Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices 65299 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ77 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Recovery Plans 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

availability of the Proposed Upper 

Willamette River Conservation and 

Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and 

Steelhead (Plan) for public review and 

comment. The Plan describes the 

recovery strategies and actions needed 

to recover the Upper Willamette River 

Chinook (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) 

and Upper Willamette River steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) to viable 

levels and addresses the human and 

natural factors that originally led to the 

threatened listing of these species under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

NMFS is soliciting review and comment 

from the public and all interested 

parties on the proposed Plan. 

DATES: NMFS will consider and address 

all substantive comments received 

during the comment period. Comments 

must be received no later than 5 p.m. 

Pacific standard time on December 21, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Please send written 

comments and materials to Lance 

Kruzic, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, 

Roseburg, OR 97471. Comments may 

also be submitted by e-mail to: 

willamette.plan@noaa.gov. Please 

include ‘‘Comments on Upper 

Willamette Recovery Plan’’ in the 

subject line of the e-mail. Comments 

may be submitted via facsimile (fax) to 

(541) 957–3386. Persons wishing to 

review the Plan can obtain an electronic 

copy (i.e., CD ROM) from Sharon 

Houghton by calling (503) 230–5418 or 

by e-mailing a request to 

sharon.houghton@noaa.gov with the 

subject line ‘‘CD ROM Request for Upper 

Willamette Recovery Plan.’’ Electronic 

copies of the Plan are also available on 

line on the NMFS Web site, http:// 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/Recovery-Domains/ 

Willamette-Lower-Columbia/Will/WillPlan.cfm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lance Kruzic, NMFS’ Willamette 

Recovery Coordinator, at (541) 957– 

3381, or Rob Walton, NMFS’ Protected 

Resources Division at (503) 231–2285. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Recovery plans describe actions 

beneficial to the conservation and 

recovery of species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires that 

recovery plans incorporate: (1) 

Objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination that the species is no 

longer threatened or endangered; (2) 

site-specific management actions 

necessary to achieve the Plan’s goals; 

and (3) estimates of the time required 

and costs to implement recovery 

actions. The ESA requires the 

development of recovery plans for each 

listed species unless such a plan would 

not promote its recovery. 

NMFS is responsible for developing 

and implementing ESA recovery plans 

for listed salmon and steelhead. In so 

doing, NMFS’ goal is to restore 

endangered and threatened Pacific 

salmonids to the point that they are 

again self-sustaining members of their 

ecosystems and no longer need the 

protections of the ESA. Local support of 

recovery plans by those whose activities 

directly affect the listed species, and 

whose actions will be most affected by 

recovery efforts, is essential. NMFS 

therefore supports and participates in 

locally led collaborative efforts to 

develop recovery plans that involve 

local communities, State, tribal, and 

Federal entities, and other stakeholders. 

In the Upper Willamette River Basin, 

the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) has been the local 

entity leading the development of the 

recovery plan for ESA-listed Upper 

Willamette spring Chinook and winter 

steelhead. After many years of 

developing the Plan, with a suite of 

local stakeholders (including local, 

county, State, and Federal agencies; 

private industry; fishing organizations; 

and environmental groups), the ODFW 

has formally submitted the Plan to 

NMFS. After review and evaluation, 

NMFS has determined the Plan meets 

the statutory requirements for a recovery 

plan and thus now is proposing to adopt 

the Plan as the ESA recovery plan for 

listed Upper Willamette spring Chinook 

and winter steelhead. The state of 

Oregon also has a requirement to 

develop ‘‘conservation plans’’ for native 

fish in Oregon under their Native Fish 

Conservation Policy (http:// 

ftp.dfw.state.or.us/fish/nfcp/nfcp.pdf). 

The state is also proposing this Plan for 

adoption under its policy. Thus, when 

adopted, this Plan will serve as a 

conservation and recovery plan for the 

state of Oregon and NMFS. 

Proposed Recovery Plan for Upper 

Willamette Salmon and Steelhead 

Below is a summary of the key 

components of the proposed Plan 

described separately for Upper 

Willamette River spring Chinook and 

winter steelhead. The intent of the 

summary is to provide the reader an 

overview of the current status of the 

species, the problems that have led to 

the current status, and the recovery 

strategies and actions proposed in the 

Plan to recover the species to the 

desired status. See the ADDRESSES

section above to obtain a full copy of the 

proposed Plan. 

Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook 

The Upper Willamette River spring 

Chinook ESU was listed by NMFS as 

threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14308). The 

ESU includes all naturally spawned 

populations of spring Chinook in the 

Clackamas River and in the Willamette 

Basin upstream of Willamette Falls. The 

ESU also includes hatchery spring 

Chinook from five hatcheries: McKenzie 

River Hatchery, Marion Forks Hatchery, 

South Santiam Hatchery, Willamette 

Hatchery, and Clackamas hatchery (70 

FR 37160). 

Myers et al. (2006) identified seven 

demographically independent 

populations of spring Chinook in the 

Upper Willamette River based on 

geography, migration rates, genetic 

attributes, life history patterns, 

phenotypic characteristics, population 

dynamics, and environmental and 

habitat characteristics. The seven 

populations include the Clackamas, 

Molalla, North Santiam, South Santiam, 

Calapooia, McKenzie, and the Middle 

Fork Willamette. Myers et al. (2006) 

concluded that the Clackamas, North 

Santiam, McKenzie and Middle Fork 

Willamette populations are ‘‘core 

populations’’ and the McKenzie is a 

‘‘genetic legacy’’ population. 

Current Status and Listing Factors 

There are four Viable Salmonid 

Population (VSP) parameters NMFS 

uses to assess the status of salmon and 

steelhead under the ESA: abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (McElhany et al., 2000). NMFS 

considers the Upper Willamette spring 

Chinook ESU to be at a high risk of 

extinction due to significant alterations 

in all of the VSP parameters (McElhany 

et al., 2007). NMFS is currently 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65300 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices 

conducting a review of the status of all 

listed species, and will take into 

account the fact that the Upper 

Willamette spring Chinook ESU is 

currently considered to be at high risk 

of extinction. Of the seven historic 

populations, only two populations 

(McKenzie and Clackamas) currently 

produce significant returns of naturallyproduced fish and are deemed to 

currently be at moderate to low risk. All 

of the other five populations have 

exhibited very low returns of naturallyproduced spring Chinook salmon and 

are currently at a high risk of extinction. 

NMFS evaluates five listing factors 

(threats) under section 4(a)(1) when 

making initial determinations are made 

whether to list species for protection 

under the ESA. They include: Present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of [the species’] habitat or 

range (Factor A); over-utilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes (Factor B); disease 

or predation (Factor C); inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor 

D); and other natural or human-made 

factors affecting [the species’] continued 

existence (Factor E). At the time of the 

original listing determination in 1999 

(64 FR 14308), NMFS cited all of the 

five listing factors as contributing to the 

decline of Upper Willamette spring 

Chinook salmon. Specifically, the major 

concerns described were related to: loss 

of historic spawning and rearing habitat 

due to dam blockages in the eastside 

tributaries of the Willamette River; 

adverse thermal effects downstream 

from operation of the dams; riparian and 

stream habitat loss and degradation 

particularly in the lowland, valley areas 

(Factors A and D); excessive fishery 

harvest (Factor B); and adverse effects 

from hatchery programs (Factor E). 

Objective and Measurable Criteria 

The ultimate goal of the Plan is to 

recover spring Chinook populations in 

the Willamette River and correct the 

factors that have contributed to their 

decline to a point where ESA protection 

is no longer necessary. In determining 

whether the protections of the Act are 

no longer necessary, NMFS evaluates (1) 

the biological status of the ESU or DPS 

and its constituent populations 

(viability) and (2) the status of the 

threats that led to the listing of the 

species under the ESA as well as any 

additional threats that have emerged. 

Thus in formulating a plan for recovery, 

we include two types of criteria which, 

when met, will indicate that the listed 

species no longer requires the 

protections of the Act—viability criteria 

and threats criteria. These criteria 

satisfy the requirements of ESA section 

4(f)(1)(B)(ii) and are further described 

below. 

The Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Technical Recovery Team (Technical 

Recovery Team) provided information 

on the historic population structure 

(Myers et al. 2006) and criteria for ESU/ 

DPS viability (McElhany et al. 2007). 

The populations are identified in Table 

1. The viability criteria for spring 

Chinook and steelhead are as follows: 

1. ESU/DPS is viable when: 

(a) At least two populations in the 

ESU and DPS meet Population Viability 

Criteria (see 2 below). 

(b) The average of all population 

extinction risk category scores with the 

ESU or DPS is 2.25 or greater (see 2 

below). 

(c) Most of ‘‘core’’ populations (i.e., the 

populations that were most productive 

historically: 3 of 4 core Chinook 

populations and 2 of 2 core steelhead 

populations) within the ESU/DPS are 

restored to viability. 

(d) The ESU/DPS maintains a 

semblance of normative evolutionary 

processes by improving to very low risk 

of extinction the remaining ‘‘genetic 

legacy’’ populations (Chinook: 

McKenzie population, steelhead: 

Santiam populations), and 

(e) All populations not meeting 

Population Viability Criteria below shall 

not deteriorate and are maintained (at a 

minimum) at their current risk status. 

2. Population Viability: A population 

is ‘‘viable’’ based on an integrated 

assessment of the population’s 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity status that 

produces an extinction risk of 5% or 

less over a 100 year timeframe. The 

Technical Recovery Team’s scoring 

system is based on a scale from 0–4, 

with zero being very high risk of 

extinction (>40% probability of 

extinction over 100 years) and four 

being a very low risk of extinction (1% 

or less probability of extinction over 100 

years). 

For the Upper Willamette River spring 

Chinook ESU to achieve viability, the 

Plan proposes to recover the Upper 

Willamette ESU and its constituent 

populations to the risk levels identified 

in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—UPPER WILLAMETTE SPRING CHINOOK ESU POPULATION RECOVERY SCENARIO

Spring Chinook population TRT designation Current risk status Proposed risk status 

Clackamas ...................................... Core .............................................. Moderate risk ................................ Very low risk. 

Molalla ............................................ ....................................................... Very high risk ................................ High risk. 

North Santiam ................................ Core .............................................. High risk ........................................ Low risk. 

South Santiam ................................ ....................................................... High risk ........................................ Moderate risk. 

Calapooia ....................................... ....................................................... Very high risk ................................ High risk. 

McKenzie ........................................ Core, Legacy ................................. Low risk ......................................... Very low risk. 

MF Willamette ................................ Core .............................................. Very high risk ................................ Low risk. 

Overall ESU Risk (extinction risk score) ................................................... High risk (0.71) ............................. Moderate to Low risk (2.57). 

In addition to achieving biological 

viability, the threats to the ESU must 

also be sufficiently ameliorated so that 

once the ESU is delisted, there are 

adequate protections in place to ensure 

the species is not likely to become listed 

under the ESA again in the foreseeable 

future. The five listing factors must be 

addressed in order for the species to 

recover to biological viability. Thus, the 

Plan emphasizes meeting the biological 

viability criteria by addressing the 

threats that led to the decline and are 

currently preventing the species from 

recovering. The threats criteria are as 

follows. For further details, see the Plan. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of ESU/ 

DPS’ Habitat or Range 

1. Habitat related threats have been 

ameliorated such that they do not limit 

attainment of the desired status of the 

ESU/DPS and its constituent 

populations. The desired status of each 

population is defined by viability 

criteria in the Plan. 

a. The condition of stream and 

riparian habitat in freshwater and the 

estuary has improved since the time of 

listing. 

2. Hydropower/flood control dam 

related threats have been ameliorated 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices 65301 

such that they do not and will not limit 

attainment of the desired status of the 

ESU/DPS and its constituent 

populations. 

a. Management actions have been 

implemented since the time of listing to 

reintroduce salmon and steelhead back 

into historic habitats above the 

impassable dams. 

b. Survival of outplanted adult fish 

above the impassable dams to spawning 

is high. 

c. Downstream passage survival of 

juvenile offspring through the reservoir 

and dam complexes is high. 

d. Management of flow and 

temperature downstream of the federal 

dams is sufficient to allow adequate 

spawning and rearing of salmon and 

steelhead. 

B. Over-Utilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

1. Harvest related threats have been 

ameliorated such that they do not, and 

will not, limit attainment of the desired 

status of the ESU/DPS and its 

constituent populations. 

a. Management actions have been 

implemented since the time of listing to 

reduce fishery exploitation rates so that 

fishery harvest is no longer impeding 

the recovery potential of the 

populations and ESU/DPS. 

b. Exploitation rates are in accordance 

with ESA authorizations for ocean and 

freshwater fisheries. 

C. Disease or Predation 

1. Disease and predation related 

threats have been ameliorated such that 

they do not, and will not, limit 

attainment of the desired status of the 

ESU/DPS and its constituent 

populations. 

a. Management actions have been 

implemented since the time of listing to 

reduce disease transmission and 

predation by non-native species in the 

Willamette Basin. 

b. Management actions have been 

implemented since the time of listing to 

reduce predation from marine 

mammals. 

c. Management actions have been 

implemented since the time of listing to 

reduce disease transmission and 

predation by hatchery-origin fish in the 

Willamette Basin and estuary. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

1. Inadequacies of existing regulatory 

mechanisms have been addressed such 

that the species’ biological and habitat 

requirements are being met to allow 

attainment of the desired status of 

populations. 

2. Adequate resources, priorities, 

regulatory frameworks, and 

coordination mechanisms are 

established and/or maintained for 

effective enforcement of land and water 

use regulations that protect and restore 

habitats, including water quality and 

water quantity, and for the effective 

management of fisheries. 

3. Habitat conditions and watershed 

functions are protected through landuse planning that guides human 

population growth and development. 

4. Habitat conditions and watershed 

function are protected through 

regulations that govern resource 

extraction such as timber harvest and 

gravel mining. 

5. Habitat conditions and watershed 

functions are protected through land 

protection agreements as appropriate, 

where existing policy or regulations do 

not provide adequate protection. 

6. Sufficient priority instream water 

rights for fish habitat are in place. 

E. Other Natural or Human-Made 

Factors Affecting the ESU/DPS 

Continued Existence 

1. Other natural factors have been 

accounted for such that they do not 

limit attainment of the desired status of 

populations. 

2. Hatchery related threats have been 

ameliorated such that they do not, and 

will not, limit attainment of the desired 

status of populations. 

a. Management actions have been 

implemented to reduce genetic and 

ecological risks of naturally-spawning 

hatchery fish in the wild. 

The Plan describes the threats criteria 

in more detail and includes the 

monitoring and evaluation plans in 

Chapter 8. NMFS concludes that the 

viability criteria and the threats criteria, 

as specified in the Plan, define the 

conditions that, when met, would result 

in a determination that the Upper 

Willamette spring Chinook ESU is not 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. These 

conditions represent the best available 

science at this time. However, they may 

not necessarily be the only conditions 

that could result in a decision to delist. 

Site-Specific Management Actions 

The strategies and actions identified 

in the Plan related to the recovery 

scenario for spring Chinook are 

designed to reduce human and natural 

impacts associated with the threats 

facing each population. The Plan also 

includes the analysis and assumptions 

used to determine that the identified 

actions would likely improve the 

populations to the desired risk status 

levels identified in Table 1. The key 

strategies and site-specific management 

actions are fully described in Chapters 

7 and 9 of the Plan. In general, they 

include: 

• Reduce the adverse effects 

associated with Willamette hydropower 

and flood control operations by 

restoring access to historic production 

areas upstream of the dams, reducing 

downstream passage mortality of 

juvenile Chinook through the reservoirs 

and dams, and restoring more natural 

flows, temperatures and sediment 

regimes. 

• Protect habitat quantity and quality 

within the remaining Chinook salmon 

production areas in all of the 

populations, and restore instream and 

riparian habitats. This entails improving 

water quality and quantity in stream 

reaches where impaired, restoring 

riparian habitat to keep streams cool 

and provide large woody debris, and 

managing land use by applying best 

management practices for fishery 

enhancement. 

• In the Calapooia, allow the subbasin 

to be naturally re-seeded with Chinook 

strays from other adjacent populations 

as habitat conditions improve. 

• In the Molalla, rebuild Chinook 

production by improving the habitat for 

adult and juvenile life stages and then 

supplementing with fish from a 

conservation hatchery program for a 

limited period of time. 

• Restore habitat complexity in the 

mainstem Willamette River to improve 

juvenile salmonid rearing capacity and 

survival by restoring riparian function 

and condition, reconnecting side 

channels and floodplains to the 

mainstem river, and restoring water 

quality to aid salmonid survival 

particularly through the summer 

months. 

• Protect and restore estuarine habitat 

complexity (shallow waters, side 

channels, cover vegetation and 

structures, riparian areas, wetlands), 

habitat accessibility (tide gates, other 

structures) and water quality/quantity to 

maintain and improve survival of all life 

stages of salmon and steelhead. 

• Reduce the adverse effects of 

hatchery Chinook programs on the 

recovery of wild populations by 

reducing hatchery fish spawning in the 

wild consistent with recovery goals, 

promoting locally adapted, naturally 

reproducing runs above the impassable 

dams from reintroductions, and 

adaptively managing the hatchery 

programs in response to on-going 

monitoring. 

• Continue to implement ODFW’s 

Willamette Chinook Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plan 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65302 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices 

(FMEP) to assure fishery harvest risks 

are managed appropriately and do not 

inhibit the recovery potential of any 

population. 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead 

‘‘Steelhead’’ is the name commonly 

applied to the anadromous (migratory) 

form of the biological species 

Oncorhynchus mykiss. The common 

name of the non-anadromous, or 

resident, form is rainbow trout. When 

NMFS originally listed the Upper 

Willamette River steelhead as 

threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14517), it was 

classified as an ESU of salmonids that 

included both the anadromous and 

resident forms. Recently, NMFS revised 

its species determinations for West 

Coast steelhead under the ESA, 

delineating anadromous, steelhead-only 

‘‘distinct population segments’’ (DPS). 

NMFS listed the Upper Willamette 

River steelhead DPS as threatened on 

January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Rainbow 

trout are under the jurisdiction of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). This recovery plan addresses 

steelhead and not rainbow trout, 

consistent with the 2006 ESA listing 

decision. 

The Upper Willamette River steelhead 

DPS includes all naturally spawned 

winter-run steelhead populations in the 

Willamette River and its tributaries 

upstream from Willamette Falls to the 

Calapooia River (inclusive). It does not 

include steelhead residing in the 

McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette. 

The Technical Recovery Team 

identified four historical 

demographically independent 

populations of Upper Willamette River 

winter steelhead: the Molalla, North 

Santiam, South Santiam, and Calapooia 

(Myers et al., 2006). These population 

delineations were based on geography, 

migration rates, genetic attributes, life 

history patterns, phenotypic 

characteristics, population dynamics, 

and environmental and habitat 

characteristics with guidance found in 

McElhany et al. (2000). The North 

Santiam and South Santiam rivers are 

thought to have been major production 

areas and these populations were 

designated as ‘‘core’’ and ‘‘genetic 

legacy’’ (Myers et al., 2006). Winter 

steelhead have been reported spawning 

in the west-side tributaries to the 

Willamette River, but these tributaries 

were not considered to have constituted 

an independent population historically. 

There are no hatchery programs 

producing steelhead within the 

geographic boundaries of the DPS. The 

hatchery summer-run steelhead in the 

Upper Willamette Basin are an out-ofbasin stock (originally from Skamania 

Hatchery) and not considered part of the 

DPS. 

Current Status and Listing Factors 

Based upon status assessments in 

McElhany et al. (2007) and the Plan, the 

Upper Willamette steelhead DPS is 

currently at a moderate to low risk of 

extinction. However, there is 

uncertainty in the assessment due to the 

limited population-specific data. The 

only direct measure of abundance 

comes from counts at Willamette Falls, 

which also include winter steelhead 

returning to areas outside of the DPS 

(i.e., upstream of the Calapooia River). 

The counts at Willamette Falls have 

declined over the last five years 

compared to the relatively large returns 

in 2001 through 2004. The most recent 

five year average is similar to the 

abundance levels observed in the 

1990’s, which are much reduced from 

the previous decades. The Molalla, 

North Santiam, and South Santiam 

populations are currently at low risk 

(McElhany et al. 2007). The Calapooia 

population is currently at a moderate 

risk of extinction (McElhany et al. 

2007). 

As described above for Chinook 

salmon, we evaluate five listing factors 

under section 4(a)(1) when determining 

whether to list species under the ESA. 

At the time of the original listing 

determination in 1999 (64 FR 14517), 

NMFS cited all of the five listing factors 

as contributing to the decline of Upper 

Willamette steelhead. Specifically, the 

major concerns described were related 

to: loss of historic spawning and rearing 

habitat due to dam blockages in the 

eastside tributaries of the Willamette 

River, adverse thermal effects 

downstream from operation of the dams, 

riparian and stream habitat loss and 

degradation particularly in the lowland, 

valley areas (Factors A and D); lack of 

historical abundance data for steelhead 

populations, management on nonfederal lands (Factor D); and adverse 

effects from hatchery programs (Factor 

E). 

Objective and Measurable Criteria 

The ultimate goal of the Plan is to 

recover spring Chinook populations in 

the Willamette River and correct the 

factors that have contributed to their 

decline to a point where ESA protection 

is no longer necessary. In determining 

whether the protections of the Act are 

no longer necessary, NMFS evaluates (1) 

the biological status of the ESU or DPS 

and its constituent populations 

(viability) and (2) the status of the 

threats that led to the listing of the 

species under the ESA as well as any 

additional threats that have emerged 

(threats). Thus in formulating a plan for 

recovery, we include two types of 

criteria which, when met, will indicate 

that the listed species no longer requires 

the protections of the Act—viability 

criteria and threats criteria. These 

criteria satisfy the requirements of ESA 

section 4(f)((1)(B)(ii) and are further 

described below. 

The Technical Recovery Team 

provided information on the historic 

population structure (Myers et al. 2006) 

and criteria for ESU/DPS viability 

(McElhany et al. 2007). The steelhead 

populations are identified in Table 2. 

The biological viability criteria for 

steelhead are the same criteria as stated 

above for spring Chinook. 

For the Upper Willamette River 

steelhead DPS to meet viability criteria, 

the Plan proposes to recover the Upper 

Willamette DPS and its constituent 

populations to the risk levels identified 

in Table 2. In addition to achieving 

biological viability, the five listing 

factors that originally led to the listing 

of the DPS must also be sufficiently 

ameliorated so that once the DPS is 

delisted, there are adequate protections 

in place to ensure the species is not 

likely to become listed under the ESA 

again in the foreseeable future. The 

threats must be addressed in order for 

the species to recover to viability. Thus, 

the Plan emphasizes meeting the 

viability criteria by addressing the 

threats that are responsible for the 

species decline. The threats criteria for 

winter steelhead are the same as 

specified above for Chinook. 

TABLE 2—UPPER WILLAMETTE STEELHEAD DPS POPULATION RECOVERY SCENARIO

Steelhead population TRT designation Current risk status Proposed risk status 

Molalla ............................................ ....................................................... Low risk ......................................... Very low risk. 

North Santiam ................................ Core, genetic legacy ..................... Low risk ......................................... Very low risk. 

South Santiam ................................ Core, genetic legacy ..................... Low risk ......................................... Very low risk. 

Calapooia ....................................... ....................................................... Moderate risk ................................ Moderate risk. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices 65303 

TABLE 2—UPPER WILLAMETTE STEELHEAD DPS POPULATION RECOVERY SCENARIO—Continued 

Steelhead population TRT designation Current risk status Proposed risk status 

DPS Risk (extinction risk score) ................................................................ Moderate risk (2.75) ...................... Low to very low risk (3.50). 

NMFS concludes that the viability 

criteria and the threats criteria as 

specified in the Plan define the 

conditions that, when met, would result 

in a determination that the Upper 

Willamette steelhead DPS is not likely 

to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. These 

conditions represent the best available 

science at this time. However, they may 

not necessarily be the only conditions 

that could result in a decision to delist. 

Site-Specific Management Actions 

The strategies and actions identified 

in the Plan for winter steelhead are 

designed to reduce human and natural 

impacts associated with the primary and 

secondary limiting factors and threats 

facing each population. If the primary 

and secondary limiting factors and 

threats are ameliorated, then the 

population should be conserved and 

recover over time. The Plan also 

includes the analysis and assumptions 

used to determine that the identified 

actions would likely improve the 

populations to the desired risk status 

levels identified in Table 2. The 

proposed key strategies and site-specific 

management actions are fully described 

in Chapters 7 and 9 of the Plan. In 

general, they include: 

• Protect and restore freshwater 

habitat in the tributary areas of the 

Willamette River for steelhead 

production. Actions focus on providing 

adequate spawning and rearing habitat 

in all of the population areas. 

Improvements to riparian areas to 

provide cooler temperatures throughout 

the summer, provide sources of large 

woody debris for instream habitat 

complexity, and keep sufficient water in 

the stream for juvenile steelhead rearing 

are critical to recovering steelhead 

populations. These actions will also 

provide substantial benefits to listed 

Chinook. 

• Improve water quantity and quality 

by reducing the impacts of water 

withdrawals. 

• Protect and restore estuarine habitat 

complexity (shallow waters, side 

channels, cover vegetation and 

structures, riparian areas, wetlands), 

habitat accessibility (tide gates, other 

structures) and water quality/quantity. 

• Address direct impacts of 

Willamette hydropower and flood 

control dam/reservoir operations by 

restoring access to historic production 

areas, reducing passage mortality, and 

restoring more natural flows, 

temperatures and sediment levels. 

• Reduce predation and related 

impacts of birds and fish in the estuary. 

• Manage fisheries and hatchery 

programs adaptively so their impacts on 

wild steelhead populations are 

compatible with recovery goals. 

Time Required and Cost Estimates for 

Spring Chinook and Steelhead Recovery 

There are unique challenges to 

estimating time and cost for salmon and 

steelhead recovery, given the complex 

relationship of these fish to the 

environment and to human activities on 

land. NMFS estimates that recovery of 

the Upper Willamette River Chinook 

ESU and steelhead DPS, like recovery 

for most of the ESA-listed Pacific 

Northwest salmon and steelhead, could 

take 50 to 100 years. The Plan is a 25- 

year plan. Actions identified in the Plan 

will be implemented within this 

timeframe, though most of the actions 

are scheduled to be completed earlier 

than this. NMFS and ODFW estimated 

costs associated with implementing new 

actions or increasing programs resulting 

from this recovery plan were included, 

but did not consider other costs, 

referred to as ‘‘baseline’’ costs, which are 

part of an entities base program or 

mission, or which are required by 

regulatory processes (e.g., ESA section 7 

consultations, Clean Water Act 

implementation actions, state fishery 

management). 

The Plan estimates the total cost for 

restoring the Upper Willamette Chinook 

ESU and steelhead DPS at $265 million 

over the next 25 years (using the 

assumptions stated above), but cautions 

that this number could represent a 

minimal cost for recovery, given all of 

the costs and uncertainties which are 

not included in the Plan. Such 

uncertainties include biological and 

ecosystem responses to recovery 

actions, as well as long-term and future 

funding. At this time, the amount of 

acreage or miles of habitat that need to 

be improved is unknown, so quantity 

and total costs for some actions remain 

to be determined. Uncertainty of the 

survival effect of many of the habitat 

actions also makes estimation of the full 

extent of habitat action costs difficult. 

The Plan calls for greater quantification 

and understanding of the amount of 

habitat restoration needed. 

Conclusion 

Section 4(f)(1)(B) of the ESA requires 

that recovery plans incorporate: (1) 

Objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination that the species is no 

longer threatened or endangered; (2) 

site-specific management actions 

necessary to achieve the Plan’s goals; 

and (3) estimates of the time required 

and costs to implement recovery 

actions. As summarized above (and 

fully described in the Plan), the three 

requirements for a recovery plan have 

been fulfilled in this Plan, and thus 

NMFS is proposing to adopt it under 

section 4(f)(1) of the ESA for Upper 

Willamette Chinook and Upper 

Willamette steelhead. 

Public Comments Solicited 

NMFS is soliciting written comments 

on the proposed Plan. All comments 

received by the date specified above 

will be considered prior to NMFS’ 

decision whether to approve the Plan. 

Additionally, NMFS will provide a 

summary of the comments and 

responses through its Northwest Region 

Web site and provide a news release for 

the public announcing the availability 

of the response to comments. NMFS is 

seeking comment particularly in the 

following areas: (1) If the population 

recovery scenarios identified in Table 1 

and Table 2 are appropriate; (2) if the 

suite of proposed actions in the Plan are 

appropriate to recover the ESU and DPS; 

(3) if the viability and threats criteria for 

removing the ESU and DPS from the 

Federal list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants are 

appropriate and, in particular, if the 

threats criteria are sufficiently specific; 

and (4) if the estimates of time and cost 

to implement recovery actions are 

appropriate. 

Literature Cited 

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, 

T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 

2000. Viable salmon populations and the 

recovery of evolutionarily significant 

units. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo., NMFS NWFSC 42, 156p. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. Myers, R. 

Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability status of 

Oregon salmon and steelhead 

populations in the Willamette and Lower 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65304 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 204 / Friday, October 22, 2010 / Notices 

Columbia Basins, review draft. National 

Marine Fisheries Service Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. 

Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik, 

and M.T. Maher. 2006. Historical 

population structure of pacific salmonids 

in the Willamette River and Lower 

Columbia River Basins. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS–NWFSC–73, 

February, 2006. Seattle, WA. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

2008. Endangered Species Act—Section 

7(a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion 

and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. 

Consultation on the ‘‘Willamette River 

Basin Flood Control Project.’’ NMFS, 

Hydropower Division. Portland, OR. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: October 19, 2010. 

Therese Conant, 

Acting Chief Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26754 Filed 10–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1710] 

Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 

38 Under Alternative Site Framework 

Spartanburg County, SC 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) adopts the following Order: 

Whereas, the Board adopted the 

alternative site framework (ASF) in 

December 2008 (74 FR 1170,01/12/09; 

correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09) as an 

option for the establishment or 

reorganization of general-purpose zones; 

Whereas, the South Carolina State 

Ports Authority, grantee of ForeignTrade Zone 38, submitted an 

application to the Board (FTZ Docket 

37–20 10, filed 5/19/2010) for authority 

to reorganize under the ASF with a 

service area of the South Carolina 

counties of Greenville, Spartanburg, 

Cherokee, Oconee, Union, Anderson 

and Laurens, in and adjacent to the 

Greenville/Spartanburg Customs and 

Border Protection port of entry, FTZ 

38’s existing Sites 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 

11 as well as new Site 13 would be 

categorized as magnet sites, and the 

grantee proposes three initial usagedriven sites (Sites 1, 5 and 7); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 30372, 6/1/2010) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendation of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to reorganize FTZ 38 

under the alternative site framework is 

approved, subject to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28, to the Board’s standard 

2,000-acre activation limit for the 

overall general-purpose zone project, to 

a five-year ASF sunset provision for 

magnet sites that would terminate 

authority for Sites 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 

13 if not activated by October 31, 2015, 

and to a three-year ASF sunset 

provision for usage-driven sites that 

would terminate authority for Sites 1, 5 

and 7 if no foreign-status merchandise 

is admitted for a bona fide customs 

purpose by October 31, 2013. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

October 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26282 Filed 10–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Advisory Committee on Commercial 

Remote Sensing (ACCRES); Request 

for Nominations 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice requesting nominations 

for the Advisory Committee on 

Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES). 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on 

Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) 

was established to advise the Secretary 

of Commerce, through the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, on matters relating to the 

U.S. commercial remote sensing 

industry and NOAA’s activities to carry 

out responsibilities of the Department of 

Commerce as set forth in the Land 

Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 

U.S.C. 5621–5625). The Committee is 

comprised of leaders in the commercial 

space-based remote sensing industry, 

space-based remote sensing data users, 

government (Federal, State, local), and 

academia. The Department of Commerce 

is seeking highly qualified individuals 

who are knowledgeable about the 

commercial space-based remote sensing 

industry and uses of space-based remote 

sensing data to serve on the Committee. 

DATES: Nominations must be 

postmarked no later than 30 days from 

the publication date of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACCRES 

was established by the Secretary of 

Commerce on May 21, 2002, to advise 

the Secretary, through the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, on matters relating to the 

U.S. commercial remote sensing 

industry and NOAA’s activities to carry 

out responsibilities of the Department of 

Commerce as set forth in the Land 

Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 

U.S.C. 5621–5625). 

Committee members serve in a 

representative capacity for a term of two 

years and may serve additional terms, if 

reappointed. No more than 15 

individuals at a time may serve on the 

Committee. ACCRES will have a fairly 

balanced membership consisting of 

approximately 9 to 15 members. 

Nominations are encouraged from all 

interested U.S. persons and 

organizations representing interests 

affected by the Land Remote Sensing 

Policy Act of 1992 and the U.S. 

commercial space based remote sensing 

policy. Nominees must possess 

demonstrable expertise in a field related 

to the spaced based commercial remote 

sensing industry or exploitation of space 

based commercial remotely sensed data 

and be able to attend committee 

meetings that are held usually two times 

per year. In addition, selected 

candidates must apply for and obtain a 

security clearance. Membership is 

voluntary, and service is without pay. 

Each nomination that is submitted 

should include the proposed committee 

member’s name and organizational 

affiliation, a cover letter describing the 

nominee’s qualifications and interest in 

serving on the Committee, a curriculum 

vitae or resume of the nominee, and no 

more than three supporting letters 

describing the nominee’s qualifications 

and interest in serving on the 

Committee. Self-nominations are 

acceptable. The following contact 

information should accompany each 

submission: the nominee’s name, 

address, phone number, fax number, 

and e-mail address, if available. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES