25706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 

1See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination, 73 FR 54367 (September 19, 2008). 

Potassium citrate and crude calcium 

citrate are classifiable under 

2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the 

HTSUS, respectively. Blends that 

include citric acid, sodium citrate, and 

potassium citrate are classifiable under 

3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Countervailing Duty Order 

On May 22, 2009, in accordance with 

section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC 

notified the Department of its final 

determination that the industry in the 

United States producing citric acid is 

materially injured within the meaning 

of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by 

reason of subsidized imports of citric 

acid from the PRC. 

Therefore, countervailing duties will 

be assessed on all unliquidated entries 

of citric acid from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after September 19, 

2008, the date on which the Department 

published its preliminary affirmative 

countervailing duty determination in 

the Federal Register,1 and before 

January 17, 2009, the date the 

Department instructed U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation in accordance with section 

703(d) of the Act. Section 703(d) of the 

Act states that the suspension of 

liquidation pursuant to a preliminary 

determination may not remain in effect 

for more than four months. Therefore, 

entries of citric acid made on or after 

January 17, 2009, and prior to the date 

of publication of the ITC’s final 

determination in the Federal Register 

are not liable for the assessment of 

countervailing duties due to the 

Department’s discontinuation, effective 

January 17, 2009, of the suspension of 

liquidation. 

In accordance with section 706 of the 

Act, the Department will direct CBP to 

reinstitute the suspension of liquidation 

for citric acid from the PRC, effective 

the date of publication of the ITC’s 

notice of final determination in the 

Federal Register and to assess, upon 

further advice by the Department 

pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, 

countervailing duties for each entry of 

the subject merchandise in an amount 

based on the net countervailable 

subsidy rates for the subject 

merchandise as noted below. 

Exporter/Manufacturer 

Net subsidy 

rate 

(percent) 

TTCA Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. 

Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) ............... 12.68 

Yixing Union Biochemical Co., 

Ltd.; and Yixing Union Cogeneration Co., Ltd. .............. 3.60 

Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., 

Ltd. ........................................ 118.95 

All-Others .................................. 8.14 

This notice constitutes the 

countervailing duty order with respect 

to citric acid from the PRC, pursuant to 

section 706(a) of the Act. Interested 

parties may contact the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 

main Commerce Building, for copies of 

an updated list of countervailing duty 

orders currently in effect. 

This order is issued and published in 

accordance with section 706(a) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b). 

Dated: May 26, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–12642 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XP36 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Recovery Plans 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the 

adoption of its Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) for 

the Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka) Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit (ESU). This Recovery 

Plan was prepared by NMFS’ Northwest 

Region and underwent public review. 

The final Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette 

Sockeye contains revisions and 

additions in consideration of public 

comments received on the draft 

Recovery Plan. 

ADDRESSES: Additional information 

about the Recovery Plan may be 

obtained by writing to Rosemary Furfey, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 

N.E. Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, 

OR 97232, or calling (503) 231–2149. 

Persons wishing to read the Recovery 

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 Final 

ESA Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette 

Sockeye Salmon.’’ NMFS’ summary of 

and response to public comments on the 

draft Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette 

Sockeye Salmon will be included on the 

CD-ROM. Electronic copies of these 

documents are also available on-line via 

the NMFS’ website, www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 

Salmon-Recovery-Planning/RecoveryDomains/Puget-Sound/Lake-OzettePlan.cfm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rosemary Furfey, NMFS Lake Ozette 

Salmon Recovery Coordinator at (503) 

231–2149, or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS 

Salmon Recovery Division at (503) 230– 

5434. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Recovery plans describe actions 

beneficial to the conservation and 

recovery of species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 

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

ESA requires that recovery plans, to the 

extent practicable, incorporate (1) 

objective, measurable criteria, which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination that the species is no 

longer threatened or endangered; (2) 

site-specific management actions that 

may be 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 listed 

species unless such a plan would not 

promote recovery of a particular species. 

NMFS’ goal is to restore endangered 

and threatened Pacific salmon ESUs and 

steelhead distinct population segments 

(DPSs) to the point that they are again 

self-sustaining members of their 

ecosystems and no longer need the 

protections of the ESA. NMFS believes 

it is critically important to base its 

recovery plans on the many state, 

regional, tribal, local, and private 

conservation efforts already underway 

throughout the region. Therefore, the 

agency supports and participates in 

locally led collaborative efforts to 

develop recovery plans, involving local 

communities, state, tribal, and Federal 

entities, and other stakeholders. As the 

lead ESA agency for listed salmon, 

NMFS is responsible for reviewing these 

locally produced recovery plans and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 25707 

deciding whether they meet ESA 

statutory requirements and merit 

adoption as ESA recovery plans. 

In 2005, NMFS and the Lake Ozette 

Steering Committee (Steering 

Committee), an existing, locally based 

citizen group, began working together to 

write a plan for the recovery of Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon (originally listed 

as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 

14528)). 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 (WDFW 2003). The Makah 

and Quileute Tribes, Olympic National 

Park, Clallam County, local land 

owners, Washington Governor’s Salmon 

Recovery Office, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Washington Department of Natural 

Resources, NMFS, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, North Olympic 

Peninsula Lead Entity, private timber 

companies, and local citizens comprised 

the Steering Committee and have met 

periodically since 1981 to discuss 

natural resource issues related to 

sockeye salmon. The diverse 

representation on the Steering 

Committee has provided a broad and 

unique perspective that has lent great 

value to the recovery planning process. 

To ensure that recovery plans are 

scientifically sound, NMFS has 

appointed teams of scientists with 

expertise in salmon species to provide 

scientific support for recovery planning 

in the Northwest. These technical 

recovery teams (TRTs) include 

biologists from NMFS, state, tribal, and 

local agencies, academic institutions, 

and private consulting groups. The 

Puget Sound TRT provided two reports 

for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon 

recovery planning process: (1) a 

description of the Lake Ozette sockeye 

salmon population (Currents et al. 2006) 

and (2) viability criteria for the sockeye 

(Rawson et al. 2007). The TRT also 

reviewed the Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Limiting Factors Analysis (Haggerty et 

al. 2007), the proposed recovery plan, 

and coordinated an independent peer 

review process. Frequent Steering 

Committee meetings enabled NMFS and 

the Puget Sound TRT to share draft 

recovery plan products and seek review 

and comment as the draft plan was 

developed. Based on this iterative 

process, the availability of the Proposed 

Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Salmon was published in the Federal 

Register on April 23, 2008, and public 

comments were solicited (73 FR 21913). 

Other supporting documents were also 

made available for public review and 

comment, including the Draft Limiting 

Factors Analysis and draft Puget Sound 

TRT reports. 

NMFS received 20 comment letters, 

by mail, facsimile, or e-mail, on the 

Proposed Recovery Plan. Public 

hearings were held between April 23, 

2008, and June 23, 2008, in Port 

Angeles, WA, and Sekiu, WA. NMFS 

summarized the public comments and 

oral testimony and prepared responses, 

now available on the NMFS website at: 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/Recovery-Domains/PugetSound/Lake-Ozette-Plan.cfm. NMFS 

revised its Proposed Recovery Plan 

based on comments received. 

Consistent with adoption of this final 

Recovery Plan, NMFS will seek to 

implement the actions for which it has 

authority, to work cooperatively on 

implementation of other actions, and to 

encourage other Federal agencies to 

implement Recovery Plan actions for 

which they have responsibility and 

authority. NMFS will also encourage the 

State of Washington to seek similar 

implementation commitments from 

state agencies and local governments. 

NMFS expects the Recovery Plan to 

help NMFS and other Federal agencies 

take a more consistent approach to 

future ESA section 7 consultations 

under the ESA and other ESA decisions. 

For example, the Recovery Plan will 

provide greater biological context for the 

effects that a proposed action may have 

on the listed ESU. This context will be 

enhanced by adding Recovery Plan 

science to the ‘‘best available 

information’’ for section 7 consultation 

opinions, section 10 habitat 

conservation plans, and other ESA 

decisions. Such information includes 

viability criteria for the ESU and its 

independent populations; better 

understanding of and information on 

limiting factors and threats impacting 

the ESU; better information on priority 

areas for addressing specific limiting 

factors; and better geographic context 

for where the ESU can tolerate varying 

levels of risk. 

The Recovery Plan 

Lake Ozette, its perimeter shore, and 

most of the Ozette River, which forms 

the outlet of the lake to the estuary and 

Pacific Ocean, are included in the 

922,000–acre Olympic National Park. 

This Recovery Plan complements, 

recognizes, and works within the 

authorities of the Olympic National 

Park, Clallam County, the Forest 

Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, and 

tribal trust and treaty rights, and does 

not augment or supersede these or other 

authorities. 

The Recovery Plan is based on a series 

of hypotheses about what is limiting the 

survival of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. 

These hypotheses are based on the best 

available current knowledge about Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon. These 

hypotheses are designed to be tested in 

the course of time through monitoring 

the fish, their environment, and the 

effects of the actions that may be taken 

to protect and improve the Lake Ozette 

sockeye’s ecosystem and survival 

chances. The process of designing 

actions based on best available 

information, then monitoring the results 

to find out what works best and 

changing the actions as appropriate, is 

called adaptive management. This 

Recovery Plan is intended as a tool for 

adaptive management for Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon recovery and is to be 

implemented within the range of the 

Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU. 

ESU Addressed and Planning Area 

Lake Ozette sockeye salmon were 

listed under the ESA on March 25, 1999 

(64 FR 14528), as a species threatened 

with becoming endangered throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU is 

unique among other ESA-listed salmon 

in being made up of only one 

population (Currens et al. 2006), with an 

inland range that is limited to a single 

freshwater watershed a short distance 

from the ocean. The Lake Ozette 

watershed has an unusual potential for 

protection and restoration of landscape 

processes to support long-term salmon 

survival, because it is relatively 

undeveloped, has a relatively low 

human population density, and the lake 

itself is located within the Olympic 

National Park. 

The single population of Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon currently contains five 

distinct spawning aggregations that are 

described in the Recovery Plan as 

subpopulations. The subpopulations 

can be grouped according to whether 

they spawn in tributaries or near lake 

beaches. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon 

are distinguished from other 

Washington sockeye salmon ESUs based 

on unique genetic characteristics, early 

river entry, the relatively large adult 

body size, and larger average smolt size 

relative to other coastal Washington 

sockeye salmon populations. 

Lake Ozette is situated on the coastal 

plain between the Pacific Ocean and the 

Olympic Mountains. The lake is 

approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) long 

from north to south and 2 miles (3.2 km) 

wide, irregularly shaped, and containing 

several bays, distinct points, and three 

islands. With a surface area of 11.8 mi2

(30.6 km2, 7,550 acres; 3,056 ha), Lake 

Ozette is the third largest natural lake in 

Washington State. The Ozette River 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

25708 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 

drains the lake from its north end and 

travels approximately 5.3 miles (8.5 km) 

along a sinuous course to the Pacific 

Ocean. The total drainage area of the 

Ozette watershed at the confluence with 

the Pacific Ocean is 88.4 mi2 (229 km2). 

Historically, the Ozette watershed 

supported thriving populations of 

sockeye salmon, which were an 

important element of the fisheries of the 

Makah and Quileute Tribes, as well as 

an important subsistence species for 

early European-American settlers in the 

watershed. The peak harvest of 17,500 

fish was recorded in 1949, but 

abundance decreased rapidly in the 

following decades. Because of declining 

numbers, tribal commercial harvest 

ceased in 1974 and all tribal ceremonial 

and subsistence harvest ceased in 1982. 

The Plan’s Recovery Goals and 

Recovery Criteria 

The Recovery Plan’s goal is for the 

Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population 

to reach the point that it is naturally 

self-sustaining, no longer needs the 

protection of the ESA, and can be 

delisted. In addition, a recovery plan 

can have ‘‘broad-sense’’ goals that may 

go beyond the requirements for delisting 

to acknowledge social, cultural, or 

economic values regarding the listed 

species. NMFS and the Lake Ozette 

Steering Committee crafted the 

following vision statement describing 

desirable future conditions for the Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon and its human 

and biological setting: 

‘‘The naturally spawning Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon population is sufficiently 

abundant, productive, and diverse (in terms 

of life histories and geographic distribution) 

to provide significant ecological, cultural, 

social, and economic benefits. Protection and 

restoration of ecosystems have sustained 

processes necessary to maintain sockeye as 

well as other salmon, steelhead, and wildlife 

species. Community livability, economic 

well-being, and treaty-reserved fishing rights 

have benefited by balancing salmon recovery 

with management of local land use and 

fishery economies.’’ 

To meet the ESA requirements for 

objective, measurable criteria for 

delisting, the Recovery Plan provides 

biological recovery criteria based on the 

Puget Sound TRT viability criteria for 

Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, as well as 

‘‘threats’’ criteria based on the listing 

factors defined in ESA section 4(a)(1). 

Biological Recovery Criteria 

The Puget Sound TRT provided 

viability criteria for Lake Ozette sockeye 

salmon in terms of the four ‘‘viable 

salmonid populations’’ (VSP) 

parameters defined in NMFS technical 

memorandum, Viable salmonid 

populations and the recovery of 

evolutionarily significant units 

(McElhany et al. 2000). The Puget 

Sound TRT’s viability criteria for Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon are as follows: 

Abundance: Approximately 31,250– 

121,000 adult spawners, over a number 

of years; this planning range is 

associated with a productivity of 1:1 

recruits-per-spawner. NMFS is working 

with the Puget Sound TRT to develop 

more specific abundance and 

productivity targets and a specific 

number of years that would represent a 

level upon which to make a delisting 

decision. 

Productivity (Growth Rate): Stable or 

increasing. 

Spatial Structure: Multiple, 

persistent, and spatially distinct beachspawning aggregations, augmented by 

tributary spawning aggregations. 

Diversity: One or more persistent 

spawning aggregations from each major 

genetic and life history group 

historically present within that 

population. Maintain the distinctness 

between Lake Ozette sockeye salmon 

and kokanee. 

NMFS, in coordination with the 

Steering Committee, concluded that the 

Puget Sound TRT’s viability criteria 

should be the biological recovery 

criteria of this Recovery Plan. 

Threats Criteria 

‘‘Threats’’ are the human activities or 

natural events that cause the factors 

limiting a species’ survival. For 

example, where high water 

temperatures are identified as a limiting 

factor, removal of riparian vegetation, 

which causes loss of shade and results 

in higher water temperatures, is 

categorized as the threat. The threats 

criteria define the conditions under 

which the listing factors, or threats, can 

be considered to be addressed or 

mitigated. Threats criteria are provided 

in Section 3.3.3 of the Recovery Plan. 

Causes for Decline and Current Threats 

The 1999 listing of the Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon ESU as threatened 

under the ESA was primarily attributed 

to concerns about low abundance and 

effects of small population genetic and 

demographic variability. A more 

thorough identification of limiting 

factors is provided in the Lake Ozette 

Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

(Haggerty et al. 2009). Based on the best 

available information and analysis, the 

Lake Ozette Steering Committee’s 

Technical Workgroup evaluated and 

rated each of the limiting factors 

hypotheses for its contribution to 

sockeye population or subpopulation 

mortality by life stage. 

Some limiting factors, habitat 

conditions, and life histories were 

shared among all subpopulations, while 

others vary. In the Limiting Factors 

Analysis, the subpopulations were 

grouped based on spawning 

environment, i.e., tributary vs. beach, 

and limiting factors were described in 

three categories: those affecting the 

entire population; those specific to 

beach spawners; and those specific to 

tributary spawners. 

Two limiting factors are hypothesized 

as having a high impact on all Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon population 

segments: piscivorous fish predation on 

juveniles rearing in the lake, and general 

marine survival. Limiting factors with 

moderate impact on all population 

segments are marine mammal predation 

on adults re-entering the Ozette River 

and water quality in the Ozette River. 

Limiting factors hypothesized as 

having a high impact specifically on 

beach spawners are poor-quality 

spawning habitat, which decreases 

survival in the incubation-to-emergence 

life stage, and predation on adults, eggs, 

and newly emerged fry. Limiting factors 

with moderate impact on beach 

spawners are: seasonal lake level 

changes; water quality issues, including 

turbidity and fine sediment; and 

competition for good quality spawning 

habitat, which can result in redd 

superimposition and decreased egg-tofry survival. 

Limiting factors hypothesized as 

having high impact specifically on 

tributary spawners are fine sediments, 

unstable channel, and other water 

quality issues that reduce spawning 

habitat quality and result in decreased 

egg-to-fry survival. High predation on 

fry during their emigration to the lake 

was identified as a limiting factor with 

moderate impact on tributary spawners. 

Recovery Strategies and Actions 

The Recovery Plan recommends an 

overall recovery strategy based on 

current research about the relationships 

between watershed processes, land use, 

and freshwater habitat. This information 

is then related to what is known about 

sockeye salmon mortality by life stage, 

and to the hypothesized limiting factors. 

The result is a hierarchy of types of 

recovery strategies that can form the 

basis for setting priorities among 

potential actions. 

The first priority, and likely the most 

effective type of action, is to assess, 

protect, and maintain good quality 

habitat and the processes that create and 

maintain it. One example would be to 

protect currently used spawning areas. 

Another would be for willing 

landowners to protect forest or 

streamside areas with conservation 

easements, where trees could be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 25709 

allowed to grow large, mature, and 

eventually fall by natural forces, 

creating habitat conditions needed by 

sockeye salmon. 

Next in importance and certainty of 

effectiveness is reconnecting isolated 

habitat – for example, removing a 

blockage in the stream, thus allowing 

salmon more room to spawn and rear. 

Third is restoring biological processes 

of various kinds; this includes a wide 

range of potential actions. For example: 

restoring natural predator-prey balance 

by improving egg-to-fry survival and/or 

reducing non-native fish species by 

means of selective fishing; ceasing to 

remove large woody debris from 

sections of the lower Ozette River; and 

assessing sources of sediment and 

reducing sediment production and 

delivery to streams. 

Directly restoring degraded habitat is 

of lower priority because it is more 

difficult, often more costly, and often 

effective only in the short-term, 

compared to restoring the processes that 

create habitat and will continue creating 

properly functioning habitat over time. 

However, some direct actions, such as 

placing large woody debris in carefully 

chosen areas, will initiate biological 

processes that are likely to continue 

naturally if accompanied by appropriate 

long-term riparian management. 

Creating new habitat is significantly 

more difficult than working to protect 

and restore existing habitat; creating 

new habitat is therefore of lowest 

priority, although in some 

circumstances it may be the only 

alternative. 

NMFS, with input from the Steering 

Committee, evaluated the sub-basins in 

the Lake Ozette watershed for their 

importance as sockeye habitat. The 

Recovery Plan accordingly provides 

geographic priorities for recovery 

actions. 

Habitat, harvest, and hatchery factors 

affecting Lake Ozette sockeye salmon 

are included in the recovery strategies. 

Hatchery and harvest management 

issues are presented and addressed 

within the context of biological 

processes. 

NMFS and the Lake Ozette Steering 

Committee developed an extensive list 

of 121 potential projects/actions. The 

proposed actions are designed to 

address the full range of limiting factors 

for all life cycle stages of Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon and are intended to 

improve the health and ecosystems of 

these fish. 

The proposed actions are in six 

categories: 

• Fisheries management 

• Habitat-related actions 

• Hatchery supplementation 

• Predation-related actions 

• Research, monitoring, and adaptive 

management 

• Public education and outreach, 

which need to be implemented in 

cooperation with all appropriate 

permitting authorities (including 

Olympic National Park), and in the 

context of existing permits, regulations, 

agreements, and public processes. 

Site-specific Actions 

The Recovery Plan recognizes that 

recovery actions must be implemented 

at both the regional, or ESU, and 

watershed, or population, levels. In the 

case of Lake Ozette sockeye, the ESU 

contains only one population, so actions 

taken to benefit the ESU will 

undoubtedly benefit the sole 

population. Site-specific actions 

articulated in this Recovery Plan are 

intended to link directly to recovery 

models, watershed processes, locations 

(including Ozette River, tributaries, 

estuarine, and nearshore environments), 

and address primary and secondary 

limiting factor hypotheses. Details of the 

site-specific actions can be found in 

Appendix D of the Plan. 

Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive 

Management 

The Recovery Plan identifies the 

many knowledge gaps and uncertainties 

involved in designing recovery actions 

for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. 

Because the proposed recovery actions 

are based on hypotheses about the 

relationships between fish, limiting 

factors, human activities, and the 

environment, the Recovery Plan 

recommends research and monitoring to 

determine recovery progress. 

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 

are built into the Recovery Plan. 

Time and Cost Estimates 

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

that the Recovery Plan include 

‘‘estimates of the time required and the 

cost to carry out those measures needed 

to achieve the Plan’s goal and to achieve 

intermediate steps toward that goal’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1533[f][1]). Chapter 9 of the 

Recovery Plan provides cost estimates 

for actions where costs are available. 

Costs for actions that are being 

implemented as part of ongoing, 

existing programs are considered 

‘‘baseline’’ and are not included in 

Chapter 9 as costs to recover Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon. The overall total 

cost to implement recovery actions for 

the first 10 years of this plan is 

estimated to be approximately $46 

million. Many of these are one-time 

costs. 

Approximately $100,000 of the 

estimated implementation cost 

represents ongoing, annual 

administrative or infrastructure costs 

that will likely continue for the duration 

of implementation of the plan. Thus, it 

can be inferred that if recovery takes 50 

years, another $4 million may be 

incurred over the long term to continue 

and maintain habitat improvements. 

NMFS estimates that recovery of the 

Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU, like 

recovery for most of the ESA-listed 

salmon, could take 50 to 100 years. 

Because many uncertainties exist about 

how sockeye salmon and their habitat 

will respond to recovery actions, the 

costs and recovery actions in this plan 

focus on the first 10 years of 

implementation. Actions and costs will 

be revised over time as part of adaptive 

management. 

Unlike other ESA-listed salmon 

species in Washington State, the Lake 

Ozette Sockeye Salmon ESU has not had 

a state-designated recovery board 

responsible for developing the recovery 

plan. Therefore, NMFS is working with 

the Lake Ozette Steering Committee and 

other entities, such as the newly formed 

North Pacific Coast Lead Entity and the 

Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon 

Partnership, to make an Implementation 

Plan. NMFS anticipates that the 

organizations potentially involved will 

choose to participate in recognition of 

the shared benefits of habitat protection 

and restoration. A detailed 

Implementation Schedule and further 

details of an organizational approach to 

implementation will be produced in 

2009. 

Conclusions 

NMFS concludes that the Recovery 

Plan meets the requirements of ESA 

section 4(f) and thus is adopting it as the 

Recovery Plan for Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Salmon. 

Literature Cited 

Currens, K.P., R. Fuerstenberg, W. 

Graeber, K. Rawson, M. Ruckelshaus, 

N.J. Sands, and J. Scott. 2006. 

Independent populations of sockeye 

salmon in Lake Ozette. Puget Sound 

Technical Recovery Team document. 

March 21, 2006. Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center. NOAA Fisheries 

Service. Seattle, WA. 20p. 

www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/pugetldocs. 

Haggerty, M.J., A.C. Ritchie, J.G. 

Shellberg, M.J. Crewson, and J. Jolonen. 

2007. Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting 

Factors Analysis. Prepared for the 

Makah Indian Tribe and NOAA 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

25710 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 

Fisheries in cooperation with the Lake 

Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee. 

Port Angeles, WA. 

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. 

Rawson, K., N.J. Sands, K.P.Currens, 

W. Graeber, M. Ruckelshaus, R. 

Fuerstenberg, and J.B. Scott. 2008. 

Viability Criteria for the Lake Ozette 

Sockeye Salmon ESU. Puget Sound 

Technical Recovery Team document. 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

NOAA Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA. 

39p. 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. State of 

Washington: An Outline for Salmon 

Recovery Plans. December 2003. 

Olympia, WA. 44p. 

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

Dated: May 22, 2009. 

Therese Conant, 

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–12558 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XP34 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Amended Marine Conservation Plan 

for Pacific Insular Areas; Northern 

Mariana Islands 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of agency decision. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

approval of an amended marine 

conservation plan (MCP) for the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 

DATES: This agency decision is effective 

October 6, 2008, through October 6, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the MCP are 

available from the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council), 

1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, 

HI 96813, tel 808–522–8220, fax 808– 

522–8226. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jarad Makaiau, Sustainable Fisheries, 

NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, at 

808–944–2108. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

Section 204(e)(1)(A)of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), the Secretary of State, with the 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) and in 

consultation with the Council, may 

negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular 

Area fishery agreement (PIAFA) to allow 

foreign fishing within waters of the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

adjacent to American Samoa, Guam, or 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and at the 

request and with the concurrence of, 

and in consultation with, the Governor 

of the Pacific Insular Area to which the 

PIAFA applies. Section 204(e)(4) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 

prior to entering into a PIAFA, the 

appropriate Governor and the Council 

shall develop a three-year MCP 

containing detailing the uses for funds 

to be collected by the Secretary under 

the PIAFA. 

Any payments received under a 

PIAFA shall be deposited into the 

United States Treasury and then 

covered over to the Treasury of the 

Pacific Insular Area for which funds 

were collected. In the case of violations 

by foreign fishing vessels occurring 

within the EEZ off any Pacific Insular 

Area, any amount received by the 

Secretary which is attributable to fines 

and penalties imposed under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, including such 

sums collected from the forfeiture and 

disposition or sale of property seized 

subject to its authority, after payment of 

direct costs of the enforcement action to 

all entities involved in such action, 

shall be deposited into the Treasury of 

the Pacific Insular Area adjacent to the 

EEZ in which the violation occurred, to 

be used for fisheries enforcement and 

for implementation of a MCP. The MCP 

to be approved by the Secretary must be 

consistent with the Council’s fishery 

management plans, identify 

conservation and management 

objectives (including criteria for 

determining when such objectives have 

been met), and prioritize planned 

marine conservation projects. 

In June 2007, the Council approved an 

MCP for the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and 

recommended its submission to the 

Secretary for approval. NMFS, designee 

of the Secretary, received the MCP on 

March 10, 2008. Following review and 

revision of the MCP, the Department of 

Lands and Natural Resources, CNMI, 

submitted the completed MCP on behalf 

of the Governor to NMFS on September 

23, 2008. That MCP, dated June 2007, 

satisfied the requirements of MSA 

Section 204(e), and was approved for 

the three-year period October 6, 2008, 

through October 6, 2011 (73 FR 61020, 

October 15, 2008). 

At its 144th meeting in March 2009, 

the Council approved an amended MCP 

for the CNMI. On April 9, 2009, the 

Governor of the CNMI submitted the 

amended MCP, dated March 2009. The 

March 2009 document revises the 

objective related to domestic fisheries 

development, and the prioritization of 

projects. The amendments are aimed at 

further promoting the development and 

enhancing the economic viability of 

CNMI fisheries. 

The amended MCP contains 12 

objectives, listed below, which are 

consistent with the Council’s five 

existing fishery management plans: 

1. Data collection and reporting; 

2. Resource assessment and 

monitoring; 

3. Incidental catch, bycatch, and 

protected species interaction; 

4. Habitat assessment and monitoring; 

5. Management procedures; 

6. Surveillance and enforcement; 

7. Promote responsible domestic 

fisheries development to provide long 

term economic growth and stability and 

local food production; 

8. Marine conservation education; 

9. Public participation; 

10. Regional cooperation; 

11. Western Pacific demonstration 

projects; and 

12. Performance evaluation. 

The MCP identifies 22 programs or 

projects associated with the MCP 

objectives for potential funding under a 

PIAFA, as listed below in order of 

priority: 

1. EEZ enforcement program; 

2. Analysis of data on pelagic fishery 

resources; 

3. Commercial harvest monitoring 

system; 

4. Fisheries technology and education 

program; 

5. Longline permit, reporting and 

quota utilization program; 

6. Development of fish marketing plan 

that includes topics on market 

identification, transportation, fish 

products, branding and eco-labeling, 

and other marketing issues; 

7. CNMI commercial fisheries 

baseline assessment; 

8. Regional fisheries meeting and 

conferences funding assistance; 

9. Enhance fishing opportunities by 

deploying community fish aggregation 

devices; 

10. Vessel monitoring program; 

11. Construction of cold storage, fish 

processing, and fish market facilities; 

12. Foreign fishery observer program; 

13. Establish fishery management 

units for the EEZ; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES