[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78329-78330]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32213]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Martin County Airport, Stuart, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted by the Martin
County Board of County Commissioners for Martin County Airport under
the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et. Seq (Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act) and 14 CFR part 150 are in compliance with applicable
requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure maps is December 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Nagy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Extension 130.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted for Martin County Airport are in
compliance with applicable requirements of Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 150, effective December 6, 2011. Under 49 U.S.C.
section 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (the Act),
an airport operator may submit to the FAA Noise Exposure Maps which
meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses
as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has
submitted Noise Exposure Maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance
with the requirements of 14 CFR part 150, promulgated pursuant to the
Act, may submit a Noise Compatibility Program for FAA approval which
sets forth the measures the airport operator has taken or proposes to
take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the
introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the Noise Exposure Maps and
accompanying documentation submitted by the Martin County Board of
County Commissioners. The documentation that constitutes the ``Noise
Exposure Maps'' as defined in Section 150.7 of 14 CFR part 150
includes: Table 4-2 Total and Average Annual Day Aircraft Operations,
Base Year 2010 and Five-Year Forecast 2015; Table 4-3 Day-Night Split
of Operations; Table 4-4 Total and Average Annual Day Aircraft
Operations by Aircraft Category Base Year 2010 and Five-Year Forecast
2015; Table 4-5 Total Runway Utilization Rates, Fixed Wing Aircraft;
Table 4-6 Night Runway Utilization Rates, Fixed Wing Aircraft; Table 4-
7 Total and Night Utilization Rates, Helicopter Aircraft; Figure 4-4
Jet Arrival Flight Tracks ; Figure 4-5 Jet Departure Flight Tracks;
Figure 4-6 Propeller Arrival Flight Tracks; Figure 4-7 Propeller
Departure Flight Tracks; Figure 4-8 Helicopter Arrival Flight Tracks;
Figure 4-9 Helicopter Departure Flight Tracks; Figure 4-10 Touch and Go
Flight Tracks; Figure 5-2 2010 Existing Conditions Contours (2010 NEM);
Figure 5-3 2015 Five-Year Forecast Conditions Contours (2015 NEM);
Attachment 3, January 25, 2010 FAA Letter Approving 2010 Airport Master
Plan Update Forecasts of Aviation Activity; Attachment 4, June 11, 2010
FAA AEE Approval Letter for the Use of Aircraft Substitutions in INM;
Attachment 5, Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations Existing
Conditions 2010 and Five-Year Forecast 2015 Conditions; Attachment 6,
Figures A6-1 through A6-7, Flight Tracks by Aircraft Type with Track
Assignments; Attachment 7, Flight Track Utilization Rates Existing
Conditions 2010 and Five-Year Forecast 2015.
    The FAA has determined that these Noise Exposure Maps and
accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable
requirements. This determination is effective on December 6, 2011.

    FAA's determination on the airport operator's Noise Exposure Maps
is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of 14 CFR part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the airport operator's
data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a Noise
Compatibility Program or to fund the implementation of that Program. If
questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a Noise Exposure Map
submitted under Section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the
FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise exposure
contours, or in interpreting the Noise Exposure Maps to resolve
questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered
by the provisions of Section 47506 of the Act. These functions are
inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning
responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are
not changed in any way under 14 CFR part 150 or through FAA's review of
Noise Exposure Maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed
overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties
on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that
submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning
agencies with which consultation is required under Section 47503 of the
Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator,
under Section 150.21 of 14 CFR part 150, that the statutorily required
consultation has been accomplished.
    Copies of the full Noise Exposure Maps documentation and of the
FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the
following locations: Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports
District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando,
Florida 32822.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida, on December 6, 2011.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2011-32213 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 36693-36694]
[DOCID:fr05jy07-53]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. QF85-305-008; EL07-76-000]

Carson Cogeneration Company; Notice of Filing

June 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 22, 2007, pursuant to Sec.  292.205(c) of
the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
implementing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 18 CFR
292.205(c) (2006), Carson Cogeneration Company filed a request for
limited waiver of the operating and efficiency standards for a natural
gas-fired, combined cycle, cogeneration facility located in Carson,
California.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to

receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 23, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-12938 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54075-54077]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21163]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0692]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ocean Cup, Pacific Rum Run, Catalina Island,
California

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone near Ship Rock,
Catalina Island, in support of the Ocean Cup Pacific Rum Run. This
action is necessary to protect the area near Ship Rock, Catalina
Island, public vessels, and the high speed vessels participating in the
event. This regulation would prohibit vessels from entering into,
transiting through, or remaining within the designated area unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Los Angeles--Long
Beach, or her designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on October 1,
2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0692 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Maria Wiener, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles--
Long Beach; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
LLNR Light List Number
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Pacific Rum Run race is the fifth race planned as part of the
Ocean Cup Over the Horizon World Speed Record Series. The racecourse
begins off Huntington Beach Pier, proceeds to Ship Rock and
circumnavigates Catalina Island back to Ship Rock, and returns to the
finish at the Huntington Beach Pier. The Captain of the Port (COTP),
Los Angeles--Long Beach has determined that potential hazards
associated with event safety may arise due to the expected high
concentration of vessels in the general area along with the high-speed
race vessels. For these reasons the Coast Guard believes that a safety
zone is necessary to ensure the safety of, and reduce the risk to, the
public, and mariners around Catalina Island.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
did not receive final details for this event until August 25, 2021.
There was insufficient time to undergo the full rulemaking process,
including providing a reasonable comment period and considering those
comments, because the Coast Guard must establish this temporary safety
zone by September 30, 2021.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to address potentially hazardous conditions associated
with high-speed maneuvers from aircraft and waterborne vessels for a
search and rescue demonstration.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP), Los
Angeles--Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated
with event safety may arise due to the expected high concentration of
vessels in the general area along with the high-speed race vessels. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of, and reduce the risk
to, the public, and mariners around Catalina Island before, during, and
after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on
October 1, 2021. The safety zone would encompass all navigable waters
from the surface to the sea floor consisting of a line connecting the
following coordinates: 33[deg]27'38'' N, 118[deg]30'09'' W,
33[deg]27'51'' N, 118[deg]29'53'' W 33[deg]27'34'' N, 118[deg]28'54'',
33[deg]27'12'' N, 118[deg]29'17'' W. The duration of the zone is
intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled race. No vessel or person will
be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Commercial vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit through this safety zone, with
coordination by the Captain of the Port or their designated
representative. The Coast Guard and Vessel Traffic Service/Marine
Exchange will coordinate and mitigate all inbound and outbound
commercial traffic movements through the race course. Recreational
traffic will be able to transit around this safety zone, which is near
the Two Harbors, Catalina entrance.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a safety zone encompassing an area near Ship Rock, Catalina Island for
the Ocean Cup Pacific Rum Run. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to

coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received
without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or
vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-065 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-065  Safety Zone; Ocean Cup, The Pacific Rum Run,
Catalina, California.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters from the surface to the sea floor consisting of a line
connecting the following coordinates: 33[deg]27'38'' N, 118[deg]30'09''
W, 33[deg]27'51'' N, 118[deg]29'53'' W 33[deg]27'34'' N,
118[deg]28'54'', 33[deg]27'12'' N, 118[deg]29'17'' W. All coordinates
displayed are referenced by North American Datum of 1983, World
Geodetic System, 1984.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, designated
representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast
Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard
vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port Los Angeles--Long Beach (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) During the enforcement period, vessels and
persons are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
remaining within the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or her designated
representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector Los
Angeles--Long Beach on VHF-FM Channel 16 or call at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach will
use all appropriate means to notify the public in advance of an event
of the enforcement of this safety zone to include publishing a Notice
of Enforcement in the Federal Register and through the Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (e) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced from 7
a.m. to 10 a.m. on October 1, 2021.

    Dated: September 23, 2021.
R.E. Ore,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Los Angeles Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2021-21163 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73854-73855]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29199]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2253-009.
    Applicants: Astoria Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-material Change in Status of Astoria
Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20131127-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2447-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Notice of change in status of Pacific Northwest
Generating Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-97-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to October 15, 2013 Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc. tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 11/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20131125-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-116-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, Ohio Power
Company, AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Description: AEP submits an amendment to the 39th Revised Service
Agmt No. 1336 in ER14-116 to be effective 9/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-161-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, AEP
Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company,
Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: AEP submits an Amendment to the 10th Revised ILDSA-PJM
SA No. 1262 in ER14-161 to be effective 4/11/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-172-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Supplement to Conforming
Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20131127-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-463-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Exigent Circumstances Filing of Revisions to FCM Rules
to be effective 1/24/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20131125-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-474-000.
    Applicants: Sempra Generation.
    Description: Sempra Generation LLC Notice of Succession and MBR
Tariff to be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-475-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Rochester
Gas and Electric Corporation
    Description: LGIA between RG&E and Allegany Generator, SA No. 2036
to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-476-000.
    Applicants: Portsmouth Genco, LLC.
    Description: 2nd Rev MBR to be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-477-000.
    Applicants: Red Oak Power, LLC.
    Description: 2nd Rev MBR to be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-478-000.
    Applicants: James River Genco, LLC.
    Description: 2nd Revised MBR to be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-479-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Energy V, LLC.
    Description: Baseline new to be effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-480-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2013-11-26--Order764MarketChanges to be effective 4/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-481-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Smoky Mountain IA Filing to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20131127-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-482-000.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.
    Description: DTE Electric Company submits Revised Wholesale
Distribution Agreements to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20131127-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-483-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Grandfathered Network
Integration Transmission Service Agreement No. 118 of Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-484-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Grandfathered Network
Integration Transmission Service Agreement No. 120 of Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-485-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tucson Electric Power Company submits TEP Order No.
784 Compliance Filing to be effective 1/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/27/13
    Accession Number: 20131127-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-486-000.
    Applicants: UNS Electric, Inc.
    Description: UNS Electric, Inc. submits UNSE Order No. 784
Compliance Filing to be effective 1/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20131127-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-487-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Revisions to FA for Non-
Commercial Capacity in the FCM to be effective 3/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/27/13.
    Accession Number: 20131127-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-488-000.
    Applicants: KATBRO LLC.
    Description: Katbro LLC submits notice of cancellation of its
market-based rate tariff, effective 9/30/13.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-0013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 27, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29199 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1795-1796]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01110]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0038]

The Standard on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard
Employment; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Standard on
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard Employment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
April 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2012-0038,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2012-0038) for this Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the phone number below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

    Subpart I specifies several paperwork requirements which are
described below. Section 1915.152(b) requires the employer to assess
work activities to determine whether there are hazards present, or
likely to be present, which necessitate the worker's use of PPE. If
such hazards are present, or likely to be present, the employer must:
(1) Select the type of PPE that will protect the affected workers from
the hazards identified in the occupational hazard assessment; (2)
communicate PPE selection decisions to the affected workers; (3) select
PPE that properly fits each affected worker; and (4) maintain
documentation to verify that the required occupational hazard
assessment has been performed. The verification must contain the
following information: occupation or trade assessed, the date(s) of the
hazard assessment, and the name of the person performing the hazard
assessment.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the collection
of information requirements contained in the Standard on Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR part 1915,
subpart I). The agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 29
burden hours (from 172 hours to 201 hours). This increase is the result
of identifying additional establishments that have been covered by the
Shipyard Employment PPE Standard.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend
the approval of the information collection requirements contained in
the Standard on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard
Employment (29 CFR part 1915, subpart I).
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Personal Protective Equipment Standard for Shipyard
Employment (29 CFR part 1915, subpart I).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0215.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 4,518.
    Total Responses: 2,522.
    Frequency of Response: On Occasion.
    Average Time per Response: An estimated 5 minutes (.08 hour) for
employers to record the hazard assessment.
    Estimated Burden Hours: 201.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
e-Rulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0038) for the ICR. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>). Comments
and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publically available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available through the website's ``User Tips''
link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials
not available from the website, and for assistance in using the
internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 30, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-01110 Filed 2-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 What is a " distribution"? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Ontogenetic variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Life history variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Historical vs. contemporary vs. potential distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 What are the direct effects of temperature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 What are indirect effects of temperature on fish distributions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Biotic interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Habitat size and isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 What is meant by " scale" and " level?" At what " level" should we be concerned with temperature criteria to protect fish distributions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Information on thermal relationships of salmonids comes from a variety of laboratory and field studies   how do we integrate work conducted at different scales or levels of organization ( e. g., population vs. individuals)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 EPA Fish and Temperature Database Matching System ( FTDMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Point Observation of Cold Water Fish in relation to Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Is unoccupied habitat relevant to temperature requirements of salmonids? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Issue Paper 2 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Prepared as Part of Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project Jason Dunham, Jeff Lockwood, and Chris Mebane Abstract Distributions of native salmonid fish in the Pacific Northwest are strongly tied to temperature conditions in their habitat. Salmonid populations have declined in conjunction with thermal changes and the loss and fragmentation of large and interconnected cold water habitats. Temperature affects the health of not only individual fish but also entire populations and groups of species. Temperature changes have obvious direct effects, and also interact with other factors to indirectly affect salmonids.

The best way to protect existing populations and restore depleted populations is to create temperature criteria that explicitly consider salmonids' temperature requirements at different times and places. Natural temperature conditions must be preserved whenever possible. Because current fish distributions and populations are significantly reduced from their historical numbers, protection and restoration of their thermal environment must often extend beyond the boundaries of their existing or suitable habitat.

Attempts to set temperature criteria must balance what is known and not known about the habitat and biological requirements of salmonids. Full consideration of current and potential fish distribution and habitat, including thorough documentation of assumptions and knowledge gaps, is needed in establishing and implementing temperature criteria to support healthy ( viable, productive, and fishable) salmonid populations.

Introduction Under natural conditions, freshwater salmonid habitat is defined by physical and chemical characteristics of the environment, including water quality, flow, geological and topographic features of the stream and its valley, and cover ( National Research Council 1996). Common factors influencing fish distribution include size and accessibility of suitable habitat, connectivity between areas of suitable habitat, biological interactions, and " historical" factors ( e. g., postglacial dispersal and geographic barriers) ( Matthews 1998). Many of these factors act directly or indirectly with temperature to determine the distribution of a species. This is especially true for cold water fishes such as salmonids.

This paper is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the status or declines in salmonid 2 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature populations or distributions. These are widely documented elsewhere. We briefly review some examples of declines in salmonid populations and habitats to provide some context for these issues, but our focus is not on declines per se. Furthermore, this issue paper is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the effects of temperature on salmonid distributions in the Pacific Northwest ( see McCullough 1999). Rather, it is intended to describe a basic framework for thinking about salmonid distributions and appropriate biological criteria to protect salmonid populations from adverse effects of altered factors affecting thermal regimes.

This paper describes in a question and answer format five main issues related to salmonid distributions and temperature criteria:

1. Definition of a " distribution" 2. Direct effects of temperature 3. Indirect effects of temperature 4. Relevance of scale 5. Importance of unoccupied habitat What is a " distribution"?

Often, the word " distribution" is used without reference to what is specifically meant. Like any other organism, salmonid fishes ( and temperatures) are not distributed equally across landscapes. Within stream basins, limits to fish distributions may be obvious, but even within continuous areas of suitable habitat, discontinuities in distributions may arise ( Angermeier et al. in press, Dunham et al. in press).

A common example of " distribution" for animals can be found in popular bird identification and field guides. Distribution maps for birds often cover broad areas. In some cases, ranges of different " races" or recognized subspecies are distinguished. Within these areas, it is obvious that birds do not occur everywhere. For example, a wading bird may only be found in wetland areas, though it is broadly distributed across the continent ( because wetlands are broadly distributed). Furthermore, this bird may only be found in particular kinds of wetlands ( those with sufficient cover and food to support reproduction). This bird may be found in different areas, depending on the season. Birds may appear in " unusual" habitats while migrating, or may shift habitat use from year to year, depending on climate ( wet vs. dry years). Similar analogies apply to salmonid fishes. There are several things to consider when using the term " distribution" for salmonids: ontogenetic variation; life history variation; and historical, contemporary, and potential distribution.

Ontogenetic variation. " Ontogenetic variation" refers to changes in habitat use during the life cycle of an individual. Here, the term " life cycle" refers to the sequence of events ( egg 6 alevin 6 parr 6 smolt 6 juvenile 6 adult) that must occur within an individual's life for successful reproduction. Ideally, temperature criteria established for salmonids should address spatial and temporal distribution of thermal habitats that protect all life stages. 3 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Habitat requirements vary considerably as salmonids begin their lives as eggs in ( or on) the substrate and progress through developmental stages to reproduction as an adult. Different life stages may have different thermal requirements ( Magnuson et al. 1979; Physiology issue paper). However, thermal requirements may also overlap considerably among life stages. Furthermore, some life stages are relatively insensitive to temperature whereas others ( such as egg incubation) are extremely sensitive ( see Physiology issue paper).

Life stage requirements may be tied to specific spatial or temporal frames. Many salmonids' life stages may use certain habitats only on a seasonal or intermittent basis. For example, the timing of migration and spawning for most species is strongly tied to temperature ( Bjornn and Reiser 1991).

Often, assessments for salmonids focus on the distribution of areas used for spawning and early rearing ( Dunham et al. 2001). Even though the importance of spawning and rearing habitat is obvious, other components of the life cycle may be key to viability or productivity, particularly for species with obligate life histories. Such habitats can include migratory corridors, feeding areas, and seasonal refuges ( Northcote 1997). In many species, loss or severe degradation of these habitats can cause extinction even if spawning and rearing habitats are in good condition. An obvious example is extinction of migratory salmonid populations that used spawning habitats now blocked by dams. As of 1991, at least 106 major populations of salmon and steelhead on the West Coast of the United States had become extinct, with inadequate fish passage at dams a primary cause ( Nehlsen et al. 1991).

Life history variation. Life history refers to how an individual completes the life cycle. Salmonids may adopt a " resident" or " migratory" life history. Resident fish remain very close to their natal habitats throughout their life cycle, whereas migratory fish use a much broader range of habitat. Each of these broad categories has its own variations. For example, spawning migrations vary by time and location ( e. g., summer vs. winter steelhead; fall vs. winter chinook). The length of juvenile residence in natal areas may also be important ( e. g., " stream" vs. " ocean" type chinook).

Some species have relatively fixed life cycles and life history patterns ( e. g., pink salmon, Groot and Margolis 1991); others exhibit considerable variation or polymorphism ( e. g., cutthroat trout). Most Pacific salmon die after spawning, whereas most species of trout and char do not ( iteroparous). Some species, subspecies, races, or populations have flexible life histories ( referred to as " facultative"); others have fixed life history patterns ( referred to as " obligatory") ( Rieman and Dunham 1999). Species in the latter category may be less resistant to environmental change.

Historical vs. contemporary vs. potential distribution. Both fish distributions and stream temperatures can be considered in terms of " historical," " contemporary," or " potential" distribution. Historical refers to the distribution of native salmonids before European settlement. Contemporary refers to the present distribution of native salmonids. Potential refers to the distribution of native salmonids we would expect if natural habitat conditions were restored to the fullest extent possible, given the current natural capacity ( Ebersole et al. 1997) of the system. In other words, potential distribution allows for the possibility that physical systems have been altered such that historical distributions are no longer attainable. Widespread declines of salmonids observed in most areas 4 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature ( Nehlsen et al. 1991, Lee et al. 1997, Thurow et al. 1997) suggest that many streams are not currently at their full natural potential or capacity. 5 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature A primary concern of managers is protecting or restoring fish distributions that maximize population viability ( most recently reviewed by McElhany et al. 2000). Many efforts are under way to define thermal habitat potential using predictive physical models ( reviewed by Bartholow 2000). Prediction of physical responses is complex, but is much simpler than predicting biological responses.

Restoration of the physical system ( temperature, thermal regime) should be considered together with biological requirements ( viability, productivity) of a species. The physical potential of a system constrains what can be achieved biologically. There are four possible scenarios in which physical system potential and biological requirements or potential are considered:

1. System potential attained, biological goal attained. This is the best of all worlds, where protection to maintain existing conditions would be a prudent management option.

2. System potential attained, biological goal not attained. This is a situation where nothing can be done to enhance the potential of the natural system to attain a biological goal.

3. System potential not attained, biological goal not attained. This is a situation where enhancement of system potential could result in a biological benefit.

4. System potential not attained, biological goal attained. This is a situation where enhancement of system potential could result in a biological benefit, but the current state of the biological system is satisfactory from a regulatory viewpoint.

It may be difficult to balance the attainment of biological goals versus physical system potential, but the answer is essential to long term viability and productivity of salmonid populations. In reality, these four scenarios represent extremes along a continuum of biological requirements and physical system potential. In practice, it is much easier to define physical system potential than to define " how much is enough?" from a biological perspective. Thus, it may be difficult to discern different scenarios based on biological requirements. In practice, most management to date has focused on system potential.

Defining of system potential can be challenging. First, it is critical to realize that perspectives on attainment of system potential may depend on scale. For example, a local reach of stream may be at system potential, but part of a larger degraded system in need of restoration. Second, it is difficult, if not impossible, to restore all aquatic habitats to their historic condition. There usually are insufficient data to definitively document " historic" conditions, but even limited information on historic habitat conditions and fish populations can provide a useful perspective. Such determination involves finding what is " irreversible" ( e. g., removal of major dams and urban centers) and what can likely be accomplished through basin management.

Examples. The historical and contemporary distributions of resident and anadromous fish have been documented in the Columbia River Basin ( CRB) by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 6 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Management Project ( Figures 1 to 7). About 12,452 km of the 16,935 km of streams that originally were accessible are now blocked ( Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), including some large subbasins and many smaller watersheds. Other factors contributing to the decline of 7 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Figure 1. Columbia Basin fall chinook distribution. 8 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Figure 2. Columbia Basin bulltrout distribution. 9 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Figure 3. Columbia Basin spring chinook distribution. 10 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Figure 4. Columbia Basin redband trout distribution. 11 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Figure 5. Columbia Basin westslope cutthroat trout distribution. 12 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Figure 6. Columbia Basin steelhead distribution. 13 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Figure 7. Columbia Basin Yellowstone cutthroat trout distribution. 14 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature salmonids in the CRB are habitat loss ( including thermal degradation), harvest, and direct and indirect effects of hatcheries ( Lichatowich 1999). The current known and predicted distribution of steelhead trout in the CRB encompasses 46% of the historical range. For chinook salmon, the current known and predicted distribution encompasses 28% of the historical range for stream type chinook and 29% for ocean type chinook ( Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). For many of these species and populations, it is likely that both system potential and biological goals are not attained ( scenario 3). In other words, widespread enhancement of system physical potential to minimize adverse effects of altered temperature conditions is needed in the region.

What are the direct effects of temperature?

Temperature may constrain the distribution of fish through direct effects on physiological function. If temperatures are too warm, metabolic rates may rise to the point at which energy intake ( e. g., food consumption) is insufficient to maintain basic physiological functions. Growth ceases, and compounding effects of temperature may result in death. Cold temperatures may also be important, particularly where growing seasons are short and fish must endure a long season ( e. g., winter) of scarce resources ( Shuter and Post 1990). For salmonids in the Pacific Northwest, the concern is unsuitably warm summer temperatures. Currently, there are no criteria that directly address excessively cool temperatures.

Examples. Studies of thermal effects on regional salmonid distributions are numerous ( see McCullough 1999). These studies use a wide variety of indicators. At larger scales, it is common to use climate indicators of thermal regimes, such as air temperature, elevation, or geographic location ( e. g., Meisner 1990, Flebbe 1994, Keleher and Rahel 1996, Dunham et al. 1999). Geographic variation in distribution of fish populations is typically studied with these large scale indicators. At finer scales, air temperature can be a poor indicator of fish distributions. Within streams, variation in local climate is minimal, but variation in water temperatures is often obvious. For example, geographic variation in the distribution of cutthroat trout is strongly tied to climate gradients ( Dunham et al. 1999). At a smaller scale within streams, water temperature is the best indicator ( in terms of water temperature) of suitable conditions for fish ( Dunham 1999). At even smaller scales ( e. g., stream reach or unit) it may be possible to distinguish habitat use patterns, if local variation in water temperature is large enough to elicit a biologically significant response ( e. g., Torgerson et al. 1999; Ebersole et al., in press).

Most attempts to relate salmonid distributions to temperature are based on air temperatures, which are widely available. Air temperature and groundwater temperature are known to be related ( either directly or indirectly), which is believed to explain the association between air temperatures and salmonid distributions on a regional scale ( e. g., > 104 m, or 6th field hydrologic unit code; see Rieman et al. 1997). However, air temperature generally has only a weak direct influence on surface water temperature ( Poole and Berman in press).

More recent studies have focused on direct associations between fish distributions and surface water temperatures. As digital data loggers and remote sensing ( e. g., forward looking infrared ideography, Torgerson et al. 1999) become more accessible, reliance on indirect measures of aquatic thermal regimes ( e. g., regional climatic or air temperatures) will be less necessary. 15 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature What are indirect effects of temperature on fish distributions?

The direct effects of temperature are obvious, but indirect effects can be important as well. Multiple stressors ( see Multiple Stressors issue paper) can modify the effect of temperature on probability of survival under different thermal regimes. In colder seasons, fish may be vulnerable to warm blooded predators, including birds and mammals ( Conduce et al. 1998). In warm seasons, thermal stress may similarly render fish susceptible to predators, competitors, or disease. Patterns of habitat use may change. Abundance of prey may also change ( e. g., Li et al. 1994). Interactions of these factors with temperature may affect fish distributions and responses to temperature, as in the following examples.

Biotic interactions. The response of a species to a given thermal environment can be modified dramatically by biotic interactions ( e. g., competition, disease, predation) within or among species. In some cases, this influence may affect the distribution of a species.

Within a species, temperature may affect important life history attributes, such as size and age at emigration and return times for spawning adults. Within cohorts, intraspecific competition for limited resources ( e. g., food, shelter, mates) may be affected, possibly leading to variation in competitive ability and fitness of individuals and changing patterns of growth and survival. The subtle influences of these factors on the distribution of fish within aquatic habitats has not been documented in the published literature.

There is better evidence for the influence of temperature on distribution of fishes among different species. In studies by Reeves et al. ( 1987), juvenile steelhead production was the same at water temperatures of 53.6 59 ° F ( 12 15 ° C) whether red shiners were present or not. At warmer temperatures ( 66.2 71.6 ° F [ 19 22 ° C]), steelhead production was lower when shiners were present than when shiners were absent. Additional examples can be found in the Behavior and Multiple Stressors issue papers.

Habitat size and isolation. Thermal gradients often result in erratic distribution of fish populations ( Dunham et al. 2001). Changes in the size and distribution of habitats result in habitat fragmentation, which has been documented for several species ( e. g., Rieman and Dunham 2000). Generally, as habitat size decreases and isolation increases, the occurrence of fish decreases. For bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus) and cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki) limited evidence suggests these species are unlikely to be found in watersheds with surface areas of less than roughly 105 ha ( Dunham et al., in press). Available data are not sufficient to propose minimum area requirements for any species ( Rieman and Dunham 2000). Populations in smaller habitats are assumed to be more vulnerable to chance extinction, or extinction caused by deterministic factors such as replacement by competitors or land use impacts ( see McElhany et al. 2000).

What is meant by " scale" and " level?" At what " level" should we be concerned with temperature criteria to protect fish distributions?

Temperature can affect fishes at several scales and levels. Scale refers to the space or time dimensions of a problem, whereas level refers to the ways in which physical or biological processes are organized ( for details, see Allen 1998). A local population may be considered as a 16 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature level of biological organization, for example. Local populations for salmonids may correspond to the distribution of spawning and rearing areas ( Dunham et al. in press). In terms of scale, local populations can occupy very small or very large watersheds. Thus, " scale" and " level" are not exactly synonymous.

Research on salmonid habitat has addressed a wide variety of spatiotemporal scales and levels. In the 1970s and 1980s, research often focused on fishery production. Numerous studies addressed the relationship between standing crop of salmonids and site specific habitat characteristics ( e. g., pools, cover, substrate). These models were often limited by their lack of transferability in space or time and poor predictive ability ( Fausch et al. 1988). Existing EPA temperature criteria ( U. S. EPA 1998) are site specific and do not address larger scale issues of landscape processes and fish distributions.

Recent models have addressed aquatic habitat at larger spatial scales ( Johnson and Gage 1997; see Spatial Temporal Issue Paper) and focused more on patterns of species diversity, distribution, and occurrence than on standing crop ( Dunham et al. in press, Angermeier et al. 2001). Larger scale approaches to salmonid habitat focus on both habitat characteristics and the spatial context of a habitat in the landscape ( Rieman and Dunham 1999). Part of the motivation for a larger scale approach is the need for models that address habitat requirements at the population level. Population level concerns ( e. g., occurrence, persistence, diversity) are increasingly critical in this region as the list of threatened, endangered, and sensitive salmonids grows.

Information on thermal relationships of salmonids comes from a variety of laboratory and field studies   how do we integrate work conducted at different scales or levels of organization ( e. g., population vs. individuals)?

One important issue related to scaling is the connection between laboratory studies of thermal tolerance and thermal habitat use in the field. EPA criteria for temperature ( Federal Register 1998, Brungs and Jones 1977) are based on laboratory tests of individual fish responses to temperature. These experiments provide a mechanistic basis for understanding the effects of temperature on individual fish. In the laboratory, a rigorous experimental design can isolate the effects of specific factors and test for interactions among factors.

It is difficult to extrapolate results obtained under laboratory conditions to the field, where many uncontrolled factors interact simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is in the field that temperature has a potentially important role. Although it is sometimes possible to conduct large scale field experiments, field studies more often involve analyses of correlation or association between factors, such as fish distribution and temperature. Obviously, such correlations do not necessarily constitute cause and effect. Development of temperature criteria must therefore involve a combination of approaches, including laboratory experiments and field studies. Integrating pattern and process across multiple scales or levels of biological organization is essential for correct ecological inference ( Werner 1998). Following are several examples. 17 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature EPA Fish and Temperature Database Matching System ( FTDMS). A simple example of integrating field and laboratory studies comes from results of the EPA's FTDMS, Eaton et al. 1995). Eaton et al. ( 1995) found a close correspondence between laboratory derived thermal tolerance limits and maximum water temperatures in the field. For salmonids, maximum water temperatures in the field were 33.8 39.2 ° F ( 1 4 ° C) cooler than limits indicated by laboratory studies. The fact that fish distributions in the field corresponded to cooler temperatures suggests that sublethal effects may be important. This may occur when temperature directly or indirectly acts as one of multiple stressors ( see Temperature Interaction issue paper).

Point Observation of Cold Water Fish in Relation to Temperature Sometimes simple observations of fish in unusually warm water are used to support ( or reject) proposed temperature criteria or thresholds. Such observations do not indicate anything about individual fitness or population health. Furthermore, they ignore the essential chain of inference that should be made using both laboratory and field observations ( Werner 1998). Observations of fish in " unusual" ( or any) conditions should be interpreted in a probabilistic context. For example, given the observed thermal regime, what is the probability that a given species will occur? Determining this requires information ( and evidence) on a fuller range of thermal conditions and is much more informative. Salmonid fish may occasionally occur in " hot" water, but in general they are much more likely to occur when temperatures are cooler. This is illustrated by the wide range of temperatures where salmonids and other species are observed to occur ( Figure 8).

A useful perspective can be found in humans' use of high temperature environments. In many cultures, it is common to engage in recreational or ritual use of steam baths, saunas, sweat lodges, hot springs, or other extremely warm microclimates. Although limited use of these environments is common, they are by no means suitable in the long term; the negative health effects are obvious to humans. Fish, like humans, will occasionally be found in thermal habitats that are unsuitable for long term ( and sometimes even short term) health. In some cases, short forays into physiologically stressful habitats may provide a net benefit. Many prey organisms make use of predator free space, which often exists at the extremes of physiological tolerance for predators ( e. g., Rahel et al. 1994).

Is unoccupied habitat relevant to temperature requirements of salmonids?

Thermal habitat can be utilized at a variety of spatial and temporal scales ( see also Spatial/ Temporal issue paper). Spatial and temporal variation in the availability of thermal habitat may be an important constraint. Temperature criteria should address all temperatures likely to be used by fish, not just upper, lower, or " optimal" temperatures. It is the full range of thermal variability that provides a context for continued evolution of species ( Lichatowich 1999). Distribution of " habitat" can extend well beyond that which is currently occupied by a species or population.

Because of natural variation in space and time, most fish occupy landscapes with a considerable amount of suitable but unoccupied habitat. Unoccupied habitat is a natural consequence of extinction and recolonization, natural habitat succession, and human influences on fish populations and habitats ( Reeves et al. 1995, Rieman and Dunham 2000). Therefore, the distribution of habitat needed by fish may extend well beyond that which is currently occupied. 18 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature 19 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature This is especially true for most threatened and endangered species because current distributions are reduced or declining.

Unoccupied habitat is a potentially controversial issue, particularly because it can be difficult to identify areas needing protection. When fish are present, the choice of habitat to protect or restore can be relatively obvious. When fish are not present, the choice must be guided by information on historical and potential distributions of fish and suitable habitat, and potential sources of natural recolonization.

Conclusion Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest evolved in habitats with large amounts of cold, clean water. Their life histories and ecology are strongly tied to natural thermal regimes. Region wide declines in salmonids have paralleled the loss and fragmentation of formerly large and interconnected cold water habitats, and changes in thermal regimes ( see Spatial/ Temporal issue paper). Temperature is widely appreciated as an important factor affecting not only the health of individual fish, but also entire populations and species assemblages. Direct effects of temperature may be obvious, or temperature may interact with other important variables to indirectly affect salmonids.

Temperature criteria that explicitly consider the thermal requirements of salmonids at multiple spatial and temporal scales ( see also Spatial/ Temporal issue paper), and the connection between salmonids and natural thermal regimes, will be most protective of existing populations and offer a means for restoring depressed populations. In many cases, protection and restoration of thermal habitat must extend beyond the current boundaries of existing occupied and/ or suitable habitat, because current fish distributions are significantly reduced from their historical extent.

Attempts to set temperature criteria must balance what is known and not known about the physical system potential and biological requirements of salmonids. Consideration of unknown factors is essential in determining precautionary measures to avoid adverse effects related to temperature criteria. General guidelines for assessing salmonid populations ( e. g., McElhany et al. 2000) provide a means for determining the " knowns" and " unknowns." Full consideration of the weight of evidence about current and potential fish distribution and physical system potential, including thorough documentation of assumptions and knowledge gaps, is needed in establishing and implementing temperature criteria to support healthy ( viable, productive, and fishable) salmonid populations. 20 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Literature Cited Allen TFH. 1998. The landscape " level" is dead: Persuading the family to take it off the respirator. In: Peterson DL, Parker VT, eds. Ecological Scale: Theory and Applications. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 35 54.

Angermeier PL, Krueger KL, Dolloff CA. In Press. Discontinuity in stream fish distributions: Implications for assessing and predicting species occurrences. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Samson F, Haufler J, Morrison M, Raphael M, Wall B, eds. Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Bartholow JM. 2000. The stream segment and stream network temperature models: A self study course. Version 2.0. U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99 112.

Bjornn TC, Reiser DW. 1991. Habitat requirements for salmonids. Am Fish Soc Special Pub 19: 83 138.

Brungs WA, Jones BR. 1977. Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: Protocol and procedures. Environmental Research Laboratory Duluth, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/ 3 77 061, Duluth, MN.

Cunjak RA, Prowse TD, Parrish DL. 1998. Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar) in winter: " The season of parr discontent?" Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55( Suppl. 1): 161 180.

Dunham JB. 1999. Temperature criteria for Oregon's Lahontan cutthroat trout. Report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR.

Dunham JB, Rieman BE. 1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout: Influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics. Ecol Appl 9: 642 655.

Dunham JB, Rieman BE, Peterson JT. In Press. Patch based models to predict species occurrence: Lessons from salmonid fishes in streams. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison M, Raphael M, Haufler J, Wall B, eds. Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Dunham JB, Peacock MM, Rieman BE, Schroeter RE, Vinyard GL. 1999. Local and geographic variability in the distribution of stream living Lahontan cutthroat trout. Trans Am Fish Soc 128: 875 889.

Eaton JG, et al. 1995. A field information based system for estimating fish temperature tolerances. Fisheries 20( 4): 10 18.

Ebersole JL, Liss WJ, Frissell CA. In Press. Relationship between stream temperature, thermal refugia, and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss abundance in arid land streams of the northwestern United States. Ecol Freshwater Fish.

Ebersole JL, Liss WJ, Frissell CA. 1997. Restoration of stream habitats in the western United States: Restoration as reexpression of habitat capacity. Environ Manage 21: 1 14.

Fausch KD, Hawkes CL, Parsons MG. 1988. Models that predict standing crop of stream fish from habitat variables: 1950 85. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW GTR 213. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Flebbe PA. 1994. A regional view of the margin: Salmonid abundance and distribution in the southern Appalachian mountains of North Carolina and Virginia. Trans Am Fish Soc 123: 657 667. 21 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Groot C, Margolis L, eds. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Johnson LB, Gage SH. 1997. Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater Biol 37: 113 132.

Keleher CJ, Rahel FJ. 1996. Thermal limits to salmonid distributions in the Rocky Mountain region and potential habitat loss due to global warming: a geographic information system ( GIS) approach. Trans Am Fish Soc 125: 1 13.

Lee D, Sedell CJ, Rieman B, Thurow R, Williams J. 1997. U. S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, Report Number PNW GTR 405.

Li HW, Lamberti GA, Pearsons TN, Tait CK, Li JL, Buckhouse JC. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Trans Am Fish Soc 123: 627 640.

Lichatowich J. 1999. Salmon without rivers: A history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Magnuson JJ, Crowder LB, Medvick PA. 1979. Temperature as an ecological resource. Am Zool 19: 331 343.

Matthews WJ. 1998. Patterns in freshwater fish ecology. New York: Chapman and Hall.

McCullough DA. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to chinook salmon. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA.

McElhany P, Ruckleshaus M, Ford MJ, Wainwright T, Bjorkstedt E. 2000. Viable salmon populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NWFSC 42.

Meisner JD. 1990. Effect of climate warming on the southern margins of the native range of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47: 1065 1070.

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream   Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nehlsen W, Williams JE, Lichatowich JA. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: Stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. Fisheries 16( 2): 4 21.

Northcote TG. 1997. Potamodromy in salmonidae   living and moving in the fast lane. N Am J Fish Manage 17: 1029 1045.

Poole GC, Berman CH. In Press. An ecological perspective on in stream temperature: Natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human caused thermal degradation. Environ Manage.

Quigley TM, Arbelbide SJ, eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: vol. 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW GTR 405. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Rahel FJ, Nutzman JW. 1994. Foraging in a lethal environment: Fish predation in hypoxic waters of a stratified lake. Ecology 75: 1246 1253. 22 Salmonid Distributions and Temperature Reeves GH, Benda LE, Burnett KM, Bisson PA, Sedell JR. 1995. A disturbance based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In: Nielsen JL, ed. Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, Bethesda, MD. pp. 334 349.

Reeves GH, Everest FH, Hall JD. 1987. Interactions between the redside shiner ( Richardsonius balteatus) and the steelhead trout ( Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon: The influence of water temperature. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44: 1603 1613.

Rieman BE, Dunham JB. 2000. Metapopulations and salmonids: A synthesis of life history patterns and empirical observations. Ecol Freshwater Fish 9: 51 64.

Rieman BE, Lee DC, Thurow RF. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath Basins. N Am J Fish Manage 17: 1111 1125.

Shuter BJ, Post JR. 1990. Climate, population viability, and the zoogeography of temperate fishes. Trans Am Fish Soc 119: 314 336.

Thurow RF, Lee DC, Rieman BE. 1997. Distribution and status of seven native salmonids in the Interior Columbia River Basin and portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins. N Am J Fish Manage 17: 1094 1110.

Torgersen CE, Price DM, Li HW, McIntosh BA. 1999. Multiscale thermal refugia and stream habitat associations of chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon. Ecol Appl 9: 301 319.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. National recommended water quality criteria; republication. Federal Register 63: 68354 68364.

Werner EE. 1998. Ecological experiments and a research program in community ecology. In: Resetarits WJ, Bernardo J, eds. Experimental ecology: Issues and perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.