist, specify the duration of the 

catastrophic conditions, and specify 

which participants or geographic areas 

are deemed affected by the catastrophic 

conditions. 

Hurricane Gustav made landfall near 

Cocodrie, Louisiana as a strong Category 

2 hurricane on September 1, 2008. 

Twelve days later Hurricane Ike made 

landfall near Galveston, Texas as a 

Category 2 hurricane. Strong winds and 

flooding from these two hurricanes 

impacted coastal communities 

throughout Texas and Louisiana, 

resulting in power outages and loss of 

homes, businesses, and other 

infrastructure. As a result the RA has 

determined that catastrophic conditions 

exist in those areas of the states of 

Louisiana and Texas from the mouth of 

the Mississippi River west to Freeport, 

Texas. The RA is authorizing IFQ 

participants within this affected area to 

use paper-based forms until October 24, 

2008. NMFS will provide additional 

notification to affected participants via 

NOAA weather radio, fishery bulletins, 

and other appropriate means. 

NMFS previously provided each IFQ 

dealer the necessary paper forms 

(sequentially coded) and instructions in 

the event catastrophic conditions exist. 

Paper forms are also available from the 

RA upon request. The electronic system 

for submitting information to NMFS 

will continue to be available to all 

participants, and participants in the 

affected area are encouraged to continue 

using this system, if accessible. 

The administrative program functions 

available to participants in the area 

affected by catastrophic conditions will 

be limited under the paper-based 

system. There will be no mechanism for 

transfers of IFQ shares or allocation 

under the paper-based system in effect 

during catastrophic conditions. 

Assistance in complying with the 

requirements of the paper-based system 

will be available via IFQ Customer 

Service 1–866–425–7627 Monday 

through Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m. eastern time. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22406 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS 

Limitations of Duty- and Quota-Free 

Imports of Apparel Articles Assembled 

in Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African 

Countries from Regional and ThirdCountry Fabric 

September 19, 2008. 

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA). 

ACTION: Publishing the New 12-Month 

Cap on Duty- and Quota-Free Benefits 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Niewiaroski, International Trade 

Specialist, Office of Textiles and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES