[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1392-1399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-283]
[[Page 1392]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 101220626-0626-01]
RIN 0648-XA083
Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical
Habitat for Threatened Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound
Steelhead
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), will prepare
critical habitat designation proposals for lower Columbia River (LCR)
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Puget Sound steelhead (O.
mykiss) currently listed as threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The areas under consideration include watersheds in
the lower Columbia River basin in southwest Washington and northwest
Oregon, as well as watersheds in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de
Fuca in Washington. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)
identifies issues for consideration and evaluation, and solicits
comments regarding them as well as information about the areas and
species under consideration.
DATES: Comments and information regarding the designation process and
areas being considered for designation as critical habitat may be sent
to us (See ADDRESSES), no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Time on March 11,
2011.
We have already scheduled public meetings to discuss and seek input
on the approach to designating critical habitat for these species. The
meeting times and locations are as follows:
26 January 2011, from 1:30-3:30 p.m. at the Doubletree Hotel, 1000 NE.
Multnomah Street, Portland, OR 97232; and
1 February 2011, from 10 a.m.-12:30 p.m. at the NOAA Campus, 7600 Sand
Point Way NE, Building 9, Seattle, WA 98115. Please note--all attendees
of the Seattle meeting will need to show photo identification in order
to be permitted onto the NOAA campus.
Details regarding the meeting format and related information will
be posted by January 25, 2011, on our Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/CHsite.htm.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Chief, Protected Resources Division,
NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street--Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may
also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 503 230-5441 or submitted on the
Internet via the Federal Rulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: Comments will be posted for public viewing after the
comment period has closed. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. NMFS may elect not to post comments
that contain obscene or threatening content. All Personal Identifying
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Stone, NMFS, Northwest Region,
Portland, OR 503-231-2317; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, Silver Spring, MD 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Rulemaking Background
We are responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or
distinct population segments (DPSs) are threatened or endangered and
which areas of their habitat constitute critical habitat for them under
the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To be considered for listing under
the ESA, a group of organisms must constitute a ``species,'' which is
defined in section 3 to include ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' The agency
has determined that a group of Pacific salmon populations (including
lower Columbia coho salmon) occupying a specific geographic area
qualifies as a DPSs if it is substantially reproductively isolated and
represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the
biological species (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). A group of Pacific
steelhead populations qualifies as a DPS if it is markedly separate and
significant to its taxon (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996; 71 FR 834,
January 5, 2006). In previous rulemaking we determined that LCR coho
(70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Puget Sound steelhead (72 FR 26722,
May 11, 2007) are each distinct population segments that warrant
protection as threatened species under the ESA. We also determined that
critical habitat was not determinable at the time of those final
listing decisions and announced that we would propose critical habitat
in separate rulemaking. Since the time of listing, the recovery
planning process has progressed for these two species, and additional
new information is now available to better inform the designation
process. In view of these developments, we consider it advisable to
provide the public with an ANPR so that they are aware of the
opportunity to provide us with comments and information that may be
useful in making proposed critical habitat designations. Additional
opportunities for public involvement include a comment period on any
proposed designations and the opportunity for public hearings (see
``Process and Schedule'' below).
Critical Habitat
The ESA defines critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) as: ``(i)
The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed * * *, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed * *
* upon a determination by the Secretary [of Commerce] that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.''
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us to designate critical
habitat for threatened and endangered species ``on the basis of the
best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat.'' This section grants the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
discretion to exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines
``the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat.'' The Secretary's discretion
is limited, as he may not exclude areas that ``will result in the
extinction of the species.''
[[Page 1393]]
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires
Federal agencies to ensure they do not fund, authorize, or carry out
any actions that will destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This
requirement is in addition to the section 7 requirement that Federal
agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence
of listed species.
Issues for Consideration and Evaluation
We are currently gathering information prior to proposing critical
habitat for LCR coho and Puget Sound steelhead. As noted above,
sections 3 and 4(b) of the ESA suggest a number of questions the agency
should consider when designating critical habitat:
What areas were occupied by the species at the time of
listing?
What physical and biological features are essential to the
species' conservation?
Are those essential features ones that may require special
management considerations or protection?
Are there any areas outside those currently occupied that
are ``essential for conservation?''
What are the benefits to the species of critical habitat
designation?
What economic, national security and other relevant
impacts would result from a critical habitat designation?
What is the appropriate geographic scale for weighing the
benefits of exclusion and benefits of designation?
Will the failure to designate any particular area as
critical habitat result in the extinction of the species?
Answering these questions involves a variety of biological,
economic, and policy considerations. In 2005 we completed final
critical habitat designations for 19 DPSs of Pacific salmon and
steelhead in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (70 FR 52488,
September 2, 2005; 70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). Key elements of the
2005 rulemaking included precise mapping (using latitude/longitude
coordinates) of designated habitats, a predominantly watershed-based
assessment of the benefits and economic costs, and consideration of the
impacts of designation on national security, Tribal relations, and
efforts to sustain and promote habitat conservation plans under the
ESA. Detailed maps and documentation supporting those designations are
available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/
and http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon.htm. These elements, updated as
necessary to reflect best available information, will inform this
current effort to develop critical habitat proposals for LCR coho and
Puget Sound steelhead.
Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Biology and Habitat Use
Pacific salmon and steelhead are anadromous fish, meaning adults
migrate from the ocean to spawn in freshwater lakes and streams where
their offspring hatch and rear prior to migrating back to the ocean to
forage until maturity. The migration and spawning times vary
considerably between and within species and populations (Groot and
Margolis, 1991). At spawning, adults pair to lay and fertilize
thousands of eggs in freshwater gravel nests or ``redds'' excavated by
females. Depending on lake/stream temperatures, eggs incubate for
several weeks to months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life
stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac
absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles called
``fry'' and begin actively feeding. Depending on the species and
location, juveniles may spend from a few hours to several years in
freshwater areas before migrating to the ocean. The physiological and
behavioral changes required for the transition to salt water result in
a distinct ``smolt'' stage in most species. On their journey, juveniles
must migrate downstream through every riverine and estuarine corridor
between their natal lake or stream and the ocean. For example, smolts
from Idaho will travel as far as 900 miles (1,450 km) from their inland
spawning grounds. En route to the ocean the juveniles may spend
anywhere from a few days to several weeks in the estuary, depending on
the species. The highly productive estuarine environment is an
important feeding and acclimation area for juveniles preparing to enter
marine waters.
Juveniles and subadults typically spend from one to five years
foraging over thousands of miles in the North Pacific Ocean before
returning to spawn. Some species, such as coho salmon, have precocious
life history types (primarily male fish called ``jacks'') that mature
and spawn after only several months in the ocean. Spawning migrations
known as ``runs'' occur throughout the year, varying by species and
location. Most adult fish return or ``home'' with great fidelity to
spawn in their natal stream, although some do stray to non-natal
streams. Salmon species die after spawning, while steelhead may return
to the ocean and make repeat spawning migrations.
This complex life cycle gives rise to complex habitat needs,
particularly during the freshwater phase (see review by Spence et al.,
1996). Spawning gravels must be of a certain size and free of sediment
to allow successful incubation of the eggs. Eggs also require cool,
clean, and well-oxygenated waters for proper development. Juveniles
need abundant food sources, including insects, crustaceans, and other
small fish. They need places to hide from predators (mostly birds and
bigger fish), such as under logs, root wads and boulders in the stream,
and beneath overhanging vegetation. They also need places to seek
refuge from periodic high flows (side channels and off channel areas)
and from warm summer water temperatures (coldwater springs and deep
pools). Returning adults generally do not feed in fresh water but
instead rely on limited energy stores to migrate, mature, and spawn.
Like juveniles, they also require cool water and places to rest and
hide from predators. During all life stages salmon and steelhead
require cool water that is free of contaminants. They also require
migratory corridors with adequate passage conditions (timing, water
quality, and water quantity) to allow access to the various habitats
required to complete their life cycle.
The homing fidelity of salmon and steelhead has created a meta-
population structure with discrete populations distributed among
watersheds (McElhany et al., 2000). Low levels of straying from natal
streams result in regular genetic exchange among populations, creating
genetic similarities among populations in adjacent watersheds.
Maintenance of the meta-population structure requires a distribution of
populations among watersheds where environmental risks (e.g., from
landslides or floods) are likely to vary. It also requires migratory
connections among the watersheds to allow for periodic genetic exchange
and alternate spawning sites in the case that natal streams are
inaccessible due to natural events such as a drought or landslide.
LCR Coho Salmon Life History and Conservation Status
The LCR coho DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of coho
in the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon,
from the mouth of the Columbia River upstream to and including the Big
White Salmon and Hood Rivers, and including the lower Willamette River
up to Willamette Falls, Oregon, as well as coho from twenty-five
artificial propagation programs located in numerous watersheds
throughout the range of the DPS (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005).
[[Page 1394]]
Coho populations in this DPS display one of two major life history
types based on when and where adults migrate from the Pacific Ocean to
spawn in fresh water. Early returning coho (Type S) typically forage in
marine waters south of the Columbia River and return beginning in mid-
August, while late returning coho (Type N) generally forage to the
north and return to the Columbia River from late September through
December (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), 2010). It is
thought that early returning coho migrate to headwater areas and late
returning fish migrate to the lower reaches of larger rivers or into
smaller streams and creeks along the Columbia River. Although there is
some level of reproductive isolation and ecological specialization
between early and late types, there is some uncertainty regarding the
importance of these differences. Some tributaries historically
supported spawning by both run types.
Mature coho of both types typically enter fresh water to spawn from
late summer to late autumn. Spawning typically occurs between November
and January. Migration and spawning timing of specific local
populations may be mediated by factors such as latitude, migration
distance, flows, water temperature, maturity, or migration obstacles.
Coho generally occupy intermediate positions in tributaries, typically
further upstream than chum salmon or fall-run Chinook salmon, but often
downstream of steelhead or spring-run Chinook salmon (Beamesderfer et
al., 2010). Typical coho spawning habitat includes pea to orange-size
spawning gravel in small, relatively low-gradient tributaries (ODFW,
2010). Egg incubation can take from 45 to 140 days, depending on water
temperature, with longer incubation in colder water. Fry may thus
emerge from early spring to early summer. Juveniles prefer complex
instream structure (primarily large and small woody debris) and shaded
streams with tree-lined banks for rearing; they often overwinter in
off-channel alcoves and beaver ponds (where available) (ODFW, 2010).
Freshwater rearing lasts until the following spring when the juveniles
undergo physiological changes (smoltification) and migrate to salt
water. Juvenile coho are present in the Columbia River estuary from
March to August (Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish and
Wildlife Subbasin Plan, 2010). Coho grow relatively quickly in the
ocean, reaching up to six kilograms after about 16 months of ocean
rearing. Most coho are sexually mature at age three, except for a small
percentage of males (jacks) who return to natal waters after only a few
months of ocean residency. All coho die after spawning.
The LCR coho DPS is comprised of 24 populations distributed among
three ecological zones or ``strata''--the Coast, Cascade, and Gorge
strata (Myers et al., 2006). McElhany et al. (2007) assessed the
viability of LCR coho populations and determined that only one --the
Clackamas River--is approaching viability. They also observed that,
with the exception of the Clackamas and Sandy populations, it is likely
that most of the wild LCR coho populations were effectively extirpated
in the 1990s and that no viable populations appear to exist in either
the Coast or Gorge stratum. Although recently there is evidence of some
natural production in this DPS, the majority of populations remain
dominated by hatchery origin spawners, and there is little data to
indicate they would naturally persist in the long term (NMFS, 2003).
Approximately 40 percent of historical habitat is currently
inaccessible, which restricts the number of areas that might support
natural production, and further increases the DPS's vulnerability to
environmental variability and catastrophic events (NMFS, 2003). The
extreme loss of naturally spawning populations, the low abundance of
extant populations, diminished diversity, and fragmentation and
isolation of the remaining naturally produced fish confer considerable
risks to LCR coho.
Major habitat factors limiting recovery in fresh water include
floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity,
riparian areas and large woody debris recruitment, stream substrate,
stream flow, and water quality (Pacific Coast Salmon Restoration Funds,
2007). In addition to impacts of the Federal Columbia River Hydropower
System (especially Bonneville Dam on the mainstem Columbia River),
numerous other populations are affected by upstream and tributary dams
in the White Salmon, Hood, Lewis, Cowlitz, Sandy, and Clackamas basins
although many of those effects are being addressed as a result of
recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission re-licensing and associated
ESA consultations. For example, the removal of Marmot and Little Sandy
dams in the Sandy River basin has improved passage for the coho
population into the upper watershed, and the removal of Condit Dam by
2011 is expected to support restoration of the White Salmon River
portion of the Washington Upper Gorge coho population.
The ocean survival of juvenile LCR coho can be affected by estuary
factors such as changes in food availability and the presence of
contaminants. Characteristics of the Columbia River plume are also
thought to be significant to LCR coho migrants during transition to the
ocean phase of their lifecycle, because yearling migrants appear to use
the plume as habitat, in contrast to other species whose sub-yearling
juveniles stay closer to shore (Fresh et al., 2005). Predation and
growth during the first marine summer appear to be important components
determining coho brood-year strength (Beamish et al., 2001).
Recovery planning for coho and other ESA-listed salmon and
steelhead in the Lower Columbia River is underway, and a proposed
recovery plan is expected to be available for public comment by June
2011. Three ``management unit'' plans, or plans addressing geographic
areas smaller than the entire range of the DPS, have been completed:
(1) A Washington Lower Columbia management unit plan overseen and
coordinated by the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB); (2) a
White Salmon management unit plan overseen by us and addressing the
White Salmon River basin in Washington; and (3) an Oregon Lower
Columbia management unit plan led by the ODFW with participation by the
Oregon Governor's Natural Resources Office, NMFS, and the Oregon Lower
Columbia River Stakeholder Team. The LCFRB developed the Lower Columbia
Salmon Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan in 2004 (LCFRB,
2004), and we approved it as an interim regional recovery plan in
February 2006; in 2010, LCFRB completed a revised plan (LCFRB, 2010). A
plan for the Oregon management unit was completed in August 2010 (ODFW,
2010), and a draft plan has been completed for the White Salmon
management unit (NMFS, 2010). These plans are all consistent with work
by the Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team, which was
formed by us to assess the population structure and develop viability
criteria for listed LCR salmon and steelhead (see McElhany et al.,
2003; McElhany et al., 2006; Myers et al., 2006; and McElhany et al.,
2007). Because the ESA requires recovery plans to address the entire
listed entity, we are currently synthesizing these management unit
plans into a single plan that will also address interdependencies and
issues of regional scope, and ensure that the entire salmon life cycle
and all threats are addressed. We will review and incorporate
information from all of
[[Page 1395]]
these plans in preparing a critical habitat designation for LCR coho.
Critical habitat is currently designated for three DPSs of salmon
and steelhead that use lower Columbia watersheds for spawning and
rearing: LCR Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, and Columbia River chum
salmon (70 FR 52630; September 2, 2005). In addition, several listed
DPSs that spawn outside this range (e.g., Snake River fall Chinook
salmon) have rearing and migration areas designated as critical habitat
in areas occupied by LCR coho in the Columbia River and estuary. These
existing designations have extensive overlap with areas under
consideration as critical habitat for LCR coho, and it is likely that
the essential physical and biological features will likewise be
similar. In the section below titled Physical and Biological Features
Essential for Conservation we describe those features.
Puget Sound Steelhead Life History and Conservation Status
Steelhead populations can be divided into two basic reproductive
ecotypes, based on the state of sexual maturity at the time of river
entry (summer or winter) and duration of spawning migration (Burgner et
al., 1992). The Puget Sound DPS includes all naturally spawned
anadromous winter-run and summer-run steelhead populations in streams
in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and
Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to the west by the Elwha River
(inclusive) and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek
(inclusive), as well as the Green River natural and Hamma Hamma winter-
run steelhead hatchery stocks. Non-anadromous ``resident'' O. mykiss
occur within the range of Puget Sound steelhead but are not part of the
DPS due to marked differences in physical, physiological, ecological,
and behavioral characteristics (71 FR 15666; March 29, 2006).
Stream-maturing steelhead, also called summer-run steelhead, enter
fresh water at an early stage of maturation, usually from May to
October. These summer-run fish migrate to headwater areas and hold for
several months before spawning in the spring. Ocean-maturing steelhead,
also called winter-run steelhead, enter fresh water from December to
April at an advanced stage of maturation and spawn from March through
June (Hard et al., 2007). While there is some temporal overlap in spawn
timing between these forms, in basins where both winter- and summer-run
steelhead are present, summer-run steelhead spawn farther upstream,
often above a partially impassable barrier. In many cases it appears
that the summer migration timing evolved to access areas above falls or
cascades that present velocity barriers to migration during high winter
flow months, but are passable during low summer flows. Winter-run
steelhead are predominant in Puget Sound, in part because there are
relatively few basins in the Puget Sound DPS with the geomorphological
and hydrological characteristics necessary to establish the summer-run
life history. Summer-run steelhead stocks within this DPS are all small
and occupy limited habitat.
Steelhead eggs incubate from one to four months (depending on water
temperature) before hatching, generally between February and June.
After emerging from the gravel, fry commonly occupy the margins of
streams and side channels, seeking cover to make them less vulnerable
to predation (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2008).
Juvenile steelhead forage for one to four years before emigrating to
sea as smolts. Smoltification and seaward migration occur principally
from April to mid-May. The nearshore migration pattern of Puget Sound
steelhead is not well understood, but it is generally thought that
smolts move quickly offshore, bypassing the extended estuary transition
stage which many other salmonids need (Hartt and Dell, 1986).
Steelhead oceanic migration patterns are also poorly understood.
Evidence from tagging and genetic studies indicates that Puget Sound
steelhead travel to the central North Pacific Ocean (French et al.,
1975; Hartt and Dell, 1986; Burgner et al., 1992). Puget Sound
steelhead feed in the ocean for one to three years before returning to
their natal stream to spawn. They typically spend two years in the
ocean, although, notably, Deer Creek summer-run steelhead spend only a
single year in the ocean before spawning. In contrast with other
species of Pacific salmonids, steelhead are iteroparous, capable of
repeat spawning. While winter steelhead spawn shortly after returning
to fresh water, adult summer steelhead rely on ``holding habitat''--
typically cool, deep pools--for up to 10 months prior to spawning
(WDFW, 2008). Adults tend to spawn in moderate to high-gradient
sections of streams. In contrast to semelparous Pacific salmon,
steelhead females do not guard their redds, or nests, but return to the
ocean following spawning (Burgner et al., 1992). Spawned-out fish that
return to the sea are referred to as ``kelts.''
The Puget Sound steelhead DPS includes more than 50 stocks of
summer- and winter-run fish (WDFW, 2002). Hatchery steelhead production
in Puget Sound is widespread and focused primarily on the propagation
of winter-run fish derived from a stock of domesticated, mixed-origin
steelhead (the Chambers Creek Hatchery stock) originally native to a
small Puget Sound stream that is now extirpated from the wild. Hatchery
summer-run steelhead are also produced in Puget Sound; these fish are
derived from the Skamania River in the Columbia River Basin.
Habitat utilization by steelhead in the Puget Sound area has been
dramatically affected by large dams and other manmade barriers in a
number of drainages, including the Nooksack, Skagit, White, Nisqually,
Skokomish, and Elwha river basins. In addition to limiting habitat
accessibility, dams affect habitat quality through changes in river
hydrology, altered temperature profile, reduced downstream gravel
recruitment, and the reduced recruitment of large woody debris. In some
rivers, such as the Elwha River, increased water temperatures have
decreased disease resistance in salmonids (NMFS, 2008). The Elwha River
dams are scheduled to be removed beginning in September 2011, allowing
steelhead and salmon to access dozens of miles of historical habitat
upstream.
Many upper tributaries in the Puget Sound region have been affected
by poor forestry practices, while many of the lower reaches of rivers
and their tributaries have been altered by agriculture and urban
development. Urbanization has caused direct loss of riparian vegetation
and soils, significantly altered hydrologic and erosional rates and
processes (e.g., by creating impermeable surfaces such as roads,
buildings, parking lots, sidewalks etc.), and polluted waterways with
stormwater and point-source discharges. The loss of wetland and
riparian habitat has dramatically changed the hydrology of many
streams, with increases in flood frequency and peak flow during storm
events and decreases in groundwater driven summer flows (Moscrip and
Montgomery, 1997; Booth et al., 2002; May et al., 2003). River braiding
and sinuosity have been reduced through the construction of dikes,
hardening of banks with riprap, and channelization of the mainstem.
Constriction of river flows, particularly during high flow events,
increases the likelihood of gravel scour and the dislocation of rearing
juveniles. The loss of side-channel habitats has also reduced important
areas for spawning, juvenile rearing, and overwintering habitats.
Estuarine areas have been dredged and filled, resulting in the loss of
important juvenile rearing areas. In addition to being a factor that
[[Page 1396]]
contributed to the present decline of Puget Sound steelhead
populations, the continued destruction and modification of steelhead
habitat is the principal factor limiting the viability of the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future. Because of their
limited distribution in upper tributaries, summer-run steelhead may be
at higher risk than winter-run steelhead from habitat degradation in
larger, more complex watersheds.
Recovery planning in Puget Sound is proceeding as a collaborative
effort between NMFS and numerous Tribal, State, and local governments
and interested stakeholders. The Puget Sound Partnership is the entity
responsible for working with us to recover the listed Puget Sound
Chinook salmon DPS, and the Hood Canal Coordinating Council is the
regional board implementing the recovery plan for the Hood Canal summer
chum salmon DPS. There is a good deal of overlap between the
geographical area occupied by Puget Sound steelhead and these two
salmon DPSs, both of which had critical habitat designated on September
2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). A technical recovery team (TRT) was convened in
2008 to identify the historically independent spawning populations of
steelhead within, and viability criteria for, the Puget Sound steelhead
DPS. The TRT is nearing completion of the population identification
work and expects to finalize viability criteria for this DPS by early
2011. Upon completion of the technical work from the TRT, we will
develop a recovery plan for Puget Sound steelhead and will work
directly with the two regional boards to augment implementation plans
to include measures to recover Puget Sound steelhead. In preparing the
critical habitat designation for Puget Sound steelhead, we will review
and incorporate as appropriate the information from these regional
recovery plans as well as the ongoing population work by the TRT and
existing salmon critical habitat designations.
Areas Occupied by the Species at the Time of Listing
Due to their anadromous, highly migratory life cycle and the
presence of multiple year classes or ``cohorts,'' fish from each DPS
were widely distributed at the time of listing and continue to be. For
example, the eggs from one cohort were incubating in stream gravel
while older cohorts were rearing in an estuary and still others were
foraging in the North Pacific Ocean. Thus, the geographic area occupied
is a vast and diverse array of habitats occupied simultaneously by
various cohorts and life stages. Our ESA regulations relevant to
describing a ``geographical area'' and ``specific areas'' state that
``each critical habitat will be defined by specific limits using
reference points and lines as found on standard topographic maps of the
area'' (50 CFR 424.12). These regulations require that we also identify
the State(s), county(ies), or other local governmental units within
which all or part of the critical habitat is located. However, the
regulations note that such political units typically would not
constitute the boundaries of critical habitat. In addition, the
regulations state that ephemeral reference points (e.g., trees, sand
bars) shall not be used in defining critical habitat. Distribution
information for Pacific salmon and steelhead is available in three
general formats: (1) Maps and databases identifying specific river
segments (i.e., data mapped as line segments); (2) maps and databases
identifying entire watersheds (i.e., data mapped as polygons); and (3)
textual descriptions. During the information-gathering phase, we are
seeking information in all available formats.
We will seek the best scientific information available to make the
designations as precise as practicable. The sources that we have
reviewed to date indicate that fish distribution data is now generally
available in an electronic format for geographic information systems
(GIS) at a scale of 1 to 24,000 or greater resolution. At this scale we
believe it is possible to discern most occupied stream reaches that may
contain physical or biological features essential to the species'
conservation. These GIS data allow us to accurately delineate the
endpoints of designated stream reaches using latitude/longitude
coordinates. These data are available from the fish and wildlife
agencies of Oregon and Washington and are based on both empirical data
(i.e., fish observations) and the professional judgment of fishery
biologists. Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries scientists have
reviewed the resultant datasets and modified them from time to time as
new fish distribution information becomes available. As in previous
designations, we consider these electronic, GIS-based datasets to be
the best available information to identify areas occupied by the
species at the time of listing as well as determining what is currently
occupied. We seek input as to the suitability of this information to
identify areas, as well as the applicability of any other information
sources suggested by commenters.
Offshore marine areas are occupied by salmon and steelhead, but it
can be difficult to link essential physical or biological features
(e.g., prey) to any ``specific areas'' we might delineate. This notice
seeks comments on approaches or information relevant to making this
determination for LCR coho and Puget Sound steelhead.
Physical and Biological Features Essential for Conservation
Joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulations for
listing endangered and threatened species and designating critical
habitat at section 50 CFR 424.12(b) state that the agency ``shall
consider those physical and biological features that are essential to
the conservation of a given species and that may require special
management considerations or protection'' (hereafter also referred to
as ``Essential Features''). Pursuant to the regulations, such
requirements include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Space
for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2)
Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for
breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed
dispersal; and generally; or (5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and
ecological distributions of a species. These regulations go on to
emphasize that the agency shall focus on essential features within the
specific areas considered for designation. These features ``may
include, but are not limited to, the following: spawning sites, feeding
sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity,
geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.''
There is a robust body of scientific literature addressing salmonid
life history and habitat characteristics (e.g., see Everest et al.,
1985; Bell, 1986; Groot and Margolis, 1991; Forest Ecosystem Management
Assessment Team, 1993; Spence et al., 1996). Also, we now have
considerable knowledge gained from nearly two decades of experience
with thousands of ESA section 7 consultations on listed salmonids to
identify these essential features. In our 2005 designations for 19 DPSs
of Pacific salmon and steelhead in California, Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho (70 FR 52488, September 2, 2005; 70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005),
we noted that essential features for salmon and steelhead include sites
essential to support one or more life stages of a population necessary
to the
[[Page 1397]]
conservation of the DPS. These sites in turn contain generic features
that contribute to their conservation value for the DPS. Our long
experience analyzing human actions that affect these sites and features
supports our conclusion that they continue to be relevant to all
populations of listed Pacific salmon and steelhead, including LCR coho
and Puget Sound steelhead. The specific types of sites and their
generic features include:
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality
conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval
development;
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and
floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat
conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) Water quality
and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover
such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and
beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side
channels, and undercut banks.
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and
excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and
natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks
supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival;
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation
with: (i) Water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions
supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-
and saltwater; (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side
channels; and (iii) Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic
invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive
predation with: (i) Water quality and quantity conditions and forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and
maturation; and (ii) Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side
channels.
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and
maturation.
In our experience, the conservation value of a site depends on (1)
the importance of the populations associated with a site to the DPS's
conservation, and (2) the contribution of that site to the conservation
of the population either through demonstrated or potential productivity
of the area. We are seeking comments and information regarding these
essential features and their applicability and location relative to LCR
coho and Puget Sound steelhead, as well as how the essential features
factor into determining the conservation value of a site.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
Coupled with the identification of essential features, during the
information-gathering phase we seek input on whether the above
essential features may require special management considerations or
protection. For example, numerous special management considerations
relate to fish passage conditions, including methods and procedures
aimed at maintaining sufficient water flows and preventing or
minimizing impacts from manmade barriers such as dams and culverts.
Similarly, essential natural cover elements, such as shade and large
wood, involve a variety of land management considerations. We seek
comment on and will document the special management considerations and
protection associated with the essential features and expect to relate
these to the factors affecting the species and/or critical habitat
during rulemaking.
Areas Outside the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species
Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the ESA defines critical habitat to include
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
only if the Secretary determines them to be essential for the
conservation of the species. Section 3(3) of the ESA defines
conservation as ``the use of all methods and procedures which are
necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer
necessary.'' Our ESA regulations at 424.12(e) state that the agency
``shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical
area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to
its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.'' We are seeking information on the adequacy of the occupied
habitat to support conservation of LCR coho and Puget Sound steelhead,
and whether areas that are unoccupied might be ``essential for
conservation.''
Determining Economic and Other Relevant Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the
``economic impact, national security and any other relevant impact,''
of designating a particular area as critical habitat. During the
information-gathering phase, we seek information regarding the
economic, national security, or other relevant impact of designating an
area as critical habitat. In keeping with the guidance provided by the
Office of Management and Budget (2000, 2003), we seek information that
would allow us to monetize these effects to the extent possible, as
well as information on qualitative impacts to economic values. We are
also seeking information on any other impacts of designating critical
habitat.
Determining the Benefit of Designation
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA grants the Secretary discretion to
exclude a particular area if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation. Accordingly, during the information-gathering
phase, we are seeking input on the benefit of designating areas as
critical habitat. In particular, we seek information on the
conservation value of potential critical habitat based on the quality
and quantity of the essential feature(s) and on the difficulty of
restoring the quality and quantity where those features have been
limited or degraded. Federal agencies, States, Tribes and others have
already compiled a great deal of information on the historic and
present importance of different areas to salmonid conservation. Some
general types of information include stream habitat inventories,
juvenile and spawning fish surveys, redd and dam counts, angler harvest
records, and tagged fish recoveries. In some cases it may not be known
whether an area was historically productive. Areas might also be
considered to have a high potential if they possess characteristics of
other highly productive areas.
As noted earlier in this notice, our determination of an area's
conservation value will consider the plans, analyses and
recommendations provided by recovery planning teams and boards. We also
seek input on the best methods for evaluating the conservation value of
potential critical habitat areas. We are interested in information
relevant to monetizing the conservation value of an area, or to ranking
the conservation benefits in an ordinal manner if full monetization is
not possible. Finally, we are seeking input on information relevant to
determining if excluding an
[[Page 1398]]
area from designation will result in the extinction of the species.
The Appropriate Geographic Scale for Weighing the Benefits of Exclusion
and Benefits of Designation
There are hundreds of miles of rivers and streams presently
occupied by LCR coho and Puget Sound steelhead. To manage the task of
designating particular areas of habitat, streams and rivers need to be
grouped in a manner that allows for meaningful analysis. Salmon and
steelhead populations tend to divide along watershed boundaries and
these have now been mapped across the species' range at a fine scale by
various State and Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 2010). We once again intend to use watersheds as a unit of
analysis, although in some cases it is useful to consider habitat units
at a finer scale than the watershed, for example where an economic
impact or a conservation benefit can be isolated to a stream or river
segment. We seek input on this approach or suggestions on other ways to
isolate impacts of designation at a different scale than the watershed.
Process and Schedule
As described in current agency regulations (50 CFR 424.16), we
anticipate that the proposed rule (or separate proposed rules for each
DPS) will contain text detailing the proposal, a summary of the data
used and its relationship to the proposal, a summary of factors
affecting the species and/or critical habitat, citations of pertinent
information sources, a map of the critical habitat, an economic report,
and an explanation of a 4(b)(2) process and any areas proposed for
exclusion. To the maximum extent practicable, the proposal will also
include a brief description and evaluation of those activities (whether
public or private) that, in the opinion of the Secretary, if
undertaken, may adversely modify the critical habitat, or may be
affected by the designation. Products to be made available to the
public at the proposed rule stage also includes access to maps
depicting the areas proposed for designation and relevant agency
biological and economic analyses supporting the rulemaking. We also
will provide the requisite comment period and opportunity for public
hearings on the proposed rule.
In addition to publication in the Federal Register, we will provide
the critical habitat proposal to, and invite comments from, affected
States and counties (and equivalent jurisdictions) and scientific
organizations as well as any Federal agencies, Tribal governments,
local authorities, or private individuals or organizations known to be
affected by the proposed rule. We will also consider the requirements
of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin). The Bulletin was published
in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664), and went into
effect on June 16, 2005. The primary purpose of the Bulletin is to
improve the quality and credibility of scientific information
disseminated by the Federal government by requiring peer review of
``influential scientific information'' and ``highly influential
scientific information'' prior to public dissemination. Influential
scientific information is defined as ``information the agency
reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial
impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.'' The
Bulletin provides agencies broad discretion in determining the
appropriate process and level of peer review. Stricter standards were
established for the peer review of ``highly influential scientific
assessments,'' defined as information whose ``dissemination could have
a potential impact of more than $500 million in any one year on either
the public or private sector or that the dissemination is novel,
controversial, or precedent-setting, or has significant interagency
interest.'' The draft biological report and draft economic analysis
report supporting any proposed critical habitat designations for LCR
coho and Puget Sound steelhead may be considered influential scientific
information and subject to peer review. If so, then these reports will
be distributed to three independent peer reviewers for review on or
before the publication date of a proposed rule. Also, the peer reviewer
comments will be compiled into a peer review report to be made
available to the public at the time the critical habitat designations
are finalized for these DPSs.
In accordance with the Secretarial Order on American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act, we will coordinate with Federally recognized American
Indian Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis to determine how to
make critical habitat assessments in areas that may impact Tribal trust
resources. We will also coordinate with the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) to determine if there are DOD sites subject to Integrated Natural
Resource Management plans that benefit LCR coho or Puget Sound
steelhead, or if there are impacts on national security that might
arise from designating any particular area as critical habitat.
We will review all information received during the comment period
as well as any new information identified and comments submitted after
publishing the proposed designations. If changes are warranted, we will
document the bases for the revisions and include this rationale as part
of the administrative record for these critical habitat designations.
Per current agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.18 and 424.19, the
final designations will be published in a Federal Register notice (or
in separate notices for each DPS) containing the complete text of the
rule, a summary of the comments and recommendations received in
response to the proposal (including input from public hearings and peer
reviewers), summaries of the data on which the rule is based and the
relationship of such data to the final rule, and a description of any
conservation measures available under the rule. The final rule will:
Summarize factors affecting the species; identify physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that
may require special management considerations or protection; describe
any significant activities that would either affect an area considered
for designation as critical habitat or be likely to be affected by the
designation; identify the probable economic and other relevant impacts
of the designation upon proposed or ongoing activities; identify the
areas where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
including such areas as critical habitat; and describe the boundaries
and include a map of critical habitat. To the maximum extent
practicable, the final rule will also include a brief description and
evaluation of those activities (whether public or private) that might
occur in the designated areas and which, in the opinion of the
Secretary, may adversely modify critical habitat or be affected by such
designation.
New information and public and peer reviewer comments may result in
final designations for LCR coho and Puget Sound steelhead that differ
from the proposals.
Information Solicited
Past critical habitat designations have generated considerable
public interest. Therefore, we believe it is important to engage the
public early in the rulemaking process. This ANPR is a key first step,
and we encourage all interested parties to submit comments
[[Page 1399]]
regarding the issues raised in this notice.
In accordance with agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.13, we will
consult as appropriate with affected States, interested persons and
organizations, other affected Federal agencies. Data reviewed may
include, but are not limited to, scientific or commercial publications,
administrative reports, maps or other graphic materials, information
received from experts, and comments from interested parties. Specific
data needs include:
(1) Information (including fish surveys, dam counts, historical
accounts, etc.)--as geographically specific as possible--on the past
and current numbers and distribution of LCR coho and Puget Sound
steelhead;
(2) Information describing the quality and extent of marine,
estuarine, and freshwater habitats occupied by any life stage of LCR
coho and Puget Sound steelhead;
(3) Within areas occupied by LCR coho and Puget Sound steelhead, we
seek information regarding the physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the DPSs. Such essential features
may include, but are not limited to those identified above under
``Physical and Biological Features Essential for Conservation.''
(4) Any special management considerations or protection currently
associated with essential physical and biological features within areas
occupied by LCR coho and Puget Sound steelhead, such as a recorded
easement or deed restriction, a State statute or comprehensive land use
program; a Federal regulatory limitation or a legally-binding Federal
land use plan; or a county ordinance or other binding local enactment;
(5) Whether there are any specific areas within the range of LCR
coho and Puget Sound steelhead that should not be considered for
critical habitat designation because they lack essential physical or
biological features or may not require special management consideration
or protections;
(6) Whether there are any specific areas outside the area occupied
by LCR coho and Puget Sound steelhead that are essential for their
conservation, and why;
(7) Whether there are any specific areas that should be considered
for exclusion from critical habitat designation because the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of
the critical habitat. Past examples include areas covered by an ESA
Habitat Conservation Plan authorized by NMFS and areas where
designation could result in impacts to national security or our
comanager relationship with Indian Tribes;
(8) Any current or planned activities in the range of LCR coho and
Puget Sound steelhead and their possible impacts on areas that may
qualify as critical habitat;
(9) Any economic or other relevant impacts that may result from
designating critical habitat, regardless of whether those impacts are
attributable co-extensively to other causes, in particular those
impacts affecting small entities;
(10) Potential peer reviewers for proposed critical habitat
designations, including persons with biological and economic expertise
relevant to the designations.
We seek the above information as soon as possible but by no later
than March 11, 2011.
As described in a joint NMFS/FWS policy on ESA information
standards published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), we will rely on the
best and most comprehensive technical information available; gather and
impartially evaluate information that disputes official positions;
document our evaluation of information; use, retain, and reference
primary and original sources of information; and conduct management-
level review of documents to verify and assure the quality of the
science used to make the critical habitat designations. We will review
all comments and information resulting from this ANPR prior to making
any proposed designations and will include such documents in the
agency's public record. The public may review information submitted by
contacting us directly (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) or via the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. We will
continue to meet with comanagers and other stakeholders to review this
information as well as the overall designation process prior to any
proposed critical habitat designation.
References
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting us directly or via the Internet (see
ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Dated: January 4, 2011.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-283 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P